The Truth About America's Government Revealed

The Truth About America's Government Revealed is a thought-provoking documentary that delves into the inner workings of the country's system, shedding light on the tree of liberty society and its significance in the context of freedom and liberty. The constitution, often hailed as the foundation of American democracy, is examined in relation to the concept of secret combinations and conspiracy theories that have long been debated among scholars and citizens alike. This revealing film explores the intricate balance between the pursuit of liberty and the potential dangers of unchecked power, sparking important discussions about the role of government in society and the importance of protecting individual rights. By exploring the complexities of American governance, this documentary aims to educate and inspire viewers to think critically about the state of their nation and the future of freedom.

TRANSCRIPT

Generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

So what is the United States of America? This is a question that is often a bit of controversy of people, the media constantly saying that we're a democracy. And then you'll have constitutionalists say, no, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. But in fact, that is wrong. Both of them are wrong. America is neither a democracy nor is it a republic. Now that may shock you.

You may want to throw tomatoes at me. You may want to drag me out of this building and throw me to the wolves. But just give me a second, let me walk you through why this is a fact and why it's not just a distinction without a difference, but why it matters. So when we go back to the Constitution of the United States, and that is what it's referred to, usually it's the Constitution.

People always say a Constitution of the United States, but I'm going to tell you right now that that is also wrong. It is the Constitution for the United States. And this is another distinction with a major important difference. Okay, just look at the preamble of the Constitution, right? It starts off, we the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, but it ends with the Constitution for the United States.

Now, why does everybody refer to it as the Constitution of the United States? And what's the difference between of and for? And this is really important because this is the foundation of the Constitution. And without a proper understanding of this, its interpretation is completely manipulated. So why does the change matter? We look at the Constitution of the United States means a national government created it to govern a nation.

Okay, it's one country that creates a governing body or a governing document for that nation. Whereas if it is a Constitution for the United States, the states that were at the convention created it to govern its creation. Okay, so if it is for the United States, it is for the creation of the creators, which the original 13 colonies. This is very important. So what is that referred to?

What does that matter? What does that have to do with us being not a democracy and not a republic? And why does that matter? We'll just go to Article IV, Section 4, and you're probably gonna be saying, Article IV, Section 4 says that you're wrong, that we are a republic. But let's read it. Let's read Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government. Okay, so the Constitution says that it guarantees every state in the union a republican form of government. But what does it not say? It does not say that the United States is a republican government. It only merely guarantees to all of the states a republican form of government. Now, the states are sovereign, and that is why they are a republic.

But the general government is subject to the states, to its creator, and therefore it is not sovereign, and therefore it is not, it cannot be a republic, because it is not a nation, which is probably going to surprise you as well, and we're going to get into. We are a confederation of sovereign republics. So we are not a republic. We are a confederation of republics. And that's a very important thing to distinguish.

In 1774, September 5th of 1774, there was the first Continental Congress, and representatives from 13 separate colonies met together. And at that, we had Benjamin Franklin writing to Frederick Dumas in September of 1775, and he said, or December of 1775, and he says, "Your gift of Emmerich de Waal's "Law of Nations has been continually "in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting." Okay, so that's another word to remember, Congress, now sitting.

So why are members of this Congress reading this book, The Law of Nations? If you are all representatives of the same nation, then why are you trying to learn about how separate nations work together? So states are superior, they're not subdivisions. The major mainstream and corporate media and controlled media that are pretending to be alternative medias will all say that we are one nation, and that the federal government is superior to the states, as if the states are political subdivisions, much like a county is to a state.

But in the Declaration of Independence, we start to debunk this idea, and we start to unravel the dangerous nature of this idea and how false that it really is. The Declaration of Independence says that these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and independent states, and they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved.

Now, today, the only time we think of a country, and we refer to it as a state, is the state of Israel. But state is just another word for nation. And as soon as we understand that, we start to really open our minds to what each individual sovereign nation in this confederation of republics is a sovereign nation. And so the state of Great Britain helps us to really understand that. State means nation.

And that as free and independent states, or we should replace the word states in our minds because of the propaganda that we are being bombarded with at all times, we can replace that with the word that is free and independent nations. They have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. So on September 3rd, 1783, King George does not sign a peace treaty with the United States of America.

King George signs a peace treaty with 13 sovereign independent nations. So does four really matter? Let's go to Article I, Section I of the Constitution. It says, "All legislative powers, herein granted, "shall be vested in a Congress." Remember I mentioned Congress earlier, the Congress, the Continental Congress, Congress of the United States, "which shall consist of a Senate "and a House of Representatives."

So we have a Congress now in this new union of the United States. So previously in England, right, and well, still today, but under the colonies were under the Parliament of England. And so why didn't they just call Parliament? Are these, is Congress and Parliament just different words and they're like, "Hey, we're a new country now "and so we're going to just call ourselves something else "to make sure we're not confused with England "and that we're just gonna stick it to the man "by calling it something else."

No, words have meaning. And so let's go into the original meaning of those two words, Parliament and Congress, okay? So why a Congress and not a Parliament? In Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the dictionary of the time, a Parliament is the assembly of the king and three estates of the realm, namely the Lord's spiritual, the Lord's temporal, and commons for the debating of matters touching the commonwealth, especially the making and correcting of laws, which assembly or court is of all others, the highest and of greatest authority.

So a Congress basically is a legislative body under a king and it is to touch upon modern matters of the nation, okay? So, well, the United States isn't under a king, so is that why they didn't call it a Parliament? Because a Congress is like a legislative body for a country just, but without a king? No, Congress also has a specific definition. Congress, according again to Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the dictionary of the time says, "An appointed meeting for settlement of affairs "between different nations."

They picked the word Congress on purpose because they knew that they were not a new nation, but they were a confederation of independent sovereign nations with the Republican form of government. In fact, this was not just some, this isn't just some mental exercise that we get to just theorize about, but no, this was the common understanding of the word during the time.

Edmund Burke, the famous saying, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil "is for good men to do nothing." That Edmund Burke that said that. In a speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774, Edmund Burke says, "Parliament is not a Congress "of ambassadors from different and hostile interests." Okay? Parliament is not a Congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests.

A Congress is a group of ambassadors from separate nations coming together with different interests. Which interests each must maintain as an agent, an advocate against other agents and advocates, but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest, that of the whole, where not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole.

So therefore, a Congress is a representative of these different interests where their job is to represent local purposes. Their job is to represent local prejudices. Their job is to represent their nation. Congress matters. Yes, four matters. 13 sovereign nations come together to form a confederation giving a new government limited powers relating to the combined actions of the still sovereign nations, nation states.

The Constitution is for the states, not of a new nation. Of course, the United States is not a nation. It is a confederation, is a union of sovereign republics. So what does that matter? The Constitution is a contract between two parties. We have to understand that. We have the principle and we have the agent. The principle, the law of agency, as example would be a homeowner or a landowner who wants to build a home and he hires a contractor.

And they enter into a contract, a list of duties. They say, you do this and if you do that, I'll do this. I'll pay you. You build me a house, I'll pay you. And if they build the house the way that the contract says, then the guy has to pay them what the contract says. But let's say, okay, they built the house, but the contractor says, oh, the home builder, I mean, the builder says, you know what, this guy, he's got kids, he's got a family.

You know what they could really use is a swimming pool. I'm gonna build him a pool. But then he bills the landowner for the pool that he just built. But is the pool in the original contract? No. So he goes to court and because he's like, I'm not paying this and the judge says, what does the contract say? The contract says, you build a house and I'll pay you money.

Is there any authorization for building a pool? Nope, you don't have to pay for it. In fact, you are ultimately responsible to actually remove it if the homeowner wants you to. But he is not responsible to pay for that. And you have two options, to either make the contractor fix the pool or to fire him and hire someone else that will take care of the job. And the Constitution is a contract just like that, a compacted contract.

James Madison and the Federalist Papers, the Federalist Papers are what was used to help the American people, the people of each independent state, the people of Virginia, the people of New York, et cetera, to be able to say, yes, we want to sign on to this union. James Madison in Federalist 45 says, the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined, just like the contract with the homeowner.

Few defined powers, not abstract, you can do whatever you want. Those which are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite because they're the master. They're the ones that created the, they're subservient, the general government under the Constitution. James Madison continues, the former will be exercised principally on external objects, the former being the union, principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which, last, the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

So there are limited powers, very specific. He continues on, the powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. So the general government has nothing to do with the normal course of affairs of your life, your liberty, and your property, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Internal order of a state is not up to the general government, it is only up to the sovereign nation in which it occurs in. And then, after the Constitution's ratified in 1800, the, of course, you know, in the late 1890s, the federal government starts to do what several of the states believe is acting unconstitutionally. And so they issue resolutions of nullification, saying, you know what, we're not going to comply with that new law that Congress passed, because it was a violation of the contract.

And so, in a report regarding those articles, or those resolutions on nullification, James Madison, in a report to the Virginia legislature in 1800, says, "The next position is that the General Assembly "views the powers of the federal government "as limited by the plain sense and intention "of the instrument constituting that compact, or contract, "and as no further valid than they are authorized "by the grants therein enumerated.

"If the powers granted be valid, "it is solely because they are granted. "And if the powers, granted powers, "are valid because granted, "all other powers not granted must not be valid. "Therefore, if the federal government, "or the general government, federal government, "was not granted certain powers specifically, "then they do not have the authority to do so." Simple.

He continues on, "The states then being the parties "to the constitutional compact, or contract, "and in their sovereign capacity, "it follows of necessity, there can be no tribunal "above their authority." Whose authority? "The states to decide in the last resort "whether the compact made by them be violated." So, just imagine yourself, you know, you've got some teenagers and you're a parent, and they are, you know, you're arguing about if they broke the rules that you gave to them.

That you told them to be out and come back by 10, they came back at 11, and they're arguing with you about definitions of words, and if, you know, you, you know, just, you said, well, 10 o'clock is in the evening, so any time in the evening is okay. Who gets the final decision to decide what rule, and if the rule was broken? The parent, obviously. The person that created the rules, the person that created the entity that they're discussing with, they're the ones that gets to decide if the rule was broken.

The states are the final arbiters of when the constitutional contract was violated, according to the man that is generally referred to as the father of the Constitution. And consequently, James Madison continues, that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort such questions as may be sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. Meaning, if the violation is so great, that not only are they going to just nullify, they're gonna say, "I'm not gonna enforce that."

They might have to actually step in and do something about it. Whose responsibility is that? The states. In the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Thomas Jefferson says that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. There's no superior clause to the Constitution that says whatever the federal government does, that the states have to submit themselves to.

But that by a compact or contract, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes. Not for general purposes, not for broad purposes, special purposes, specific purposes, enumerated, listed purposes. And if we remember the definition of a compact, it is a formal agreement or contract between two or more parties.

It is a contract, and the person, the principal gets to decide if it's been, the curator or other gets to decide if it's been violated. Now this contract is very much a part in the Constitution, the aspect, the fact that it is a contract. Article 7 of the Constitution says, the ratification of the Convention of Nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states. So ratifying the same.

So, they get to decide if they're gonna ratify it. It's only between the states that say, I'm gonna be a party to this contract. If they don't decide to be a party to the contract, they're not forced in, right? Only nine states are required. So let's say, what happens to the other 13? I mean, the other four, right? If they don't come on and sign on and be a part of it, are they forced to 'cause the other nine said yes?

No, because it's a contract between sovereign republics that did not create a new republic. Amendment 10 to the Constitution ratifies this even more, saying the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, this contract, between sovereign republics, if we didn't delegate to this new power, this new entity, these powers, nor were they prohibited by us to us, are reserved to the states or nations, respectively, or to the people.

So again, in the ratifying convention for the Constitution, James Madison, clearly says, clearly, according to the expositors of the Law of Nations, that a breach of any one article, right, you don't have to like, hey, it's gotta, you gotta be violating at least 51% of the Constitution before we can take action. He says, no, a breach of any one article by any one party leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention to be dissolved unless they choose, rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.

So they have two choices. If another party violates the Constitution, then the other parties involved get to say, okay, am I going to just say, hey, you broke the contract, we're done, you're fired, bye-bye, or are they gonna say, okay, no, this is the contract we went into, I'm going to enforce it, I wanna preserve this contract, I like the contract, we're just gonna make sure that you follow it. That's up to the states.

Each individual sovereign state must choose between those two options of what they want to do. That is their right as the principal agent. 'Cause America is not one nation, but it is a confederation of sovereign republics. And this was a big issue during the ratification process. You have the anti-federalists that were saying, no, this Constitution was giving this new general government too much power. Patrick Henry boldly said, if consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do?

This government will operate like an ambush, it will destroy the state governments and swallow the liberties of the people without giving previous notice. So as we've turned away from what the founders intent, we can see that Patrick Henry really had some prophetic vision there of what would happen if we allow this consolidation to continue. But James Madison, the father of the Constitution, saying you're misunderstanding this, and as long as we understand the real principles of the Constitution, this is not going to be a problem, Patrick, James Madison says, were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the ascent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment.

So yeah, dude, if this was just a new consolidated government, we just need to have the majority of the people come on, but this is not what it is. This is not a consolidated government. And as a majority have adopted already, the remaining states will be bound by the act of the majority. So if this was just a new general government, a new government, a new national government that was being formed, all you would need is amongst these 13 colonies is a majority.

You get all of New York City, for example, coming together, and they're now the majority of the entire union. They get to decide now, that would force every single other state to join. But he's saying, no, no, no, that's not the case. That's not what's going on. He says, "Even if the majority, "if they unanimously reprobated it, "but sir, no state is bound by it without its own consent." So it is not a new nation.

It is still each sovereign nation, each sovereign state, have the ability to say, it doesn't matter how many other people go along with this. If our state says no, we are not a part of this union. And in fact, in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison says that, "This assembly doth explicitly and preemptorily declare "that it views the powers of the federal government "as resulting from the compact "to which the state are parties."

So again, saying the powers that the federal government has are only coming from the contract, the Constitution. And as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact. So it's the plain intention of the language in the contract. We're not gonna say fiddle around, the intent was clear, the language is clear. We don't need to say, well, this is another definition of the word. They knew what their meaning was.

And no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact. So if you weren't given that power, you don't have it. And so in Federalist 39, it explains what this means. What is the application of this? Because you have a lot of people say, well, the federal government ruled, you have a Supreme Court ruling, and this, that, and the other thing. And he warned us against that, that we have not only the power, but we have the obligation to say, no, we are a sovereign independent nation that have come together for these few specific jobs.

In Federalist 39, he says, he explains, this is what we're doing. The act of the people as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, state, in ratifying the constitution is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new constitution will, if established, be a federal, not a national constitution.

Now, that's gonna be really weird to people, federal, not national. People talk about the national government, the federal government, those terms, they say, are interchangeable. But again, let's go back to the dictionary of the time. The definition of federal is what? Relating to a league or contract. So, it is a contractual union, not a national union. It is not a new government, it is a contractual government between independent sovereign nations.

We are not a new nation, as James Madison, the father of the constitution, says. In Federalist 39, where the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority. And the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by consideration, or by considering the will of the majority of the states as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States.

Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all the others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. Now, continuing on, later into the 1800s, this idea hadn't been lost yet. We hadn't been brainwashed in believing that these things, that we were one nation yet. And so, children, we can always look at what is the cultural understanding of something by looking at the children's history books that were written at the time.

And during the early 1800s, they were still going by catechisms, which you would have a statement or a question, and then you would have an answer, and the child would memorize the question, and then memorize the answer. And so we have this well-known catechism, the political catechism by a lady for her god-daughter. And the question is, what do we understand by the federal union?

Answer, it is an agreement between sovereign states to forbear exerting their sovereign power over certain objects, and to exert jointly their sovereign power over other specified objects through the agency of a general government. Each state agrees to exert its full sovereign jointly for all external purposes, and separately for all internal purposes or state concerns. Where is this agreement found is the next question.

Answer, in the bond of union or compact between the states called the federal constitution. Question, did the states, on forming the constitution, divest themselves of any part of their sovereignty? Answer, of not a particle. The individuality and sovereign personality of the states was not at all impaired. The constitution is their power of attorney to do certain acts, and contains connected with their authority to act their letter of instruction as to the manner in which they shall act.

They are the servants. The power which gives validity to their acts is in their master, the states. Okay, who is the master and who is the servant? The states are the master. The states are the creator. The states are the ones in charge. We've forgotten that. We need to remember our sovereign nature as states and start to enforce the constitution.

And that is exactly how you defend the constitution. Remembering that the constitution is a contract between sovereign nations that maintain their sovereignty, that evil and designing men have worked for over 150 years to get us to support a national tyranny. States must defend their sovereignty to defend the constitution. That is not rebellion to the union. That is supporting the union. That is supporting the constitution by refusing to support the idea that we are one nation.

We defend the constitution by understanding it. We understand it by reading the words and the explanations of those that were involved. We defend the independence of each state. We do not refer to the United States as a nation, and we keep the federal government within its bounds and by going on the offense, by nullifying, by interceding between the oppressor and the oppressed and having to stake the final steps if necessary. And of course, join with others like the Tree of Liberty Society.

Join and make your voice stronger by becoming a member of the Tree of Liberty Society today and become a part of the solution. Thank you.