Conspiracy of Words

CONSPIRACY OF WORDS
An Open  Reply to Clint Richardson

Intro: Clint Richardson and I first encountered each other as guests on a 3rd pary’s radio program.  Over  a few subsequent months we discussed disagreements over this country’s problems via Skype text messages, and these discussions became heated. More recently I posted  a brief comment to an article on Clint’s “Reality Blog”, and Clint responded at length.  What follows is my response to Clint’s comments there.

Clint, thank you for your charitable welcome. However I’m afraid that we have a profound disagreement on our condition, and approach to evaluating that condition..

My overall disagreement with your thesis, in which you dissect words by their syllables to award them inappropriate meanings, a process that has no valid basis, is that it amounts to a “conspiracy of words” which, even if it had any merit, offers no benefit whatsoever, and no solution to the current corruption and our problems,  short of reducing mankind to a primordial communication of guttural grunts and gesticulations, devoid of any complex concepts, and any significant social structure.

The method of disassembling words to their syllables and then applying generic connotation to those syllables in order to make a series of connections between words, is not actually a valid approach, and does not constitute any sort of recognized Etymology, all while dissembling the foundational principles of this country.

The history of the English language unmistakably shows it is not constructed like bunch of Lego blocks pieced together to form words, but rather is the result of Greek and Roman influences, with its basis being Anglo-Friesian dialects brought to Great Britain in the 5th Century. The English language was then expanded by inclusion of German, French, Italian and Spanish words, as well as prefixes and suffixes.  The result is that the English language  has no developmental control resting in the hands of any singular sinister group, has no consistent methodology of word structure,  and is even recognized as having the most troublesome syntax  of any language — essentially a language that does not lend itself to being represented as a “conspiracy of words”.

The actual Truth to our condition is not some grand conspiracy of words, but rather the gradual and progressive corruption over time, not originally involving any sort of Machiavellian plot of extraordinary proportions, at least not involving the words themselves.  This is borne out by not only the historical facts, but English etymology.  The problem invariably has been one of corrupt men seeking to usurp more power than they legitimately held.  Fortunately, the words themselves are fine, and only some person’s understanding of those words is lacking.

My original post on your blog made a brief comment addressing the inappropriate authority you award to law dictionaries.   It is a gross distortion to represent those definitions in law dictionaries as being “legal definitions” – they are not anything of the sort.  Those definitions have no particular authority under the law, but rather only involve the more narrow or specified definitions which are more likely to be used in  communications in the legal profession. However, this does not exclude the use of what you describe as the ‘common” definitions from use in those same legal communications as well. It should be obvious that communications within the law profession do, and must necessarily use those common definitions.   Contrary to some rumors, the legal profession does not use its own separate language.

The proponents of the Sovereign Citizen theory typically reference Bouvier’s and Black’s law dictionaries as if these were some sort of overriding authority on, not only the meaning of words, but also the fact of our existence.  However, the reality is that “context is king”, with the actual connotation of the words being used being contingent upon the  context of the discussion, and this recognition is crucial to proper understanding.  Context is the critical consideration to all communication.

For example, in a 2011 interview discussing Obama’s gross overreach in the office of the President, Representative Allen West stated that, “The President is the chief executive officer in this corporation called the United States of America”.  Many misunderstood West’s comment to be a startling admission that the United States is some sort of clandestine Legal Corporation, when it was nothing of the sort. In context of the discussion, West was indicating that the federal government’s very existence is from the corporation (or formation into one body) of the sovereign States, and as such the federal government can only legitimately operate under limited authorities provided it.  Recognition of “corporation” as the formation of a singular body, or corpus (Latin), is important to understanding the context of West’s remark.

Contrary to your representation, these definitions from law dictionaries are not in some sort of opposition to the “common” usage and meanings, but rather invariably owe their origin to that common language, with the definitions having ties to that common understanding in some regard.

While some words in law dictionaries are “terms of art”, they are not by any means a majority  of the words, and none of them are “proprietary”.    Terms of art are merely a concise way of referencing complex concepts by a more manageable single word, or phrase, thereby avoiding  the cumbersome summation of those complex concepts every time the concept is referenced.

Terms of art are not in any way “artsy”, particularly if that reference is intending to imply some sort of falsehood, or dishonesty.  Such a representation would be irresponsible and inaccurate.

While understanding legal communications may be difficult for the average individual, this is not from any sort of conspiracy involving use of a separate secretive language, but rather from the inadequate vocabularies of these individuals.. Our task in communication is to understand these words in the context they were used, and not to create a new language and history from imposing our prejudices upon others words.

ETA,  Question:  Clint, there is one question I hope you can answer, particularly as a host of a program called “The Corporation Nation”.  What evidence do you have that the United States federal government is legally incorporated?   Some time ago a caller probed John Stadtmiller with that very question on his program, and Stadtmiller then passed on the question  to co-host Ronald McDonald.   McDonald’s answer as to proof the federal government was incorporated was, …  to cite a dictionary. (A dictionary! Are you kidding me?) .   It should be obvious that dictionaries do not dictate reality, and no incorporation under the law has ever occurred by any dictionary.  Clint, I’m hoping you can provide a much more valid explanation as to how this alleged incorporation occurred, and what might be the possible gain, given that incorporation would provide the federal government with no new authority or immunity. .

 14^th AMENDMENT:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….”

Some theorists have viewed the first sentence of the 14^th Amendment, and interpreted certain words (highlighted in blue), to have resulted in the deliberate corruption of that Amendment, specifically the words  “persons”, “born”, “subject” and the phrase “citizens of the United States.”  However the context and actual application of these words does not involve any sort of subjugation or enslavement.  These theorists interpret “person” to be some sort of enslaved lesser being, “born” or birth to be the point at which that enslavement began,  the adverb “subject” relating to jurisdiction to be a noun describing servitude, when it only is a reference to the terms active upon persons who are citizens, and  they view “citizens of the United States” to be a newly created federal citizenship, when this federal citizenship has existed since the Articles of Confederation and is established by Article IV, both  there and in the Constitution, by the Full Faith and Credit clauses in both documents.  None of these interpretations have any reasonable basis, nor are these beliefs at all recognized and referenced by any authorities acting upon us.   There is actually no evidence to support or validate these interpretations in anything that is occurring.

While it is recognized that the 14th Amendment was illegitimately ratified by compulsion under the corrupt terms of Civil War martial law, the 14th Amendment is not itself intentionally any great corruption, and even as recognized at the time by its authors in Congress, only sought to make citizens of those who for generations had  been slaves and not recognized as members of any society.

The actual corruption of the 14th Amendment came about 30 years after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, by the methodical corruption of the Gray court in United States vs Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Horace Gray changed the application of “jurisdiction” from being the complete political jurisdiction, which has bearing on citizenship and effects the children of Ambassadors, Indians “not taxed” and aliens equally, to now being legal jurisdiction, which has no relevance to citizenship whatsoever.  In so doing, Justice Gray contradicted his own preceding decision from Elk vs Wilkins which recognized that political jurisdiction, and fabricated anchor babies, which is blatantly legislating from the bench, and being done in contradiction to the explicit intent of Congress.

This is all supported by examination of the legislation from the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868 on to the 1898 corrupt in Wong Kim Ark, which I detail in my blog article, Ending Birthright Citizenship.

Instead of taking on the personal responsibility and drudgery of actually educating themselves in this history and our language, some few individuals have chosen a series of entirely unfounded beliefs involving their victimization by a “conspiracy of words” which tragically even necessitates the belief that the U.S. Constitution was never intended to apply to the common man, when it is actually our only salvation.  No, the Preamble’s reference to “posterity” does not indicate it applies only those founder’s direct “progeny”.  I can state unequivocally that those Americans who believe the Constitution does not apply to them and benefit their liberties, are ignorant of that Constitution.

 

Supporters of these views believe such absurd things as:  a “person” being some sort of enslaved corporate asset, when person is only singular of people;  that the United States is a legal corporation subjecting us to super-secret corporate bylaws, when no such incorporation has ever occurred,  there would be no gain in authority or immunity by such incorporation, and bylaws only apply to corporate officers; that Citizenship is some sort of enslavement, when it is only the legal membership in a society; that the decor of a courtroom (i.e. fringe on a flag) determines the jurisdiction (i.e. Maritime), when it is entirely irrelevant; that birth involves the pulling up of waters onto land, subjecting us to Maritime Law, when very few Americans have ever had any aspect of Maritime Law actually applied to their consideration before the court;  that witness to a birth amounts to the surrender of that child as a property if the state, when that witness only serves as testament to that birth’s occurrence

These beliefs, and many others, are so devoid of any shred of evidentiary support, so utterly failing to provide any actual understanding and remedy, and so deep into the realm of “galactically stupid”,  that every adult having any distance from pubescence should be ashamed at having any association whatsoever with these superstitious beliefs.

The result of adherence to these and similar beliefs is that the few followers engage a whole series ridiculous incantations and posturing, all intending to extricate themselves from odious, oppressive authority, and even exempt them from the repercussions of their own actions.  They refuse to identify themselves by the combination of their Christian and surnames, particularly when capitalized – as if this were some sort of trap, instead choosing to identify themselves by such convoluted terms as “Christian name of the family Surname”.  They attempt to remove themselves from an imagined 14th Amendment federal citizenship, representing  themselves as only citizens of a given State, when that federal citizenship has always existed commensurate with State citizenship, from the moment the colonies became States under the Articles of Confederation;  and they refuse to answer simple questions in the positive,  such as, “Do you understand?”, foolishly believing the positive response somehow constitutes their consent to some obscure legal jurisdiction, when that’s not how the various jurisdictions of law are applied.

Invariably when faced with the utter failure and painful outcome of these misguided rituals and  incantations, the True Believer ascribes that  outcome to the corruption of the Court involving the discard of some sacred principle, such as common law.  Yet that common law is the Court itself decreeing from the bench what the law shall be, and is deliberately not any principle of this country, much less the equivalent of our natural law roots.

When forced to react to the failure of these incantations, rather than recognizing their own foolishness, the True Believer instead imagines the Court only  refused to recognized the necessary presentments and declarations sent at the appropriate times,  because, if recognized,  the irresistible force of these mystical incantations would invalidate and dismantle the entire process.  Therefore the only conceivable  recourse to the True Believer is to double-down on their approach, with minor variation, in hope of fine-tuning the incantation, or in bitter desperation, to resort to extreme action for entirely invalid reasons.

As indicated, this is long past excusable ignorance, and it is a destructive Cancer offering no positive benefit, at the worst possible time in this country’s history.

The beliefs of these few are recognized to be so absurd that those beliefs are used to stigmatize and dismiss the valid movement to restore real Liberty and constitutional governance.   For instance,  despite Cliven Bundy being conversant in the Constitution’s prohibition of the federal government from owning lands or writing laws within the sovereign States, despite Bundy referencing Article and Section of the Constitution, despite Bundy knowing the precedent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, Cliven Bundy was still condemned in all branches of the media as being an ignorant Sovereign Citizen, when this is nowhere the basis of his case!

Similarly more than 40 persons are now being held as political prisoners in this Land of the Free for their involvement in the Malheur Refuge occupation.  Also Terry Trussell is sitting in prison facing multiple felony charges of simulating a legal process, and the response of these person’s  supporters is to try to compel county commissioners to form their own independent citizen’s Common Law Grand Jury, which is still simulating a  legal process and in no way legitimate.

These tragic outcomes for essentially good people, doing exceedingly ignorant things, are the result of having subscribed to thoroughly improper beliefs popularized by people who have no real clue about the “gospel” they’re spreading.

We desperately need do be doing things differently, and that is why I object so strongly to your approach. Furthermore, from an overall perspective, it is extremely ironic that you propose the existence of a “conspiracy of words”, while you yourself engage in serial word abuse.

CONCLUSION:

Clint, when beliefs are contradicted by fact, and nowhere supported,  then those beliefs are commonly recognized as having been disproven.   When a whole series of unfounded and  disproven beliefs are maintained, then those beliefs are recognized to be myth and superstition, which do not possibly provide any positive benefit.

In fact, it can be argued that adherence to such false beliefs regarding the corruption of this country only serves as an obstacle to true understanding, and barrier to  remedying the corruption that plagues this country, disabling us in the restoration of our liberties.

Clint, I truly believe that you sincerely want the restoration of that Liberty, and the limitation of government to only the specified, enumerated terms recognized by this nation’s founders, and therefore hope you might reconsider the theories you now promote, and join forces with other Americans to reach a positive outcome.

I welcome any response here from Clint Richardson, as well as cogent responses from others relative to this discussion.

 

Cruz – No Constitutionalist, Trump – No Savior

 “Those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
~ Benjamin Franklin

While it may appear at the outset that the focus of this article is criticism of Ted Cruz, the issue is really much larger than Cruz, and involves the indictment of the American people and the government which we have so blithely allowed, and even encouraged.

During the GOP Presidential Debate on Thursday, March 3rd, Ted Cruz was asked about Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor turned whistle-blower.  and Cruz reversed his previous position on Snowden, now pronouncing Snowden a traitor.

CRUZ: “The evidence is clear that not only [did] Snowden violate the law, but it appears he committed treason. . Treason is defined under the Constitution as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America, and what Snowden did made it easier for terrorists to avoid detection,”

Cruz indicated that it was “clear” that Snowden was guilty of Treason, because he had fled first to China,  and then to Russia, both viewed as archetypal American enemies.   It is evident that Cruz’s adjudication is entirely oblivious to the current status of Justice, the American government, and the American legal system, ignoring the fact of the NDAA, and the Executive Branch’s own deliberate indication that it might kill Americans on American soil at its whim, particularly if they are seen as any sort of hazard to the vaguely defined “national security.”

This is an extremely disturbing perspective on Cruz’s statist mentality. Cruz is equating anything that might incidentally make it easier for terrorists to be undetected, with Treason. Not only has Cruz reduced the purpose of government, and the cornerstone principle of this country, to being “obey the law”, but Cruz has also reduced Treason to being anyone violating “the law”, and by that might somehow make things easier for terrorists. . Who is a terrorist, by this corrupt statist perspective?   A terrorist is evidently anyone who acts against the government’s laws and dictates, regardless of the legitimacy of these.

“That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.”
~ Declaration of Independence,

By Cruz’s own perverted rationale, anything that might make it easier for terrorists to avoid being caught is equivalent to giving those terrorists aid and comfort – treason! Therefore when the government is violating each and every American citizen’s protection against the unreasonable search and seizure of their personal information, and has laws against making these secretive “classified” actions by the government public knowledge, then it is the laws themselves which Cruz believes take precedence, not our liberties.

“Thou Shalt  OBEY!” regardless of the conditions.

Cruz has perverted the purpose of government to being about government itself, rather than  protecting our rights, as indicated by the Declaration of Independence, and built into every structure and limitation upon the federal government itself within struture provided by the U.S. Constitution. Yet Cruz would have us believe he is a “strict” and devout constitutionalist.

Most definitely Cruz should have simply stated his own opinion about Snowden, without drawing in reference to the Constitution in an attempt to give his own opinion a false authority, showing yet again his willingness to subert  the Constitution itself for his own gain.  Perhaps it is needing to be said that this is not at all an admirable trait for someone desiring to serve in the office of President — and indeed we’ve already gone this route for the last 8 years.

By direct extrapolation of Cruz’s reasoning,  every one of our allegedly unalienable rights  can be curtailed and denied, entirely alienated,  provided it makes it easier to catch those terrorists, even sacrificing the freedoms of Speech, Assembly, Religion and the Press —  not to mention any right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Our freedom of Assembly might be sacrificed next, and doing so could be justified by making it easier to catch terrorists, while those campaigning for the return of this freedom might be condemned as treasonous, given that this ability to freely Assemble  makes it easier for terrorists — treason!  In fact the logical end of Cruz’s Mad Hatter Tea Party reasoning is that we can forgo any trial as well, as doing so would only enable and encourage those terrorists by delaying Cruz’s pale rendition of “justice”.

This has all been done before, not only to the inhabitants of these lands before our independence, but by the most unsavory regimes in mankind’s subsequent history.

With allegedly “strict constitutionalists” like Ted Cruz typifying the Republican party,  exactly how is the GOP any better than the Progressive Marxists now in control of the Democratic party and the presidency? They’re not, with each being an equal threat to our freedoms and the Constitution itself.

In 2013  when Snowden first went public, exposing the NSA snooping and acquisition of American’s personal information, Cruz had an entirely different perspective on Snowden’s actions, describing his actions as “a considerable public service”:

“If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light.” Cruz, 2013

At that time in 2013, Cruz put a further edge on his view of Snowden in his subsequent statement to The New York Times, in which Cruz indicated that  Snowden should be prosecuted if he broke the law.

Cruz to the NY Times: “If Mr. Snowden has violated the laws of this country, there are consequences to violating laws that is something he has publicly stated he understands, and I think the law needs to be enforced.”

Laws! We must have LAWS, doncha know!

Apparently the most important consideration is the absolute control by the federal government,  which is another “T” word: Tyranny.  However Cruz seems oblivious to this word,  perhaps  believing as some naively do, that as long as we have elections then there cannot reasonably be any sort of tyranny.

In response to Cruz’s condemnation of Snowden as a traitor,  Edward Snowden tweeted the following reply, “Aiding the public is treason only if the voter is your enemy.”.   Snowden has an excellent point here given that so much of what the government is doing treats American citizens as if they are the enemy, particularly if they want the Constitution upheld. .

After Cruz deliberately misrepresented the terms for qualification for the office of President in order to gratify his own political ambitions,  I cannot find the words to express my thorough disgust at Cruz accusing Snowden of being a traitor, given that Snowden has not possibly had any gain from exposing the illegitimate and criminal conduct of the federal government, though Cruz himself does invariably gains by his positions.

In fact Snowden is only one of the first proverbial “canaries in the coal mine”, with many others  having fallen since, inclusive of Dwight and Steven Hammond being prosecuted and jailed wrongly under an inapplicable federal Anti-Terrorism act, and 25+ others now sitting in prison and facing charges for the peaceful occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, charged with conspiracy to interfere with federal officers, when the federal government has no legitimate constitutional authority to own lands within the States, nor  any constitutional authority to write laws directly applicable to the people of the States for interference with those lands illegitimately held.

Are you heeding these falling canaries, or watching the coverage of an irrelevant presidenti9al election, where not even one of the participants exhibits any regard whatsoever for these alarming gross violations of the Constitution by the federal government, and its ever-threatening stance to the citizenry?

Polling On Snowden

No one can be certain what resulted in Cruz’s hardening of his judgment against Snowden, from Snowden having done a “public service”, to now being guilty of treason, but over that time period public opinion has changed too. It’s very likely Cruz is merely following populist opinion, which isn’t exactly inspiring as far as leadership skills.

In June and July of 2013, shortly after Snowden’s initial revelations about the NSA data gathering, and at the time of Cruz’s original comments,   . Two polls conducted by Quinnipiac University found 55% viewed Snowden as a “whistleblower” while just 34% viewed him as “a traitor.”

In contrast, two years later in August 2015, 53%  of polled Americans support espionage charges being brought against Snowden, while only 26% were opposed to a federal prosecution.

What’s fascinating about this poll is the partisan split over the issue of a presidential pardon.  While 56% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans said they would support government espionage charges against Snowden, the issue skews widely when the consideration of a presidential pardon is introduced.. Republicans reject the idea of a pardon by 57-24, while Democrats and independents were more evenly divided. Given the fact that this question was phrased specifically referencing Obama issuing that pardon, this might account for the Democratic favorable support of that pardon.   However the Obama Justice Department,  which is quite well-established in its inclination to support federal tyranny at any cost, has only made indications highly unsympathetic to any leniency for Snowden.

My own perspective is that this shift of of American sympathy away from Snowden is the result of the mistaken belief that the issue of government intrusion and collection of our metadata has been addressed and resolved, when this is absolutely not the case at all.  The issue is no longer in the forefront of American media, and therefore out of sight, and out of mind of the average American.

The Rest of the Field

All of the rest of the Republican contestants on stage for the March 3rd debate voiced their support for prosecuting Snowden, namely “Little Marco” Rubio, John Kasich and Donald Trump.

While Kasich and Rubio spent the night trying to find their upper lip and spine, respectively, they both also managed to similarly condemn Snowden.

In the meantime Trump assured the audience that he knew that Snowden was “a spy” and knew this “right from the beginning”:

Trump: “Right from the beginning I said he was a spy, and we should get him back. And if Russia respected our country, they would have sent him back immediately, but he was a spy. It didn’t take me a long time to figure that one out. Believe me,”

Oh really? If Snowden were  spying, then who does this Tower of intellectual insight imagine that Snowden was spying for, and how did he profit from this alleged spying?     This ridiculous proclamation, made even more so by the misplaced pride of of its delivery, is every bit as bad as Cruz’s certainty that Snowden is a traitor.

Trump then went on to repeatedly assure the audience in that if he were President, Putin would turn over Snowden  immediately, “I guarantee you that”, in a rambling repetition that was just short of being reminiscent of Captain Queeg’s testimony about the theft of the strawberries in the Caine Mutiny.

The Trump Card

I support Trump tremendously as a candidate, and cannot support any one of the other candidates at all.  However supporting Trump as  a candidate because he undermines the corrupt status quo does not transfer over to having faith in Trump as President, much less Trump being any sort of salvation in this hour of crisis.  I believe it is foolish for people to so blindly jump aboard the Trump bandwagon given our dire condition.

Keep in mind that Trump has brought up a series of popular concerns, but never once had a viable solution to those concerns, much less exhibited anything approaching a thorough understanding of them.   This absence of a thorough understanding  draws into question Trump’s sincerity on these issues.

Trump brought up anchor baby (misnomered) “birthright” citizenship,  but had no idea how this corruption came about, much less the appropriate means to end the corruption.  When Carly Fiorina wrongly indicated that ending birthright citizenship would require an amendment to the Constitution, Trump did not counter with a strong indication that this was  untrue, and certainly did not indicate that these anchor babies were only the result of a corrupt interpretation by the Court a full thirty years after the 14th Amendment (U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark, 1898).

Trump’s reference to the Article II natural born citizen  requirement precedes his entry into the race for President, but his understanding of the terms for natural born have not advanced at all beyond having a birth certificate, and perhaps being born in the country.  Cruz even took advantage of Trump’s ignorance on this matter, and lied to America that some believe the terms require the parents be born in the country, which would make Trump himself unqualified, yet Trump did not martial any sort of effective response to this accusation.

Even Trump’s address,  as a Wharton graduate, of China’s devaluation of its currency is ineffective and shortsighted by failing to recognize the outcome of China no longer devaluing that currency necessarily results in the cost of goods at Walmart skyrocketing.  The real solution is to remove our regulation and  taxation deliberately intending to prohibit entry of new competition in the American economy,  the  result of crony capitalist influence.  However Trump has repeatedly been a participant in, and beneficiary of, just that crony capitalism.  Let us not forget his donations to even Hillary.  Trump’s name proudly appearing on everything he creates serves every bit as much to grease the skids of preferential treatment as do his varied political donations.   Trump has no interest whatsoever in ending the status quo corrupt crony Capitalism.

Trump’s biggest card is to make America “Win again”,  but he doesn’t really define the terms of that winning, just as Obama never indicated the terms of “Change”.  Trump proclaims we need effective negotiators, but in reality what Trump is calling for is a new “Big Stick” philosophy, as if America really needs to further heighten its militarist focus, which actually works counter to the restoration of our individual liberties.

There really is no evidence whatsoever of Trump being any sort of salvation.

Conclusion

Last week during her radio program, KrisAnne Hall pronounced that the the presidential election “is the very least important thing going on in the country right now.”  Undoubtedly many in  Hall’s audience, and Americans generally, are resistant to this recognition, as we engage our Pavlovian participation in the election process, ignoring that this serves to validate the overwhelming current illegitimacy of our government.

The fact of the matter is that the outcome of this election, no matter the winner,  cannot possibly change the systemic institutionalized corruption evident in all 3 branches of government, to reverse the government’s gross overreach and  total discard of the Constitution.  There are indeed far more important and alarming events going on all around which demand our attention — the proverbial “Canaries in the Coal Mine” (forthcoming article).

When all the possible outcomes to the question “Shall we play a game?” are no-win scenarios, then the only rational response is to no longer play that game.  The election should not be our focus for restoring this Republic.

References:
August 2015 Morning Consult Poll = Breitbart

April 2015 ACLU Poll

Washington Times Edward Snowden on Ted Cruz Debate Slam

The Hill: Cruz Flipflops on Snowden

 

 

The Three Shots That Killed LaVoy Finicum

UPDATE!:

The Washington Standard has a recent article that addresses the video details discussed here, addressing the same video by shuff1111, a.k.a. “Call of Duty Goddess”, see below.

 

 

Please, please share this information with everyone you can!  WE MUST GET THE WORD OUT.  JUST AS THE COLONIALS DID WITH THE FIRST SHOT IN CONCORD IN 1775!

The videos below from The Connors Report  radio show, January 31, 2016, are discussing the fact that Lavoy Finicum was shot twice before the kill-shot by the “sniper” from behind, and he was not at all reaching for a firearm, as the FBI is falsely claiming.

The first shot actually came from the agent crouched at the tail end of the black pickup truck, who fired at Finicum with his hands up as soon as Finicum came into  view as Finicum walked away from his white truck up the embankment.  Upon being shot, Finicum’s hands dropped to his left abdomen, but then immediately went up again. Finicum was clearly not reaching for a firearm.

After shooting Finicum,  the agent then immediately retreated into the group of officers on the far side of the pickup, and then the  second shot came from the officer immediately in front of Finicum — both shots were fired without any threat whatsoever being posed by Finicum, who was exhibiting total surrender, and had exposed his position completely.

There was no threat by Finicum, and the ONLY TIME he briefly dropped his hands was to the wound in his left side upon realizing he had been shot!

The claim by the FBI that Finicum was shot because he dropped his hands and was reaching for a weapon, is false, and reverses chronology.  Finicum’s hands dropped immediately after being shot,  only reaching to the wound in his abdomen, and then immediately raising his hands again.  Finicum never reached for any weapon at all.

 

An FBI spokesperson indicated that after all the other occupants of Finicum’s truck were taken into custody, Lavoy Finicum was examined to see if he could be given medical assistance.  However given the fact that the officers continued to shoot Finicum long after he had fallen, it is clear that the intent of the officers was to eliminate the possibility that Finicum might remain alive.  Long after Finicum was down and ceased all movement, gun lasers can be seen trained on Finicum’s body and head in the high-resolution drone footage.   No persons taken into custody that day fired a single shot.

The actions by the FBI and OSP on January 26th are nothing short of despicable, criminal conduct, unacceptable in any civil society governed by the legitimate rule of law, with these actions being justified after the fact by the thoroughly false claim that Lavoy Finicum had reached for a firearm.  However Finicum had not done so, not even after having been shot repeatedly.

 

This evidence indicating three shooters concurs with Victoria Sharp’s interview statements indicating Finicum was shot 3 times before falling, with Sharp’s statements being made prior to the release of the FBI drone video.

Robert Lavoy Finicum was a great, noble and honorable man, who proved himself a true patriot by his peaceful actions, and inaction, even in the face of death.  Now LaVoy Finicum has become an immortal martyr,  a symbol for the struggle to remove this country’s illegitimate and grossly criminal government.

 

Burns Oregon – the Shot Heard Round the World – the First Shot at LaVoy Finicum;

Original Video by shuff1111  “LaVoy Points Out the Person That Takes The First Shot At Hm!” discussing the 3 shots of LaVoy FInicum evident in the FBI footage, the topic of the radio  program segments below.

Connors Report radio segments from January 31st 2016
Segments:

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5e9Kv5Xk5A

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFdQ3dM7TP8

3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5e9Kv5Xk5A

4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0w1DHSne3I

5)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DES-BM23Ee0

6)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLERKvpeZTI

7)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MpJ4FxV-BM

8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8H6J9E-XIk

References:

Article discussing the evidence at Liberty Born:
“Obey Tyranny Or Die”
https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/obey-tyranny-or-die/

Hi-Rez FBI Video (even the gun lasers are visible)

UPDATE:

The Washington Standard has a recent article addressing the same video details presented by  shuff1111, also known as “Call of Duty Goddess”,  which are discussed in my own above article.

The Washington Standard article by Tim Brawn is titled, “Enhanced Video Shows LaVoy Finicum Point Out Agent that Took First Shot at Him.” and indicates the following:

“In an enhanced video of the LaVoy Finicum shooting, it becomes much clearer that he was shot by one of the agents on the scene, but then after dropping his hands to where it appears he was shot, he then points to the agent that shot him just before he was shot a second time and finally with a third shot from behind.”
 
“The explanation of Call of Duty Goddess seems extremely plausible as you can see the one agent fire and then retreat.  Then Finicum drops his hands momentarily. If he was going for a gun, would he not be justified in doing so? He was shot unlawfully. However, it would seem more realistic that he was naturally responding to being shot.”

“What’s even more telling is that he clearly points to the agent that shot him before the agent in front of him shoots him.  Finally, upon turning, possibly hearing the man behind him, he is struck from behind, which takes him down.”

It seems that the word is getting out!
 

 

Obey Tyranny Or Die

“Obey federal authority, or die”, that’s the clear message delivered to Americans this week.

The protesters occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge on January 2nd, and over the course of 23 days, those protesters came and went from the town of Burns, and had unfettered access to the refuge, interacting with the people of Burns, and winning some support.  The FBI and federal government could have closed off the refuge at any time, causing those present to become discouraged and leave but did not do  so.   But on the 24th day they closed off 40 miles of highway to create a lethal trap.

The government clearly did not want a peaceful resolution, it wanted to send a clear message.

Yesterday the FBI released aerial drone footage of operations by the FBI and OSP involving the “traffic stop” ambush of persons heading from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to a scheduled public meeting at the Senior Center in the town of John Day, at the invitation of Sheriff Palmer of Grant county, to peaceably discuss the issues surrounding the occupation of the Wildlife Refuge, and work towards a resolution.

Is the footage complete and unedited?

It should be noted up front that this drone footage, which the FBI itself labels as  “Complete, Unedited”,  is in fact heavily edited, and edited for a deliberate purpose.   Despite the focus of the footage being LaVoy Finicum’s white truck, there is no footage of Ryan Payne sticking his head out of the passenger window of Finicum’s truck to communicate with authorities and being shot at, nor is there any footage of Ryan Payne later exiting Finicum’s truck, laying down, and being taken into custody.  There is likewise no footage of the surrender of the occupants of the Jeep, driven by Mark McConnell, with Ammon Bundy and Brian Cavalier as passengers.  There is only periodic footage of that Jeep motionless on the road,  without  even  any authorities visible anywhere around it.

Jn fact the FBI version titled the “Edited Version of FBI Video” interrupts the video footage at 00:29:53  with the screen message, “There is a passage of approximately 3 minutes 47 seconds while the truck sits not moving.”   The deliberate implication of this message is that there had been no activity from the occupants Finicum’s white truck during this entire time, yet we know from the two eyewitness reports that Ryan Payne exited the vehicle and surrendered during this period.   When the Edited Version resumes at 00:33:41, Finicum’s truck immediately proceeds down the road toward the roadblock.

Meanwhile “Complete, Unedited” FBI footage only shows the initial stop of Finicum’s white truck and then  Finicum later going down the road to the roadblock.  By the footage presented, the FBI would have us believe that no other interaction occurred between the occupants of Finicum’s white truck, or other Jeep, prior to Finicum’s fatal shooting. However following Finicum’s shooting, they do show the remaining passengers from the rear seat of Finicum’s truck being taken into custody: Victoria Sharp, Ryan Bundy, and Samantha Cox.   Given that Ryan Payne was nowhere among those surrendering at the time of roadblock, it’s undeniable that Payne previously exited the vehicle and surrendered to authorities.

The perspective provided by the tailored presentation of this heavily edited footage is that everything ended up well once Robert LaVoy Finicum was removed from the equation by abruptly ending his life. However Finicum wasn’t in any way the source of the problem, and there is a high probability this will become even more evident by future events.

By the unmistakably heavy editing of this video footage, contrary to the titling by the FBI as “Unedited”, it is apparent that the federal authorities intend to present a skewed perspective of events so as to bias the viewer in favor of the action taken, and to justify the murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum in cold blood.

The reason this ambush took place outside the compound, is that LaVoy Finicum was the able spokesperson for the group’s motivation by the terms of the Constitution, and Finicum never, ever left the Malheur Wildlife Refuge compound… except to attend the public meeting that day.   The Feds wanted to remove the group’s voice of unity, LaVoy Finicum, and thereby cause the occupiers to disband.    It’s as simple as that.

Since when do we have the death penalty for Trespass, and peaceful protest?  What happened to the Redress of Grievances? None of those persons taken into custody were violent felons, not-a one was a modern day Bonnie of Clyde.  Every one of those persons taken into custody is charged with the federal offense of “Conspiracy to Interfere” with a federal government employee engaging in their duties,  a felony with a six year prison sentence, which is unmistakably the gross misapplication of that law — further highlighting the federal tyranny.   It’s not as if the federal government has any sort of urgent need to take care of the wildlife, in the middle of Winter.

Public Discussion & Peaceful Resolution

They were on their way to a public discussion at a Senior Center to address the very real and valid grievances against the federal government as a result of the prolonged and deliberate violations of the Constitution.

The United States Constitution, even as currently amended:

1)  provides NO  constitutional authority to the federal government to own lands within a State upon statehood, except forts, Arsenals, (military bases), dock-Yards, and “other needful buildings”, detailed in Article 1 Section 8.  The “Property Clause” in Article IV, detailing the relationship between the federal government and sovereign States, provides the federal government no further award of authority over any lands beyond A1S8, and addresses the need to write needful rules to the lands recognized in Article 1,Section 8.  In that Property Clause, the indication of capital-T  “Territories”  is a Proper Noun, having specific meaning and not just a general reference to “territory”, is specifically referencing only unconsolidated Territories that have not yet become States;

2) The Constitution provides no authority to the federal government to write laws directly applicable to the people of the several States  The federal government only has authority to write laws to those limited lands detailed in A1S8, and the District of Columbia itself;

3) The Constitution recognizes the unalienable right to petition the government for redress of grievances;

At the initial stop of Finicum’s vehicle,  Ryan Payne was allegedly shot at when he only stuck his head out of the vehicle to communicate with officers — an unwarranted use of lethal force, with this unmistakably being the cause of Finicum’s subsequent actions, flight down the road to the roadblock, and there exiting the vehicle saying “just shoot me.”  The entire ambush itself was the illegitimate and unnecessary use of obscene amount of force for the sole purpose of the Federal Government demanding its usurped authority be recognized without question – brutal Tyranny.

LaVoy Finicum’s Last Moments

From the video footage, Robert Lavoy Finicum exited the vehicle with his hands up in surrender, and then stepped away from the vehicle in a non-threatening direction, traveling up the bank, entirely exposing himself to the authority of the officers. Finicum’s every action was indicating surrender. He did not “charge” anyone, as has been reported.

The first shot to strike Finicum was NOT from the officer immediately in front of him, but rather the office Finicum had nearly sideswiped as he tried to bypass the roadblock. That officer had reloacted to  the tail end of the dark truck and fired, hitting Finicum as he was traveling up the hill with his hands raised. The firing officer immediately retreated to those behind him.   Then while  Finicum’s  hands were  again extended in surrender, the footage shows that Finicum was shot the second time by the officer immediately in front of him.

At this point Finicum dropped his hands to his abdomen, which may have been from either of the two shots to strike him, and with both hands at his stomach, Finicum staggering backwards, one foot behind him, and then turned away from the roadblock and away from any officers, facing down the road, his back turned even to the approaching sniper in the woods.   If Finicum was intending the aggressive act of drawing a weapon, as it is alleged,  then having his back to every one of those officers is obviously not the position in which to engage the use of that firearm.  Robert Finicum’s life was abruptly ended by a sniper comping from the woods behind him, no more than 20 feet away, shooting Finicum from behind.

LaVoy finicum was not first shot while he was allegedly reaching for a gun, but rather he was shot twice beforehand, first while exiting the vehicle and traveling up the bank, and then again by the officer immediately in front of him, while his hands were raised, causing his hands to drop to his stomach.  Upon realizing the gravity of his wound, Finicum then turned his back to the officers, in a feeble effort to flee for his very life, whereupon Finicum was executed from behind.  Finicum was never reaching for a gun, and the occupiers never fired a shot.

Added: Listen to KrisAnne Hall’s description of LaVoy Finicum’s shooting, from the perspective of Finicum himself, starting at the 25m 13s mark.

The indication from the FBI is that Finicum  was shot while reaching for a semi-automatic pistol in his “waistband”.    This is rather curious given the fact that one’s waistband is a rather inconvenient and uncomfortable location for a pistol, particularly for someone bent at the waist while while driving a vehicle.  In fact Finicum was not known to carry a semi-automatic  pistol, but rather was never seen without a revolver, which he lawfully carried in a shoulder holster.

In fact no shots were fired by any one of the persons taken into custody, despite the overwhelming barrage of bullets discharged at them by federal agents.

Robert Lavoy FInicum was murdered in cold blood by federal agents exercising an obscene excess of illegitimate authority in support of the illegitimate federal claim of property within the State, that  came about from the gross violation of the only legitimate authority provided that federal government by the Constitution

Yet these federal authorities would have us believe that this institutionalized corruption is legitimized by its own precedent, which is once again the hallmark of Tyranny.

The occupation of the Malheur Nature Preserve came about precisely because of longstanding federal abuses, as  well as the sentencing of the Hammonds under the Federal 1996 Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act, which has no legitimate application to the controlled burn of lands that has gone in open range land for nearly a century, and is employed by BLM itself.  However BLM  has repeatedly started its own burns with the deliberate intent of terrorizing ranchers, and to cause harm to their ranches, cattle, and fences, even burning down their homes.

Those officers involved in the ambush and killing of Finicum are guilty of  Conspiracy to deny rights, as well as denial of rights under the color of law,  and given a death occurred by their hands, the death penalty is applicable to those officers,  as indicated by the federal government’s own statutes, Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 241 & 242.

Added: Attorney KrisAnne Hall, in her January 29th video addressing the FBI footage, compares Finicum’s shooting to December 5, 1775, the Boston Massacre.  I respectfully disagree with KrisAnne on this.  If anything is comparable to the Boston Massacre in effect, it would more likely be the unjust imprisonment of the Hammonds, that resulted in the Malheur Refuge occupation.  I believe that history will likely view Robert LaVoy Finicum’s cold-blooded murder as being on par with the first shot fired at Concord’s North Bridge,  April 19th, 1775, the “shot heard round the world”.    I agree that Americans may not be ready for another 1776, but then this country’s founders could never have sufficiently ready to take on the world’s greatest power.     Readiness is irrelevant to the urgent and immediate need to remove this unrestrained abuse of illegitimate authority.

Contrary to what the federal government apparently hoped, the deliberate murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum was not the end of the standoff, but rather is very likely only the beginning of something far bigger.

 

 

 

Cold Blooded Murder in Oregon

 

UPDATE!:

Further eyewitness video Testimony about Oregon shooting, below.

 

Last night I was closely following the developing events in Burns Oregon, even before they happened, due to an ongoing disagreement from the previous day between Mark Connors and Pete Santilli.

What happened last night was nothing short of the cold-blooded murder of LaVoy Finicum,  a man, a father, a husband, a grandfather – someone standing up peaceably for everyone’s liberties.

LaVoy Finicum was doing nothing more than  traveling to a public meeting with Ammon Bundy and others,  to discuss the issues and express the cause for the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.   They were going to this peaceful meeting arranged by the Sheriff, and they were stopped for a “traffic stop” by that same Sheriff and  the FBI.

Did they have  a headlight out, or perhaps they came to a rolling stop  at a stop sign?

No, it was a deliberate ambush on a desolate road that had no cell service due to surrounding canyon walls.  According to the eyewitness report of Victoria Sharp, there were even snipers in the trees awaiting them, and as many as 40 law enforcement vehicles involved, all for a “traffic stop” of people only going to a peaceful public meeting, which the Sheriff and FBI were fully aware of in advance.   It was unmistakably a planned ambush.

The claim it was a  “traffic stop” is nothing but the gross misrepresentation of fact to pretend legitimacy under the color of law.

The media is reporting that there was a “shootout”.  For there to be a shootout, there has to actually be shots fired from both sides, yet none of those traveling with Ammon Bundy fired a single shot.  There cannot be any sort of shootout when one side does not fire even a single shot.  Reuters, MarketWatch, The Guardian, Institute for Public Accuracy (oh, irony).

The media is reporting  only three shots being fired,  resulting in the death of LaVoy Finicum, yet the eyewitness report is that approximately 120 shots were fired at the vehicles and occupants, with numerous shots into the vehicles.

The media would have us believe that these occupiers of the Nature Preserve have no legitimacy, and are nothing but terrorists.  Despite the fact these occupiers have  inadequately conveyed the legitimacy of their actions, the inescapable fact is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to claim ownership of any lands within a State, beyond forts, arsenals (military bases), dock-Yards, Post Offices, and other “needful buildings”.

Only a day before this lethal traffic stop, in a video interview, LaVoy Finicum  had indicated the need for more dialog, and was alarmed by the abrupt change in “tone and tenor” of the federal authorities, leading  to this grossly unwarranted abuse of lethal force.  It is clear that the intent was to shut down this disobedience, and do so in such an excessive fashion that it limits further uprisings by overwhelming intimidation.

LaVoy Finicum had surrendered with his hands in the air,  and was indicating his desire to speak with the Sheriff, and was shot repeatedly, his life brutally ended when he was only traveling to public meeting so as to engage a dialog to find a peaceful resolution.   Additionally Ryan Bundy was shot three times, and another was wounded as well.

Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered in cold blood by federal agents only one day before his 56^th birthday, today.

Every single federal agent and the  Sheriff officers that fired their weapons last night, need to be taken into the people’s custody, pending an autopsy and ballistic analysis on Finicum, as well as the shots into the vehicles.

At that point,  all officers  that fired their weapons should be charged with First Degree Murder.   Conspiracy to Commit Murder,  the Denial of life and rights under the color of law, and numerous other charges,  and prosecuted by a jury of their peers to the fullest extent of the law, with the death penalty being applicable.

When man can no longer rely on the rule of law, then he becomes subject to the rule of men – tyrants – and we no longer have a civil society.

Yet what is the LEAD BANNER on Drudge?    Rubio surging in Iowa!

On  Breitbart?    Trump and the debates!

On FOX  News? A plea for the PROTESTERS to be reasonable!

Last week  KrisAnne Hall gave a lecture in Burns Oregon on the Constitution, and she had a security detail accompanying her while there.  That security detail was not  because KrisAnne had  any fear of the protesters occupying the nature preserve, by her own statement, but rather because she was afraid of our own federal government, and did not want to be taken into custody, without anyone knowing her whereabouts.

This is not the America we are promised, nay, guaranteed by the Constitution!  However that Guarantee will never be honored if we do not demand it.

If we do not all rise up NOW, and demand these federal agents be prosecuted, and the Federal government returned to its only legitimate “box” within the District of Columbia, then we are lost as a nation.   God help us, because  if we do not do so, we are doomed to be nothing but serfs, slaves to tyrannous government dictating every aspect of our lives.

T. J. McCann, III
Valley Forge

UPDATE:

Beyond Victoria Sharp‘s video statement, there is a second eyewitness video description of the events  from the driver of the other vehicle, Mark McConnell.   McConnell only witnessed the Finicum vehicle’s original stop approximately 200 yards head of him, and was then able to see a person he was unable to identify exiting that vehicle and being taken into custody, which would be Ryan Paine.

McConnell does not provide any indication of shots at that other vehicle prior to Finicum driving it further down the road and into the snow drift.

In the video statement, McConnell claims that Finicum exited his vehicle and “charged” at the law enforcement officers, resulting in Finicum’s shooting.   However McConnell indicates this claim was provided to him second hand by Shawna Cox, a passenger of Finicum’s vehicle, while they both were in police custody. This claim that FInicum exited his vehicle and charged law enforcement officers is specifically contradicted by Victoria Sharp’s own video interview, in which Sharp indicated of Finicum, when specifically asked by the interviewer, that “he (Finicum) was just walking with his hands up.”   Sharp further indicated that Finicum’s hands were still up when he fell.

Without direct confirmation from Shawna Cox, it is quite possible that McConnell has misinterpreted something Cox told him, and that there is no actual witness claiming that FInicum charged toward the law enforcement officers.

Furthermore, Victoria Sharp’s statement about Ryan Payne and the Finicum vehicle being shot at by law enforcement at the initial stop, would serve to justify Finicum having driven further down the road, as well as him stating to law enforcement “just shoot me” upon exiting the vehicle, without this being any sort of death wish on Finicum’s part. Finicum’s responses become far more legitimate given the fact that he was originally shot at without cause. However Mark McConnell’s own video statement provided no indication of there being shots fired when the Finicum vehicle was originally stopped and within his sight.

Ryan Bundy was reportedly wounded in the shoulder by the enormous rain of bullets and gas canisters shot at Finicum’s vehicle, following Finicum being shot dead.

The lead vehicle  – driven by LaVoy Finicum, with Ryan Payne in the passenger seat, and in the rear seat was Ryan Bundy (L), Victoria Sharp (C), and Shawna Cox (R).

The trailing vehicle – driven by Mark McConnell, with Ammon Bundy and Brian “Buddha” Cavalier as passengers.

Given this, to further establish the events immediately resulting in LaVoy Finicum’s death, we  need to obtain direct testimony from Ryan Bundy and/or Shawna Cox regarding the final moments, and from Ryan Payne to establish that there was indeed shooting by law enforcement officers at the original vehicle stop.

 

KrisAnne Hall on the Oregon Events

Cruz Lies to America!

On January 14^th, 2016 the FOX Business Network hosted the GOP Debate in Charleston, South Carolina.   Neil Cavuto, anchor and managing editor of the Business Network, was a moderator, along with Maria Bartiromo.

During the debate, under the spotlight of a live national broadcast, Cavuto asked Ted Cruz about Cruz’s qualification to hold the office of President, given the Constitution’s requirement to be a natural born citizen, as a result of Cruz’s birth in Canada.  Up front Cavuto recognized that Cruz’s citizenship was not in question.

See Video below (Time Stamp: ~2:02 )

Cruz began his answer by indicating that John McCain was born abroad in Panama and was able to run for president, and that Mitt Romney’s Dad was able to run for President  despite being born abroad, because of their parents being citizens.   Here Cruz subtly misrepresents the Constitution’s demand as “being able to  run for President”,   despite the fact that requirement only prohibits those not being natural born from holding the office.  The requirement for President says nothing whatsoever about “running for office”.

Quite obviously those who have previously run for office, including McCain and George Romney,  are not necessarily natural born citizens as a result of having run for that office.   This also applies to  Roger Calero, who was on the  ballot in 5 States in the 2008 Presidential election, and yet Calero was not even a U.S. Citizen.

By  Cruz’s  reference to  those who “ran for office”,  implying they were qualified to hold that office as natural born citizens, it should now be apparent that Cruz began a calculated dishonesty intending to confuse and manipulate the ignorant American voter from the very start of his response to Cavuto’s question.

Cruz then indicated the following further practiced, deliberate falsehood:

“.. the birther theories, that Donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones, insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified,and interestingly enough Donald J. Trump would be disqualified… because.. because  Donald’s mother was born in Scotland.”

WRONG!  As consistently recognized in  5 separate Supreme Courts decisions over this country’s history, the terms of natural born ONLY require that the parents must be CITIZENS at the time of birth, in addition to the  offspring being on the country’s soil! 

According to Cruz’s explanation, those five distinct Supreme Court decisions, as early as 1814 (The Venus), must necessarily be “birthers” as well, which is obviously untrue!  These terms have nothing to do with those “birthers” at all, however tagging the issue as “birther” is a good way for Cruz to dishonestly impugn the issue by false association with those birthers. There is actually no existing claim made by anyone conversant in the actual facts, that the parents must be born on the soil as well as the offspring.  

This falsehood was no mere mistake by Cruz, but rather a calculated and practiced lie promoted by Cruz, done to rely, again, on the ignorance of the American voter, while simultaneously using that dishonesty to make it appear as if even the front-runner, Trump, might not be qualified.

Cruz then went on, saying, “On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I’m not going to use your Mother’s citizenship against you.”   This was obviously a very poor yet calculated attempt to echo Ronald Regan’s famous response (video) during the 1984  Presidential Debates regarding Mondale, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Once again we have clear evidence that this response by Cruz was practiced and deliberate.

Throughout Cruz’s answer, the Cruz supporters were cheering, showing that they actually had no  awareness that Cruz was lying to them, as well as no knowledge of the Constitution and its terms for natural born.  Yet it is these same supporters who insist that Cruz is our salvation, asserting that he is a constitutional conservative, which he clearly is not.

Finally Cruz ended his answer by reducing the qualification for President to being simply American, saying they are “all Americans on this stage”, and by this entirely dismissing the stringent demand stipulated by the Constitution for the office of President, showing no real regard for the Constitution overall.  Instead, Cruz continued, he wanted the selection of a GOP candidate to be by who is most qualified candidate, as adjudged by the voters, yet again entirely discarding the fact that there is any constitutional mandate limiting those qualified to hold the office.  That’s some constitutional conservative there!

Cruz cannot be that stupid for this clearly practiced answer to be a legitimate mistake. If he is that stupid, Cruz doesn’t belong in the office of President. Cruz just believes that we Americans are that stupid.  Are we?

Sure, Cruz went to law school, but they don’t  teach the Constitution in Law school,  they teach Constitutional Law, and certainly don’t teach the meaning of natural born.   On his own, Cruz could have researched  those five Supreme Court decisions over this country’s history that recognize natural born to  be “birth in the country to parents who were citizens”, along with numerous other qualified references.  Yet Cruz would have us believe he did not do so, no staffer did so, and that if caught in this lie,  it might just be dismissed as a legitimate mistake.

At minimal, Cruz undoubtedly has heard these terms accurately related by others, heard that they require the parents to have been citizens (only) at the time of birth, yet he chose to misrepresent these terms for his own benefit.

Cruz’s response was clearly choreographed by Cruz campaign staffers and consultants, and is unmistakably a very practiced, deliberate lie intending to rely on the ignorance of the American electorate.

I cannot, and will not ever, vote for Ted Cruz because he is not a natural born citizen, and neither is Marco Rubio, nor Bobby Jindal, nor was John McCain.   Donald Trump however is a natural born citizen.

An enormous number of Americans now want this election to turn out well because they are desperate to restore this country, and legitimate government by the terms of the Constitution. However what Cruz is showing is only more of the same smarmy  Washington corruption and disregard for the Constitution, all while abusing the American people themselves.

Overall, Cruz’s answer to Cavuto’s question clearly demonstrated that Cruz puts his personal ambition ahead of country, Constitution, and even his own integrity,

Ted Cruz is not the answer.  The question is whether  you’re smart enough to not be sucked in by Cruz’s series of calculated lies.

 

J.B. Williams – Endless Natural Born Nonsense

In a recent January 16 Article on News With Views,  writer J.B. Williams has penned yet another article addressing natural born citizen titled, “TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE ENDLESS NATURAL BORN DEBATE.”  Unfortunately nowhere in Williams article is there anything resembling facts, much less truthful ones.

Williams’ article actually misrepresents the #1 terms for natural born citizen, when it is solely own distorted cherry-picking of Vattel’s writing, in which Williams entirely bypasses Vattel’s  explicit and clear definition of natural born stated in  § 212 of Law of Nations, and instead extracts only the immediately following reference to paternalism, and the father determining the citizenship of the offspring.  It is this reference that Williams represents as the legitimate definition of natural born, despite it being one recognized by only Williams himself.  Talk about “truth”…

As far as the actual definition provided by Vattel, Williams presents this as his #3 recognition of natural born, but dishonestly impugns this as only the “birther” definition. Williams then proceeds to blame those birthers for focusing on McCain, and thereby allowing Obama to remain unchallenged in office.   Notably, by this specious rationale, Williams has revealed the motivation for his extensive abuse of Vattel as being  an underlying prejudice to validate only one individual – John Sydney McCain.

All the evidence, as provided by Williams himself,  clearly indicates Williams’ own prejudicial determination  to recognize John McCain as a natural born citizen, even while still condemning Obama, with the difference between the two being the status of the fathers. Therefore Williams reprehensibly pushed past Vattel’s clear and concise definition of natural born, onto the irrelevant narrative of about paternalism, solely for the purpose of supporting his  own preconceived agenda of vindicating McCain, and condemning Obama.  The result is a theory which is in no way resembling valid argument.

In an email exchange between myself and Williams regarding his specious claims, Williams defended his article with the following explanation:

“The column separates in total, six competing views…. Because it is those competing views that make the term unenforceable for seven years now. The “birther” definition is not the original meaning of the term, as I state. But it could be the a Founders original intent, as I also state. …  you falsely claimed that what I wrote was not true or accurate, and I assure you, it is entirely true and accurate.”

J.B. Williams, via email, January 19th, 2016

Let us proceed to examine the “truth and accuracy” of Mr J.B. Willaims’ representations regarding  natural born citizen:

In the course of an email exchange over nearly a year with J.B. Willaims about natural born, Williams has exhibited a gross ignorance of the fundamental issues, making such claims as the following:

1) The  Article 1, Section 8  reference in the Constitution to “Law of Nations” is actually a direct reference to Vattel’s treatise.  False, it is a reference to what we might recognize generally today International Law.
2) That Vattel is the source of authority for the terms presented in his treatise Law of Nations. False, Vattel only documented what was then commonly recognized.
3) That “Native” has the same meaning as “Native Born”. False, the two references have distinctly different meaning.
4) That “true citizen” mentioned by Vattel is the same as natural born, when it is only a phrase used by Vattel to indicate that the child’s following of the father  might be recognized by law, resulting in that child being an actual “true citizen” under the law, rather than one just following the father by inclination.
5) That the terms of natural born go back to the  Bible and Old Testament, when the social law Williams references in that ancient past has no more bearing on natural born than the social laws (Paternalism) of the more modern past, or the the statutory laws of the present!   Blatant ignorance across centuries having no support.

In those previous email exchanges, I have provided Williams a more thorough insight into his misunderstandings, but to little or no effect.

What follows is my own  citation of history and fact regarding natural born citizen, in contrast to Williams’ own representations, even as I conveyed them to J.B. Williams via email.  Decide for yourself which narrative provides the more direct factual references:

ACTUAL TERMS FOR NATURAL BORN

#1 ORIGINAL ROOT TERMS FOR NBC:   Vattel accurately recognizes the fundamental terms of natural born with his indication  in  § 212 of Law of Nations being “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” 

Over the course of this country’s history , at least 5 separate U.S. Supreme Court decisions have recognized the same terms as Vattel, with some of these citing Vattel specifically, and others only providing the definition.

1814 – The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289, (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens)
1857 – Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, (Justice Daniel concurring uses same definition and cites Vattel)
1875 – Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-681884, (same definition without citing Vattel);
1879 – Ex Parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);
1890 – United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal.) (cites and quotes Ex Parte Reynolds, same definition and cites Vattel);

By somewhat less direct argument:
1872 – Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36
1884 – Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94

Curiously JB Williams would have us believe that these cases must involve “birthers” as well.   Yet obviously even a fossil like McCain was nowhere around in those early  times, but this is the level of ignorance and corrupt representations that Williams’ article stoops to.  JB Williams is extremely fortunate that News With Views has no comments section, or else his claims would  be eviscerated by many who are not nearly so ignorant.  In truth, those who recognize Vattel’s terms of NBC  hold the actual “birthers” in tremendous disdain, along with their fixation of playing “Where’s Waldo” with the birth certificate. Yet Williams is oblivious to this as well in his corrupt intent to falsely impugn the issue as “birther.” 

There are also numerous comments identifying the  terms of natural born over this country’s history by other qualified persons, such as  John A. Bingham, co-author of the 14th Amendment, who indicated on the floor of the House, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”  (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

#2 NBC DEFINITION FOUNDED ON BRITISH “COMMON LAW” DICTATE:
in 1898, thirty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Justice Horace Gray argued in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that, by  British Common Law,  “anyone born on the soil”, regardless of parentage, is not only a citizen or subject from birth, but also natural born, based on Gray’s own cherry-picking of  British Jurist  Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries.

It should be noted that to proffer this argument, Justice Gray had to inherently presume, despite the 110 years of the United States existence, that this country had no citizenship laws of its own on the books, thereby making British “common law” dictate relevant, which obviously is patently false and demonstrating gross judicial corruption.      This is the claim that current Progressives cite most often as the actual terms of natural born citizen, yet JB Williams’ article fudges these two somehow to create two separate definitions which he numbers #4 and #5, while not providing any reference at all to the corrupt Wong Kim Ark decision!

In 1881 Prentiss Webster published A Treatise On the Law Of Citizenship In The United State, in which Webster recognizes  these two schools of thought regarding natural born citizen  status, which are represented as terms #1 and #2, above.  Webster recognized the latter reliance on British common law as being feudal-monarchical dictate, entirely in conflict with this country’s founding principles.   Webster indicates, “Such a theory had its origin in the feudal law, on which the principles of this country were not grounded, and, while it may be argued that it finds place in the English common law, it must not be forgotten that “our ancestors brought with them, and claimed as their birthright its general principles, and adopted that portion of it only which was applicable to their situation.”

Webster’s 1881 recognition of the two schools of thought on natural born status does, in fact,  serve to powerfully condemn J.B. Williams’ claim that the terms of natural born recognized by Vattel are merely the result of contemporary “Birther” corruption.

Even more curious regarding Justice Gray’s representation, is that the “birth on soil” claim is not even the most current indication provided by Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries!  Justice Gray was actually cherry-picking Blackstone!  Further on in his Commentaries, Blackstone recognizes as natural born subjects those who are born outside the country.  However in doing so Blackstone recognizes that this ever-expanding definition is made by authority of the Crown,  and is statutory in nature, even providing the statute code of “25 Edw. III. st.2.” :

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

Blackstone thus recognized these allegedly “common law” terms as nothing but evolving statutory definitions, not at all constant. Yet Williams own article makes no distinction between statutory corruptions,  even recognizing yet another definition of NBC that involves only  statutory definitions, even from what are explicitly naturalization laws, despite what is stated therein having application to “citizenship” only.   Williams mistakenly elevates these irrelevant statutory definitions to his #2 “The Textual Meaning”, when they have no valid application to natural born status at all, only to mere citizenship. Williams fails to recognize that natural born citizen, even by definition,  is not the product of man-made Positive Law.

To no surprise given the progressive expansion of terms, Britain has a root-definition of natural born, which predates Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries, a definition which is the same as that recognized by Vattel, albeit phrased differently.    Thirty years prior to Blackstone’s Commentaries, British jurist Matthew  Bacon recognized the unadulterated terms of natural born to be:

“All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions.”

(Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, 1736, Vol 1, pg 77)

Not only does  Bacon indicate that the place of birth must be within the “dominion” (British territory) itself, but it also indicates that the parents must be under the “actual obedience” of the King. This emphasis on “actual Obedience” is in direct conflict with Justice Gray’s own presumed obedience of Law in the Wong Kim Ark decision.   Presumed obedience resulting from mere temporary happenstance of giving birth within the territory does not equate to the obligation of actual obedience of being a citizen, or subject, not even under British feudal doctrine.   Even the Crown had no authority to overthrow  existing allegiance and make subjects of those who are aliens.

Despite being phrased differently, this definition by Bacon actually recognizes the original terms of natural born subject to be the same as our own, and the same as related by Vattel, involving (1) the actual allegiance (citizenship) of both parents and (2) birth within the territory, or dominion.   Yet Williams entirely sidesteps and ignores the clear and succinct definition provided by Vattel, dismissing it as “birther”!

The problem is that J.B. Williams is not actually sufficiently familiar with the history to recognize false claims, including his own.  Instead of educating himself, Williams blissfully fabricates a highly prejudicial definition of natural born from gross abuse of Vattel’s text, a definition that only he recognizes.

In Conclusion, natural born citizen is not a product of statutory law, and the whole array of U.S. naturalization laws only apply to “citizen” and “citizenship”, and in no way have any relevance to the terms of natural born citizen.  JB Williams’ uninformed and superficial articles only serve to establish Willams as the poster child for ignorance on the matter of natural born citizen status, and not any sort of voice of discernment.

 

The Oregon Hammonds Standoff

Last night “someone” asked me what I thought about what’s going on in Oregon with the Hammond family having to report today, January 4th,  to complete the remainder of a FIVE YEAR prison sentence for a fire they set on their property that unintentionally spread from the Hammond property over to adjacent federal lands (which the Hammonds were leasing from BLM).  The Hammonds were originally sentenced under mandatory Federal TERRORISM guidelines, and then the 9th Circuit court invalidated  US District Judge Hogan having subsequently reduced the Hammond’s sentence to 1 year (max). However the 9th Circuit then insisted the federal terms must be applied, even though this was clearly not a relevant “terrorism” situation, under the 1996 Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act.  The Hammond’s fire clearly involved no such terrorist intent whatsoever by the Hammonds, certainly in no way rationally comparable to the Oklahoma City bombing of the federal building, which motivated the Act — thereby highlighting why this mandatory sentencing is blatant federal tyranny.

The contact asking my thoughts on the Hammond situation in Oregon  did so by providing a video discussion of the Oregon events made by one “Montagraph”.   I now focus on Montagraph’s video because  it really exhibits the common misunderstanding of too many Americans regarding legitimate Federal authority and the actual terms of the Constitution, even as currently amended.

Montagraph’s video commentary on Oregon situation:

Montagraph really doesn’t understand the fundamental facts of the case and this country, and shouldn’t be spouting off about the Oregon Ranch issues at all.   Montagraph is grossly uninformed, and Exhibit A as to why Americans have lost their Liberty.

Fundamentally the issues in Oregon are exactly the same as the previous Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada.

However, for starters,  Montagraph does not even recognize that the federal government has no legitimate authority in the States under the Constitution, which is true for both the Bundy and Hammond situations.  There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to claim any lands as federal other than forts, arsenals, dockyards and other “needful buildings”,  per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  There is no authority to write laws directly applicable to the people within the several States.  There is no authority to transfer private lands within a State to federal authority. There is no authority for federal laws above and beyond State laws.

If anyone questions these assertions, then review Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,  Pollard Lessee vs Hagan (excerpted at bottom of this post), and the Equal Footing Doctrine.  It is standing constitutional principle that every State is to be sovereign over all the territory within its borders upon statehood, yet this ongoing principle is routinely disregarded by the federal government as it engages an illegitimate authority.

THEN Montagraph repeatedly references the currently “occupied” nature preserve area in Oregon as  being a “Honey Trap”. Well, this is thoroughly ignorant, and it’s evident he does not know even what the phrase “honey trap” means.   He says, “It’s my personal opinion that this is a honey trap, yeah, uh huh.”  Is this his rendition of Ernest P. Worrell, or what?  Montagraph doesn’t even explain why, in his view, it might be a honey trap.   There’s no “honey” in the wildlife preserve  that they’ve occupied, nothing there that powerfully attracted them to occupy that facility, so it cannot be any sort of “honey trap” situation.

If the reclamation of our enduring rights and liberties is some sort of “trap”, then by all means it is a trap in dire need of being faced and removed, or we can no longer legitimately  call ourselves free Americans.

Then Montagraph indicates the militia supporters have encroached on federal property, and by doing so those militia “occupiers” have thrown the Constitution “out the window.”  However the claimed existence of that federal land itself is the only actual violation of the Constitution!  THEN Montagraph references Posse Comitatus, and use of the military  in policing action against civilians, saying it is “in the Constitution”.  No, it’s not in the Constitution at all,  but rather came from the second session of Congress.

Someone needs to smack this Montagraph on the back of the head for each and every ignorant word he spouts in this video. Montagraph is “Exhibit A” as to why Americans have lost their freedoms, and have been reduced to only dutiful slaves to an illegitimate federal authority involving the dictate of every aspect of our lives.  Montagraph is too ignorant on the very substantial issues to even know how ignorant he is, imagining somehow that this video might have some fragment of rationality to it.

Reference: Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty ACT – 1996

I close with a very powerful and compelling video by KrisAnne Hall:

POLLARD LESSEE VS HAGAN

Pollard Lessee v Hagan (1845)

The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly affirmed the sovereignty of states, whether they were a part of the union initially, or brought into the union subsequent to the country’s formation.

The Court case Pollard Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama to ownership of certain partially inundated lands in Alabama.  Take note that this case tests the consideration in which the federal government might possibly have some legitimate authority over those “inundated lands”, given that those lands are vaguely associated with waterways that legitimately fall under stipulated constitutional federal authority.

The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of those lands. However rather than the Court considering this as an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States overall.

Given that the original 13 States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over even the navigable waters and the soil beneath them, provided they lay  within that State’s boundaries, the retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on a less-than-equal footing with the original States.

The Court resolved:

“To Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

“Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits … to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states … to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them.”

Notice that this excerpt from the decision involves not only a recognition of Alabama’s sovereignty, but as with “unalienable” rights, that state sovereignty is also unalienable, and cannot by changed even by agreement (“compact”) made freely by the state itself! This inherently reserved sovereignty is undiminished by the fact that Alabama was originally a territory, entirely subject to congressional control.

Given that “No compact that might be made between [any state] and the United States could diminish these rights”, then this State sovereignty remains undiminished even by entry into the union

In regard to the claim that “most states don’t have such a provision” affirming their sovereignty, as a function of the Pollard Lessee holding, the Court also indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states…. and that no state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally by other states.

*** NOTE: The Court’s recognition in the Pollard case is not limited to “partially inundated” lands, but also applies more broadly to any territory within a State which the federal government may even have purchased at some point, both prior to statehood, or after that statehood.    While the Federal government may have constitutional authority to write laws applicable to forts, and other specifically stipulated federal lands, even those lands remain within the sovereign territory of each State, upon statehood, with the federal government’s ownership of specifically stipulated portions being only as a sort of elevated tenant. “No Compact that might be made … can alter these rights <State sovereignty>”

This puts new light on not only the federal government’s act of supplying and fortifying Fort Sumter upon the secession of the South, with this fortification of Sumter at the mouth of Charleston bay actually itself being the original act of war in directly threatening to the citizens of Charleston, but also applying to the Bundy Ranch standoff, as well as the more recent standoff in Oregon involving the Hammonds Ranch.

Ending Birthright Citizenship

Is Current Birthright Citizenship Legit?

In early 2015 GOP candidate debates, Carly Fiorina took issue  with Donald Trump’s stance against providing citizenship to the offspring born in this country of non-citizen parents. In response to Trump’s indications, Fiorina indicated that the 14th Amendment needed to be repealed, which is easier said than done. “The truth is you can’t just wave your hand and say the 14^th Amendment is going to go away.”

Here is where other GOP candidates stand on so-called “birthright” citizenship.

Is it true that the 14th Amendment would need to be repealed, and that this birthright citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed?  No, none of that is true at all, and those advocating the removal of this corrupt birthright citizenship should be aware of the historic facts, detailed below.

The truth is that the Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment never intended to confer citizenship to the offspring of alien parents born on American soil.  It was not until THIRTY years after the 14th Amendment’s 1868 ratification that the courts fabricated anchor baby citizenship from thin air, in contradiction to the direct intent of the Congress, and in contradiction to several Supreme Court decisions interpreting the 14th Amendment.   Anchor baby citizenship is entirely a fabrication of the corrupt Gray Court in U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Contrary to some beliefs,  what the 14th Amendment indicates is nothing but the terms of citizenship as it had always been in this country.   However, the intent of the 14th Amendment was perverted by the Supreme Court, with the collusion of the Justice Department and San Francisco attorney George Collins.   Associate Justice Horace Gray, in United States vs Wong Kim Ark, changed the applicability of jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment, from the complete and total “political jurisdiction” of the United States, which even Gray himself recognized in Elk vs Wilkins, to then become mere  “legal jurisdiction”, being subject to laws.   It’s not as if being subject to laws has anything at all to do with citizenship, but this is the sophistry Gray presented in the ruling.

The intent of the 14th Amendment did not make citizens of offspring of alien parents born on American soil, but rather the Supreme Court’s malfeasance did so.   And the Supreme Court’s methodical malfeasance can be demonstrated, and the decision reversed, without requiring any amendment.

Below is the legislative history regarding citizenship, demonstrating the applicable terms of jurisdiction, from the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, until the Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898.

TIMELINE: JURISDICTION IN THE 14th AMENDMENT

1862 John Bingham:

“Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognize the principle that I assert.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

1866, two years before the 14th Amendment, by U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised defined who is citizen:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power … are declared to be citizens of the United States”

1866, John A Bingham:

John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”  (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

The 1866 Congressional debates confirm that the two citizenship clauses — the one in the 14th Amendment, and the one in the 1866 Civil Rights Act — were intended to have the same meaning and effect. During those debates, the primary framers of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power:

Sen. Lyman Trumbull: “The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Sen. Jacob Howard:  “[i] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
(Madison(2007))

Civil Rights Act of 1866: The very same Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment (two months before the 14th, and recognized in Wong Kim Ark) defined citizenship in the first section:

“all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 112 U.S. 99-103.

July 9, 1868: 14th Amendment was ratified:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

1873, Slaughterhouse Cases

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court indicated that the U.S.-born children of foreign citizens (including legal residents) are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, therefore are not U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment:

‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ … The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
(Slaughter-House Cases, 1873)

What is significant about this recognition is that it excludes not only the offspring of illegal aliens, but also the offspring of legal aliens as well.  Furthermore, Children of Ambassadors, are excluded by the same reason as those children of non-citizen aliens, as are the offspring of Indians (not taxed) who reside in Indian territories within the United States.

1873 the United States Attorney General George Williams, who was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th’s ratificaiton, Congress issued a joint congressional report, House Report No. 784,  stating:

“The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

This is relevant because children of aliens (legal and illegal) are born with the allegiance (and citizenship) of their parents, as a general right recognized by the Law of Nations.

1884,  Elk vs Wilkins:
The Supreme Court reiterated that an individual is a 14th Amendment citizen only if the United States has complete jurisdiction over such individual at the  time of her or his birth or naturalization. Elk v Wilkins (1884) :

“The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of
these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction
of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing
them direct and immediate allegiance.”

Gray went on to further state in Elk:

“Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a
geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of
the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,than the children of subjects
of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…”

1898, U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark:

The Court, under Justice Horace Gray, chose to award Wong Kim Ark with U.S. citizenship, rather than just recognize Ark’s “resident alien” status and right to return to the U.S., when Ark was prohibited from returning from China under Congress’s 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.

The Wong Kim Ark decision fabricated a previously non-existent right to U.S. citizenship, nowhere indicated by Law or Amendment over the 30 years since the 14th, nor during this country’s entire previous 111 year history – thereby grossly “legislating from the Bench”.

SIX SECRETS TO RESTORE LIBERTY

What if you were to learn that there were only SIX things that needed to be recognized in order to restore this country …. just six?  We Don’t need to worry about all these varied schemes and plans to fix things, and we shouldn’t have to chase down every act and legislation and shout, “No!”  We just need to focus on six things!

There are a great many things that we Americans have forgotten about the Constitution, and if we were to only ourselves recognize these forgotten principles, we would regain our freedoms, and remove odious  federal tyranny from our lives.

In fact, the Constitution itself,  along with a little help from the Declaration of Independence, provides the only real “PLAN”  needed to restore our freedoms, and recover our country.

SIX  “SECRETS” TO RESTORING LIBERTY

1)  NOT GRANTS: Our rights are not granted to us by the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, but rather are innate to us, unalienable, and only referenced in those Amendments relative to the creation of the federal government, which is the purpose of that Constitution.

2)  CANNOT BE AMENDED: Those rights are only referenced in the Constitution to recognize the federal government’s obligation to those rights,  but  this does not imply those rights might be edited or removed by amending them in the  Constitution under Article V, given that those rights are not provided thereby.  Neither does the reference to Rights in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution imply  those Rights are not applicable to the States themselves.  Those rights are applicable to the States, and the States have equal obligation to recognize them, .

3) STATE POWERS: 10th Amendment “States Rights” , more accurately “State Powers”,  do not provide the States authority to ignore those unalienable individual rights, and indeed the 10th Amendment concludes with “or to the people” thereby recognizing those unalienable rights held by the people.

4) LIMITED ENUMERATED POWERS:  Even as currently amended, nothing in the Constitution provides the federal the authority to write laws directly applicable to the people of the States  The only  location that the Constitution’s Enumerated Powers of Article 1, Section 8 allow the Congress to write laws directly applicable to the people, is the “exclusive Legislation” provided for the “10 miles square” area that is today known as Washington’s “District of Columbia” (D.C.).   Today that “exclusive” legislative authority for  D.C. has been delegated to a municipal council in D.C., thereby Congress should not be writing ANY LAWS directly applicable to the people of the United States.  All federal laws written by Congress that are directly applicable to the people of the States are an authority deliberately NOT provided Congress by the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional, inclusive of Civil Rights legislation, hate crime legislation, national environmental legislation, legislation over food, firearms and agriculture, and the national health care mandate known as “ObamaCare”!

5) FEDERAL LANDS: The only lands Congress and the federal government have authority to own, are those lands recognized in those Enumerated Powers. Those indicated lands, beyond the referenced “10 miles square” area of the District of Columbia itself, are stated to be only “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings “, that’s it!   Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given authority to claim lands within the sovereign territory of States  and govern general “public lands”, or to make “National Parks.”    Claimed federal control over these public lands and parks is nowhere legitimate under the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. (Reference: Equal Footing Doctrine, and Pollard Lessee vs Hagan)

6)  FEDERAL LAWS & TREATIES: The Supremacy Clause of Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, recognizes that Treaties are the law of the land, but only if those Treaties themselves are first “under the authority of the United States.”  Given that any and every representative of the United States has NO authority in their duties to exceed or violate the terms of the Constitution, the authority of the federal government cannot be exceeded as a result of any Treaty, nor can any foreign power be given any authority over citizens of the States by any Treaty.   Similarly,  that Supremacy Clause also indicates that all “laws of the United States” (federal laws) “shall be made in pursuance thereof” (i.e. in agreement with the terms of the Constitution).  These federal laws are only the legitimate “law of land” if these laws are in fact maintained to the limited terms of the Constitution.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DICTATE THE TERMS OF OUR LIVES AND BECOME TYRANNOUS!

If we as Americans were to only recognize this,  if movements such as the Tea Parties, or  Operation American Spring,  had only recognized these 6 “Secrets”, we would be an enormous way to restoring legitimate governance in this country,  and reclaiming our freedoms.

We the people are in fact the only “check” still remaining to stop government overreach, and it is time we stand up and exercise our authority.

i close with a powerful speech by KrisAnne Hall before the  Rowan County Oath Keepers, Faith, NC, March 29, 2015.