Banned
The original definition of "nation" is tribal... one people who share the same race, religion, language, culture, heritage, history and territory.
Since the end of WW2, the US government itself has worked overtime to totally destroy the American "nation."
So what do we call the USA since it is no longer a "nation" ?
How about "Babylonian third world hell hole" !!
Congressman
Citizen of the UNITED STATES?
If you are a Citizen of the UNITED STATES, you are a citizen of the District of Columbia and not a Citizen of one of the fifty States united.
A citizen of the UNITED STATES is only domiciled on one of the 50 states.
You are declaring you are not flesh and blood man and State citizen.
A Citizen can not truly own land.
You are merely a Tenant.
You have no protection under the magic parchment called the Constitution.
The birth certificate and continued use of the "LEGAL NAME" makes you surety for the legal fiction name.
The government can only legitimately enforce its rules on a legal fiction Citizen.
This is also why the so called illegals coming across a fictitious line on a map have so much freedom.
You should be justifiably jealous.
The government should be able to prove that you or anyone is a Citizen without you having to admit to it.
The want of the citizenship question is largely irreverent.
You do not want to admit you are a Citizen because you do not know the legal meaning of the word.
It is not your beliefs that matter.
Legally, belief means "in love with".
Beliefs are not facts.
Look up in old dictionaries from the early 1800s the words "Citizen" and 'freedom".
Citizen = Denizen
Freedom = Franchise
Read the definitions completely.
Banned
My Confederate forefathers were virtual POWs in their own homeland during the decade of post-civil war enemy occupation and military rule.
Their POW status becomes more familiar to me every day.
Senator
This matter of “citizen” is core to the seeming constitutional violations that are commonplace today.
Not a hard concept to grasp. They created the 14th amendment to give the recently “freed” blacks an avenue into a compromised federal citizen/subject status.
Then they offered that status to everyone.....and most accepted it, waiving their rights in the process.
Now here we are fighting over the crumbs of fading privileges, benefits and immunities.
I’ll take my God-given rights, every time.
For those with the humility to learn a bit about it; http://www.hisholychurch.net/study/gods/cog3cvc.php
Esquire
The bottom line question is, why was it constitutional for Obama’s Census Bureau to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States”, and un-constitutional for today’s Census Bureau to ask the very same question? Keep in mind that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment requires the distinction between citizens and non-citizens to be made with reference to apportionment.
It appears Justice Roberts believes he is vested with a power to strike down laws and policy making decisions that do not meet his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness and justice, which in fact is second guessing our Constitution which actually requires, by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens with reference to apportionment.
Justice Roberts, who also embraced our federal government entering the states and meddling with the people’s unalienable right to make their own medical choices and decisions, needs to be held accountable for his acts of sedition and personal war against our Constitution.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
Judge
JWK, you know the answer to the question you posed.
But let me ask you ... when has exposing the hypocrisy of the Democrats ever been a successful tactic?
In reasonable people, pointing out hypocrisy will sometimes work and promote deeper thinking. But they are well aware of their hypocrisy and they have no shame.
I've been watching the conservatives struggle for years with this tactic. It may convince a few more reasonable people to your cause, but it's never effected any real change.
Esquire
Originally Posted by Miradus
It is difficult to agree, but I sadly do!
JWK
Esquire
It may shock American citizens to learn how many extra congressional seats sanctuary states like California have received because they have swelled their population with illegal entrants. Keep in mind these extra votes California gets in Congress cancels out the votes of the representatives of American citizens in other states.
It is estimated California may get between 2 and 3 more seats in Congress because of the massive influx of illegal entrants into this sanctuary state during the past ten years.
But to prevent this type of political motivated population swelling, which is done to receive extra votes in Congress and control our federal treasury, our wise founders also demanded that each states would also have to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.
The two fair share formulas with respect to each state’s population size are:
.State`s Population_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of RepresentativesPopulation of U.S.
and …
.State`s population_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDENTotal U.S. Population
For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
In the Federalist Papers, Madison explains the purpose of tying representation and taxation by each state’s population, that it:“…will have a very salutary effect.” He observes in this paper . . .
“Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54
Now, look at our communist socialist states like California who now swell their states with illegal entrants to gain more representation in Congress. Would these sanctuary states continue to do so if they had to pay a proportional share of our federal tax burden relative to their state’s population size?
Communist and socialists have been very active for generations subverting the fundamental principles written into our Constitution for good government. While they have taught our children in government schools the virtues of our Constitution protecting one man, one vote, they ignore and refuse to teach them the value of one vote, one dollar and tying both representation and taxation by population size, which would have a sobering financial effect in that each state will be held accountable for the free cheese their congressional members vote for, and will receive a bill to pay their apportioned share of the free cheese tab.
JWK
The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.
Reply With Quote
