Monthly Archives: February 2013
Wow. So much has happened in sixteen moons. Everything I feared would literally kill my mind, body, spirit and soul, happened in a very short span of time.
I’ve known I am strong. I just never gave myself credit for just how strong I am. I’ve also learned how sensitive I am. Now, ask anyone in my family and they will say I am the emotional one, but I am talking about a different type of sensitive as well. This last year, I have learned I need to take special care to protect myself from other people’s energy and vibration.
Today, I found a place to live and I am happy. This has been a long road. I move in two weeks.
Corporations Masquerading as Government in Australia & World Wide
Co-Founder of Wake Up World
Which represents real (de jure) government in Australia?
Which is seen on “government” literature ?
Would you be surprised to find a company with the same name as your country registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington DC? Well, guess what?! Among those listed as corporate entities by the United States SEC are Israel, Turkey, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, The Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Jamaica, South Africa, Canada, Australia… and my personal favourite (and I quote) “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta as represented by Alberta Investment Management Corp.”
Interesting! So what could all this mean? For the purpose of this article we will follow the example of Australia.
Australia…. the lucky country?
- SEC Entity Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
- SEC Central Index Key (CIK): 0000805157
- SEC Standard Industrial Code (SIC): 8880 (UNKNOWN)
- SEC Business Address: 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036
- Fiscal Year End: 0630
Well, that certainly raises some questions!
Why is a company called ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ registered in Washington DC? What reason could there be for a country to be registered as a company?
By definition, aren’t corporate and government entities mutually exclusive? And doesn’t government regulate companies?
Why would Australia be registered with the SEC in the United States? And why would it provide a ‘Prospectus’ and annual ‘Economic and Fiscal Outlook’ documents to the SEC? And be subject to SEC regulation?
Could the ‘Australian Government’ be a corporate entity masquerading as real government, for profit, and not for the purpose of governance? Does the ‘Australian Government’ truly represent “the people” and not shareholders in another country?
What happened to “we ARE government”?? Does this suggest they are NOT true government, but a company masquerading as government?
If a company registered in Washington DC is falsely claiming government status in Australia, what happened to the real (de jure) government with a similar name? And when?
And are the laws in Australia therefore just rules for employees and contractors of the corporation?
Interesting. Let’s look a little closer…(click here for more)
Corporations Masquerading as Government (Part II): Which “Government” Can We Trust?
17th December 2012
By Scott Bartle
Guest Writer for Wake Up World
It appears that Corporations are masquerading as government in countries around the world – for profit and not for the purpose of governance. We know the role of true government is to act as trustees for the people… to provide services to the community, to represent its interests. But do those claiming government status today truly act as our trustees? Does real government still exist? What the FUQ is going on in government today????
Let’s go right back to the beginning… before there was Government.
When each of us is born, our parents take on the role of Executor of a trust. They appoint Trustees like nannies, school teachers, dentists etc. to return benefits to you as the Beneficiary. Your parents may make the determinations about your care, but they do so on your behalf until we reach maturity.
When we become of age (whatever age that is) we take on the role of Executor, and continue to appoint Trustees to return benefits to us as Beneficiaries. This is a global human phenomenon; even the most isolated tribes in the deepest jungles appear to behave in the same way. Let’s call this a Natural Trust.
How Does This Relate To Government?
In the same way we appoint nannies and dentists, we also appoint Government as a Trustee. They perform an administrative service and return benefits to us as Beneficiaries. We enjoy the benefits of roads, schools, public health services etc… or at least that’s how it should work. Most people, I believe, would be comfortable appointing Government as a Trustee – provided Government functions according to this Natural Trust, and more importantly that Government actually serves the people.
But what if somewhere, something went wrong..?
What if the Government, appointed as Trustee, started serving another master? What if the actions of Government were benefiting others – like shareholders? Would you trust them enough to appoint them your Trustee?
Inconsistencies in the Representation of “Government”
Let’s first look to the United States. The original Constitution reads “The Constitution for the United States”. As of 1871, a Constitution was substituted and reads “The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
So which is it? Which one is legitimate? How many constitutions are there?
A similar scenario appears to be taking place in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) tells us that Government is named “Government of the Commonwealth”.… yet occupying the country’s capital is the “Australian Government”.
Further inconsistency manifests in the name of the Parliament holding office in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) defines Parliament as ”The Parliament” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth”. This is in direct contrast to the entity called “Parliament of Australia” which is currently occupying the country’s capital.
Surely the Constitutions in both America and Australia aren’t so weak that legal entity names can so easily be substituted? It doesn’t take a constitutional lawyer to tell you there are strict rules for altering constitutions; that’s why we have referenda. But does anyone remember the referenda that enabled these changes to be made?
And is it just the name that’s different..? Click here to read more