912-Western Iowa-Council Bluffs Message Board › Will Ron Paul supporters vote for Mitt

Will Ron Paul supporters vote for Mitt

Scott
user 10283917
Glenwood, IA
Post #: 451
Vince when you call yourself an "atheist" you should really be more specific. I amusing what you really mean, or are referring to by your use of the term "atheist", is that you do not believe in, put faith in, trust in, give allegiance to, an unseen creative force, a creator of the universe, a supreme being above that of mankind.

However, you are technically incorrect when you say you are an "atheist" because you do believe in, put faith in, trust in, give allegiance to a seen "theos", which is the word that "theist" and "atheist" are derived from, an "theos" is translated "God or god". Theos or God/god in not a name, it is a descriptive word, a title, and means a "judge, a magistrate, a law maker, a ruler". So this word is applied to an unseen creator or creative force by people that do believe in, put faith in, trust in, give allegiance to, but it is also a title or a descriptor for the seen theos, gods many of the civil law nations, corporate bodies made up of member persons.

Vince you are a theist, it is just that your Theos is Uncle Sam, a seen "god", judge, magistrate, law maker and ruler.

Vince this is why you and I are never going to see eye to eye. Since your god, theos, is Uncle Sam, you only believe in, put your faith and trust in, and give your allegiance to Uncle Sam's civil law system. By your beliefs you have limited yourself and barred yourself from any other form or jurisdiction of law, specifically the Law of Nature and Nature's God, i.e. Natural Law.

Here is a maxim of law that all your "gods", theos, law makers in Omaha, Douglas County, Lincoln and Washington fully understand: "Leges naturae perfectissimae sunt et immutaviles; humani vero juris conditio semper in infinitum decurrit, et nihil est in co quod perpetuo stare possit. Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt moriuntur. = The laws of nature are most perfect and immutable; but the condition of human law is an unending succession, and there is nothing in it which can continue perpetually. Human laws are born, live and die."

Baker v. Rusk, Cal. (1969) 236 F. Supp. 1244; Reynolds v. Haskin, C.A.A. Kan. 1925, 8 F. 2d 473, "A person born in the United States has rights under this amendment [the 14th] to remain a citizen unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship."

Elk v. Wilkins, Neb. (1884), 5s.ct.41, 112 US 99, 28 L.Ed. 643, "Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 34 S. Ct. 10, 13, 58 L.Ed. 101, "Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance of the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation of the other."

US v. Anthony, 24 Fed. 829 (1873), "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875), "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."

Nickell v. Rosenfield, (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 p. 760, "The civil rights of a citizen of the United States is a completely regulated privilege because one type of civil right is a right given and protected by law [via the legal system], and a person's enjoyment therfore is regulated entirely by law [the legal system] that creates it."

"Constantly bearing in mind that entering into society individuals must give up a share of their liberty." Andrew Jackson on March 4, 1833.

"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 September 11 1858.

Maxim of Law: "Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinalm servitutem redigulnt; sed leges angiae semel manumissum semper liberum judicant. = The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free."

So Vince, you theist that gives your allegiance, trust, faith, and hope in the civil law makers, rulers, gods that you freely choose to set over you and your fellow members of the political body politic created by Congress, enjoy the bondage with which you freely consented to subject yourself to. Keep on voting for new civil law gods in an unending succession of trying to return to a liberty that is only available outside that civil law corporate body.



Scott
user 10283917
Glenwood, IA
Post #: 452
Title 8 USC § 1502 - Certificate of nationality issued by Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state:

The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate official channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.

SO....Here is one of Uncle Sam's endless succession of civil laws, the question is how many people could use this particular statute? How many people do you personally know that are not "members" and "persons" of the corporate body politic created by congress' 14th Amendment who are classified as U.S. persons, U.S. nationals, citizens of the United States, i.e. federal citizens, citizens of congress that could actually and righteously use this statute of congress to get that "god" (theos, law maker, judge) to declare that you are not one of its citizen subjects, but rather outside their regulatory control, jurisdiction, because of rightfully and lawfully "voluntarily relinquishes that [federal] citizenship? I personally know several that have used this very statute.

So how does one "voluntarily relinquish that citizenship" as mentioned in Baker v. Rusk? The day before the 14th Amendment went into legal effect changing the legal premise of citizenship in America and created a new corporate body under their [congress] 14th amendment, a "democracy within a republic"; congress passed "Public Law 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, pages 223-224, which purviews through Title 8 U.S.C. § 1481.

The original act of congress reads:

Chap. CCXXLIX -- An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.

PREAMBLE - Rights of American Citizens in foreign states.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed.

Section I - Right of Expatriation Declared.
Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government."


I will concede that most US citizens will not see that this is really saying because they don't know that the several states are considered "foreign" states, foreign in regards to each other and foreign to the United States, the state of the union, i.e. the federal body politic or corporate.

However, read the preamble very carefully. Congress declares, "such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states". Before the 14th Amendment the "naturalization" congress did as a lawful function of citizenship was to naturalize people to their "state", and bestow "state citizenship" upon someone emigrating from a nation in Europe, then they were a "Virginian" or a "Mainer", or an "Iowan", and Citizens of their state, which was "foreign" to the other states and the United States. Look at the word "descendants". Doesn't descendents mean my children and grandchildren? My father and grandfathers are my ancestors. So prior to the 14th Amendment and the creation of a new class of citizenship created by congress, my ancestors were granted citizenship in Iowa and that citizenship and nationality passed on to my ancestors descendants, which would be me. Congress says that to maintain the peace (Civil War) this separate and foreign nationality and citizenship [State Citizenship] SHOULD, not MUST, be "promptly and finally disavowed". BUT they cannot make you, because in the NATURAL LAW, the Law of Nature and Nature's God, the right to expatriate is an inalienable right, so congress wants you to join their corporate political club, their 14th Amendment body politic or corporate, their democracy within the republics, but it is your free will choice. Now that your ancestors have accepted Congress' offer of US citizenship, you're born into that body politic under the 14th Amendment, or course you can always expatriate, but that is a voluntary act, just like any act of consent is voluntary. For all governments get their power from the consent of the governed. But US citizens only talk about liberty and the republic, when in reality they are "members" and "persons" of the corporate communist democracy called the United States.

This doesn't totally set you at liberty under God, under the Law of Nature, the jurisdiction where all inalienable rights originate, but it is a start. There is still the matter of the "public debt". There is still the matter of accepting all of Uncle Sam's other " socialistic offers" that bind people by their consent, like Social Security, public schools, unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid, worker's compensation, employment and participation in Uncle Sam's commerce and commercial, corporate economy that uses the credit and debt money system of the Federal Reserve. There is much repentance that needs to happen before people are truly at liberty again. But if they erroneously believe that they are going to make the Civil Law look and at like the Natural Law, which most do, they are FOOLS. You cannot change a Zebra's stripes.

US 14th Amendment democracy creed: "I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies." Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.
A former member
Post #: 236
here we go again with more page long rants.
Scott
user 10283917
Glenwood, IA
Post #: 453
Hey Vince,

Are dependent children totally at liberty to do whatever they choose to do while living under their parent's roof, having all their needs met at their parent's expense, needs like food, shelter, utilities, clothing, entertainment, etc.?

If not, why do dependent US citizens receiving social security, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, professional paid/conscripted police and military protection, government education, Pell grants, welfare, medicare, medicaid, corporate bailouts, subsidies, licenses, immunities, franchises and other sundry benefits and entitlements think they are totally free under Uncle Sam's patrimonial "patronus" roof? When has a US citizen paid a debt at law with substance according to the Law of Nature and Nature's God? Or do they prefer to discharge their debts in civil law's equity jurisdiction with Uncle Sam's and his creditor's debt instruments? When has a US citizen practiced strict liability for all their acts and deeds according to the Law of Nature and Nature's God? Or do they prefer to limit their liability by contracting a superior party, a guardian, an Artificial Person called an Insurance Company to pay the bulk of their acts and deeds?

"With Liberty comes great responsibility which is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw.

You seek to teach people about Liberty....teach them to take back ALL their natural law responsibilities and the people will have liberty. Teach people that they can have their cake and eat it to and they will remain ignorant debt slaves bound to a master and father called Uncle Sam, Caesar, Pharaoh, Nimrod and Cain under that lord/gods civil laws. Men that conquer the people (Nicolaitans = victors or conquerors of the laity/people, which God, the Creator, hates, because it the antithesis of His Natural Law).

Responsibilities do not follow rights; rights follow responsibilities. You'll know them by their fruit.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy