Posted on 04/08/2009 4:03:15 PM PDT by patriotgal1787
Surely you don’t mean me, do you FRiend? I’ve walked precincts, posted yard signs, donated, among others, to John McCain, George Bush, Tom McClintock, Prop 8, about half a dozen R senate candidates around the country. I engage my fellow citizens in polite discourse on political topics whenever I can. I’ve bought Mark Levin’s book, and sent copies to two friends so they can help spread the word. During the ‘08 election I would email articles and commentary to friends whose confidence in that spud we nominated was flagging. I’m going to see Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager at Wiliam Jessup U. on May 5, and have encouraged others to do so as well. I proudly fly not one but two American flags on my property, wear a “Flight 93” lapel pin, and have a photo of the World Trade Center in a black frame on the wall of my office. I taught my children to include “President Bush and all our brave soldiers” in their prayers each night, though I can’t bring myself to include the current President these days because I wish him utter politcal failure. For fun I heckle Democrats marching in the 4th of July parade here in beautiful Auburn, California, much to the chagrin of my wife. Online, I try to talk crazies off the ledge. What have I missed so that I’m not stuck with the “keyboard patriot” moniker?
No, I don’t mean “capitalism” that at all. Here’s snippet on the issue:
One of the persistent myths among political dissidents is that such usages as initial or complete capitalization of names indicates different legal entities or a different legal status for the entity. They see a person’s name sometimes written in all caps, and sometimes written only in initial caps, and attribute a sinister intent to this difference. They also attach special meanings to the ways words may be capitalized or abbreviated in founding documents, such as constitutions or the early writings of the Founders.
Such people seem to resist all efforts to explain that such conventions have no legal significance whatsoever, that they are just ways to emphasize certain kinds of type, to make it easier for the reader to scan the documents quickly and organize the contents in his mind.
They also seem to go to enormous lengths looking for dictionaries or court rules to tell them what such typography means, without ever seeming to find what they are looking for, other than the actual usages themselves in important court cases.
...
The nom de guerre position is one rabidly advocated by Wrong Way Law. It is all based on hype and emotions; the speakers who advocate this argument know how to push the emotional “hot buttons” at patriot pep rallies. I have reviewed the “best” briefs regarding this issue and they are all trash. Yet I continue to see people call themselves “John, of smith,” “Jack: Smith,” etc., and I just simply conclude that such parties have attended a Wrong Way Law seminar and have accepted a pack of lies. Further, it is remarkable that all the people who believe this idea have never checked it out; they just accept it because some patriot guru claimed it was correct.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/NamesInCaps.htm
Exactly my point: Here in California, for example, under Civil Code Sec.22 “Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State.” Under Sec.22.1 “The will of the supreme power is expressed: (a) By the Constitution; (b) by statutes.” However, common law is not left out of the mix: Civil Code Sec. 22.2 states: “The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constituion of the United States, or the Consitution of laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.” In California, the Legislature enacted Penal Code Secs. 895,896, and 988 which define the method by which a grand jury is convened, i.e., by summons of the Superior Court. I don’t think there was a common law right in ngland for groups of citizens to convene themselves into grand juries. Even if there were, however, the duly elected representatives of the People of this state have abolished any such right. In California, at least, anyone who claims a common law right to convene a grand jury is just plain wrong as a matter of law.
On “...sovereign citizens growing out of a belief...” OK. The legend of Santa Claus “grew out of” a real bishop in Asia Minor over 1,500 years ago. That doesn’t make Santa a real person. Fevered extrapolation on legal concepts does not make them law.
“The concept of sovereign citizens grew out of a belief in government abuses of power”
Indeed!
Not just a ‘belief’ but a conviction based on personal experience and the founders understanding of history.
Abraham Lincoln:
“If there is anything which it is the duty of the whole people to never entrust to any hands but their own — that thing is the preservation of their own liberties and institutions.”
Abraham Lincoln:
“The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
Sounds to me like the above luminaries believed in sovereign citizens.
Ever hear of the declaration of Independence and the term ‘inalienable’ rights?
The founders did not consider these rights as arbitrary ‘laws’ bestowed on us by some dirty little black robed ‘judge’ or king (man) rather they considered these ‘rights’ as extensions of ‘natural law’ or — as some argue — Deity.
These guiding PRINCIPLES speak to the ‘legal concept’(as you called it) of sovereign citizens.
Otherwise the Constitution is no more than — as a ‘progressive’ liberal told me — ‘just a piece of paper’!
If it is ‘just’ a ‘piece of paper’ — only based on laws (rules)arbitrarily written by man — than it follows that might makes right - RIGHT?
These inalienable rights are the sovereign rights of ‘the people’ that ‘lend’ sovereignty to the state — not the other way around!
Those that would divorce us from our ‘natural’ or ‘God given’ sovereignty (freedoms) are rightly dubbed TYRANTS!
A pox on their house!
Those that fight these tyrants are patriots no matter what party they may belong to.
If we lose our Constitutional republic party affiliation — at that point — will have become moot.
Some may find this primer on our Constitutional Republic of interest:
STE=Q
“Yeah, that’s right. The ‘mumbo jumbo’ rule of law is gone, because the meanings of words have now been twisted, deformed, or ignored when they didn’t suit the power structure’s whims. Every day The Kenyan continues to squat in the White House is proof of that. ‘I won’ is now the law.”
You ‘got it’!
It’s OK, after we descend into chaos the government will be there to restore the rule of law, er, I mean, the new laws implemented by glorious leader.
And, of course:
‘Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength’
STE=Q
“If you’re an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.”
But if you wear a turban, pray to Allah, carry a Karen in one hand and a bomb in the other — you’re good to go!
Decent Americans or now the enemy’s of the state.
Spread your legs America!
STE=Q
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.