Uncategorized

Can socialism be constitutional in the U.S.?

Throughout our history, Presidents could not find anything in the U.S. Constitution to allow socialism or any kind of welfare for individuals.

Your Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals. 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”.

In 1792 congressman and future President James Madison voted against a congressional appropriation to assist war refugees who had fled to America. He said:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

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.

In the 1891 naturalization case of Mr. Sauer, Title 81 Federal Reporter page 358, the court held that Mr. Sauer, although an industrious, law abiding man, could not become a citizen because he claimed to be a Socialist. That’s right. SOCIALISTS CAN NOT BECOME U.S. CITIZENS.

President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed a health care 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.”

Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

Abraham Lincoln, second Inaugural Address, 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 …”

Grover Cleveland’s veto of government pensions, June 21, 1886:

“… encourages those who for gain urge honest men to become dishonest. This is the demoralizing lesson taught [to] the people … against the public Treasury …”

1897 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.”

Note: 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)

Teddy Roosevelt speech to the New York City Chamber of Commerce November 11, 1902:

“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.”

Socialism cannot recognize individual rights. You cannot covet your neighbor’s wealth and expect to have rights to your own wealth.

For more information on how you waived your rights, read my essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

United States of Socialism: Who’s Behind It. Why It’s Evil. How to Stop It.
by Dinesh D’Souza

Socialists Don’t Sleep: Christians Must Rise or America Will Fall
by Cheryl K. Chumley

States were once sovereign.

1.They created a federal government and they must be held responsible for controlling what they created. The 17th Amendment now prohibits them from controlling what they created.

2. A court that flies the gold fringed US flag is not a judicial court. It is a federal martial law legislative tribunal. Start with my essay Gold Fringed Flag.

3. State judicial courts must protect their people from the gold fringed flag courts. The citizen who cannot complain is the individual who owes allegiance to two governments. According to The Supreme Court in U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 at page 551,

4. People in states are subject to only three federal laws. The three crimes mentioned in the US Constitution. “and no other crimes whatever” according to vice-President Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions.

5. States can no longer control the creature they created. Example: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266  has a critical examination of the problems of the 14th Amendment. The Utah Supreme Court justices said “We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves, but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of us”.

Local judges are not controlled by their State. They are federally controlled. Judges in every State are bound thereby (U.S. Constitution Article 6, second paragraph).

6. IRS definition of citizen in Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations section 1.1-1(c) is that of a 14th Amendment federal citizen, not a state citizen. State citizens are protected from the federal government by the state judicial court, not the federal gold fringed flag courts. See my essay Why we don’t have rights anymore.

7. By getting a SSN you disavow any allegiance to a State government. Once a 14th Amendment citizen, always a 14th Amendment citizen — your State citizenship was “finally disavowed” are the words in the Expatriation Act — in other words once you volunteer you cannot expatriate from the federal prison you volunteered into. This explains why US citizens are taxed everywhere in the world they move to. More info is in my essay Why don’t we have rights anymore? In my essay I explain why the expatriation Act was passed the day before they ratified the 14th Amendment. Once you jump the fence into the federal government, you cannot jump back.* This is why the U.S. is one of the two countries on the globe that taxes their citizens wherever they are located.

Do not misread the Expatriation Act. (Link — chapter 249 starts near the bottom of page 223) The Act says: “This claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed:…”
Once you expatriate from the [foreign] State of the Union by seeking federal benefits, your allegiance to the foreign State of the Union is “promptly and finally disavowed”, They can no longer protect you from the federal government.

* James Madison correctly explained in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions: the term “states” means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity; because

• in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the “states;”
• in that sense the “states” ratified it; and
• in that sense of the term “states,” they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.

So nothing changed with the Constitution, regarding any state’s national sovereignty; i.e. they were still each “a people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity,” i.e. a sovereign nation-state, and were simply parties to an international union on that basis. 

YOU WILL ALSO BE INTERESTED IN MY ESSAYS

• Why Do States Exist?
• SSNs Are Not Required to Live or Work in the U.S.
• Scope of Government

Why don’t we have rights anymore? – Do Not Be Fooled by Government (notfooledbygovernment.com)

A free country is one that allows it’s people to leave. Are you free?

An oath of citizenship, according to the Department of Homeland Security 8 CFR 337, is a commitment to “perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; …”.  This is unlimited perpetual slavery.  Your forced labor is collateral for the national debt. Your debt to society must be paid. Your allegiance was turned over to the creditors (by lawyers). You are permanently obligated until you pay your debt to society.

Passport laws in Title 22, Persons entitled to passport Chapter 4 Section 212 states:

“No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.”

22 U.S. Code § 212

This includes a National of the United States according to :

“The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”

— 8 USC 1101 (22)

If we read the Application for passport; verification by oath of initial passport, in Title 22, Chapter 4, § 213. we also see that:

“Before a passport is issued to any person by or under authority of the United States such person shall subscribe to and submit a written application which shall contain a true recital of each and every matter of fact which may be required by law or by any rules authorized by law to be stated as a prerequisite to the issuance of any such passport. If the applicant has not previously been issued a United States passport, the application shall be duly verified by his oath before a person authorized and empowered by the Secretary of State to administer oaths.”

— 22 U.S. Code § 213

A national is not a citizen but still owes permanent allegiance. Permanent allegiance does not change. The conferring of nationality (which does not give the rights of citizenship) also requires oaths of allegiance. Title 8 U.S. Code § 1452 – Certificates of citizenship or U.S. non-citizen national status; (b) Application to Secretary of State for certificate of non-citizen national status; proof; oath of allegiance taking and subscribing, before an immigration officer within the United States or its outlying possessions, to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of a petitioner for naturalization, the individual shall be furnished by the Secretary of State with a certificate of non-citizen national status, but only if the individual is at the time within the United States or its outlying possessions.
[1452b section 341 b 308 confers nationality but not citizenship. 101 a21, a22, 29]

There are many revisions of The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 According to Title 8 USC §1101: Definitions Text

§1101. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter-

(1) The term “administrator” means the official designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 1104(b) of this title.
(2) The term “advocates” includes, but is not limited to, advises, recommends, furthers by overt act, and admits belief in.
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
…
12) The term “doctrine” includes, but is not limited to, policies, practices, purposes, aims, or procedures.
14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens-
(A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, ….
(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
30) The term “passport” means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer’s origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.
31) The term “permanent” means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States or of the individual, in accordance with law.
36) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Section 101(a)(21) of the INA defines the term “national” as “a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.” Section 101(a)(22) of the INA provides that the term “national of the United States” includes all U.S. citizens as well as persons who, though not citizens of the United States, owe permanent allegiance to the United States (non-citizen nationals).”

Section 308 INA confers U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship, on persons born in “an outlying possession of the United States” or born of a parent or parents who are non-citizen nationals who meet certain physical presence or residence requirements. The term “outlying possessions of the United States” is defined in Section 101(a)(29) of the INA as American Samoa and Swains Island. No other statutes define any other territories or any of the states as outlying possessions.”

“In addition to Section 308 of the INA, Section 302 of Public Law 94 – 241 provides for certain inhabitants of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, who became United States citizens by virtue of Article III of the Covenant, to opt for non-citizen national status. (See requirements of Section 302).”

“As the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.”

“If a person believes he or she is eligible under the law as a non-citizen national of the United States and the person complies with the provisions of section 341(b) of the INA, 8 USC 1452(b),he/she may apply for a passport at any Passport Agency in the United States.. When applying, applicants must execute a Form DS-11 and show documentary proof of their non-citizen national status as well as their identity.”

If you want to be free, don’t agree to pay the national debt.

The Constitution was constituted by constitutors.

You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
— Ayn Rand

Here are the consequences of ignoring reality

If you are not there to help others, others will not be there to help you when you need help.

Keep doing what you are doing and history will repeat millennia of misery.

Forced charity has never been sustainable

Forced welfare is NOT welfare. It is theft by force, fear and violence.  Real charity is to love your neighbor as yourself.  Learn to spot the difference. 

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. “

2150 years ago Greek Historian Polybius  wrote The Histories Of the Roman Republic 220-146 BC, Book 6, section 9:

“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.”
link: http://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/classics/polybius6.html
or http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html

Ben Franklin, closing speech at the Constitutional Convention, September 17, 1787:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Six years after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Social Security, they agreed to use the common understanding of who qualifies for government welfare. In the 1941 Supreme Court case Edwards v. California at 314 US 160 at 172 , the legal term “indigent person” was given a very limited scope:

“…must be taken to include only persons who are presently destitute of property and without resources to obtain the necessities of life, and who have no relatives or friends able and willing to support them.”

In other words, forced charity is only legal to save the life of a pauper. Freeloaders cannot qualify. If you applied for a SS number, you confessed that you cannot manage your own life.  

Before the Constitution was constituted under the Articles of Confederation, paupers had no rights of citizenship. They had the same rights as a fugitive. And it remains true today that paupers (those with a SSN), have no more rights than a fugitive. 

Welfare entitlement is available only to save the life of the applicant. There is no Constitutional authority for individual welfare. But Treasury funds can be used to save a life. SS Cards can only be issued to one who is an “applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part by Federal funds” according to Title 42 US Code 405(c)(2)(B)(i). 

Lose your illusions. 

You are dependent on the agenda of others

You are completely dependent on those who control the foundations that you rely on. This is the very definition of Stockholm Syndrome. Just like the early Christians, and today’s Amish, you will need to join a like-minded community to provide the foundations of your own making, without reliance on “the powers that be.”

Your foundations are all provided by the Globalists. Jobs, food, healthcare, energy, banking, justice, education, travel. All these are controlled by regulations of the Powers That Be to justify their “requirement” for safety. But safety is not our heritage.

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

— Ben Franklin quote inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty

We hold the truth that we are created equal.

Equals will not salute other equals.
Equals will not bow down to other equals.
Equals will never swear oaths to other equals.

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. …  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

— Samuel Adams speech at the State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 August 1776) Sam was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, cousin of President John Adams, and an activist at the Boston Tea Party

Obedience to authority?

“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. … “

— US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28

All societies throughout history have had a few brave people who died standing against those who sought to enslave them.

• 300 Greeks stood against 100,000 Persian invaders.
• A thousand Jewish refugees were killed by Romans at Masada.
• Those who refused to affirm that Caesar was lord were fed to the lions. Those who refused to worship Emperors were often executed.  They had a choice to obey. 
• William Tell would have saluted the judge’s authority rather than be sentenced to death unless he could shoot an apple off his son. He chose to not obey government. We would not have a Switzerland today if Mr. Tell did not know that a salute was a form of worship.
• Braveheart William Wallace refused to pledge allegiance to the King of England. He was executed.
• In 1536 William Tyndayle was executed for the crime of translating the Bible into English.
• In the 1550s Catholic Queen Mary executed six mothers for teaching the Lord’s Prayer to their children.
• British Quakers were torn apart by teams of horses.
• American Quakers were executed in Massachusetts up to the 1850s.
• 180+ Americans died defending the Alamo against 2,400 Mexicans for about 20 minutes.

But you surrendered immediately without even questioning that you were being tricked out of your rights. “Live Free or Die” is the official motto of New Hampshire. It was written by General John Stark, New Hampshire’s most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War. Those who risk death have something worth standing for.  Perhaps you should pay attention. 

America The Beautiful, verse 3:

3. Oh, beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness,
And every gain divine.

•  British subjects living in British colonies would not have started the American Revolution.  They had a choice to obey or risk death killing their government’s law enforcement officers. 
• Patrick Henry would not have asked for liberty or death. 
• Nathan Hale, who was a 21 year old Yale graduate when he was executed in 1776, would not have had one death to spend for his country.

• Rahab, a career criminal who helped overthrow her government, would not be considered righteous (James 2:25) and listed in Hebrews 11 as one of the all-time faithful.
•  there would have been no anti-Baptists (who became today’s Amish, Mennonites and Baptists), who refused to register their children.  They endured a painful execution burning at the stake rather than obey government. They knew that their orphans would be raised by their murderers but they still refused to register their children. 
• The early Christians in Cappadocia, just east of Galatia, would not have lived in caves to evade government.  They had a choice of allegiance.  
• The Presbyterian covenanters of 1638 to 1688 endured great hardship, strife and civil wars to keep their religion. Scotland is free today because William Wallace chose martyrdom rather than swear allegiance to King Charles the first.
• Cromwell suspended Parliament and executed King Charles.  If they had obeyed their government, the monarch would likely still be supreme over America.
• In 1637 John Lilburn risked death refusing to take a Star Chamber Oath.    He chose to disobey government.  The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Miranda’s right to remain silent came from Lilburn’s refusal.
•  regulation IS persecution.

Stand, because when you stand, others will stand with you.  And God can’t stand with you if you don’t stand.  Once you stand you can expect the hand of providence to be over you. No matter how it ends, it matters how you stand.”
— Levoy Finicum

The following is research done by Brumby on Twitter, and published by principia-scientific.com

A study by researchers at the BMJ and Yale titled ‘Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19: A Tale of Three Models‘ found that :

“Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.” [1] 

A study in The Lancet found that:

“government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality” [2]

While a study published by Sage reported:

“Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions become effective” [3]

Another study at arxiv.org found that:

 “the decline in infections in England…began before full lockdown…[S]uch a scenario would be consistent with…Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly after the UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown” [4]

A study at datascienceassn.org reports:

“the UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behavior of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly).” [5]

While reported in The Times of Israel we find:

“Given that the evidence reveals that the Corona disease declines even without a complete lockdown, it is recommendable to reverse the current policy and remove the lockdown” [6]

A study from medrxiv.org tells us:

“stay at home orders, closure of all non-essential businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact” [7] 

Then again at medrxiv.org:

“these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures … experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic. Since the full lockdown strategies are shown to have no impact on the epidemic’s slowdown, one should consider their potentially high inherent death toll as a net loss of human lives” [8]

Then consider this at nicholaslewis.org where we read:

“The case of Sweden, where the authors find the reduction in transmission to have been only moderately weaker than in other countries despite no lockdown having occurred, is prima facie evidence” [9]

While back at bmj.com:

 “…general social distancing was also projected to reduce the number of cases but increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70 only” “Strategies that minimise deaths involve the infected fraction primarily being in the low risk younger age groups—for example, focusing stricter social distancing measures on care homes where people are likely to die rather than schools where they are not….results presented in the report suggested that the addition of interventions restricting younger people.” [10]

Again, we find another study at medrxiv.org:

“We show that [lockdown] is modestly superior in saving lives compared to [focused protection], but with tremendous costs to prevent one case of death. This might result in overwhelming economic effects that are expected to increase future death toll”  [11]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov has a study that tells us:

“For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals” [12]

From https://papers.ssrn.comwe learn:

 “Current policy can be misdirected and can therefore have long and even short-term negative effects on human welfare and thus result in not actually minimizing death rates (incorporating externalities), especially in the long run.” [13]

While we see at imgcdn.larepublica.co:

“For example, the data…shows a decrease in infection rates after countries eased…lockdowns with >99% statistical significance. Indeed…infection rates have declined after reopening even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag. This means that the pandemic and COVID-19 likely have its own dynamics unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures that were being implemented.” [14]

Stay at home orders are exposed in the JAMA study at jamanetwork.com:

 “restrictions imposed by the pandemic (eg, stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (eg, drug overdoses).” “In 14 states, more than 50% of excess deaths were attributed to underlying causes other than COVID-19; these included California (55% of excess deaths) and Texas (64% of excess deaths)”  [15]

Disturbing data is shown in medrxiv.org

“We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy <60 (ie schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: Feb 23 2021; Catalonia: Dec 28 2020; Paris: Jan 14 2021; London: Jan 22 2021)” [16]

Again, from Europe we see more lockdown failings in papers.ssrn.com

“Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended” [17]

More evidence of no benefits come in nber.org

“Our findings … further raise doubt about the importance in NPI’s (lockdown policies in particular) in accounting for the evolution of COVID-19 transmission rates over time and across locations” [18]

Meanwhile, back at bmj.com

 “[the] President…has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events…Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe-just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million” [19]

We learn at medrxiv.org

“living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92).” [20]

In another telling paper from medrxiv.org

 “This study shows that the virus is already here, and we must find ways of living with it such that it caused no or minimal human and socioeconomic losses in … Nigeria as a whole…. going back to the lockdown should never again be entertained” [21]

Now check out this in nejm.org 

“recruits were under the constant supervision of Marine Corps instructors. Other settings in which young adults congregate are unlikely to reflect similar adherence to measures intended to reduce transmission.” [22]

Then we learn from frontiersin.org

“The national criteria most associated with death rate are life expectancy and its slowdown, public health context (metabolic and non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden vs. infectious diseases prevalence), economy (growth national product, financial support), and environment (temperature, ultra-violet index). Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate” [23]

Lockdowners can see more bad news for their policy at tandfonline.com

“Whether a county had a lockdown has no effect on Covid-19 deaths; a non-effect that persists over time. Cross-country studies also find lockdowns are superfluous and ineffective (Homberg 2020). This ineffectiveness may have several causes. ” [24]

The insanity of lockdown exposed further at upmc-biosecurity.org

 “There are no historical observations…that support.. confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods…The negative consequences…are so extreme…this mitigation..should be eliminated from serious consideration” [25]

It was very predictable, according to medrxiv.org

 “we present data demonstrating that mortality due to covid-19… could have been largely predicted even before the pandemic hit Europe, simply by looking at longitudinal variability of all-cause mortality rates in the years preceding the…outbreak” [26]

Lockdown or no lockdown, the outcome was monotonously the same as shown in medrxiv.org 

“Our analysis shows that while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbour municipalities without mandates, There are of course anecdotal observations as well–e.g., Florida is doing better than California despite DisneyWorld having been open for months and California having no current plan to ever reopen anything, let alone Disneyland. I could do a similar thread on the harms of lockdowns (and school closures in particular) but that seems unnecessary as such harms have been well documented. If lockdowns were extremely effective, their desirability from a policy perspective would at least be a conversation worth having. However, these papers suggest they have limited effectiveness at best AND horrible side effects. ” [27]

References:

[1] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341

[2] DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100464

[3] https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.12362645.v3

[4] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

[5] Comment on Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7): The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe’, Stefan Homburg, Christof Kuhbandner

[6] https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-end-of-exponential-growth-the-decline-in-the-spread-of-coronavirus/

[7] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260

[8] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717

[9] https://www.nicholaslewis.org/did-lockdowns-really-save-3-million-covid-19-deaths-as-flaxman-et-al-claim/

[10] doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3588

[11] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047860

[12] doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31817734ba

[13] Altman, Morris, Smart Thinking, Lockdown and COVID-19: Implications for Public Policy (May 22, 2020). Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2020, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607803

[14] https://imgcdn.larepublica.co/cms/2020/05/21180548/JP-Morgan.pdf

[15] doi:10.1001/jama.2020.11787

[16] doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.09.20210146

[17] Bjørnskov, Christian, Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison (August 2, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3665588 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3665588

[18] DOI 10.3386/w27719

[19] doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3543

[20] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.01.20222315

[21] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.20168112

[22] DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2029717

[23] https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339

[24] https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786

[25] http://www.upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2006/2006-09-15-diseasemitigationcontrolpandemicflu.html

[26] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.25.20248853

[27] doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.28.20248936

– – – – –

You may also be interested in my posts on COVID-19: 

COVID-19 is a mild disease
Can Face Masks Stop a Virus? 
Pandemic or Dem-panic? 
WHO is behind the Plan-demic?  
Can 5G cause Coronavirus? 
Can a Governor keep you from Working? 
 Will COVID vaccines genetically modify you?  
Are coronavirus asymptomatic individuals contagious?  
The Rockefeller COVID-19 testing plan for military control of population  
COVID Virus Bailout   
Quarantine Constitutionality? 

And here is a link to Home – ICAN – Informed Consent Action Network (icandecide.org) 

Here is a followup to my post on Hunter Biden’s Justice Department investigation.

Here are some highlights of an old essay that I wrote in 2017. (Hint: it leads up to the IRS eagle logo, which I do not mention here).

Does the Department of Justice even exist as an official agency of government? The official story is that DOJ was created in 1870 to handle all the lawsuits resulting from the 14th amendment. But they have a difficult time explaining how they got the earlier motto and art work on their official seal. https://www.justice.gov/about/history/doj-seal-history-and-motto

The painting on the ceiling of the Capitol Rotunda depicts the goddess Justitia followed by an eagle holding arrows (implements of war and aggression). Justitia is holding a sword and a shield. Everyone below is crouching.

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justitia : “She is also often seen carrying a double-edged sword in her left hand, symbolizing the power of Reason and Justice, which may be wielded either for or against any party.”

Notice “EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ANY PARTY”

Wikipedia says the sword carrying is an attribute of the goddess Nemesis (vengeance). Nemesis “was the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods)”

This victorious eagle of war has conquered us and now offers an olive branch. (Peace through conquest). And you fell for it.

The Just-Us Department has a very curious logo. It shows the eagle who is depicted on the Capitol Canopy as following the goddess Justitia, With the motto “Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur” which means “He who follows Justitia dominates”. Their official story is that they don’t know what their motto means. We know that the DOJ seal was changed by the FDR socialists in 1934 by Executive Order 6692 (1934).

What could possibly go wrong?

By the way, the IRS is not an agency of the United States. The IRS cannot take anyone to court. It is the Justice Department that prosecutes IRS cases.

Here is my new page for Homeschooler study guide.

By Steven Miller

“We The People” created a federal government by writing a constitution. “We The People” are the superiors. Oath-of-office takers are the subordinates (inferiors) who, by taking an oath of allegiance, owe us allegiance.

By writing a constitution and finding subordinates to obey us, we create a government.
We delegated to our subordinates the 18 things they are authorized to do in Article 1, section 8. We DID NOT delegate any authority that we ourselves did not have. (like taxing our neighbors, canceling their marriage, regulating travel).

Disclaimer: I am not saying that we need a government. We did not have a government for the first 10 books of the Bible. We did not need a government then, and we don’t need one now.

Before I can answer your question on law, we need to know what the laws of nature are.
The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence states that it is the Laws of Nature that entitle the United States to exist. Every Law Dictionary will tell you the maxim of law: “When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature”.

The Declaration goes on to say that Governments are instituted among men to secure Creator-endowed (God-given) rights.
What are these God-given rights?
They are the rights of all mankind.

According to Tucker’s 1803 reprint of Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws, that was updated to include 1803 Virginia laws:

• “residuum of natural liberty which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience”. . . . ”
• “…these may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property: because, as THERE IS NO OTHER KNOWN METHOD OF COMPULSION, or of abridging man’s natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense. “

That’s right. Government exists to protect you from being controlled.

Now that you know what the Law of Nature is, I can answer your question about what Law is: All Law is consistent with the law of nature. Neither can there be any other law.

Continuing on with Blackstone’s Commentary on the Law:

“This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other – 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 we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being. …”
…Nay, if any human law should allow [violation of natural law], we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.”

For more information read my essays at www.NotFooledByGovernment.com
You might just find out how you waived all of your rights.