I'm no expert on america, but...

[ebalosus]

I think the person whom made this video is full of shit (and possibly a nominee for biggest bogon emitter)

[yt]klwWcp9eiPw[/yt]

Most of his claims are the usual "new world order" rigmarole, but since I'm not an expert on US policy (besides constitutional law), I was wondering if anybody here knows of the veracity of his claims. Help in debunking his claims would be much appreciated 

[Ibrahim90]

OK, so I wrote this at about 2 in the morning, and finished it now: I'm sure I'm not perfect, but here's a (shitty) stab at this. I must say I didn't address all of them, as I was not able to verify all of them (WARNING: very long):

[spoiler]1. it's actually immediately under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is in turn part of the department of the treasury. I'm not sure if the law he cites actually says that if it is real. if latter, it was probably a clause related to the US' lending or something--I dunno, don't care. the IRS is still a shit organization.

2. it was formed before the U.N. even met in San Fran--in 1944 to be precise, as part of the Bretton--Woods agreement. it's HQ is also in D.C, which makes no sense when almost every other part of the UN is based in NYC.

3. which is why  the Treasury was reorganized in 2003...wait...

4. in a way I suppose....

5. I didn't even know the United States ever even declared bankruptcy. oh, and this:

[spoiler]Executive Order 12803 of April 30, 1992

Infrastructure Privatization


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that the United States achieves the most beneficial economic use of its resources, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 1.  Definitions.

    For purposes of this order:

(a)    　    "Privatization" means the disposition or transfer of an infrastructure asset, such as by sale or by long-term lease, from a State or local government to a private party.
(b)    　    "Infrastructure asset" means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals.
(c)    　    "Originally authorized purposes" means the general objectives of the original grant program; however, the term is not intended to include every condition required for a grantee to have obtained the original grant.
(d)    　    "Transfer price" means:
(i)    　    the amount paid or to be paid by a private party for an infrastructure asset, if the asset is transferred as a result of competitive bidding; or
(ii)    　    the appraised value of an infrastructure asset, as determined by the head of the executive department or agency and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, if the asset is not transferred as a result of competitive bidding.
(e)    　    "State and local governments" means the government of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, regional or interstate governmental entity, council of governments, and any agency or instrumentality of a local government, and any federally recognized Indian Tribe.


Sec. 2.  Fundamental Principles.

    Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following objectives and principles:

(a)    　    Adequate and well maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to provide for infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greater freedom to privatize infrastructure assets.
(b)    　    Private enterprise and competitively driven improvements are the foundation of our Nation's economy and economic growth. Federal financing of infrastructure assets should not act as a barrier to the achievement of economic efficiencies through additional private market financing or competitive practices, or both.
(c)    　    State and local governments are in the best position to assess and respond to local needs. State and local governments should, subject to assuring continued compliance with Federal requirements that public use be on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, have maximum possible freedom to make decisions concerning the maintenance and disposition of their federally financed infrastructure assets.
(d)    　    User fees are generally more efficient than general taxes as a means to support infrastructure assets. Privatization transactions should be structured so as not to result in unreasonable increases in charges to users.


Sec. 3.  Privatization Initiative.

    To the extent permitted by law, the head of each executive department and agency shall undertake the following actions:

(a)    　    Review those procedures affecting the management and disposition of federally financed infrastructure assets owned by State and local governments and modify those procedures to encourage appropriate privatization of such assets consistent with this order;
(b)    　    Assist State and local governments in their efforts to advance the objectives of this order; and
(c)    　    Approve State and local governments' requests to privatize infrastructure assets, consistent with the criteria in section 4 of this order and, where necessary, grant exceptions to the disposition requirements of the "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments" common rule, or other relevant rules or regulations, for infrastructure assets; provided that the transfer price shall be distributed, as paid, in the following manner:
(i)    　    State and local governments shall first recoup in full the unadjusted dollar amount of their portion of total project costs (including any transaction and fix-up costs they incur) associated with the infrastructure asset involved;
(ii)    　    if proceeds remain, then the Federal Government shall recoup in full the amount of Federal grant awards associated with the infrastructure asset, less the applicable share of accumulated depreciation on such asset (calculated using the Internal Revenue Service accelerated depreciation schedule for the categories of assets in question); and
(iii)    　    finally, the State and local governments shall keep any remaining proceeds.


Sec. 4.  Criteria.

    To the extent permitted by law, the head of an executive department or agency shall approve a request in accordance with section 3(c) of this order only if the grantee:

(a)    　    Agrees to use the proceeds described in section 3(c)(iii) of this order only for investment in additional infrastructure assets (after public notice of the proposed investment), or for debt or tax reduction; and
(b)    　    Demonstrates that a market mechanism, legally enforceable agreement, or regulatory mechanism will ensure that:
(i)    　    the infrastructure asset or assets will continue to be used for their originally authorized purposes, as long as needed for those purposes, even if the purchaser becomes insolvent or is otherwise hindered from fulfilling the originally authorized purposes; and
(ii)    　    user charges will be consistent with any current Federal conditions that protect users and the public by limiting the charges.


Sec. 5.  Government-wide, Coordination and Review.

    In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements of this order. The Office of Management and Budget shall review the results of implementing this order and report thereon to the President 1 year after the date of this order.


Sec. 6.  Preservation of Existing Authority.

    Nothing in this order is in any way intended to limit any existing authority of the heads of executive departments and agencies to approve privatization proposals that are otherwise consistent with law.


Sec. 7.  Judicial Review.

    This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive-branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other persons. [/spoiler]

nothing about it not existing.

6. he is kinda right about them actually. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though.

7. no, not really: SSN's were around before even the IMF.

8. NO SHIT SHERLOCK!!!! again, what does this have to do with anything you have to say?

9. ok....things are getting weird.

10.  I looked at the report: it's not actually there. if it is, it's c. 2 AM, so I'm not at my sharpest.

11. well, it's the headquarters of the U.N., but not actually the "U.N." as a country. seriously...

12. true, true, and false. SS does have a trust fund, but the federal government keeps raiding it. unless that's what you mean, though I'm not sure that that was what this guy had in mind...

13. I can't verify this, but I doubt it's true. besides, as an internet denizen, I believe that no picture= no belief

14. the only resources I found were from other conspiracy loons, so I can't accept this claim.

15. LOLwut?

16. no, he didn't. don't know where the fuck he got it from: neither the treaty of Paris, nor the Peace of Paris mention anything of the like; and none have 80 articles to them. it also doesn't explain why George III nearly abdicated when news of Yorktown reached him (he had a speech and everything, but didn't go through). furthermore, he had no real power to back either side materially: that was Parliament's deal. and as it was under Lord North, it certainly wasn't backing the Patriots. (some MP's did side with the Americans, but they still remained loyal to the crown: William Howe even fought against the Americans, and he was a Whig opposed to British policies).

17. he's only half right: while the Constitution isn't really meant for us (see Shane's constitution videos), it's meant to stop federal government from abusing you and your rights. therefore, you can legally and in principle cite the constitution to defend yourself--since the government would be violated this document's provisions.

18. actually, the treaty of Paris acknowledges the United States as a sovereign state in 1783. and there was no use of the term "United States" to describe a political entity before 1776; the colonies were simply referred to by name: the colony of Virginia, colony of Georgia, etc. and collectively, they were called the "American Colonies", or just "America" (New England only applies to the upper 4 colonies: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island). He's right about British troops not leaving till 1796, but that doesn't mean America was still a colony: just means that the British were being dicks...

19. which was cancelled by the act of Supremacy. and no, the 1213 treaty didn't actually say that (it was just a treaty to humiliate John: he'd pissed off the Pope). and what does this have to do with the United States? oh, and even if the treaty wasn't cancelled, the Papal States were absorbed into Italy, nullifying it: the Vatican city as we know it today is a recent political entity.


20. no, they can't.

21. just checked, it's not mentioned.

22. that is an outright lie: Inter Caetera (yes, I know what he is referring to) was actually about how Spain would carve the New world west of a certain Meridian. it also gave Spain lawful (in church eyes) authority in America.

23. see point 22. the Inter Caetera said little about what to do with Indians--only that any land found by Spain west of a certain meridian was theirs to own, and if people were found by the Spaniards, to spread Catholicism among them. no implication of genocide or anything really.

24. only for Catholics, and is largely religious in nature. most political influence was de facto ended with the peace of Westphalia in 1648, which recognized the sovereignty and independence of the States of Europe--especially those in Germany--in matters of religion. This meant the Pope couldn't coax Austria to attack say, Brandenburg, b/c one it catholic and Brandenburg was Lutheran, as happened in 1571, when the Pope basically told all Catholics to attack Elizabeth I--Spain included.

25. I can't verify this ATM. these are a lot of documents to verify.

26. I'd rather not comment...let's keep this forum somewhat clean.

27. he is right ("the people" really means "the State"; the prosecution represents the government's case: the British IIRC use "the Crown" rather than "the people"). and I do not see what this has to do with his point per se.

28.

29. read the copy I attached previously of the same code.

30. which doesn't really mean we're slaves...not that we are or aren't treated like such by Uncle Sam.[/spoiler]