American Dictatorship

I hate this damn article! It has kept me up nights, I can’t get my mind off of it and there are many, much more talented writers, who could write this thing. I would like for one of the young men that write for Alex Jones, like Kurt Nimmo or one of the Watson brothers to write this thing and then I could sleep better. So, it has not been without a great deal of soul-searching, prayer and anxiety that I finally decided to do this article. There appeared to be interest in it but to my way of thinking it is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because it has already happened. But history is important and hopefully will help us not to make the same mistakes all over again.

What This Article Is, and What it Isn’t

This article is a look at how we lost our Constitution, Common Law and how a dictatorship was established. I could spend 400-600 pages writing on the financial aspect of this travesty but I will leave that for the more talented writers out there. Not only that, just this topic alone should have at least 500 pages dedicated to it to do it justice. I will try to cover it in much less.

Seventy-eight years ago our country suddenly, and with little fanfare, transitioned from a Constitutional Republic to a Constitutional Dictatorship. And more amazingly, very few complained. When I asked my dad shortly before his death as to why this travesty was allowed to happen his response was, “Son, people were starving to death in this country, there were no jobs to be had, it sounded good to all of us. We didn’t know what the end result would be.” So, because America now finds itself in a position similar to the one my dad described, I will write this article to warn others what can happen when you trade liberty for security. You get neither!

Before I formally begin, I want to express my deep gratitude for the kindness, understanding and patience of the following people, living or deceased, who have in many ways contributed to this document: Mr. Lester E. Tisdale, Mr. Robert Kahltenbach, Dr. Eugene Schroeder, U.S. Rep. John Rarick, La., U.S. Rep Jim Traficant, Ohio, Mr. Howard Freeman, Mr. Bob Benson, Mr. Alfred Adask and Mr. Gary Graham. Honorable mention goes to: Barack H. Obama for pissing off most Americans enough that they are now willing to listen.

During the course of my life I have been very fortunate to have met some brilliant people. Some had multiple Ph.D.’s, heads of state, military leaders and the most brilliant have never gone beyond high school. One man that I knew never finished third grade but the common sense that he taught me was anything but common. I would call it Uncommon Sense. It seems like there was a major paradigm shift in my life around 1982 and it is not because of a head of state or Ph. D. but rather someone who struggled to finish high school. That is how my journey into studying government law and code began, by someone who was a simple contractor but dispensed WISDOM by the buckets full. Unfortunately, I was only smart enough to adsorb it a teaspoon at a time. To these brilliant people I say, “Damn you, because you changed my life forever. I love you for the truth that you revealed. I salute you for your sacrifice. May God go with you all.”

The Key

 Before I tell you the problem I will give the KEY to understanding the problem. It is Senate Report 93-549. This is the key to understanding the problem, IT IS NOT THE SOLUTION. If you truly want to understand the depth of the problem you need to use 93-549. It is difficult to find the 606 page full version of the report. Most copies are abbreviated online. Go to a federal depository library near you. The University of Texas at Arlington (as an example) is where I obtained mine. It was a lot cheaper to Xerox things then than it is now.

The Code

The excerpts used herein are from codified law, statutes and proclamations of the corporation known as and doing business as (DBA) the United States Government. No other texts will be used except to show deviation, intent or highlight the meaning of a passage or text. ***PLEASE NOTE: If you wish to challenge the findings of this article you must use the law of the land, codified federal code (USC) and no other source of information.***

Everyday I listen to people on the internet radio stations and get angry because they will make some statement like, “the TSA violated my 4th Amendment rights,” or “all the states have to do is exert or assert their 10th Amendment rights,” or “all we have to do is return to lawful (or Constitutional) currency backed by gold and silver.”

These arguments are invalid because they are based on an invalid assumption. That assumption is that the Constitution of the United States is still a LEGAL document. It has instead been LEGALLY set aside. NOTE: I said legally. Legally is not the same as LAWFULLY. Learn the difference because it is very important. See Black’s or Bouvier’s Law Dictionary for help.

Right now some of you are already saying “Hey, the Country Codger ain’t nothing but a crazy ol’ coot.” That is your opinion but if you have the guts to see this thing through, you will find out why I have stated the above comments the way I have.

I think political science professor Li Shuguang says it best when he wrote: “The difference (between the rule of law and the rule by law) is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”

In 1917 we went from the Rule of Law to the Rule by Law. How was this done? By using another rule called the Law of Necessity. What is the Law of Necessity? Simply stated the Law of Necessity states “necessity knows no law“ So what changed in 1917? War and war necessitated changing the law.

TWEA of 1917 (Or, was it the Patriot Act of 1917)

The idea behind the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA) was very sound, restrict trade with hostile nations by foreign citizens here in the United States. Who could possibly oppose something this fundamental. If you are at war with Germany, as we were in World War I, and if you had a German owned corporation making fighter planes here in the US you wouldn’t want to have to fight those planes in the air over Germany. Or, if you had German nationals in the US sending gold and silver to Germany to fund the war you would want to stop that “trade” so that money could not be used to kill our G.I.’s. Right? Of course.

So how is this dangerous to our freedoms and how does it apply today? Easy. Part one first. It is dangerous to our freedoms because it gives the president the power to suspend the Constitutional protection of a trial by jury before such seizures are made, plus several other features of the Constitutional. But, no matter what, it establishes the fact that you can set aside the Constitution because of war and give the President extraordinary powers, not granted to the president in the Constitution. The Constitution only allows for the Writ of Habeas Corpus to be set aside during a war, nothing else (U.S. Const. Article 1 Sec. 9). The second part is much simpler. The TWEA of 1917 has never been repealed and can be found in the United Stated Code (USC from here on) 12 USC §95(a).

So what happened?

 Easy, we had another emergency. In October 1929 stock fell precipitously and fortunes were lost, factories closed and people went hungry. There were riots in cities around the country by people that had lost their homes and jobs. It was 2011 all over again.

On March 2nd 1933 President Herbert Hoover asked the Federal Reserve Board to give him a plan that would help solve the economic crisis. What they sent back was a resolution to commit treason:

“Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency and,

WHEREAS, IT is understood the adequate remedial measures cannot be enacted before tomorrow morning,

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that, in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6, in order to afford opportunity to governmental authorities and banks themselves to take such measures as may be necessary to protect the interest of the people and promptly to provide adequate banking and credit facilities for all parts of the country.

Proposed Executive Order. ((Get this. The Fed is proposing an Executive Order for the President.)) (Instead of including the proposed Executive Order I will use the one issued by Franklin Roosevelt – Proclamation 2039 – which was almost word for word.)

 By the President of the United States of America

 A Proclamation

Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding; and ((THIS IS A LIE! People were starving, had to pay rent or a house note, or buy food.))

Whereas continuous and increasingly extensive speculative activity abroad in foreign exchange has resulted in severe drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold; and ((ANOTHER LIE! The bankers stoled the gold for their own purposes.))

Whereas those conditions have created a national emergency; and

Whereas it is in the best interests of all bank depositors that a period of respite be provided with a view to preventing further hoarding of coin, bullion or currency or speculation in foreign exchange and permitting the application of appropriate measures to protect the interests of our people; and

 Whereas it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, “That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . .”; and

Whereas it is provided in Section 16 of the said Act “That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both . . .”;

Now, Therefore I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act and in order to prevent the export, hoarding, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that from Monday, the Sixth day of March, to Thursday, the Ninth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-three, both dates inclusive, there shall be maintained and observed by all banking institutions and all branches thereof located in the United States of America, including the territories and insular possessions, a bank holiday, and that during said period all banking transactions shall be suspended. During such holiday, excepting as hereinafter provided, no such banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or bullion or currency or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or discounts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the United States to any place abroad, or transact any other banking business whatsoever.

During such holiday, the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President and under such regulations as he may prescribe, is authorized and empowered (a) to permit any or all of such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) to direct, require or permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of claims against assets of banking institutions, and (c) to authorize and direct the creation in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the receipt of new deposits which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested in obligations of the United States.

 As used in this order the term “banking institutions” shall include all Federal Reserve Banks, national banking associations, banks, trust companies, savings banks, building and loan associations, credit unions, or other corporations, partnerships, associations or persons, engaged in the business of receiving deposits, making loans, discounting.

Alright, look at the paragraph following the fifth Whereas. Here is the key so be patient. Compare what paragraph says to what the actual paragraph from the TWEA of 1917 says:

 (B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Do you see what happened? The new statute amended the old statute from “any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property…” to “That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall,…”

Franklin Roosevelt changed the limiting clause on emergency powers from those foreign nations and foreign nationals in the territorial United States to “whoever”. Franklin Roosevelt declared Americans enemies of the United States in one bold swoop. This was a complete misrepresentation of the TWEA of 1917’s intent. All Americans are now enemies of the government d.b.a. The United States and the banks in the United States are now under the direct supervision of the office of the president.

 If this was the extent of the crime I wouldn’t have much to write about but this is just the beginning. Roosevelt had a whole new set of rules, laws and regulations for the once American citizens, but now known as United States citizens. It was called “The New Deal” but it should have been called the “Raw Deal”.

Oh, I know what you are thinking, this is just my interpretation. Alright, here are some folks that happen to agree with me:

“I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the same.” -spoken by Congressman James Beck in 1933 prior to the passage of the Farm Bill (Agricultural Adjustment Act).

“Since March 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially declared states of emergency… This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.” Senators Charles Mathis, Jr. and Frank Church, co chairs on the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, 1973

“We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established, whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged.” Charles E. Hughes, 1920 (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice that swore FDR in as president.)

 Okay? This is not my opinion but rather LEGAL fact. How did this happen? What did FDR do to elicit such a response from U.S Congressmen and Senators? Read on. Here is an extract from FDR’s first inaugural address: (please watch on YouTube)

“I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.  (Law of Necessity starts here, author’s note)

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

Did you get that? He asked Congress to declare war on the American people as though we are a foreign foe. We are the declared enemy in this national emergency. Here is the enabling portion of the Act that FDR asked for this power and it is in this enabling act that we see that states rights were done away with. Please read:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the united States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application.”

Uniform national application. This is the clause that disables all states’ rights. It must be uniform and it cannot vary from state to state. So what was passed? What could be so important that it would do away with states rights and other provisions of the Constitution. In the Act of March 9, 1933, it further states in Title 1, Section 1:

“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

Did you get that? What ever the President and the Secretary of Treasury say, proclaim, write or order are automatically approved by Congress and have been automatically approved for the last 78 years without any congressional oversight.

Does Obama have to go to Congress for war in Libya? NO! It says so in the above paragraph. It is automatically approved. Do they have to go to Congress to print money? NO! Do they have to tell Congress who got the money? NO! What about TARP? NO! It is automatically and unequivocally approved. Does this sound like a republic or a dictatorship?

Okay, if this is the law of the land we have to be able to find this printed in the Laws of the Land, right? Right, it has to be found in the USC since the USC is the law of the land since the Constitution was set aside. Where do we look? Well, it said that the Secretary of Treasury as well as the President so lets look in the USC that pertains to the treasury. Lets look in 12 USC and see if we can find it.

12 USC § 95a. Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties

(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—

 (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, …

Not convinced? Look in Title 50 USC which is also known as International Emergency Economic Powers Act

Sec. 1702. Presidential authorities

STATUTE(a) In general (1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise –

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit – (i) any transactions in foreign exchange, (ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof, (iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;

(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and.(!1)

(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President…

26 C.F.R. PART 303—TAXES UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT Title 26 USC – Internal Revenue Code

Whoa! How about that? The agency that confiscates your money each paycheck has as part of its authority the confiscation act of 1917. Need more proof? Go to GOOGLE and do a search for TWEA or Trading With The Enemy Act. Look at the dozens of references in multiple Titles of the USC as authority for the violation of the U.S. Constitution.

What about using Common Law to get our Constitution back? Nope, and here is why. Not the Trading with the Enemy Act again? Yep, again. This time Section 17:

“That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act.”

But, the Supreme Court did not authorize the departure from Common Law “to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act.” We remained under Common Law until 1937 even though Congress passed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act in 1934, as allowed for in the TWEA of 1917 Section 17, remember?

The landmark decision in United States v. Butler (Supreme Court 1935) clearly indicates this. Mr. Butler is a farmer, grain elevator operator and is being sued for noncompliance under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). See what is said.

“The regulation of farmer’s activities under the statute, though in form subject to his own will, is in fact coercion through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a farmer’s consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better. At best it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states.”

Does that sound familiar? Voluntary income tax. Voluntary compliance. You can comply or go to jail. The Supreme Court was very aware of this and expounded on the “General Welfare Clause” that was used as justification: (Read this carefully!)

“If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, this clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of agriculture and all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the powers of the United States and preserve the powers of the states, could be broken down, the independence of the individual states obliterated, and The Federal United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all local control over local concerns.”

WOW! “The independence of the individual states obliterated” and did you get: The Federal United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all local control over local concerns? It’s a good thing this did not get passed our justices, huh? Well, in 1936 FDR stacked (or in the word of Congress “packed”) the Supreme Court by “retiring” 5 of the 6 judges with his hand chosen socialist. (See Senate Report 711 1937 to see how this was accomplished and what Congress thought of this action.) In 1937, United States v. Butler was overturned and the Supreme Court authorized the District Courts to adopt rules of civil procedure, thus doing away with Common Law.

What does Senate Report 93-549 have to say about this action? Read the excerpts below;

“Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that the separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious national emergency.”

 And pay particular attention to this quote taken from Senator Church in SR 93-549,

“What you’re saying, (speaking to Justice Clark) then, is that if Congress doesn’t act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest.”

 There is the smoking gun folks, “that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest.” In other words (legalese) No persona standi in judicio – no personal standing in the courts. You will not be treated as a proper person, propria persona, in court because you have no persona standii in judicio. You will be treated as a corporation and a corporation is an invention of the “state” and subject to the state because the state gave it life, not God, from which our rights originated.

Are we there yet?

Do you understand why and how the government can abuse you anyway they want to? Because you have no standing in court. You cannot use Common Law or the Constitution in federal courts but rather you must use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which all states employ in their courts. These Rules and Procedures are based in the United States Code, the same code that has the TWEA of 1917.

In Senate Report 93-549 Congress recognized the seriousness of this state of affairs. They wanted to end all national emergencies and restore the Constitution. So what did they find?

“This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended.”

We are still under the national emergency declared in the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of March 9, 1933. So how do we get out of that?

“Furthermore, it would be largely futile task unless we have the President’s active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President — in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive — we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President’s acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President’s signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation”

WOW! The president has to voluntarily give up his dictatorial powers. How about that? What did the founders of our Constitution say about this very thing? (See Madison’s Notes on the Constitution (not the Federalist Papers but the NOTES.)

(The subject being discussed is treaties and Mr. Madison is speaking.) “Then moved, to authorize the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate to make TREATIES OF PEACE without the concurrence of the president, the president who said, would necessarily derive so much power and importance from a state of war that he might be tempted, if authorized, to impede a treaty of peace.”

 Thank you Mr. Madison. The president if authorized would not want to give up his power and importance.


This is the part many of you will not like. There are only three ways to get back to the Constitution and Common Law;

(1) The President must voluntarily end the emergency and surrender his emergency powers and restore the Constitution,

(2) States must secede from the Union and become independent and begin a new union, using the original Constitution as its source of power and authority,

(3) The American people have to forcibly take the power back from the government.

Let’s take just a minute to study the Revolution’s roots. Everyone remembers the Declaration of Independence but most do not remember its older brother, Declaration and Resolves on Colonial rights of the First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774 which states:

“Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.”

Now do you understand why we went to war with Great Britain? “Claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute(not Common Law), in all cases whatsoever.” The Parliament declared emergency powers to fight the French and Indian War and did away with the English Constitution and ruled by statute, commissioners and extended jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty ((Law of seizure and forfeiture (TWEA 1917) on the High Seas.)) Admiralty Law, not Common Law, was used in all trials whether on land or at sea.

Congratulations! We are now back to square one. We are now in the same shape as our forefathers. We are now under emergency rule. How did they get out from under it? Yep! They took the power away from the government and gave it back to the people where it rightly belongs.

But, wait  minute Codger, what happened as a result of SR 93-549?

Oh, I almost forgot. Congress after thouands of pages of research, testimony, legal decisions decided that Emergency Rule was too dangerous. So they passed Public Law 94-412. And, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 read the following words;

“(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (1 2 U. S. C. 95a; 50 U. S. C. App. 5b)”

Nothing changed. They left the enabling portion of the TWEA of 1917 on the books. After all the work we’re still under Emergency Rule, read martial law.

Suggested reading: (aside from the various works mentioned in the body of the article I recommend the following reading to help you expand your knowledge from this “brief” treatise.

Constitutional Dictatorship, by Clinton Rossiter (it is available for free download here)

Constitution: Fact or Fiction by Dr. Eugene Schroeder (available as an e-book download for $8.00) What you will learn will be worth 10 times or more what you paid.

Both of these are excellent. Once you read these two wonderful works by two talented men you will see how poor a job I did of getting this message across to you. But you need to know what has happened.

May God bless and guide your studies, activities and Preparations!

22 comments to American Dictatorship

  • TexPat

    Bravo! Bravo!
    Realy great information to know and use.
    Thank you so much Codger.

  • MPB

    Thank you Country Codger for taking the time, effort and unfortunately the anguish to write this article. It is truly appreciated. I had already come to believe in my heart this was the sad case we (our country) had decayed to, I just didn’t fully grasp the extraordinary depth of it all. I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to unravel the financial side of this mess we are in now in for nearly four years now, with my own research, SS / SOLA, yours and many others fine contributing works. But now, with this big missing piece of the puzzle, the illusion of supposed freedom(s) we “Had” is now becoming even more polished to me. Thank you, sincerely and God help us. We are going to need him, clear thinking, intestinal fortitude and a lot more going forward. I continue to prepare me and my family, now even more awakened than before. MPB.

  • Citizen Doctor

    Thank you Country Codger. Here’s a short clip of Ron Paul’s brother Wayne giving a brief overview of this issue including some of the financial aspects, excerpted from Alex Jones’ The Obama Deception.

  • RealityChick

    My deepest appreciation for providing more background/history in helping us understand how the heck we got to where we are today. Yours and SS’s ceaseless passion for uncovering the truth simply amazes me, and it is clearly apparent in this piece. Always an honor to read your opinions and research — downloading your recommendations as I write. Many thanks!

  • lastmanstanding

    I really hope the readers understand the depth of your research and what the 3 solutions that you have provided will entail.

    God please help us all.

  • Future

    CC, great work.

  • Country Codger

    Hi Everyone,

    Thanks for your feedback. I hope this helps a little.

    The anguish is not so much in the writing of the article but the memories of 1998 when I QUIT the “patriot” community. I had been battling the IRS/Treasury Dep’t. for three long years. I lost a son in July of 1998 and finally on December 23 the IRS conceded the fact I was right and that they had indeed made a mistake in how they were viewing my status. My status is as an American citizen not a U.S. citizen and I am outside their jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, my wife said she was through, so that time in my life was not a lot of fun. Interspersed in all my notes in my journal on my fight against the IRS are also notes on what was happening daily I my life. It is hard to read one without reading both. That’s all.

    Face it, any day Uncle Sugar takes one in the kisser I love it. Hopefully you guys will not have to go through that.

    Stay and alert and stay prepared. The day will come when we will have to retake our rights by force. If Ron Paul is not elected in 2012 I believe that the crunch will hit shortly thereafter. It may hit anyway. These are forces of evil we are battling not just “bad” people. So put on the whole armor of God.


  • MPB

    @ Country Codger. The article is Superb, Very informative and helpful. Thank you Sir again.

    I am truly sorry for the loss of your son. No parent should have a child preceding them in death. That alone is one I hope I do not have to face let alone the other matter you mention.

    Again, Thank you for all your work. Yours is certainly amongst the most direct and revealing and is in a class by itself. MPB.

  • Aeneas8

    Would someone be able to briefly summarize the difference between being an American citizen (outside the jurisdiction of the IRS) and a U.S. citizen? My apologies for my naiveté. I have not run across this contrasting distinction in my studies. If I have, it certainly wasn’t in my ‘radar.’ Thanks.

  • Citizen Doctor

    @Aeneas8: You may find some answers in chapter 3 of The Great IRS Hoax (free PDF download).

  • Silver Eagle

    Excellent, and exactly the reason I beleive the only way to return to some form of Constitutional Republic is a total reboot……Thats why I beleive that Crunchyconmama’s EMP article will be the thing that would bring everything(or almost everything) back to a level playing field. No election or series of elections will ever change the curse(course) we are on. No democrat or republican can change it, Ron Paul can’t change it. And no nation has ever won its freedom through peacefull protests, freedom has always needed to be wrest from the hands of tyrannts, ……some crazy founding father said something about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    Train to shot, study the targets unprotected weak points. Three shots center mass does not make much effect hitting body armor.

    If you you don’t want a new war for freedom, better to pray for an EMP.
    The only thing keeping us from being complete slaves is the fact that 90 million american’s own one or more guns……complete slaves do not own guns.

    Sorry for the doom and gloom outlook.

  • Country Codger

    Simply put – if you are in a position to receive a benefit from the United States government you are a citizen of the United States and have no access to the Constitution for redress of grievances. This is the theme in dozens of court cases in 1937, 38 -54. In 1954 it was codified in the Social Security acts of the same year and 32 groups of people were legal recognized as exempt for U.S. requirement to pay SS taxes. That is how I can be a disabled vet but cannot have a disability pension, It is a benefit. If you have a SS number then you have the potential to receive a benefit from the government, i.e. unemployment, food stamps, social security, disability, SSI, etc. As a US citizen you trade rights for privileges. The USC has all the answers. (facetiously said of course)

    @Silver Eagle

    Look over in the right hand sidebar and read When the Poop Hits the Oscillator if you want doom and gloom. COmpared to that you are an optimist.

    Good luck you guys. I will try to get to feeling better and write in more detail later.

  • Archangel

    He’s speaking the truth. If people only knew….Our preisdent is actually a military dictator. When was the last time any of us voted on an HR, HJR or EO that dramatically effected our way of life in America? Our freedom is an illusion. We are as free as the government allows us to be. We are always in an undefined state of emergency. We are under martial law. It’s simply a matter of enforcement at this point. Now that we know this, what to do? Prepare, and thrive. And put your trust in God.

  • CC, is there someplace where you have published your fight against the IRS? I have read numerous publications that claim all the legal and procedural nuances but had yet to find someone who had actually put their butts where their mouth is (if you pardon the imagery) and actually fought (and won) against the IRS. Would you care to share?

  • thankful

    @goldsaver watch Aron Russo’s America freedom to fascism. In that movie, there is a chronicling of this issue and they discuss at least one case where the person won in court because there is no law saying we have to file a 1040 and they could not produce the law, the supreme court cases were cited, where no tax on a man’s labor is allowed and the man won despite the judge’s indication to the contrary. The jury acquitted him. After this the supreme court rulings were no longer allowed in the court to be used to back up the defense. Very good movie.

  • Gareth

    The sleight of hand was turing the head of state into a dictator if I’m correct. It’s parliament that’s the elected dictatorship on this side of the pond. Our head of state is part of the constitutional monarchy. The constitition comprising of habeus corpus, 1215 Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights etc. Our head of state is a useless parasite brainwashed into Fabian ideology from birth. Of course, David Icke believes old Lizzie Windsor is a shape-shifting reptilian. Strange how people make sense of the world, isn’t it.

    It’s the straw man aspect that bothers me. How to wriggle-out of responsibilty for the PERSON ie company of your CAPITALISED name is a tricky one. But I know of people trying.

    Good Luck, CC.

  • Jet Graphics

    If I may suggest a slightly different SOLUTION.
    Based on the first principle that governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights and (b) govern by consent, it follows that anything government is doing that is NOT securing a right, must be by consent of the governed.
    The second principle is found in the excepted classes listed in Art IV of Confederation (1777). Paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives are NOT accorded the rights, powers, privileges and immunities of the free people.
    As far as I can determine, the loss of status is tied directly to VOLUNTARY consent via assertion of citizenship (submission) and participation in FICA (pauperization).
    Thus the optimum solution to the current socialist democratic form of government is to return to the republican form, by withdrawing consent from citizenship, usury and national socialism.
    Once one acquires a domicile upon private property, absolutely owned, one has standing to exercise natural and personal liberty. In short, the American national / free inhabitant domiciled upon private property is not subject to nor object of the myriad regulations that are only applicable to those who have surrendered their birthright and volunteered into servitude.
    Some helpful reference material:

  • Country Codger

    @Jet Graphics

    If you call yourself a sovereign citizen and live on land to which you have alloidial title does not negate the fact that you live in a dictatorship. Sovereign citizens and alloidial title exist at the discretion of the dictator. The Law of the land, the Constitution, and guarantee of access to Common Law is not available. FICA is not the issue. No one that I know voted for the TWEA of 1917 but that does not negate it. You have to change the law of the land back to the Constitution and the Common Law. Arguing anything but the law is just mental masturbation.

    If the key to dropping out was the exemption from FICA and a Patented deed then I am free but is the country free? NO. The country can never be free until we REMOVE the law of the land establishing a dictatorship. Sorry, but that is the only way. If declaring yourself sovereign was the solution then the colonists would never have had to fight the Revolution. You have to convince the dictator you are free.


  • […] article here: WAKE PEOPLE UP! Share this:MoreLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

  • […] I wrote about the only three solutions that will work in the article American Dictatorship. . There are no […]

Support our fight with a one time donation.


Over 300+ Videos