The $2.2 Trillion CARES Act* bailout is $10,200 per taxpayer.
The government could have given every taxpayer over $10,000 that it borrowed from your children’s future tax payments, but instead it will give only $1,200 to some people.
Where is the missing 96% of our tax dollars?
Pelosi was House Majority leader during the Obama 2009 H1N1 virus outbreak. Obama’s Chief of Staff during the 2009 H1N1 virus outbreak, Rahm Emanuel, is known for his quote “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
With the new Coronavirus opportunity, Pelosi wasted no time pushing her radical agenda. The Senate was able to remove the Pelosi wish list items for abortion funding, election day registration of illegals (needing only a signature to vote, without proof of citizenship), 50% reduction of emissions from planes, and many other wacko agendas that have nothing to do with the pandemic or the shutdown.
BUT look at what Pelosi was able to push through the Senate:
$300 Million for migrant and refugee assistance (pg. 147).
$10,000 per person for student loan bailout
(to spit in the face of every student who worked hard to save up for tuition).
$100 Million to NASA,
$10,000,000,000 to the U.S. Postal Service
($10 Billion seems excessive to me, for delivery service that UPS and FedEx make a profit ).
$75,000,000 to the Endowment for the Arts
$75,000,000 for the Endowment for the Humanities
$17,200,000,000 for the Veterans Health Administration.
$30 Billion for the Department of Education Stabilization Fund.
$200,000,000 to Safe Schools Emergency Response to Violence Program.
$300,000,000 to Public Broadcasting
$500,000,000 to museums and libraries
$338,000,000 to the Social Security Administration– for administrative costs only, not for helping people.
$25,000,000 cleaning supplies for the Capitol Building (on page 136).
(For $25 Million in cleaning supplies, I can suggest what the Capitol Building needs to clean).
$7,500,000 to the Smithsonian for additional salaries.
$25,000,000 to the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts. (even though they are shutdown)
$25,000,000 for necessary expenses for the House of Representatives.
$2.15 Billion upgrade to the IT department at the Department of Veteran Affairs.
(be grateful it didn’t go to the IRS).
$324,000,000 for State Department Diplomatic Programs.
$363,000,000 for the Agency for International Development.
$258,000,000 for International Disaster Assistance. (not for you)
$90,000,000 for the Peace Corp (pg. 148).
$4,036,000 to Howard University – (Kamala Harris’ alma mater – pg. 121).
$9,000,000 Misc. Senate Expenses (pg. 134).
$100,000,000 to essential air carriers (pg. 162.)
Additional funding through the “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act.” (pg. 164).
$10 Billion towards airport programs, including funding for the Airlines Recycle and Save Program (pg. 163). And the Federal Aviation Administration for administrative costs (pg. 165).
$492 Million to National Railroad Passenger Corporation – Amtrak (pg. 167). And $526 Million grants to Amtrak to remain available if needed through 2021 — (pg. 168).
$25 Billion for Transit Infrastructure (pg. 169).
$3,000,000 Maritime Administration (pg. 172).
$5,000,000 Salaries and Expensive Office of the Inspector General (pg. 172).
$2,500,000 Public and Indian Housing (pg. 175).
$5,000,000 Community Planning and Development (pg. 175).
$2,500,000 Office of Housing.
Apparently Congress would have you believe thousands more would die from Coronavirus without these programs to protect you from a mild** disease.
* Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act — Public Law No: 116-136
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill
** Up to 8.2% die every year of those who are hospitalized in the U.S. for normal seasonal flu — even though many are vaccinated. Yet COVID-19 has killed only 5.7% and this amount is inflated for five reasons. 1. nobody is immune or vaccinated, 2. There is up to 80% false positives in some tests, 3. People who show up to the hospital with several co-morbid conditions that are about to kill them are counted as COVID-19 deaths regardless of what killed them, according to Dr. Birx. (Source: Dr. Birx, https://youtu.be/cLcSOUrvl48). 4. New York has BY FAR the highest Coronavirus deaths and they spread it worldwide according to a NYT Article — this happened after Gov. Cuomo forced nursing homes to accept Coronavirus patients. 5. Ventilators are counter productive and kill many. Respiratory Distress Syndrome is not indicated in COVID-19 patients — The respiratory muscles remain active. It is Oxygen deprivation that kills them.
New York Times:
New York ” became the primary source of new infections in the United States”
You may also be interested in my posts on COVID-19:
Is now the last chance to secure the blessings of liberty? Is resistance futile because you have been assimilated? How can it be constitutional to hold innocent people under house arrest? Join me as we ponder these questions.
Before you decide to stand up to the police state you should prepare to give an answer to the constitutionality issues.
Did your State impair the obligation of contracts?
Did your State Congress grant legislative powers to the Governor?
Do your Governor’s executive orders apply only to his/her employees?
Is the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby?
Is every inhabitant in your State guaranteed a republic form of government?
Did you State prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Twenty-seven scientific studies prove that Lockdowns do not work. (Link)
Governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty. They also have the right (as does anyone else1) to prevent deaths by interfering in private affairs. Just as you have the right to enter a burning home without permission, or enter a home when someone is screaming for help.
There is no conflict between these two government duties. Government can both secure the blessings of liberty and protect rights.2 They can do both even during a crisis. They can do this the way it was always done. With quarantine zones, imposed in dense municipalities, to confine the disease.
Leviticus 25:10 Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land.
They could also do this with quarantine zones around the most vulnerable. Stanford University’s Hoover Institute published an article explaining that shutting down the economy is not necessary. All we need to do is protect the most vulnerable. Link: https://www.hoover.org/research/playing-politics-coronavirus
POLICE POWERS
This authority is called by various names like “police power”, “compelling state interest”, “overriding governmental interest”, “exigent circumstances”, “clear and present danger doctrine”. Government has a legitimate function that can trump your right to liberty. They can protect an innocent person from grave and immediate danger.
The ruse that you are a danger to someone, without evidence, does not justify loss of liberty.
COV-2 filled exosomes budding from a lung tissue cell.
According to the Supreme Court, “… freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect” (This phrase was used in many Supreme Court decisions to protect your rights. Carrol v. Princess Anne 393 U.S. 175, Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516, West Virginia v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, in re Brown 9 Cal.3d 612, West’s Constitutional law, key 84, 90, 91 — etc.)
QUARANTINE LAWS
The 1905 United States Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 US 11, concerned an emergency smallpox epidemic where people were dying, and quarantine zones were enforced in Boston. Mr. Jacobson, who had previously been injured by a childhood vaccination, and who raised no religious objections, raised ONLY the Constitutional question of equal protection, and who did not ask for a hearing, was given the option paying the $5 fine (a tax, if you want to use the Obamacare comparison) to remain unvaccinated inside the emergency quarantine zone. The $5 fine applied to anyone over the age of 21. Mr. Jacobson argued that he was denied equal protection because children were exempted from the fine. The Supreme Court determined “this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is applicable equally to all in like condition, and there are obviously reasons why regulations may be appropriate for adults which could not be safely applied to persons of tender years.”
That’s right! The Supreme Court decision that States rely upon as their only authority to force vaccines on children, actually says vaccines are NOT for children. They also ruled that during a smallpox outbreak children would be kept out of public schools until vaccinated.
A law textbook, Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 8th Edition, page 1229 quotes this very same Supreme Court Jacobson quarantine decision as proof of the opposite of what your government now says. It concludes:
“The police power is not supreme and is not unlimited. It is subject to the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution upon every power of government. It will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the citizen”
That’s right: “fundamental liberties” cannot be impaired by quarantine laws. Why do we find our fundamental liberties eliminated — from government overreach to a mild disease? Yes; it is a mild disease. Smallpox killed 30% of those who contracted it. Yet COVID-19 only kills 5% of those who are sick enough to be hospitalized, most of which have at least two co-morbid underlying conditions. And many infected people never had any symptoms at all.
Image: The Plague In Rome by Jules Elie Delaunay, painted in 1869
WHAT IS LIBERTY?
Let’s examine some of the “fundamental liberties” that cannot be impaired by police powers during a quarantine.
Law Textbook Definition of Liberty
Back when we had a Constitutional system of government, everyone knew we could get out of our house and exercise “the fundamental laws of our being”.
A Treatise of the Right to Personal Liberty, Second Edition, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1. Rollin C. Hurd, 1876, W.C. Little Co., Albany, NY
Supreme Court’s definition of Liberty.
The US Supreme Court waited for a homeschool case to give us their partial definition of Liberty. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399:
The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”
FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES DURING IMMINENT DANGER
Can it be constitutional to hold an innocent person under house arrest? I don’t know how the courts will rule, but you may want to know the foundations of liberty.
When the republic is in extreme danger of extinction, the law allows a magistrate absolute authority. This law existed in ancient Rome.
Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws was the 1765 preeminent law textbook used when the United States was created. In the introduction to unalienable rights it says:
“…to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason for so doing; as the senate of Rome was wont to have recourse to a dictator, a magistrate of absolute authority, when they judged the republic in any imminent danger. The decree of the senate, which usually preceded the nomination of this magistrate, “dent operam consules, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat,” was called the senatus consultum ultimae necessitatis. In like manner, this experiment ought only to be tried in cases of extreme emergency; and in these the nation parts with it’s liberty for a while, in order to preserve it for ever.
The confinement of the person, in any wise, is an imprisonment. So that the keeping a man against his will in a private house, putting him in the stocks, arresting or forcibly detaining him in the street, is an imprisonment. And the law so much discourages unlawful confinement, that if a man is under duress of imprisonment, which we before explained to mean a compulsion by an illegal restraint of liberty, until he seals a bond or the like; he may allege this duress, and avoid the extorted bond. But if a man be lawfully imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or any other fair account, seals a bond or a deed, this is not by duress of imprisonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it. To make imprisonment lawful, it must either be by process from the courts of judicature, or by warrant from some legal officer having authority to commit to prison; which warrant must be in writing, under the hand and seal of the magistrate, and express the causes of the commitment, in order to be examined into (if necessary) upon a habeas corpus. 22 If there be no cause expressed, the jailer is not bound to detain the prisoner. For the law judges in this respect, saith sir Edward Coke, like Festus the Roman governor; that it is unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not to signify withal the crimes alleged against him.”
22. General warrants, commanding the seizure of any persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described, . . .
THE LAWS OF NATURE
The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that the laws of nature entitles the United States to exist. This very same laws of nature tells us:
Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est.
When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.
Also see John Locke’s 1690 Second Treatise of Government paragraphs 135, 149, 171, 209.
REMEDIES
No, not virus remedies. Legal remedies.
Deprivation of liberty under the color of law is a CRIME, at least for 14th Amendment citizens.
“… And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
— Thomas Jefferson on November 13, 1787 letter to future Congressman William S. Smith
“Let your motto be resistance! Resistance! No oppressed people have ever secured their liberty without resistance.”
– Abolitionist Henry Highland Garnet
You know James Otis for his slogan “Taxation without representation is tyranny”. He wrote The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved in 1764:
“But if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not prove a right to tyranize. There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God almighty; who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please.”
Thomas Jefferson’s inscription on his ring:
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:
“This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. … Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. … The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government. … When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder… the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image …”
But we now find out that it is a crime to peacefully assemble to petition government for redress of grievance. In a fictional place that can again become the land of the free.
— — — —
1. Law of necessity is a maxim of law: Illud quod alias licitum non est, necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise lawful, necessity makes lawful; and necessity brings in as a privilege what is denied by right.
2. After all, Ben Franklin once wrote that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor. This is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty.
— — — —
You may also be interested in my posts on COVID-19:
Steven D. Miller is a freelance copywriter producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available on a limited basis to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com
Rockefeller Foundation 2010 White Paper advocated the advantages to their agenda of a plandemic. Linked below. In a chapter entitled Lock Step — a plan to get us marching in their direction (unstated: to the mark of the Beast).
HOW MILD IS COVID-19?
I recommend the video “Current testing procedures for COVID-19.” Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr8Dy5mnYx8 The video explains why there are 80% false positives for the COVID-19 tests. And also explains the exaggerated panic from this ordinary virus.
SARS-COV-2 filed exosomes budding from a lung tissue cell
MILD DISEASE:
Up to 8.2% die every year of those who are hospitalized in the U.S. for normal seasonal flu — even though many are vaccinated. And not one peep from the fake news industry. Yet COVID-19 has killed only 5.7% — early reports had it at only 2.5%. The newer rate is inflated for five reasons. 1. nobody is immune or vaccinated, 2. There are up to 80% false positives in some tests, 3. People who show up to the hospital with several co-morbid conditions that are about to kill them are counted as COVID-19 deaths regardless of what killed them, according to Dr. Birx. (Source: Dr. Birx, https://youtu.be/cLcSOUrvl48). 4. New York has BY FAR the highest Coronavirus deaths and they spread it worldwide according to a NYT Article — this happened after Gov. Cuomo forced nursing homes to accept Coronavirus patients. 5. Ventilators are counter productive and kill many, according to NYC Dr. Cameron Kyle Sidell. Respiratory Distress Syndrome is not indicated in COVID-19 patients — The respiratory muscles remain active and vibrant. It is Oxygen deprivation that kills them.
Fake news fails to tell you that
More elderly die from falls in the home than the flu.
And one-fifth of Americans will die from obesity, but the fake news industry discourages fat-shaming.
U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) FLU DATA:
The CDC likes to hide flu data. I am trying to find out how mild the COVID-19 virus is compared to the regular seasonal flu. By the way, the U.S. flu season was over on April first. According to CDC: The death rate for Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672 (this is from 2017, that is the latest data available). – Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htmAccording to CDC: The 2019-2020 flu season up to March 28th the CDC estimate is 24,000 to 63,000 flu deaths. This is quite a wide range for an organization that people rely on for accurate COVID-19 stats. – Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htmAccording to CDC, for the last decade:
The estimated Range of Annual Burden of Flu in the U.S. for the last decade — estimated that influenza has resulted in between 9.3 million – 49.0 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 960,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 79,000 deaths annually since 2010. — Source: www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/burden.htm
Recent COVID-19 stats:
According to CDC as of 4/7/2020, link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html Total COVID-19 cases: 374,329 Total COVID-19 deaths: 12,064 It seems to me that 12,064 deaths is a small fraction of normal seasonal deaths reported by the CDC, above. Especially when you consider the 80% false positives, and the confusion over what is actually reported. It seems to me that 12,064 deaths is still less than the 2009-2010 Swine flu (H1N1 virus) during the Obama presidency. The H1N1 outbreak killed 12,469 Americans. And not one peep came out of the fake news media about manufacturing hysteria, destroying the economy or imposing a worldwide police state. And by the way, Obama waited for 1,000 American deaths before declaring an emergency. Whereas Trump stopped travel from China 10 days before the first American died (in Wuhan, China), which was a month before the first COVID-19 death in the U.S. It seems to me that 12,064 deaths is about a third of the annual U.S. deaths (36,338 in 2017) from falls in the home. Falls are the #1 cause of death of the elderly according to the National Safety Council. Yet not one peep came from the fake news industry about imposing a police state or shutting down the economy to prevent these deaths.
Hysteria
Not only is the PCR testing done with a flawed standard that produces 80% false positives, now we find out that ANY Coronavirus is often categorized as COVID-19 in the reporting statistics.
Government Is Counting Death of Anyone with Coronavirus as a COVID-19 Death, Regardless of what co-morbid condition killed them — source: Dr. Birx, https://youtu.be/cLcSOUrvl48
This false fear of a high death rate prompts people to go to the hospital for any flu like symptoms and when the doctors diagnose infectious flu they fill up the intensive care rooms to keep it from spreading. In addition, people fear being turned-in to authorities, which has happened, so they think it is better to turn themselves in — again clogging up the hospitals.
SO, WHAT IS BEHIND THE MASS HYSTERIA?
The World Health Organization owns the diagnostic codes that are used in the United States. Every reporting system that uses them must pay a fee to use them. Just take a look at all the confusion. This only increases the hysteria over what is actually reported as COVID-19 in the fake news. As you can see, just about any Coronavirus can end up as newsworthy. AND NOTICE THAT THE CDC ADDED THE W.H.O. CODE ONLY AFTER THE FLU SEASON WAS OVER.
There is no specific code for COVID-19 in the U.S. at this time, but one is coming soon. The World Health Organization (WHO) has already added code U07.1 (2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease) to the international ICD-10, and the CDC recently announced(www.cdc.gov) that the same code would be added to the U.S. ICD-10-CM list effective April 1. Starting on that day, U07.1 should be used to report a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19. Until then, the CDC has published the following interim guidance on coding for this condition: For a diagnosis of COVID-19, report the code for the patient condition that is related to the COVID-19 (e.g., J12.89, “Other viral pneumonia”) and B97.29, “Other coronavirus as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere.”
Diagnostic code “87635 Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA or RNA); severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Coronavirus disease [COVID-19], amplified probe technique” 87635 is under parent code 87471. https://www.aapc.com/blog/49987-new-cpt-code-for-reporting-covid-19-test/ There are also two new HCPCS Level II testing codes for reporting Medicare beneficiaries being tested for COVID-19,
Question: Should CPT code 87635, a HCPCS Level II code, or both be reported if the test for COVID-19 is performed? Answer: The appropriate code to be reported is dependent upon the payer to which the claim is being submitted. If the claim is submitted to a payer that requires CPT codes, then code 87635 should be reported. Conversely, if the payer requires use of the HCPCS Level II code, the HCPCS Level II code should be reported. CPT and HCPCS codes should not both be reported on the same claim.
https://isalushealthcare.com/blog/covid-19-coding-guidelines/ So, now you know why there is so much confusion over what is reported as COVID-19. And why it is easy to count someone twice.
Was it a manufactured virus?
Forbes wants to debunk the rumors about a HIV virus strand in the COVID-19 virus. (link) But the article did not rebut the rumor that it was manufactured. The U.S. Department of Justice published a news brief that it arrested a Harvard Professor who is also a “strategic scientist” at the Wuhan University working under a DoD grant. He was the Chair of the Chemical Biology Department at Harvard, and specialized in the area of nanoscience. Just what is a “strategic scientist”? Link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related
WHO is backing the China lies?
The head of the World Health Organization is a radical communist, and a former member of a violent terrorist organization. According to the BBC, link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51720184, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general of the WHO, started his career with membership in the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. The Department of Homeland Security has this to say about TPLF:
“The TPLF qualifies as a Tier III terrorist organization… on the basis of its violent activities before it became part of the ruling coalition and the government of Ethiopia in May 1991,” according to the Department of Homeland Security. — Link: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/TRIG/2014_Implementation_of_New_Discretionary_Exemption_for_Activities_or_Associations_Relating_to_TPLF.pdf
Beware: Dr. Fauci’s questionable past.
Dr. Fauci gave a $3.7 Million Obama grant to the Wuhan lab. Link: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/27/anthony-fauci-should-explain-37-million-wuhan-labo/
Dr. Fauci is not your friend. Dr. Fauci is Hillary’s Doctor friend according to documents acquired by WikiLeaks. https://newspunch.com/wikileaks-dr-fauci-sent-series-love-letters-hillary-clinton/
Dr. Judy Mikovits exposes the extent to which Dr. Fauci will go to suppress his critics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICtsXNtf_GQ
ROCKEFELLER’S PLAN-DEMIC
Video explaining the plan: https://youtu.be/P_RiO8yGZPA Download the paper directly from the Rockefeller Foundation “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”. This May 2010 white paper examines possible future scenarios to take advantage of pandemics. Start with the chapter Lock Step. Search for “pandemic”.
They always announce their intentions.
Page 2: Acknowledgements “We extend our deep appreciation and thanks to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and to the President, World Bank Group for having co-convened the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB).”
Page 39: Progress indicator(s) by September 2020 “• The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two systemwide training and simulation exercises, including one covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.”
Is the second one also going to be a lethal respiratory pathogen?
And now we have the latest Rockefeller Foundation plan to reopen workplaces and society. With drastic military control of the population.
Sponsored by 67 Democrats. It appropriates $100 Billion, with a B, just for 2020 alone.
TRACE empowers the government to go door-to-door for testing, contact tracing (forced disclosure of associates) and Enforced quarantine of Americans, supposedly for “the greater good. Seems to me that these fascists are building a massive tyranny (Mark of the Beast?) system.
It doesn’t specifically say so but $100B will allow them to enforce quarantine laws until you get vaccinated (with undisclosed components such as nano-technology chips) AND get a digital proof of immunity that Bill Gates mentioned. $100 Billion is over $1,500 for every U.S. household just for 2020. This can buy a lot of “Enforcement”.
House Resolution 6666 of 116th Congress, May 1, 2020, is known as “COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act”.
“authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes.”
SEC. 2. COVID–19 TESTING AND CONTACT TRACING USING MOBILE HEALTH UNITS. (a) In General.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, may award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals, and to support the quarantine of such contacts, through— (1) mobile health units; and (2) as necessary, testing individuals and providing individuals with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences.
Link to bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6666
DISRUPTION BY DESIGN
I recommend this excellent video exposing the extensive plans developed by the World Economic Forum for their global domination. The entire structure to control governments, medical communities, economies, politicians, and critics. IT IS ALL IN PLACE. — THE ENTIRE PLAN FOR WORLD DOMINATION.Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ESBl3GTbTo — Celeste Solum’s video Disruption by Design. Celeste is a former FEMA worker who did not want to participate in your global-government genocide. Using their own index of programs, she explains the complete program objectives developed by the World Economic Forum. She also tries to tie the recent history to End Time Biblical prophecy. And here is another video that compiles several sources to reveal the conspiracy A DISTURBING GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE: BILL GATES, ELON MUSK & THE 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
THE HIDDEN OBJECTIVE IS TO IMPOSE A ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT.
The Globalists that want a one-world government must first destroy all existing governments. They will destroy every government economy. They will form police -states and Martial Law.
The world is in turmoil.
Civil unrest is being provoked by deep-state infiltratorswho are controlling all levels of all governments.
Police State is already here, while Martial Law is brewing worldwide.
Governments are being forced into massive welfare schemes where they must borrow beyond their capacity to repay. They will all go bankrupt when they default on a Treasury bond payment. Central Banks will then refuse to buy more Treasury bonds. Government overspending stops. When there is no new debt-based currency the economy as we know it will collapse. Banks and ATMs will shut down. Welfare checks will stop. Civil Unrest will follow.
People will then demand the only option presented to them: a communist one-world government.
If you were not prepared for the fake pandemic, how prepared are you to avoid both the Martial Law in front of you and the Civil Unrest approaching from the rear?
What comes next is not going to be life as we know it.
In addition to the holding camps for the looters and fugitives, and FEMA camps for the displaced (malnourished, homeless, cashless paupers and vagabonds) caused by the economy collapse. I predict that there will eventually be forced labor camps. In U.S. law, an absconding debtor can be imprisoned. The moment you cannot pay your mortgage or rent, you are an absconding debtor. The Two Trillion dollar bailout is too much for us to pay. It is all borrowed. After the government defaults on a Treasury bond payment, the government is bankrupt. The bankruptcy receivership will force a massive bail-in of all bank accounts and pension funds. Then they come after you. The U.S. is the world’s greatest debtor. The creditors will come after their collateral. YOU are the collateral. I would not be surprised that forced labor camps are in our future. Go to USdebtClock.org and find out what your fair share is of the National Debt (and don’t forget the unfunded liabilities on the bottom line). By the way, China is the world’s greatest creditor. Either pay up, or be welcomed into your Novus Ordo Seclorum, secular new world order.
How COVID-19 will seize your rights and destroy our economy https://www.takebackyourpower.net/david-icke-on-londonreal-6april2020/
Bill Gates TED Talk: “So eventually there will be this digital immunity proof that will help facilitate the global reopening up”. This sentence was edited out of the YouTube video.
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai explains the immune system https://vashiva.com/dr-shiva-live-with-chuck-woolery-and-mark-young-on-coronavirus/ (by the way, he is running for U.S. Senate in Mass.)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-18/sars-coronavirus-china-epidemic “SARS was a pneumonia-like illness that killed about 1 in every 10 people struck, far higher than the estimated 1-in-50 mortality rate for COVID-19 infections. “There was enormous panic,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law.”
Here is an article that compares COVID-19 to past pandemics: https://www.news4jax.com/health/2020/03/29/100000-us-deaths-from-covid-19-how-does-that-compare-to-sars-swine-flu-and-other-pandemics/
Steven D. Miller is a freelance copywriter producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks, high-density documentaries and copywriting emails. He is available on a limited basis to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.comIf your audience is seeking content on how to avoid unthinking mobs and government agents, contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com.
A study from England published in Principia Scientific shows that all the alarmist presumptions that created the frantic demand for political intervention to slow the spread of COVID-19 were wrong. “It is very strongly implied that the interventions made no impact”. That’s right. Political forced lockdown DID NOTHING to flatten the curve. Link: https://principia-scientific.com/the-false-premise-of-covid-19/
There is NO Pandemic
I’ve been digging through the CDC.gov bowels to get to the guts of the data, but they are not easy to find. Here is the death rate from normal flu:
Estimated Range of Annual Burden of Flu in the U.S. since 2010. CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9.3 million – 49.0 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 960,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 79,000 deaths annually since 2010.
There were 79,000 deaths per year from ordinary seasonal flu and none of the fake news media yells “virus” in a crowded city.
79,000 divided by 365 days per year (as if it were not seasonal) is 216 per day.
If the news media didn’t panic for 216 deaths per day (average) from all flu strains, then why should we pay attention to a few deaths of people who were already at death’s door — with three or more preexisting co-morbid conditions?
Normal deaths from seasonal flu in the United States since 2010:
79,000 deaths from 960,000 hospitalizations is 8.2% deaths — the case fatality rate for seasonal flu.
79,000 deaths from a maximum of 49 million who might have had flu like symptoms (most do not end up in hospitals) is 0.16% deaths. — the Infection fatality rate.
In 1918 we had over a 675,000 deaths from Spanish Flu.
An in 2014 we had 51,000 dead from the Flu, no panic or fake data
Now in 2020 COVID-19 comes along with only 145,000 deaths so far and everybody goes into a panic mode (far fewer than October 1918 flu).
Why didn’t we go into a shutdown back in 1918, or 2014?
COVID-19 IS A MILD DISEASE
According to the CDC, quoted above, up to 8.2% die every year of those who are hospitalized in the U.S. for normal seasonal flu — even though many are vaccinated.
Yet COVID-19 has killed only 5.7% of its cases, with nobody immune. Even with all the false positives. Even if co-morbid conditions killed them, these are being counted as COVID-19 deaths (Source: Dr. Birx, https://youtu.be/cLcSOUrvl48).
Can the PCR test determine who is infected?
No. There is no proof.
The PCR test replicates a virus’ RNA so that the “culture” can be tested.
Someone who is actually infected will have millions of replicating COVID-19 virus that their immune system cannot handle.
A nasal swab PCR test will replicate the virus RNA strand, but it cannot tell how many were on the swab, or if the person is infected beyond their immune response. Or if the person is immune but carrying the virus.
Many people stranded on quarantined cruise ships tested positive and yet have no symptoms. This is to be expected. The vast majority of carriers had no symptoms. This is natural. It is how herd immunity is created.
Fake News
“Congressional doctor expects 70M to 150M people in U.S. will contract coronavirus…”
— NBC NEWS, March 11, 2020
“Coronavirus burial pits so vast they’re visible from space…”
— THE WASHINGTON POST, March 12, 2020
“The coronavirus may be deadlier than the 1918 flu…”
— CNBC, March 26, 2020
Pandemonium is created by the fake news industry. Here is more information:
The World Health Organization had COVID-19 test kits available BEFORE it came to America. But the fake news wants to blame Trump for a non-existent delay in test kits because our CDC ‘s decided to develop a more reliable test.
It is not at all clear what statistics the fake news media is spreading. Their early reports have a death rate of about 2.5%. Can we assume that it is the case fatality rate? Are the confirmed cases from hospitals or just from testing labs? (Note: Washington State was the hardest hit and their Department of Health website doh.wa.gov states that testing labs report confirmed cases, even if their are no symptoms and no health care case). Can we assume that it is confirmed cases and not just presumptive-positive cases? Can we assume that confirmed (or presumptive) cases are actual infections, when people on quarantined ships test positive but have no symptoms?
Here are some other interesting facts:
NO deaths of those aged 9 or younger. Not even in Wuhan China. And 0.2% of cases are those aged 10-39. But in the U.S. all deaths of people who test positive are reported as COVID-19 deaths regardless of what thy died from. So in the U.S. a girl aged 6 who died from a rare form of meningitis is listed as a COVID-19 death.
Wuhan China has a very high pollution where most people already have respiratory problems, and they have a malnourished populous.
The World Health Organization test kits have many false positives. People who test presumptive-positive must be retested to be confirmed positive.
Obamacare was allowed by the Supreme Court ONLY as a tax.
Government health care is unconstitutional (except for military personnel, prisoners and government wards, etc).
President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed our nation’s first health care bill — a bill to help the mentally ill. His veto said
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity…. [this] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
Leftist History is repeating itself:
Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders made statements that old people will die anyway while our vibrant young people are dying from AIDS.
Obama’s Chief of Staff during the H1N1 virus outbreak, Rahm Emanuel, is known for his quote “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
And Obama kept repeating that Obamacare would cure a “health care crisis”.
And history shows that government fabricated crisis are fake.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber at a healthcare conference in 2013 explains how the bill was passed in Congress after Pelosi gave the lawmakers 2 hours to read it before a vote:
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
That’s right. For the Dem-Panic agenda to work, they require a dumbed-down America. The fake news media keeps the public confused with the lemming effect— a mental disorder.
Fake News
The Fake News did not Blame Obama when he invited Ebola into the country. It had a 50% death rate.
Not one peep from Fake News blaming Obama for the 2009 H1N1 outbreak that killed 12,469 Americans and the economy collapsed.
You may also be interested in my posts on COVID-19:
My essay on Child Vaccinations. discusses the Supreme Court quarantine case from 1905. The Supreme Court allowed a $5 fine for those who remained in a quarantine area without being vaccinated.
My essay on socialized medicine: http://notfooledbygovernment.com/socialized-medicine/
The 1939 World’s Fair Westinghouse pavilion had a show “The bugaboo of Bugville” to promote their household ventilation UltraViolet light that kills microbes. They promoted it as the cure to any pandemic.
Ozone fumigation will kill microbes. If you want information on Ozone generator hazards, contact me.
If you need a guest blog or content writer, I am available.
When are law enforcement justified in shooting a fleeing suspect?
Steven Miller Answered August 9, 2018
Hardly ever. The person doing the shooting must be able to articulate an objectively reasonable belief, NOT JUST a subjectively reasonable belief, that the state’s self-defense criteria have been met.
Every government officer has a duty to secure your blessings of liberty. This includes your right to keep and bear arms. A non-shooter who is fleeing, is not a threat. Open-carry is a right just like any other Constitutionally guaranteed right. The fleeing non-shooter’s rights are “susceptible to restriction only to prevent grave and immediate injury to interests the state may lawfully protect.”
If everyone were to think like a bully, then we could say that an agitated person with a gun in a holster is an imminent threat to everyone else. It doesn’t matter who he works for.
Examples:
US Supreme Court’s John Elk v. US, 177 US 529: “… where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. … the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
Housh v. Illinois, 75 Ill 491: “An arrest without warrant … or that fails to allege a crime is without jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.”
West Virginia v. Gum, 69 SE 463: “What rights then has a citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person, and how far one thus unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance is to be determined, as in other cases of assault…. And the authorities are uniform that where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the offender, whether of a private citizen or a public officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant….”
Washington State v. Rousseau, 40 Wn.2d at 94: “It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life, if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened.”
As for already-arrested escapees who are unarmed — United States Supreme Court TENNESSEE v. GARNER (1985):
“Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] ”
just like the other rights that the Supreme Court ruled are “susceptible to restriction only to prevent grave and immediate injury to interests the state may lawfully protect.”
Also see the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
ONLY YOU CAN ERASE THE THIN BLUE LINE
The lower courts often find that “standby officers” who have an opportunity to intervene to prevent unreasonable use of force can be held liable for their failure to do so.
If you witness police brutality, file a criminal complaint against the good cops who did nothing. Once you file a criminal complaint, you are protected from retaliation. ANY police contact after that can be called retaliation, and you can file another complaint (it will not go anywhere, but when the police chief runs for reelection it can be used against him).
Here is a contrary opinion:
An editorial in the New York Times How Cops Get Away With Murder, May 30, 2020, page A26 explains how qualified immunity is used by the courts to deprive victims of police abuse any meaningful civil rights remedy.
Are you a slave to the IRS? Do you sign government documents under the penalty of perjury?
Do you Pay Caesar his tribute and Pharaoh his tale of bricks? (the terminology Tale of bricks is from Genesis 5:18).
In the Bible, slaves under Pharaoh had a 20% income tax during a time of national emergency (Genesis 47:23-26). The other 80% was their living allowance. How does this living allowance compare to your take-home allowance?
Now that we must confess our slave status to the IRS, I have a timely reminder of just how harsh the penalty of perjury really is. Why would someone who does not understand the tax laws sign a perjury oath signature on a government form?
Tucker’s Blackstone was an 1803 law textbook that updated a British law textbook Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England with commentaries on U.S. Constitutional law and the laws in Virginia.
Appendix Note H, The State of Slavery, compares Virginia slave laws, much improved after our independence, to those of the British laws that we separated from. We were slowly recognizing that criminal courts must treat everyone equal, even slaves. There were only three remaining laws that treated slaved more harshly. One was the perjury punishment.
… [for Burglary] But wherever the benefit of clergy is allowed to a slave, the court, besides burning him in the hand (the usual punishment inflicted on free persons) may inflict such further corporal punishment as they may think fit;1* this also seems to have been the law in the case of free negroes and mulattoes.
[for Perjury] By the act of 1723, c. 4, it was enacted, that when any negroe or mulattoe shall be found, upon due proof made, or pregnant circumstances, to have given false testimony, every such offender shall, without further trial, have his ears successively nailed to the pillory for the space of an hour, and then cut off, and moreover receive thirty-nine lashes on his bare back, or such other punishment as the court shall think proper, not extending to life or limb. This act, with the exception of the words pregnant circumstances, was re-enacted in 1792. The punishment of perjury, in a white person, is only a fine and imprisonment. …
1*. 1794, c. 103.
… [for livestock Theft] The punishment for the second and third offence, of this kind, is the same in the case of a free person, as of a slave, namely, by the pillory and loss of ears, for the second offence; the third is declared felony, to which clergy is, however, allowed. The preceding were, until lately, the only positive distinctions which remained between the punishment of a slave, and a white person, in those cases, where the latter is liable to a determinate corporal punishment.2*
2*. But herein the law is now altered by the act of 1796, c. 2, which does not extend to slaves.
And now we live in a nation where government can lie to us, but we cannot lie to them. Lawyers can lie to us in court, but we cannot lie. Government can photograph us, but if we photograph a rampaging plain-clothes officer in an unmarked car we can be sentenced to 16 years in prison.
NOT EVERYONE CAN SET THEMSELVES FREE. First Corinthians 7:21 (KJV): “Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.”
Those who have a debt to the master that they have chosen cannot be free until the debt is paid or they are kicked out. By helping set others free, you may someday be invited (delivered from bondage) into “… a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you” Leviticus 20:24
More information is in my article on paying your tale of bricks. And in the quotes from the book Ancient Law and in the definition of Fictions of Law that are in my essay on Presumed Contracts.
YOU DID NOT “PAY INTO” Social Security system– anymore than you paid into the income tax system or the Obamacare tax system.
Congress can spend your FICA tax money any way they want to. It is not invested for your benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis (1937), ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying on page 635:
“The proceeds of both taxes [the employee and employer taxes] are to be paid into the Treasury like other internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
Do not be fooled. This applied only to those who got a federal SS card. FICA is enforced only by the Gift and Estate Tax — NOT BY INCOME TAX. A right cannot be taxed (because the government secured the blessings of liberty). Nobody is subject to a law not promulgated to him. Indirect tax is levied without apportionment for the exercise of a revenue taxable activity. Direct Tax applies only to federal persons.
The United States Supreme Court in 1937 confirmed that Social Security is an exercise of the Constitutional taxing power to collect taxes. These are paid into the general fund of the United States Treasury. The Supreme Court also said that Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments. When Mr. Nestor was deported after 43 years in the U.S. — The Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, found that there is no contractual right to Social Security benefits, there is no accrued interest or accrued property right in old-age benefits, and congress can vote any “adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress … had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act “. There is no entitlement to benefits. Never has been.
There is no division of funds in the treasury — nor has there ever been so from the beginning of Social Security. There is no separate fund created by payments of the Social Security tax.
History
The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT ABOUT keeping a control of the monetary money supply. By the time FDR was elected, the debt had skyrocketed during peacetime between 1930 to 1934. The Federal Reserve was tightening the money supply as the debt expanded. Something needed to be done to guarantee the payment of the interest on that debt. Federal citizens were to about to become collateral for the national debt.
Socialism is NOT security. SS is just like Obamacare which the Supreme Court determined was “valid as a tax” but not for benefits. Once you get a SSN you are liable for “Social Security and other taxes”. Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum.
See my video on the dangers of socialism. I prove that nobody is required to have a SSN.
AS IF IT WAS INSURANCE
While the system of Federal Social Security was “sold as if it were insurance”– it was not. There is a great deception, a strong delusion, that social security taxes are payments of insurance premiums to obtain specified benefits at a specified time. There is no such right.
“The President wanted everybody covered for every contingency in life—’cradle to the grave,’ he called it—under the social insurance system… But the Government of the United States is not an insurance company and so it could be done.” Forward by Frances Perkins Sec of Labor 1933-45 The Development of the Social Security Act by Edwin E. Witte, page 7. On page 936 through page 946 of the Ways and Means hearings an originator of Social Security [Edwin Witte] stated that Social Security was “sold as if it were insurance” and that was a mistake and should not have been published as such. So it wasn’t until 1953 an originator admitted that it is not insurance as published in 1936.
“AS IF IT WERE insurance” IS NOT insurance.
As discussed in topic 3 of my essay Things the Government forgot to Tell You, in both Supreme Court Davis cases: The Social Security Tax Act, gives the government no obligation to pay benefits as “an earned right”. This is because the government has “no contractual obligation” to make any return payment, and it has carried the provision from the very beginning that, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Therefore “Congress could continue to collect the so-called social security payroll taxes even though Congress discontinued all social security benefit payments.”
This is exactly what you should expect as the national and world economies continue their descent into devastating decline, debt, and disaster. An essential purpose of the system introduced as social security was to add the labor of Americans to the collateral of the State so the people would become a surety of the already increasing debt that powers your central government. To believe that you have a right to get back specified benefits because you paid into Social Security is a delusion.
You were warned in Proverbs 17:18 not to become surety for debt.
You were warned by the Apostle Paul when he repeated King David’s warning that government benefits would be a snare to trap you, in Romans 11:9.
Once you get a Social Security Number to change your citizenship to a dual citizenship*, you cannot complain about the consequences. The Social Security Act Title VIII section 801 then requires you to pay Social Security AND OTHER TAXES.
This is also repeated word-for-word in Section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code: “In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages…” Even though the Constitution still requires direct taxes to be apportioned among the several States.
* The Supreme Court in U.S. v Cruikshank case, 92 U.S. 542 at page 551:
“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”
The Second Amendment (right, maxims of law, free state, militia)
The Bill of Rights
List of Laws and Court Cases
The right to self defense
The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God
The right to duel to the death
Gun Control
Your duty to avoid deception
Militarization of police
There are too many debates about gun rights. Unfortunately for those who demand fewer rights, every Law Dictionary tells us that: Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. There can be no debate with one who denies fundamentals.
***
National Constitution Center, Philadelphia
The Second Amendment:
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
RIGHT
The subject of the one-sentence amendment is the word right. The Second Amendment acknowledges that it is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” — it does NOT say anything about a right of the militia. It does not grant any right.
The Security of a free state
The word State can have many meanings. It means the body politic in all it’s expressions:
Society (the whole body politic — “We The People” — the jura summa imperii) is the state that created government by electing delegates to write a Constitution and then voting to ratify it. After all, it is the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God that entitle us to create it.
It also refers to the artificial entity they created by ratifying the Constitution.
It refers to the civil servants who swear oaths to obey the society (obey the jura summa imperii)
In other words, It is the government 1. of the people, 2. by the people, 3. for the people
Even the term “United States” has three meanings. See the Supreme Court case Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652.
Maxims of Law
• Protection draws subjection. Protectio trahit subjectionem. People must defend the creature they created. If you protect your civil servants, you are their master. The opposite is also true — If you are the protected then you are the subject.
• “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.
If you want to be responsible for the protection of your civil servants — Then we must have a militia to protect them. Therefore a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Regardless of the meaning of the word state. (the society or the artificial entity or the civil servants).
AND you have a duty to control the artificial entity you inherited.
BUT the Second Amendment does not apply to people in States.
***
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The first eight amendments only apply to people in federal territories. The first eight Amendments do not apply to States and do not protect state people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Twinning v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, in 1908 — and in Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, in 1939.). Federal Territories become States to free themselves from federal jurisdiction. Nor are people in States protected by the federal government — until they volunteer into federal jurisdiction.
Under our Constitution, Vice President Thomas Jefferson reassured the people of Kentucky in 1798 that they were free from all federal laws, except for the three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, “and no other crimes whatever”. He went on to say “(and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitution) are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own Territory.”
The Second Amendment does NOT grant any right. Never did. Never can.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to add further restrictions on the federal government. The Bill of Rights itself says so. Many people think that rights come from government. They have been fooled. Rights do NOT come from government. Government can only take away rights. The Bill of Rights DOES NOT grant any rights. The Bill of Rights adds further restrictions on government. The bill itself (Link) stipulates its purpose:
in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.
***
GUN CONTROL
Gun Control was never intended by the authors of the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson in his “Legal Commonplace Book”:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
More information is in my essay on the militia, linked above.
***
LIST OF LAWS AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:
The Federalist 29Concerning The Militia by Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist 46 by James Madison.
U.S. Supreme Court in U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), at page 553, quoted below
U.S. Supreme Court in U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), at page 553:
“The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the ‘powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,’ ‘not surrendered or restrained’ by the Constitution of the United States. “
U. s, Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) – This second post-Civil War era case ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment rights. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias. An individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States. Personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms
U.S. Supreme Court, Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016)
– The Court ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
***
The Supreme Court’s Lopez decision (linked above) cleared student Lopez of any crime. The School Gun Free Zone laws was a commerce clause law. School is not closely related to commerce. The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not apply to commerce. No one has a right to bear arms in regulated commerce.
To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.”
The right to self defense against corporal assaults is one of the three rights of all mankind which cannot be surrendered to public convenience. The preservation of these rights, inviolate, secured the preservation of civilized society.
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, comments on his reprint of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
***
THE LAWS OF NATURE AND THE LAWS OF NATURE’S GOD
The Declaration of Independence states that it is the laws of Nature’s God that entitles the United States to exist. Why do judges in every state question the legitimacy of their office?
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.
Governments are instituted among men to secure those Creator-granted God-given unalienable rights.
[including the right to self defense against corporal attacks].
Back when the American colonies were under British rule a 1690 law treatise was published which became part of the received law of the land.
The unalienable right to self defense was previously acknowledged in 1690 when John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government section 233 explained that self-defense against government cannot be denied in English colonies.
Must the people then always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny? Must they see their cities pillaged, and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant’s lust and fury, and themselves and families reduced by their king to ruin, and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself”
A four volume law textbook Blackstone’s Commentaries On The Law was the preeminent law textbook in the English Colonies. It is considered by the Supreme Court to be part of the “received law of the land”. It explains in the introduction that all natural and legislated laws come from divine law:
“It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original… Neither could any other law possibly exist; for a law always supposes some superior who is to make it; and in a state of nature we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being.”
Merely thinking that a collective can make a choice for you is the opposite of “all men are created equal”
The law of nature requires us to supervise our civil servants, and if they fail to enforce the divine law of nature, we are restored to the nature that we were in prior to creating government, for we are all equal. See Locke’s Second Treatise paragraphs 135, 149, 171, 209. . Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est. When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.
***
THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE even against government.
The Declaration of Independence said it is our duty to throw off despotism:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
This principle was still valid when Abraham Lincoln made his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
This principle was still valid when The U.S. Supreme Court ruled John Elk v. US, 177 US 529:
“... where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. … the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
***
The right to duel to the death
Andrew Jackson survived three duels BEFORE we elected him as President. His campaign slogan was “the common man”. It is a constitutional right for a common man to settle his disputes without government. Our State and federal governments cannot interfere with the disputes of their masters. Don’t be fooled. Yes, the common voter, living in liberty, respects a man who risks death defending his honor. In a free nation, Andrew Jackson earned enough respect to be elected as a defender of everyone’s honor.
Governments were instituted among men to secure rights. The blessings of liberty secured to the posterity included the right to settle our own disputes without interference. From the Christian Pilgrims in 1621 Plymouth, until America was made safe for barbarism* in 1865, those who understood where real authority comes from would settle their own disputes. Examples include Vice President Aaron Burr who killed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Mr. Gwinnett who signed the Declaration of Independence, Daniel Key, son of Francis Scott Key, and David Terry CHIEF Justice of the California Supreme Court who defended himself against US Senator Broderick. Civil Servants do not settle their masters’ disputes.
* The root word of barbarism is the word bar. The bar association did not exist in America until 1878, after terrorism was protected. The US Supreme Court in their 1793 case Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 at the top of page 449, while comparing different justice systems, said that in ancient Greek tribunals, law and liberty were “in strict and graceful union” before the justice system was corrupted. The high court explained: “The rude and degrading league between the bar and feudal barbarism was not yet formed.“
***
Militarization of police
Defending yourself and your community is a private decision, and cannot be done with government funds or equipment, except in time of war. It is never a governmental function to execute someone without a trial. Under our Constitution, police had to provide their own weapon if they wanted to defend themselves. Government weapons could never be used for a private purpose, such as self-defense — until Grover Cleveland became chief of the NY State Police then, under martial law, converted the police into a military force and provided government guns.
President Lincoln’s martial law code, the Lieber Code — Mr. Lieber was Lincoln’s martial law attorney who wrote it — states that a declaration of martial law is never necessary. The mere fact that there are government arms in the streets is sufficient notice that we are under martial law. If government police officers are in the streets with government guns, then you are living under martial law. Again: a declaration of martial law is never necessary. Actions speak louder than words.
The Lieber Code was Lincoln’s Martial Law manual.
Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon to use the military against the people. “alea iacta est.” The die is cast.
King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta to give us civil control over law enforcement. Ever since then Sheriffs did not have the keys to the jail, only Magistrates could put you in jail — this is still true today for those who keep their rights.
If you want to keep your rights, It is your duty to ourselves and our posterity to figure out how you were deceived. And your duty to use the courts3 we created to apply the laws to the facts you discovered. A government granted privilege is not a right.
Here is your Quiz:
When the Constitution was written what was this right of self-defense?
When the Constitution was written what was a militia?
Is an “arm” in the Second Amendment the same as a “firearm”” in all of the legislated laws that ignore “the right of the people”? — Why do Congressmen who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution refuse to use the Constitutional term “arm” but instead always use the term firearm?
Can a right be regulated?
A right cannot be taxed. (The National Firearms Act of 1934 is a tax law). So what government privilege was actually taxed there?
Why would commerce clause laws apply to an item that is no longer in commerce?
Do Congressmen’s oaths-of-office to secure the blessings of liberty mean anything?
Does your State Constitution tell you who is in the Militia? Does it require training as many now insist?
Here are your hints
A right cannot be regulated. A right cannot be taxed. The National Firearms Act of June 20,1934 was an IRS tax on the sale, manufacture and transfer of certain dangerous firearms.
Congress cannot exceed the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. Amendment 10 says that the federal government’s authority must be delegated by the Constitution. So what impost, duty or excise does the National Firearms Act actually tax?
Is the NFA legit because Congress has the right to regulate and tax interstate commerce in Article 1, Section 8? Also read a very detailed explaination at OriginalIntent.org
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Congress cannot have the power to tax (destroy) a right that every Congressman has sworn an oath-of-office to protect.
The duty to bear arms is a Christian duty. You love your neighbors by defending the innocent. Christians obey the commandments of Christ. (Although many self-called “Christians” refuse to obey Christ). “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Luke 22:36
Government cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Also note that Apostle Peter had a sword/knife fight with government law enforcement officers,wounding one, and was not arrested.
Did the same Peter that is quoted in Acts 5:29 “obey God rather than men” suddenly change his mind in First Peter 2:13-16?: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” — Notice that it is the “will of God…to silence the ignorance of foolish men”. — He is telling people not to attract attention with their new liberty from graven (manmade) laws. After all, law is not made for the righteous, First Timothy 1:9.
Every Congressman has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. This “right of the people” cannot be infringed. Congress cannot collectively commit mutiny. If they wanted to write a constitutional law and stay within their delegated authority, they would have used the Constitution’s words. In the Constitution this “right of the people” uses the term “arms”. It does not use the term “firearms”. Non accipi debent verba in demonstrationem falsam, quae competunt in limitationem veram. Words ought not to be accepted to import a false description when they are consistent with a true definition.
In 1919 President Woodrow Wilson had unsuccessfully tried to veto the Volstead Act, which set harsh punishments for violating the 18th Amendment and endowed the Internal Revenue Service with unprecedented regulatory and enforcement powers.
In 1933 after the Carlisle Act, the IRS and the ATF moved to the U.S. Virgin Islands. Does the NFA only levy tax on imports of firearms entering the federal territories?
More Maxims of Law
Every Law Dictionary will tell you that The legislature cannot impose laws on words to change definitions. Legislatorum est viva vox, rebus et non verbis, legem imponere. The voice of legislators is a living voice, to impose laws on things and not on words.
Ad recte docendum oportet primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum congnitio a nominibus rerum dependet. In order to rightly comprehend a thing, it is necessary first to inquire into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends on their names.
*** Footnotes ***
1. A right cannot be taxed. Or charged a fee.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943) although NOT an arms case:
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.
“a person cannot be compelled to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”
“the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 , 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.”
2. A right cannot be licensed.
U.S. Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969), although NOT an arms case:
“Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
U.S. Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76, which was a inheritance case, at page 79:
“No doubt, a statute may take away a common law right; but there is always a presumption that the Legislature has no such intention, … unless they contain express words of nullity.”
Can you find express words of nullity in the NFA to take away a common law right that is explicitly enforced by every congressman’s oath of office?
3. Learn how to use the courts.
A lawyer’s duty is to ATTORN you over to the system. See my essay on lawyers.
I recommend an online law course. If you don’t know how to defend your rights, you will lose them. I recommend that you study all the basic law procedures explained in “How To Win In Court” self-help course.
*** Other Notes ***
Comparing other dangerous weapon cases, I found Riggins v. Seattle very interesting. The plaintiff had a knife which he had used earlier in the day to help roof his brother’s house. He was arrested for having a dangerous weapon within city limits. The State Constitution restricts government impairment of bearing arms: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, …” The case also mentions:
— “Where legislation tends to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public and bears a reasonable and substantial relationship to that purpose, every presumption will be indulged in favor of constitutionality.”
— “The presumption implicit in the local law is that four-inch knives, when carried on the streets, are being carried for criminal purposes, or for other reasons that are hazardous to the health, welfare and safety of the public. . . . . The court believed that the presumption was rational and based on common sense: As the City Council found in its investigative phase, and as any sentient person knows, knives are implicated in many street crimes, and continue to be a prime cause of serious injury and death. .”
— “The presumption is that, unless an exemption is applicable, one who carries a “dangerous knife” within the city of Seattle does so either for criminal purposes or for other reasons that are hazardous to the safety and welfare of the public.”
As for myself, I cannot see the logic in having the capability of defending self or state as “hazardous to the safety and welfare of the public” — After all:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor.
Government exists to protect rights. A legitimate government function (called by various names like “police power”, “compelling state interest”, “overriding governmental interest”, “exigent circumstances”, “clear and present danger doctrine”) that can trump your right to liberty is to protect an innocent person from grave and immediate danger.
We know from several U.S. Supreme Court cases that First Amendment rights are “susceptible to restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect” (This phrase was used in many Supreme Court decisions to protect your rights. Carrol v. Princess Anne 393 U.S. 175, Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516, West Virginia v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, in re Brown 9 Cal.3d 612, West’s Constitutional law, key 84, 90, 91 — etc.)”
Is it the intent of every congressmen to keep me from defending them?
School Gun Free Zone law 18 USC 922q still exists today. It was changed by the Lopez decision to only guns in interstate commerce.
Congress has the power to legislate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Do not be fooled. The rules of statute construction prohibit misconstruing statutes in such as way to allow an interpretation contrary to the congress members oath of office. Such as interpreting a non-commerce activity as criminal.
It is a government granted privilege to have a firearm. No one has a right to keep or bear a firearm without the government granted privilege.
Government has a right to regulate interstate commerce. Government also has a duty to protect your rights.
The term “firearm” is a legislated word. The term “arm” is a common law term (in the Law of Nature, and Nature’s God). How can you come the opposite conclusion?
The U.S. Supreme Court in DC v. Heller was discussing firearms. Yes, you can possess firearms. And also use them at home. Firearms are required to be registered for use in commerce.
The Heller decision Held:
“1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”
Notice in the above quote that the Supreme Court Heller decision said “right to possess a firearm” is protected by the Second Amendment, BUT “firearm” is not the term used in the Amendment. Why did Congress refuse to use the term in the Second Amendment, which they are sworn to uphold?
***
If you don’t know how to defend your rights — you will not have any.
I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.
Why would a reasonably intelligent person be left-leaning?
By Steven D. Miller
This left v. right question has be asked and re-asked throughout the history of mankind. The answers are always similar.
Reasonably intelligent answers throughout history
2150 years ago Greek Historian Polybius wrote The Histories Of the Roman Republic 220-146 BC, Book 6, section 9:
“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders … when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch. “
And 2000 years ago Plutarch said “It is truly said that the first destroyer of the liberties of a people is he who gave them bounties and largesse. ”
Cicero in 45BC wrote about the same problem. Here is H. Rackham’s 1914 translation of Section 1.10.33 of Cicero’s De finibus bonorum et malorum:
“[33] On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammeled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.”
This was true when Samuel Adams speech at the Pennsylvania State House, August 1, 1776 told the greedy anti-freedom opportunists to “crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.”
When the proposed U.S. Constitution was debated in the State Senates.
To counter those rumors that the “general welfare” clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it “is an absurdity” to claim that the General Welfare clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase “general welfare”.
That’s right! Your Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals.
This was still true when Congressman Davy Crockett made his famous “it is not yours to give” speech. It is not their money to give, not even for disaster relief in a federal territory.
Why do you want laws that force others to provide for you? You are demanding theft and extortion. It violates the Tenth Commandment to not covet your neighbor’s wealth.
Presidents also warned us
President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed our nation’s first health care bill — a bill to help the mentally ill. His veto said:
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity…. [this] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
In Genesis 3:19 the unchanging God of the Bible requires you to earn your bread from the sweat of your face.
This principle was still true when Abraham Lincoln gave his second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865: “It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces…”
He was talking about slavery. That’s right. Forced welfare contributions are just as immoral as slavery. Welfare and slavery are the same thing. It is using laws to force others to provide you with the fruits of another man’s labor. If you expect others to provide what you want, then you are as corrupt as a slave owner.
This was still true for Grover Cleveland’s veto of government pensions June 21, 1886:
“. . . Every relaxation of principle in the granting of pensions invites applications without merit and encourages those who for gain urge honest men to become dishonest. This is the demoralizing lesson taught the people that as against the public Treasury the most questionable expedients are allowable.
. . . I venture to suggest the significance of the startling increase in this kind of legislation and the consequences involved in its continuance.”
This was still true in 1897 when President Grover Cleveland vetoed an appropriation to provide disaster aid to victims of a Texas drought. His veto stated:
“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds… I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution. The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people should support the government, the government should not support the people.”
[my footnote: 1897 was 2 years after the Supreme Court ruled that income tax was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan Co. — 157 US 429, and 158 U.S. 601],
This was still true for the Teddy Roosevelt speech to the New York City Chamber of Commerce November 11, 1902:
“it is a pleasure to address a body whose members possess to an eminent degree the traditional American self-reliance of spirit which makes them scorn to ask from the government, whether of State or of Nation, anything but a fair field and no favor; who confide not in being helped by others, but in their own skill, energy, and business capacity to achieve success. The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight that he shall not be a mere passenger, but shall do his share in the work that each generation of us finds ready to hand; and, furthermore, that in doing his work he shall show not only the capacity for sturdy self-help but also self-respecting regard for the rights of others.”
Reasonably intelligent answers from the Bible:
The apostle Paul repeated King David’s warning that government charity would be a snare to trap you. Romans 11:9
Galatians 5:15 paraphrase: if you devour your neighbor, you risk being devoured yourself.
Second Thessalonians 2:11 God himself gives them over to strong delusion that they might believe a lie.
Romans 1:28 God himself gives them a reprobate mind.
Christ himself, at the Last Supper, told us to not be like the kings of the gentiles (ie, pagan governments). We are not to be benefactors.
It didn’t come from the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Supreme Court decision Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94):
“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.”
How can a newborn child owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to any political body? After all, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government said that parental rights are all based upon “divine revealed law” in the Bible, and that children when they are 21 years old would choose which government to place themselves under.*
The 1941 US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 ,stated at page 183:
… birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.”
Feudal Law
Citizenship by birth on the soil (jus soli) has never been true in America. This type of citizenship excludes “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country” (as was the minority opinion in the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision). Jus soli was created by feudal law. (see Amos S. Hershey, Essentials of International Law, MacMillian Publishing, 1912, at 237).
All serfs born on the soil are property of the landlord.
But what about federal citizenship?
The 14th Amendment’s phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” uses the definite article “the” jurisdiction. It does not refer to the several state’s plural (“their”) jurisdiction.
A State Citizen cannot possibly be “completely subject to [federal] political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”. After all, under our Constitution, Vice President Thomas Jefferson reassured the people of Kentucky in 1798 that they were free from all federal laws, except for the three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, “and no other crimes whatever”. He went on to say “(and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitution) are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own Territory.”
And in Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383 the court determined that “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government…” — as if one has to volunteer into citizenship by claiming to be one.
The U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 at page 551 said:
“The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”
So how does being born voluntarily* submit yourself to government?
In both the Old Testament and New Testament, we find that God hated Esau. Esau, with an oath, traded his birthright for a bowl of stew. Did you do the same? For more information read my book Oaths: Mandatory or Voluntary? And for the sad story of how you waived your rights in exchange for benefits, read my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.
If you don’t know how to defend your rights, you will lose them. I recommend that you study all the basic law procedures explained in “How To Win In Court” self-help course.
– – – – – –
* John Locke’s Second Treatise of government, which was the foundation for most of the Declaration of Independence, in his Chapter 6 “Paternal rights”, says that a child is not subject to legislated laws until he is old enough to make binding contracts. He said in paragraph 57: “for nobody can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him” and later in paragraph 73 when children become 21 years old they can choose which government to place themselves under, and, according to paragraph 62, this cannot happen until they have the recognized right to take binding oaths of allegiance.
