Eight Presidents Who Opposed A Central Bank (Federal Reserve)

 by Tuskeegee
{Daily Paul Liberty Forum}


[An interesting 2014 perspective on the historical impact the banks have had in creating a central bank that effectively established a moneyed aristocracy around the Fed to manipulate the American economy for its own aggrandizement. - ED}

Since 1963, to this present day, the United States has remained under the control of the royal European banking elite through their control of the Federal Reserve who during this past nearly 60 years have all but dismantled what was once the great Nation known as the United States of America.

Through their infiltration of all levels of government, corporations and media, they have used their forces to destroy America’s “moral fiber” and reduce this once great power to but a shadow of its former self. Their once great industrial might is now gone, their schools are noted for their shockingly high dropout rates (even those who graduate know less than a child born a century ago), its once great cities are fast falling into ruin as its roads and bridges disintegrate too, and, perhaps worst of all, these once great people have nearly lost all hope.

The stage for this all occurring is being set now as the most pivotal day in the history of the United States is racing towards us all….December 21, 2012.

What I constantly argue is that without a central bank, talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, and now possibly Iran would be impossible,  because the government would have to go directly to an individual to raise taxes, and would therefore be impossible after the 100th house they visited. Central banking allows for money to be produced out of “thin air” to finance our overseas empire. This is where we get inflation folks!!!

Since someone reading this, will question my wisdom, I wanted to talk about 6 presidents that did stop a central bank under their administration.

General George Washington (1732-1799) who is credited with being the “Father of the Nation” for winning his Nation’s war of Independence from the British. Washington gained further fame by returning to his Virginia farm in the “spirit of Cincinnatus” after ending his second term of office and not, as many had wished, becoming a king.

General Andrew Jackson (1767-1845). A hero of the War of 1812 for defeating a superior British force at the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson was put into power to defeat the establishment of a Central Bank that was supported by President John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) and was feared would split the Nation.

Of the danger facing the United States should a Central Bank be allowed to gain control of the US economy Jackson warned:

The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government … are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it. I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.”

Directly to President Adams and the other Central Bank supporters Jackson said directly:

Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

Adams was enraged at his and the Central Banks defeat by Jackson and refused to attend his inauguration. To his dying day Adams retained a great hatred of this president and as a Member of the United States House of Representatives (the only American President to serve in this body after leaving office.) cast the only “no” vote on a law to give medals to the US Military officers who had served in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Immediately after casting his vote Adams collapsed and died two days later.

Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) Upon President Lincoln’s assassination by those forces advocating a Central Bank he was succeeded by President Andrew Johnson (1808-1875) who, like Lincoln before him, opposed those European forces [the Rothschild's banking family alone was reported to have lost nearly $50 million in support of the Confederacy.] attempting to take control of the American economy and in further “outrages” against them forgave the Southern States of their debts, granted unconditional amnesty to all Confederate Soldiers, freed all remaining slaves in the United States, and paid back the Russian Empire for its blocking of a North American invasion by British and French forces by purchasing Alaska for $7.2 million.

For President Johnson’s continued opposing the aims of the Central Bankers he was greatly weakened by two attempts to impeach him from office [In 1926 the US Supreme Court ruled the basis for those impeachment attempts as unconstitutional.] thus necessitating the need to put General Grant in power.

General Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), who like Jackson before him was put into power to defeat those forces attempting to create a Central Bank said needed due to the United States massive debts incurred from their Civil War (1861-1865) and opposed by President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), who said:

The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity.”

Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886) who was also the first non-military member of the order to ascend to the Presidency but did so through the rules of primogeniture (right of first born) granted to him as the direct descendant of maternal grandfather and Revolutionary War leader Uriah Stone and was “established in place” to take power upon the assassination by these European bankers of President James A. Garfield (1831-1881).

President Garfield warned of the dangers to America should these Central Bankers ever gain power by stating shortly before his death in 1881, “Whoever controls the money of a nation, controls that nation and is absolute master of all industry and commerce. When you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.

William McKinley (1843-1901) whose membership in the order was granted under their rules of primogeniture through his grandfather and American Revolutionary War hero David McKinley, and who by his own right had distinguished himself as a hero in the Civil War.

President McKinley began his attack against the Central Bankers with his ally and Secretary of State John Sherman (1823-1900) whose connection to his older brother and Civil War here General William Tecumseh Sherman (1820-1891). The legal tool used by President McKinley and Sherman against the European bankers was the law known as the “Sherman Antitrust Act” which was first brought to bear against the Rothschild supported and funded JP Morgan financial empire known as the Northern Trust who by the late1800′s owned nearly all of America’s railroads.

Shortly after President McKinley began his attack against the Central Bankers he was assassinated (1901) allowing his Vice President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt (1858-1919) to take power. Upon the Rothschild backed “and paid for” President Roosevelt taking office one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to drop the United States government lawsuits against the Northern Trust and accelerate the American age known as “Manifest Destiny” which continues to this day and basically gives these Central Bankers the “power” to plunder the entire World for profit and gain above all else.

The last chance to thwart the European plan to establish a Central Bank in the United States ended on April 14, 1912 with the deliberate sinking of the RMS Titanic by British agents that killed one of the orders members named Major Archibald Willingham Butt (1865-1912) along with the American business tycoons John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim and Isidor Straus who were returning to the United States from Great Britain after what they believed was a successful “negotiation” with the Rothschild’s to “leave America alone” under “threat of war”

With the last “obstacles” removed from creating a Central Bank in the United States with the sinking of the Titanic the European banking powers forced through the American legal system what is known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which once enacted (and remains to this day) became the sole and complete authority over the United States economy forcing the American people into two World Wars and countless other conflicts during the past 97 years all designed with one single purpose, to create for Europe’s royal families a “New World Order” controlled by them.

General Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower (1890-1969), who was “appalled” over his Nations defacto surrender to Nazi German forces during World War II in order to obtain the atomic bomb Hitler was ready to use against them, and the deliberate murder of his close friend General George S. Patton (1885-1945) who upon his learning that Europe’s royal “powers” had delivered the atomic bombs secrets to the Soviet Union was ready to march against them.

Both Eisenhower and Patton, Sons of the American Revolution, were especially enraged over President Harry Truman’s (1884-1972) dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) with the election the country’s fortunes neared victory when on June 4, 1963 President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110 which for the first time since 1913 returned to the United States government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve (Central Bank).

Five months later, on November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was brutally assassinated while sitting by the side of his wife in a Dallas, Texas motorcade, an event so shocking that has continually been talked about through the ages.

For as this date is more well known as the end of the ancient Mayans long count calendar (and ending of the World?), it is also the date the Federal Reserve’s 99-year old charter to control the American economy ends. And, most importantly, for it to be renewed it would require not only a majority vote in both houses [Senate and House of Representatives] of the US Congress, but also a three-quarter majority vote by every one of their 50 States’ legislative bodies.

“We the people” have less than 2 ½ years to prohibit this “private corporation” from renewing.







The End of Bretton Woods

by Peter Coyne

Please, no more of this 'Nixon took us off of the gold standard' garbage!" writes one reader in response to yesterday's reckoning. If you missed it, we learned about two precursors to our present monetary woes in that episode:

First, we learned from our founder, Addison Wiggin, that 70 years ago, during the Bretton Woods Conference at the end of World War II, the world left the gold standard. The United States, being the world's undisputed hegemon, was able to snag a role as the world's reserve currency -- the most widely held and used currency. To maintain trust in the greenback, foreign nations would be able to trade $35 for an ounce of U.S. gold upon request.

Second, in our first featured video -- an interview we conducted with Mr. Lewis Lehrman last year -- we learned that the U.S. abused this privilege by running massive trade deficits. That is, by spending more money that it had to buy more than it produced. Finally, instead of worrying about balancing the books, President Nixon decided 43 years ago this Friday to remove the one hurdle to unlimited government spending -- convertability of the dollar into gold.

That brings us back to our dear reader. "FDR was the one who removed us from the gold standard when he issued an illegal executive order that prohibited citizens from owning gold":




© 2014 Agora Financial, LLC

 

QuotesHe ordered them to turn in gold, and made it impossible for any American to convert gold notes to actual gold. Nixon in fact made gold ownership legal again by ending FDR's prohibition, and protected America's gold stores, (whatever we had then), from being taken by the British, etc., by doing as this writer describes.

"If someone wants to point a finger, point it at FDR, who took us off gold, and at LBJ, who removed silver from our coinage, both unconstitutional and illegal moves that Congress went along with.
Quotes

We have no qualms over your history. Our point, however, is that the global monetary system shifted on Sunday, Aug. 15, 1971. Since then, the dollar's value has been an enigma.

What is a dollar?

It's just a claim to another dollar… or four quarters… or 10 dimes. You have to pay taxes with it, so most people use them. But it has no intrinsic value.

We're reminded of the C-SPAN clip featured in Addison's documentary I.O.U.S.A. It was between Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and our former employer, Congressman Ron Paul. Greenspan agreed that no one really knows what money is today, and therefore, there was no way the Fed could hope to ever manage it:

 Alan Greenspan: As I've said earlier, the difficulty is defining what money truly is. We have been unable to define a monetary aggregate that will give us a reliable forecast for the economy. Until we find a reliable "M" we will go light on the use of monetary aggregates for monetary policy purposes.

Ron Paul: So it's hard to manage something you can't define.

Alan Greenspan: It's impossible to manage something you cannot define…

Our theme this week, the "End of Bretton Woods," was Dr. Paul's impetus for running for Congress in the first place. "I saw 1971 as the conversion from a token commodity money,  to an absolute political money."

We can tell you from working for the good doctor that he had no delusions about the mission he was on. Dr. Paul was under no impression that he alone could reverse the ship of state's course toward monetary collapse.

In the final years of his congressional tenure, he was even able to claim a small leadership position over the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. That's one of the subcommittees that oversaw the Federal Reserve's decisions.
 
Politics, Dr. Paul notes, is, at best, a tool for education. 

Yet , one congressman can hardly alter the political situation. Politics, Dr. Paul notes, is, at best, a tool for education. Part of this week's theme is education, for sure. Understanding the ways that your elected representatives have altered the money at your expense for political reasons is the first step to realizing it can happen again.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that the likely solution is not a political one.







© 2014 Agora Financial, LLC

Wells-Fargo's 'How-To Fraud Mortgage' Manual

by Clinton Kirby

 

Wells Fargo's "How-to fraud mortgage  manual" suggests this "Too Big To Fail" bank may be going down.  Here's the link to download the actual Wells Fargo  'how-to create mortgage fraud' manual.


So, once again, the "conspiracy theory" that banks manufacture/massage/manipulate the documents they need-but don't have-in the foreclosure context has proven to be fact.  Indeed, the whistleblower that went to Naked Capitalism regarding Wells Fargo a year ago was not just, whistling Dixie, as it turns out. Wells Fargo indeed doctors/manufactures documents, and according to a lawsuit in New York, they actually have a manual on how to do it!  Naked Capitalism quotes a New York Post article about the lawsuit:

 "In a filing in New York's Southern District in White Plains for
 a local homeowner in bankruptcy, attorney Linda Tirelli described
 a 150-page Wells Fargo Foreclosure Attorney Procedures Manual
 created November 9, 2011 and updated February 24, 2012. According to
 court papers, the Manual details 'a procedure for processing
 [mortgage] notes without endorsements and obtaining endorsements
 and allonges.'"

If Wells Fargo does it, you can rest assured that the other big banks do it-after all, they have to compete! Check out this quote that gets right to the heart of the kind of thinking that causes this copycat, groupthink fraud from an article entitled "Fiduciary Duty to Cheat? Stock Market Super-Star Jim Chanos Reveals the Perverse New Mindset of Financial Fraudsters"

"Because if now, as the senior member of a bank, or the board of a
bank, I know that there are no criminal penalties for breaking the
rules, don't I have a fiduciary responsibility to my shareholders
to actually play fast and loose? Because if I get caught, that's
just the cost of doing business?" 

Yep. All the banks are doing it, not just Wells Fargo. We just don't have the other banks' manuals - yet.


To Whom Your Children Belong...

{A 2007 article originally intended for publication on the Patriot.eponym site.  Joyce Rosenwald suffered a stroke a year or so ago and backed out of her public life. Till then she performed extraordinary legal research, and I so admire her for her contributions to our knowledge and insight. She first told me about intervention and how to get federal courts to intervene in state matters and force the A.G. to declare whether a state law comports with the US constitution. Well, Joyce wrote a lot about the issue of children and to whom they belong. You will find her research and conclusions shocking.}


The Idaho Observer by Joyce Rosenwald

People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to become a Sovereign Nation State. These States then created a new state, designed to exclusively serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept the nation of States united was born. Every sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution. The newly created state received one as well. It was written by the people of the several states and was titled "The constitution for The united States of America." This new state was "delegated" 17 authorities by the several states. The people never intended that it should over step it's delegated authorities.

Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on the contract written between the people and their new government, "The Constitution." There is some question as to exactly where and when the new nation faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or perhaps in 1933...History tells us the Supreme Court of the United States government claims it was when the Union itself was formed.

In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that: "all the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the united States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, except with like consent, "enter into any agreement or compact with another State." Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3." The relation of one of the united States to its citizens is not that of an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal, which a State cannot do. The state, having been a sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control of the United States, to be held in trust."

Designed to be a government "of the people, by the people, for the people. "Representatives of this government were to be elected by the people, not born to power." And so, in 1776 the great experiment in freedom, known as "The United states of America" began.

In United States v. Chamberlin [1910 - pg 219 US 26}, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided, to wit: It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons,bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named.

THE RULE THUS SETTLED RESPECTING THE BRITISH CROWN IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FREQUENTLY IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, AND PRACTICALLY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT SO MUCH OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVES AS BELONGED TO THE KING IN HIS CAPACITY OF PARENS PATRIAE, OR UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE, ENTERS AS MUCH INTO OUR POLITICAL STATE AS IT DOES INTO THE PRINCIPLES OFTHE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.

Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3) was passed creating birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the first attempt of "government by appointment," or cooperation of state governments to aid the federal government in usurping the legislative process of the several states as exists today through the federal grant in aid to the states programs.

Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the american people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States, thereby making him/her a united states citizen.

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the act. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon {1923}, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs Frothingham, averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them and not granted the federal government, under the Constitution,and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States. The complaint stated the naked ontention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent. Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

To wit:

The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND ARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

It was further stated in the complaint that "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. (5) In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. (6) It went on to state:

"The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. (7) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."

"A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. " (8) "The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution."

"Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States." (9) In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. "Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

Today the federal government "mandates, orders and compels" the states to enforce federal jurisdiction upon it's citizens/subjects. This author believes the federal government draws it's de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the "Doctrine of Parens Patriae." Patens patriae means literally, "parent of the country." It refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. Parens patriae originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants.

With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of parens patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the state, (the sovereign) has the responsibility to take care of you. This author believes that the disability you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, a "citizen of the soil," an American National. Parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a "birth certificate," thereby making the child a citizen of the corporate government known as the United States. The government then turns the new citizen into a corporation under the laws of the state.

The birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The corporation is then placed into a "trust", known as a "Cestui Que Trust". A cestui que trust is defined as: He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another; The beneficiary of another. Cestui que use is: He for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another.

The use has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession, as well the duty of defending the same, reside in the other. The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government. The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the "guardians." The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the home and removes the "trust" from the guardians. At majority, the parents lose their guardianship.

The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. The child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. "Title" to your child is now owned by the state. The state now directs the trust corpus and provides "benefits" for the beneficiary -- the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same -- the citizen -- first as child, then as adult.

The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process know as "Novation." Novation is defined as "the substitution of a new contract between same or different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished." This author believes the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transferred to a new individual when he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of the trust.

Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States which acts as the "Debtor in Possession.". We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with new such resources being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy. The bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged. The Human Resources service the debt, which continues to grow with time.

The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal parens patriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorney generals' can now enforce all legislation involving your personal life, the lives of your children, and your material assets.

In today's society the government, through the doctrine of parens patriae, has already instituted it's control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court with threats of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged. Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of "child neglect" (failure to preserve the trust corpus).
If you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment or indignities, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus).
Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child.

The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, that limits on the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved were clarified by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years ago [2004] approved a policy favoring relocation requests of custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good faith for the well being of parents and children. Also, the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made "from a vindictive desire to interfere with the visitation rights of the other parent."

The right of locomotion is held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts (supra) of an individuals' freedom of locomotion could be construed as a sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery .

It's been reported that in California, early in the year, an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made the statement " the children belong to the STATE. " Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federal parens patriae legislation can be found in Title 15 of the United States Code:

TITLE 15 Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens patriae actions STATUTE-Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its non-applicability in such State.

The primary responsibility of a State is to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution for any state legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for it's citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to it's citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended to provide against state laws, or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society. It would be to make congress take the place of the state legislatures and to supersede them.
However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that: A State may not, as parens patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less citizens of the United States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them, it is unconstitutional.

The parens patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.

Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority outside of Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents taxation without representation. This type of government is in place today and is known as "Regionalism." The federal government couldn't fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty, but in 1933.

Footnotes: 

1. New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others; New York v. Louisiana and others, 108 U.S.76, 27 L. Ed. 656, 2 S. Ct. 176, March 5, 1883.

2. United States v. Chamberlin 219 U.S. 250, 55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S.Ct. 155, January 3, 1911

3. Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.

4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S. ct.597.

5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

6. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S.20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

7. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot's Debates, p.525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.
8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529. 9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529. 9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.