The United States is still a British Colony?

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Ask any American if they feel they are still ruled by the British and guess what you will get?

I don't really understand what that would prove

There is no way the Queen has rights in America , we lost , why are you trying to make out that we have some influence , when we dont.

I'm not trying to make out - i'm showing you the facts. Jeez.

It's easier to keep spouting the same old tired lines then attempting to examine one's belief about a subject. When you examine what you believe, it will only make the end result even stronger.

So what are you afraid of Bulldog, prove us wrong.

"An unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates

Perhaps you don't understand what has happened in the world in the last hundred years , America is free from Britain we lost the war , America is full of other nationalities now , tell me what the point is that Britain has a say , i think you are talking rubbish, Your research is faulty in the extreme.

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Perhaps you don't understand what has happened in the world in the last hundred years , America is free from Britain we lost the war , America is full of other nationalities now , tell me what the point is that Britain has a say , i think you are talking rubbish, Your research is faulty in the extreme.

No. Our research exists, whereas you have none.
Thank you for the history lesson, now fill in the blanks with the other information posted... there you go, you're up to speed now.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

There are no links on the internet. But if you have cable TV, watch the history channel. You can even order the special they did about it. The title of the series is: "Africa : A History Denied"

Now let me get this straight. There's this huge wall in pieces all across southern Africa and there's no stories about it in any magazines, no articles in any scholarly journals of anthropology or ethnology, no photographs of it, no no mention of it in any high school or university textbook, no tours available for people to go see it, nothing at all except a video you want us to buy.

Correct. And you don't have to buy the video, just watch the History Channel on cable TV. They re-play their episodes every few months. Some libraries, and colleges even have this video and you can watch it for freeee! Or you can buy it. At the end of every single episode of the History Channel, they show information for ordering any episode.
The title of the episode I'm talking about is called:
Africa : A History Denied

It also talks about other things in Africa. Including.... how far Europe has gone to make sure esoteric sites, history, culture, info, empires, societies, in Africa will never be known to the rest of the world.

Unless you fear the History Channel ? I don't get it... its a major, mainstream media outlet, and you fear to check it out? I mean, for 25 bucks, you can buy a video from a major news outlet that covers one of the most covered up, unknown, historical sites on the planet. Its not like Im saying buy a video from some mom n pop set up. You might have to call up the History Channel, cuz I cant find the video listed in their site library.

"Africa : A History Denied" aired a few years ago. So I don't know if their online site only has recently aired shows, or all shows from when the History Channel first aired.

BTW, here's more proof that to the majority of people worldwide, the wall across Britain isnt commonly known by the name you posted:

Great Wall of England

Anyone else intrested in more info about the wall across China:

Great Wall of China

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Right.

Yes Right! Did you know there's many, many, things you, (and even ... me!) and the masses never heard of, but exist and have happened? How about the 2nd American Civil War? Aka Civil War II

American Civil War II

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

Maybe one day Ill travel there and take pics and post em on the internet heheh.

Good. You do that. But in the meantime, don't expect people to rush out and buy a video for something that does not appear or is mentioned anywhere else.

Ummm... It does appear and is mentioned elsewhere. Just not on the internet LOL! Guess what? Before 1994 almost nothing was on the internet. You had to physically go to your local library, or actually order books, magazines, and videotapes.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

The Harlem Renn continued on throughout the Jazz era, which spawned the Rock & Roll era. 1920's on throughout the 1950's.

Here are my citations for the Harlem Renaissance (not "Harlem Renn").

www.nku.edu...
www.fatherryan.org...
www.csustan.edu...

Where are yours?

Alright Ill enter the ring with ya on this little tangent.....

Your 3 links prove me right. The following quotes are from all 3 of them:
"From 1920 until about 1930"
"In the early 1900s, particularly in the 1920s"
"Harlem Renaissance (HR) is the name given to the period from the end of World War I and through the middle of the 1930s Depression, during which a group of talented African-American writers produced a sizable body of literature..."

Note how they guestimate when the HR started, and lasted. Also at the last link you gave, it says this:


"Schomburg Exhibition, Harlem 1900-1940"

www.si.umich.edu...

Personalities of the Harlem Renaissance
1940 Publications of Hughes The Big Sea; McKay, Harlem: Negro Metropolis.

The HR was still going full steam in the 1940's. Some sites say it happend only in the 1920's. Some say only in the 1930's. Some say up to the 1940's. Who's right? Who's wrong? Some say it started in the 1920's. Some say in the 1900's.

I can give my reasons for saying it lasted into the 1950's.... based on a combo of my opinion, and what actually happened in history:

- The Harlem Renn (Hey even they use HR as their choice of abbreviation) at its earliest started in the 1900's and at its latest ended in the 1950's. Cuz before the 1900's there weren't any large numbers of Black Americans in Harlem, NYC. Cuz after the 1950's EVERYTHING the Black Americans created during the Harlem Renn got taken over by white Americans - Jazz, and Rock & Roll.

- The term "Rock & Roll" comes from Black American slang English. It litterally was a synonym for the F word. For F***ing. "Sex" is a more civilized way of saying what its original meaning was. It was invented in the south USA. "Rock n rollin in the hay" was how it was most popularly used. "Lets go rock n roll" a guy would say to a gal. And was taken to the north USA when black Americans from the south migrated in LARGE numbers to the north. This also started the Harlem Renn. The term was in use decades before it was used to name a form of music. Jazz got created and coined around the 1920's. The era of the flappers heheh. And Billie Holiday, Miles D, Cab G, Duke E, and more.

- Rock n Roll is the direct result of the Harlem Renn. The Harlem Renn introduced white Americans to popular black American culture, ideas, books, poetry, and... music, music, music, and... music. And that's where ya get the official Rock n Roll, Elvis, and.. Buddy Holly. WHY do ya think ALL black American bands HAD to play at the Apollo? Cuz the Apollo was the centerpiece of the Harlem Renn. Why did Buddy Holly have to play at the Apollo? Buddy Holly, a white guy, went to an all black area, to play. Cuz it was the center of early Rock n Roll. WHY was it the center of early Rock n Roll? Cuz it was where the Harlem Renn was, and was still going strong from 1900 - 1950's.

IF the Harlem Renn wasnt around in the 1950's like you say, then why would Buddy Holly want to risk his life by playing at the Apollo? He was already a big name. On the road to making it. What was sooo important about the Apollo during the 1950's that he HAD to play it?

Why do ya think heavy metal/hard rock started out as ..... jazz? Cuz Jazz was the centerpiece of the Harlem Renn. And heavy metal/hard rock started in the 1960's LOL! More proof the Harlem Renn definatly lasted into the 1950's.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Ask any American if they feel they are still ruled by the British and guess what you will get?There is no way the Queen has rights in America , we lost , why are you trying to make out that we have some influence , when we dont.

Heh, ask any American who the first 5 presidents of the USA were and they can't answer. Ask em what year the ciivl war started and they cant answer. Ask em to name 5 guys who signed the Declaration of Independance and they cant answer. Do you really think any American would know for sure if the people who rule Britain also rule America?

There's even an American saying "I'm American, I'm dumb!".
What it means is - "I'm American, and because I'm American, all others have to cater to me. Even if I know nothing, I'll still be catered to!"


[edit on 5-6-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

Open Secret, which of your two contradictory stories are you sticking with?

“They re-play their episodes every few months.”
Or
“Africa : A History Denied" aired a few years ago.”?

“you can buy it. At the end of every single episode of the History Channel, they show information for ordering any episode.”
Or
“I cant find the video listed in their site library”?

Neither can I, Open Secret!

When I did a search of the A&E Site using “Africa” as a search argument, here’re the shows that I got.

1. Gold Mines DVD (Modern Marvels)
2. Voodoo Secrets DVD
3. Shaka Zulu: The Complete Epic Mini-Series DVD set
4. A Fragile Freedom: African-American Historic Sites DVD (Special Presentation)
5. The Flame Trees of Thika DVD set
6. Nelson Mandela: Journey to Freedom DVD (BIOGRAPHY)
7. South Africa: Free at Last (20th Century with Mike Wallace)
8. Dorothy Dandridge (BIOGRAPHY)
9. Uganda: Wildlife on the Edge (Investigative Reports)
10. Secrets of the Desert War (Dead Men's Secrets)
11. Human Bondage (History's Mysteries)
12. Dr. Livingstone, I Presume (In Search of History)
13. The Man Who Would Be Chief (The New Explorers)
14. Secrets of an Ancient Culture (The New Explorers)
15. Robert Mugabe (BIOGRAPHY)
16. Stanley and Livingstone (BIOGRAPHY)

Maybe there is no such show, ya think?

Here's a few links for you Off the street:

movies.channel.aol.com...
www.worldcatlibraries.org... a09e526.html

www.library.american.edu...
www.travelvideostore.com... 2&products_id=1350

Originally posted by Jamuhn
One needs to look at the origins of copyright law to see under what laws the corporation of United States was formed, hint: it will take you back to Britain. As well, as was alluded earlier, the inferior negotiating status of America during the Paris Treaty raises suspicions.

As well, there are lots of links showing that the Queen of England had some part in amending the Social Security laws in the United States. The information can be found here.

As well, perhaps it is not wise to refer to the US as a British colony, but as a colony of "The City".
en.wikipedia.org...

And who is in charge of The City, well that will take you to the Vatican City and the Pope himself.

Very nice post Jamuhn….

Lets take a look at what civil law in this country is derived from and see if there is any common ground here?

Civil law
Civil law is a legal system derived from Roman law and commonly used in Europe. It is mainly contrasted against common law.
Civil or civilian law is a legal tradition which is the basis of the law in the majority of countries of the world, especially in continental Europe, but also in Quebec (Canada), Louisiana (USA), Japan, Latin America, and most former colonies of continental European countries.The Scottish legal system is usually considered to be a mixed system in that Scots law has a basis in Roman law, combining features of both uncodified Civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis and common law with medieval sources, further influenced by English law after the Union of 1707.

Corpus Juris Civilis
The Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) is a fundamental work in jurisprudence issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Byzantine Emperor.
Justinian gave orders to collect legal materials of various kinds into several new codes. These codes became the basis of the revival of Roman law in the middle ages. This revived Roman law, in turn, became the foundation of law in all civil law jurisdictions. The provisions of the Corpus Iuris Civils also influenced the canon law of the church since it was said that ecclesia vivit lege romana - the church lives under Roman law.

I even found a link on this in a modern Law Microfiche Library, under the subject of Canon Law, which also comes from this codification of the law.

Canon Law

Canon Law, in its most accepted usage, encompasses the law of the Roman Catholic Church. This body of doctrine has also exercised a major influence on the "law" of the Anglican Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Orthodox churches of the East, and (to the extent that some of the post-Reformation churches have developed law) the related doctrine of the established churches in Germany and Northern Europe.
Canon Law is far from a "dead" legal system. It plays an important part in the civil relationships and lives of millions of Roman Catholics and others worldwide. Nor is it merely a legal system. Both scholars and theologians regard it as a sacred science related to dogmatic and moral theology. Finally, this same body of legislation plays a contemporary role in guiding the governance and shaping the policy of the Roman Catholic Church itself.
Equally important for contemporary practice and scholarship is the role played by Canon Law in the development of Civil Law, the legal system of continental Europe, Latin America, and parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. While modern Civil Law was actually codified less than two centuries ago, the Church had developed its own code, partly based on the codification of Justinian, hundreds of years before.
The subjects treated often overlap, especially in the areas of status and personal rela-tionships. An appreciation of the influence of Canon Law upon the development of European legal systems reaching back to the very concept of codification is essential for a complete understanding of these modern institutions and their applications. Thus Canon Law has played an important role in the legal growth and history of the law in all European jurisdictions, with this influence extending even to such Protestant regions as Scandinavia. It even influenced the (often retained) personal aspects of law in the former socialist democracies of Eastern Europe, and certainly will remain as these countries reintegrate into the broader European framework, often returning to pre-war codifications.
In England Catholic Canon Law affected the development of chancery jurisdiction, a basic Common Law transformation of a Civil Law approach. Naturally the canon law of the English Church, always somewhat independently guided and influenced, was transformed into Anglican Canon Law during the 16th century. Apart from the political and constitutional aspects, however, Anglican Canon Law has retained a form discernable as being of Roman Catholic origin.

Now lets take a look at one section of Corpus Juris Civilis, where it mentions sacerdotium et imperium , or “priesthood and empire”:

This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of the Emperors assert, and the words of your most reverend piety testify. It is therefore claimed that what the Scriptures state, namely, "By Me Kings reign, and the Powers dispense justice;" will be accomplished in you. For there is nothing which shines with a more brilliant lustre than genuine faith when displayed by a prince, since there is nothing which prevents destruction as true religion does, for as both of them have reference to the Author of Life and Light, they disperse darkness and prevent apostasy. Wherefore, Most Glorious of Princes, the Divine Power is implored by the prayers of all to preserve your piety in this ardor for the Faith, in this devotion of your mind, and in this zeal for true religion, without failure, during your entire existence. For we believe that this is for the benefit of the Holy Churches, as it was written, "The king rules with his lips," and again, "The heart of the King is in the hand of God, and it will incline to whatever side God wishes"; that is to say, that He may confirm your empire, and maintain your kingdoms for the peace of the Church and the unity of religion; guard their authority, and preserve him in that sublime tranquillity which is so grateful to him; and no small change is granted by the Divine Power through whose agency a divided church is not afflicted by any griefs or subject to any reproaches. For it is written, "A just king, who is upon his throne, has no reason to apprehend any misfortune."

GOVERNMENTAL REPRESSION OF HERESY

In the same connection, it should be noted that the Popes often speak of the "state" or "society" or "government" as being subject to the law of Christ, bound to obey the teachings of Christ, to be ruled by the Gospel, etc.; such expressions are found, for instance, in Pius XI's Ubi Arcano and Quas Primas, and are current elsewhere. The meaning is luminous in the light of the false doctrines of laicism that are condemned; but the precise extension of meaning is to be understood by us, as by the Church herself, ex natura rei: what is the law of Christ for the state, or government, or society, as determined by the action and end proper to each of these realities? No one, for instance, would contend that the state, or a government official in discharge of his public duty is subject, as a matter either of precept or of counsel, to the law of Christ as embodied in the prescriptions of Christian asceticism, in such wise that the fundamental law of abnegation and renouncement should become an integral element of governmental policy, as a means of leading the state to Christian humility.

Looks like our law is based on Civil/Common/Canon law that comes from Justinian, and therefore we are actually under the authority of Rome and the Pope...


Edit Urls not working

[edit on 6/6/2005 by defcon5]

the queen ameding US social security is a joke!!!

One quick glance at the websites in the link show it is untrue.

Particularly the line in the email on the website that describes "the court at buckingham palace". This simply isn't a institution of the Uk monachy. The court is still based at St James Palace not Buckinham palace (its where all ambassodors are appointed to). All other UK official bussiness is through either the palace of Westminister or the palace of Whitehall depending on if it is from the government or the civil service respectively.

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
the queen ameding US social security is a joke!!!

How so?

One quick glance at the websites in the link show it is untrue.

Which one(s)?

Particularly the line in the email on the website that describes "the court at buckingham palace".

From which link?

I think anyone who believes Britain has anything to do with ruling present day America is silly, nomatter what it says on the internet . Are you wanting us to be responsible for your massive debt? The facts are we don't have a say in other countries , that is in the past now, our Empire has gone and we are back to being a small island nation.

So you are ignoring facts, evidence and research bulldog over your own observations and vague knowledge of history?

the queen ameding US social security is a joke!!!

How so?

One quick glance at the websites in the link show it is untrue.

Which one(s)?

Particularly the line in the email on the website that describes "the court at buckingham palace".

From which link?


Post number 1436740 has a link to a google web search on 'social security queen'. The first couple of links all refer to the same email. I was stating that the lauguage used in that email bares no relation to 'official UK documents' and that it should be treated as highly suspect.

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
Post number 1436740 has a link to a google web search on 'social security queen'. The first couple of links all refer to the same email. I was stating that the lauguage used in that email bares no relation to 'official UK documents' and that it should be treated as highly suspect.

What about the actual text of the article? Is that suspect too?
64.233.167.104... ache:rDREfI-fOF8J:www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/97177801.htm+S.I.+1997+NO.1778&hl=en

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Open Secret, which of your two contradictory stories are you sticking with?

“They re-play their episodes every few months.”
Or
“Africa : A History Denied" aired a few years ago.”?

No contradiction. I viewed it a few years ago. That's when they first showed it. The History Channel does re-play episodes every few months. I don't watch it every single night so IF they ever did re-play "Africa : A History Denied" I never caught the re-play. I have caught re-plays of other episodes.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
“you can buy it. At the end of every single episode of the History Channel, they show information for ordering any episode.”
Or
“I cant find the video listed in their site library”?

Neither can I, Open Secret!

When I did a search of the A&E Site using “Africa” as a search argument, here’re the shows that I got.

I agree, its wierd they don't have it listed on their site. I plan to phone them and ask them if it can be ordered.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Maybe there is no such show, ya think?

Oh, there is such an episode. I know it for a fact. It's like saying the 1968 World Series might not have existed. When I have more time, I'll attempt deeper digging.

Alright! I've found it!!!

www.okhighered.org...

4 Titles down from the top

"footage of ancient ruins all help students visualize what ancient Africa was like."

"Controversies throughout time surrounding the history of Africa also are discussed."

- - - - - - -

www.library.american.edu...

2nd Title down from the top

- - - - - - -


www.rrcc.edu...

AFRICA, A HISTORY DENIED. YEAR: 1995. SERIES: LOST CIVILIZATIONS #8. 48 MIN. VH 4596.


Whoah I can't believe it was 1995 when it first aired on the History Channel! LOL! I ... have... to ... force... myself to not .... think about how long.... ago that.... was.... *sweating n feeling older than he did 30 mins ago*

Originally posted by paranoia
Here's a few links for you Off the street:

movies.channel.aol.com...
www.worldcatlibraries.org... a09e526.html

www.library.american.edu...
www.travelvideostore.com... 2&products_id=1350

Know what? I missed this post of yours!!! LOL! MAN!! THANKS SOOOO SOOO MUCH FOR FINDING ALL THAT!! You did a better job than me LOL!!
THANKS !!!!!!

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Actually the entire Treaty that ended the American Revolutionary War is void. Due to the fact the USA was never a colony in the first place. And it never was/is a sovierign country in the second place. It is a very little known fact that the USA is a company. A corporation. The Dutch East India Trading company first owned the USA.

Nice one!

Yeah reading Chomskys "Year 501 and the conquest continues" is a big eye opener.

You see the Dutch king gave the VOC (Vereinigte Oostindische Compagnie -thats united east india company in dutch- ) the power of State... ie he said" your in charge now".

So The VOC owned Holland first then the US of A... and we're worried now that corporations are taaking over?!?! It started 500 years ago!


[edit on 20/7/2005 by Corinthas]

[edit on 20/7/2005 by Corinthas]

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by junglejake
Quite simply, I would look beyond the treaty to the actual politics. We very obviously today aren't a British colony. Even in 1812, during the only war the US has ever lost, the causes for the British invasion weren't related to this treaty. Both sides seem to have seen it as a declaration of American soverignty.

Umm... we didn't lose the war of 1812. We signed a Peace Treaty of sorts, I forget what they are called right now. It is where you agree to lay down your arms. In fact, in that war, the British were well on their way to another loss. We had just had a very decisive victory when we were out manned. But that is moot, the only war we lost was Vietnam, however, this wasn't a war!

However, America is nothing like Great Britain. If anything the UK has become an American Colony as they do almost whatever we wish of them to do.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by Ryanp5555]

No they don't. The British only have the same foreign policy as the Americans.

Or maybe you prefer if Britain joined the Axis of Weasels it stand. It can't win either way.

I've also heard that it's not Britain that's the poodle of the US, it's the US that's the poodle of Britain. It just LOOKS like the US is the leader because it's bigger.

But we all know that it was Britain's idea to go to Iraq and the US followed us, but Britain PURPOSEFULLY makes it look like it was America's idea and that we followed them.

And it's very clever and devious.