Canada, non-Inc.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Meanwhile, WUP decides to go off-topic from the perspective of the core question

My apologies, didn't mean for it to be off topic. In my view it is only off topic in the sense that it served as a discussion for America being a "corporation", as opposed to the actual topic being Canada. Sorry about that.

[arayder]

This conspiracy theory is an insult to the reader's intelligence.

Adding to the fact that nobody seems to be able to find the original document one should note that the term "plausible deniability" was not in use until the 1950's when CIA staff coined the term. Some credit the term's first use to be as late as the 1960's.

One might as well float the idea that there's a letter from William Shakespeare to Francis Bacon in which Shakespeare admits that Bacon wrote all of the the plays attributed to the former. In the text of the letter Shakespeare tells Bacon, "Your plays are awesome, dude!"

This conspiracy theory would have us believe that House sat in a meeting and spat out a grammatically perfect prediction of the social security system which didn't begin until the 1930's, nearly 20 years later.

Thank you - that's all I was seeking, a rational opinion. This quote is frequently used to as proof positive that America is a corporation, yet this supposed "proof" can not be verified. I didn't know about the "plausible deniability" thing until today, so, anytime I can learn something new, I consider it to be a good day !!!

The quote just doesn't wash. I have read biographies of several presidents, and I can't recall any such painstakingly accurate transcriptions prior to the use of oval office tapes. I can't conceive of anyone uttering such a loathsome screed in the pre-FDR era and not being met with the rage of cabinet members, executive staff and a rebuke by a the President.

House was a diplomat and an advisor to Wilson almost exclusively in the area of foreign affairs, although he was a top advisor during Wilson's re-election campaign. So he wouldn't have spoken such words in the role of a citizen jacking his jaw at the president during an informal meeting.

House eventually fell out of favor with Wilson and was relegated to the sidelines.

One way to check out the probability of the quote would be to do some reading on House and see if it jives with any of his documented opinions. One could try the "further reading" of his Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House

[Wake Up! Productions]

One way to check out the probability of the quote would be to do some reading on House and see if it jives with any of his documented opinions. One could try the "further reading" of his Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House

Thank you. I chalk this up to just another made up quote with no way of verifying its validity. If anyone has read Albert Pike's "Three World Wars" letter, this too is an obvious fake, as the it features the term/word "Nazism" 60+ years prior to WWII.

[arayder]

One way to check out the probability of the quote would be to do some reading on House and see if it jives with any of his documented opinions. One could try the "further reading" of his Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House

Thank you. I chalk this up to just another made up quote with no way of verifying its validity. If anyone has read Albert Pike's "Three World Wars" letter, this too is an obvious fake, as the it features the term/word "Nazism" 60+ years prior to WWII.

You are welcome. In the field of historical research it is generally considered sloppy work to use a character defining quote like the one attributed to House without solid documentation of its source. So you are justified in your skepticism.

The other possibility is that the person who originally cooked up the quote got it from House's limited works of fiction. One of House's themes was that of a futuristic political hero who leads the United States to a series of "reforms".

But I am just guessing here.

As an aside I point out that the burgeoning anti-racism movement on U.S. college campuses has called for the removal of Woodrow Wilson's name from the monuments and buildings of his alma matter, Princeton University, citing Wilson's strong racist attitudes. It's worth noting that Wilson called Teddy Roosevelt everything but a butter churn when T.R. openly welcomed black civic leaders to the White House.

[bmxninja357]

"The United States has been referred to as a corporation only in instances where the exercise of the sovereign power involved functions peculiar to corporations, as that term is used in its ordinary sense."

https://casetext.com/case/mcnichols-v-denver-2

"The reasons for the latter change [substituting `partnerships and corporations' for `bodies politic and corporate'] are that partnerships ought to be included; and that if the phrase `bodies politic' is precisely equivalent to `corporations,' it is redundant; but if, on the contrary, `body politic' is somewhat broader, and should be understood to include a government, such as a State, while `corporation' should be confined to an association of natural persons on whom government has conferred continuous succession, then the provision goes further than is convenient. It requires the draughtsman, in the majority of cases of employing the word `person,' to take care that States, Territories, foreign governments, c., appear to be excluded." 1 Revision of the United States Statutes as Drafted 19 (1872).

https://casetext.com/case/ngiraingas-v-sanchez-2

In many of Neal's filings, Neal disputed the court's jurisdiction, asserting the “United States [was] a corporation.” The court denied most of Neal's motions as frivolous and nonsensical.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-neal-31

It is fundamental that the United States exists as a sovereign of delegated powers; delegated to it by the sovereigns making up the United States, the individual states. While there may be isolated cases which hold that the different states, and even the United States, are "bodies politic and corporate", they do not hold that the United States is a corporation existing by the laws of the United States.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states ... orporation

This next one is interesting because it's a court refusing to answer whether or not the United States is a corporation:

"Federal courts are not comprised of philosopher-kings or legislative aides, and the Constitution forbids us from pontificating about abstractions in the law or merely giving advice about the potential legal deficiencies of a law or policy when no ongoing controversy exists with respect to that law or policy." Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 289

https://casetext.com/case/wagner-v-us-16

thank you for the usable links when im dealing with the america inc crowd. will come in handy when i hear the played out canada inc is a subsidiary of america inc bullspit. much appreciated.
peace,
ninj

[Hyrion]

it is only off topic in the sense that it served as a discussion for America being a "corporation"

I viewed it as off-topic from the perspective that it was about a Government conspiracy rather than about the Government being a corporation.

So question: what does one (a government involved conspiracy) have to do with the other (a government being a corporation)....... or are you suggesting that only corporations are involved in conspiracies and since the government appears to be involved in a conspiracy it must be a corporation?

Edited to add:

Now I get the connection:

we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America

The connection being that at least one in the high levels of the US Government viewed the Government - not as a governing body - but as a dummy corporation.

Doh - replied to my own post instead of edited it again.

[Wake Up! Productions]

it is only off topic in the sense that it served as a discussion for America being a "corporation"

I viewed it as off-topic from the perspective that it was about a Government conspiracy rather than about the Government being a corporation.

So question: what does one (a government involved conspiracy) have to do with the other (a government being a corporation)....... or are you suggesting that only corporations are involved in conspiracies and since the government appears to be involved in a conspiracy it must be a corporation?

I only mentioned it really just based on the last sentence (though I gave the full quote for context), "The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation..."

Again I apologise - no harm meant.

[eric]

One way to check out the probability of the quote would be to do some reading on House and see if it jives with any of his documented opinions. One could try the "further reading" of his Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House

Thank you. I chalk this up to just another made up quote with no way of verifying its validity. If anyone has read Albert Pike's "Three World Wars" letter, this too is an obvious fake, as the it features the term/word "Nazism" 60+ years prior to WWII.

Since I have an enquiring mind, I decided to check up on the validity of the quote in question. Although it's all over the web on various FMOTL/sovcit sites, it's actually originally from:
Quigley, Tragedy and Hope. 1966
Here's a link to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_and_Hope
hmm..., waiting for the pdf to load so like every good historian I can check the footnotes:
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
So, I'm supposed to believe something written by a purported "historian" who doesn't use footnotes.
Back to square one. The only thing interesting about the whole exercise is that I can claim to have discovered by accident one of the source records on sovcit ideology.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Tragedy and Hope

I am familiar with this book. Apparently it was out of print for a long time, and Alex Jones purchased the rights to it.

http://www.infowarsstore.com/infowars-m ... -hope.html

[eric]

Tragedy and Hope

I am familiar with this book. Apparently it was out of print for a long time, and Alex Jones purchased the rights to it.
http://www.infowarsstore.com/infowars-m ... -hope.html

I just found it interesting that it is a veritable trove of whack-nut theories from someone who should have known better and from pre-internet days, that has been expanded on by various gurus and serves as a foundation for much of their ideology. Since I knew you were interested in source documents for tenets of the faith I thought you might find it interesting. If I had the time I would follow through on what Quigley claimed were his source documents. After all, if a retired chicken farmer can become an esteemed historian on certain aspects of the Great War,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Middlebrook
maybe a soon to retire pig farmer could become an expert on the history of FMOTL.
where's the avatar for dreams of glory and accolades from adoring fans?

[Wake Up! Productions]

I just found it interesting that it is a veritable trove of whack-nut theories from someone who should have known better and from pre-internet days, that has been expanded on by various gurus and serves as a foundation for much of their ideology. Since I knew you were interested in source documents for tenets of the faith I thought you might find it interesting. If I had the time I would follow through on what Quigley claimed were his source documents. After all, if a retired chicken farmer can become an esteemed historian on certain aspects of the Great War,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Middlebrook
maybe a soon to retire pig farmer could become an expert on the history of FMOTL.
where's the avatar for dreams of glory and accolades from adoring fans?

No offence to your post, but I do have to agree with Hyrion now. This discussion is off topic, and getting out of hand.

[Burnaby49]

I just found it interesting that it is a veritable trove of whack-nut theories from someone who should have known better and from pre-internet days, that has been expanded on by various gurus and serves as a foundation for much of their ideology. Since I knew you were interested in source documents for tenets of the faith I thought you might find it interesting. If I had the time I would follow through on what Quigley claimed were his source documents. After all, if a retired chicken farmer can become an esteemed historian on certain aspects of the Great War,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Middlebrook
maybe a soon to retire pig farmer could become an expert on the history of FMOTL.
where's the avatar for dreams of glory and accolades from adoring fans?

No offence to your post, but I do have to agree with Hyrion now. This discussion is off topic, and getting out of hand.

Since this isn't a topic that is on anything particularly significant, say a discussion of Boisjoli or Clifford, and the original question has been answered as well as it's going to be, I don't think it matters if it drifts into something else.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Since this isn't a topic that is on anything particularly significant, say a discussion of Boisjoli or Clifford, and the original question has been answered as well as it's going to be, I don't think it matters if it drifts into something else.

Fair enough, Burnaby has spoken.

Edit: I did search the glossary of "Tragedy and Hope". House is only mentioned twice (pages 254 and 280), neither of them refer to that quote.

[pigpot]

That's why those who sue government have to jump through all sorts of government-imposed hoops

Exactly... That's the issue that an increasing number of people are going to destroy.

[notorial dissent]

To put it in the simplest terms possible, if the person making the claim CANNOT provide a source, a real source, not some hole in the floor internet page, then it didn't happen. If there is verifiable NO SOURCE(s) then it is fantasy, no matter how hard they want to believe it. If they got hold of it from somewhere it had to have an originating source. This is the age of the innerwebs where nothing EVER goes away. NO SOURCE, NO BELIEVE!!!! Very simple mantra.

[Wake Up! Productions]

To put it in the simplest terms possible, if the person making the claim CANNOT provide a source, a real source, not some hole in the floor internet page, then it didn't happen. If there is verifiable NO SOURCE(s) then it is fantasy, no matter how hard they want to believe it. If they got hold of it from somewhere it had to have an originating source. This is the age of the innerwebs where nothing EVER goes away. NO SOURCE, NO BELIEVE!!!! Very simple mantra.

Since fmotl like to use Maxims of Law, here is one:

What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.

[Arthur Rubin]

One might as well ask people to prove that quantum mechanics isn't math - then claim that any answer provided is not good enough.

(Off-topic, but not politics....at least, I don't think it's politics....)

Well, the quantum mechanics equations are math, but the interpretation is philosophy. Quantum mechanics usually includes interpretations....