Secret ingredient that could keep America alive

"It's Got Electrolytes!"

One thing’s for sure.. Many FReepers prayed as hard as we could this election.. Lies, Deceit, Coercion, Bribery, Extortion, Rampant Corruption, Thuggery and Fraud won.

Everyone needs to start learning the law and how we got to where we are today.

The first thing people need to learn is that the government is a private corporation and it uses corporate [or contract] law to enslaves and corporate law is how we destroy the parasite we know as USofA inc.

Start by reading this:

The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited

First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:

Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside...”

Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...”

Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude. I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat obfuscatory.

Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as citizens thereof.

The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.

(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the United States).

In regard to persons born in the United States there are two criteria which must be met and complied with in order for persons born in the United States to be designated as citizens of the United States, and the second of the two preclude such citizenship from being “automatic” or based on the mere “accident” (or contrivance, as in the case of so called “anchor babies”), of the persons birth in the United States. The two required criteria are (1), that the persons be born in the United States (obvious), and, (2) that the born in the United States must also be subject to the jurisdiction thereof (this criteria is universally, incorrectly and erroneously presumed - read on:).

Finish the story here:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430/060225-—Eric-Williams-Show-—Excerpt

Here you have Supreme court cases to confirm that there is more than one meaning of the “United States”:

By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall’s singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term “United States” can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:

The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]

This same Court authority is cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”:

United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]

In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:

1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.

[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]

Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:

2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).

[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]

Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:

3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.

[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
[emphasis added]

Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:

It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of “United States.” The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term “United States**” is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.

[A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
[emphasis added, italics in original]

It is very important to note the careful use of the word “sovereign” by Chief Justice Stone in the Hooven case. Of the three different meanings of “United States” which he articulates, the United States is “sovereign” in only two of those three meanings. This is not a grammatical oversight on the part of Justice Stone. Sovereignty is not a term to be used lightly, or without careful consideration. In fact, it is the foundation for all governmental authority in America, because it is always delegated downwards from the true source of sovereignty, the People themselves. This is the entire basis of our Constitutional Republic. Sovereignty is so very important and fundamental, an entire chapter of this book is later dedicated to this one subject (see Chapter 11 infra).

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

"It's Got Electrolytes!"

Idiocracy for reals.

I disagree.

This was what the GOP needed. A reason to buy American, and stop supporting every foreign company.

Buy American.

Now.

I had an image from an old movie some years ago, about those forest fire jumpers and how they are taught to create a break in the fire line to stop the advancing fire.

A controlled fire that would consume Obamas fuel starving him from growing or advancing. I could say the growing movement of states willing to depart the Republic does has its merits, mostly because its brewing a a mass concern of the liberals that were so intent of raiding the pantry so to speak, getting their “Fair Share”.

Well they will get a lot less of the “share” when organized states refuse to ship to another state or charge levies.

Yes the government is infested with termites, I used to work as a fumigator, mt job was to assist in wrapping the houses and then gassing them, often the house has to be stripped first, and then after it was all done you still had to repair the damaged wood.

Washington DC is now a controlled Communistic enclave. Frankly we need not ask permission to secede in view of that. Just do it. Go to the governors of every state that would have the most impact.

This election worked out great for,DC...the Inside the Beltway crowd, while preoccupied with voter disenfranchisement in the 60’s ...could no longer care about the peons and peasants in Flyover Country.

“Direct” disenfranchisement refers to actions that explicitly prevent people from voting or having their votes counted, as opposed to “indirect” techniques, which attempt to prevent people’s votes from having an impact on political outcomes (e.g., gerrymandering, ballot box stuffing, stripping elected officials of their powers).

http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm

In fact the DC crowd made sure we all knew about this just prior to the election...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/19/Government-Long-on-Hollow-Point-Bullets-Short-on-Answers

Which was basically their “ watcha gonna do about it “. Threat.....

DC is basically dissolving the compact between these United States. At some point each of the states may choose to start negotiating with some of the others to form a more reasonable compact.

My understanding of the explanatory clause of the 14th Amendment is that it was put in to account for American Indians. Without it the members of the various tribes within the US that were actively waging war against it would have needed to have been treated as citizens rather than enemy combatants ( a term that I’m applying although it wasn’t used at the time)

IMHO, the secret ingredient that can keep America alive is described in a very unbiblical Bible verse - “God helps those who help themselves”. Pray, yes, but don’t forget that this country was built by good people who prayed AND worked hard to create something of value, and in the process created jobs for themselves and others.

‘Idiocracy’ was supposed to 500 years into the future, yet, it looks more like just 5.