14th Amendment citizenship

English: 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, page 1. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Several of this blog’s readers were commenting on 14th Amendment citizenship.  I respond as follows:

Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares in part, “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.”  This tells me two things: 1) That State constitution is a trust; and 2) the “people” of that State are the beneficiaries of that State constitution/trust.

From that information, I presume that 1) all constitutions are trust indentures; 2) in every State constitution, the “people” are the beneficiaries; and 3) if you want to claim any of the rights secured by a constitution, you had better not appear in the capacity of a “person,” “inhabitant,” “occupant” or “citizen,” etc.–you’d better expressly claim to a “man made in God’s image” and one of the people of a particular State of the Union.

I also believe the federal Constitution is a trust, but it’s not yet absolutely clear to me if the beneficiaries of the federal Constitution are “We the People” or the individuals States of the Union. It’s also not clear to be that there’s a distinct difference between the “States” and the “People”.

 

Does your ID Identify You–Or the “state” You “Identify With”?

Scan of an EXPIRED diplomatic drivers license/permit.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“John” posted a comment on this blog that read as follows:

“A friend of mine a few weeks ago was taking a late night walk. He walked by a cop who had 6 people on the side of the road. The cop walked up to my friend and said, I need some ID. My friend said to the cop, “I am a flesh and blood living sentient man created in the image of God, do YOU rebut that”? The cop said, OK, have a nice evening, and he walked away.

“Same friend some years back was pulled over. They asked for a DL. He said I don’t have one. They asked who he was. He said I’m a man. They asked if he had any type of ID? He said at my house right up the block I can show you a birth certificate. They said never mind, we can’t use that. We have no authority over you. They let him go.”

John (and others) were discussing the subject of “identification”.  Most people regard “identification” as the little plastic cards that we carry in our wallets to prove “who we are”.  I have some doubt.

 

An “Infant” is a “Decedent”?

“Infant”, seconds after birth. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received the following info by email from Colleen.  I haven’t verified any of the info, but if the info is valid, it could be (as Colleen says) BIG.

“Well, someone FINALLY did it. They found in the IRS manual the “proof” of when we “claimed” life. I write this in past tense sense when we got a social security number (a lot of us when we applied for a drivers license) is when we were NOT CONSIDERED decedents. Here’s the wordage…

“IRS manual 21.7.13.3.2.2 – An infant is the decedent of an estate or grantor, owner or trustor of a trust, guardianship, receivership or custodianship that has yet to receive an SSN.”

 

A “State of the United States”

Image via Wikipedia

I try not to publish anything on this blog that wastes my readers’ time. I’d like to provide some “insight” with each article, but I know that some of my articles are merely interesting (I hope) or sometimes (at best) amusing. But every so often I find myself writing an article that I think might be more than interesting, or amusing or even insightful. Once in a while, the Good LORD lets me write something that I (at least) think is important. I think this is one of those articles.

I’m not claiming that this article is well written or easily understood. I’m simply saying that this article contains the germ or an idea, an insight, that I believe is important and so far, unnoticed. I’ll undoubtedly write a couple more articles on this subject over the next several months. By the time I get to the 2^nd or 3^rd article on this subject, I should be able to explain with much greater clarity.

Nevertheless, if you’ll make the effort to overcome my imperfect writing, I hope you’ll learn something that you may also believe to be important: some fundamental differences between the “United States” and “The United States of America”.

 

What’s in a Birth Certificate?

Image via Wikipedia

I remember being told in high school that you don’t really understand your own language until you learn a foreign language.

I think that principle applies to most areas of study.

For example, lots of us have suspected for most of 20 years that the government-issued birth certificates may be used as devices to somehow deprive us of our rights.

The details of this deprivation have remained unclear (at least for me).  Perhaps the birth certificate is presumed to change me from a free man into a “U.S. citizen,” “subject” or eve “slave”.  Perhaps, the birth certificate is presumed to change my status from that of an independent man (with a name like “Alfred Adask”) to that of a fiduciary for the “entity” created and given an all-upper-case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”) by the “birth certificate”.

What follows is an email exchange between myself and John Rod—a Native American—who has been deprived of his real “birth certificate” and as a result, has been deprived of his rights as a Native American.

This email exchange is not profound, but it still offers some insight.  Just as studying Spanish may help each of us to better understand English, studying the “birth certificates” of Native Americans may help each “American” to better understand his own “birth certificate”.

 

“How To Sneak Past a Nazi Checkpoint”

Image via Wikipedia

These videos are short, sweet and hilarious.

They are anecdotes and they don’t absolutely prove that the strategies employed in these instances will work again for others.

Also, part of the effectiveness of these strategies may be based on the presence of a passenger in the vehicle who is using a video camera.  It may be that gov-co is at least as intimidated by the “subjects’” video camera as by their questions.

In either case, the videos are short, sweet and hilarious:

00:01:19    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b7U82ehS9Q&feature=relmf

00:01:03   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0b3xV8smt8&feature=related

00:00:58   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1e7EBze6ho&feature=relmfu

 

Birth Certificates for Slaves?

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve just heard an anecdote from Donna Baran.  According to the story, someone’s grandparents (perhaps back in the first half of the 20th Century) refused to get a birth certificate for one of their children.  These grandparents allegedly claimed that they knew and remembered from their grandparents that birth certificates were originally issued as stock certificates for former [current?] slaves.

I’ve never before heard of this claim.  I have absolutely no evidence or authority to support his claim.

But the idea that birth certificates were originally intended for slaves (or former slaves) instantly resonated with me.  With nothing to go on but gut, I’ll bet that if someone could research birth certificates back into, say, the 1850′s in the Old South, I’ll bet they find that birth certificates were originally intended as a way of identifying the slaves, property, chattel, animals, and livestock owned by plantation owners.

 

Speculation on “Persons,” Emergency, and the Obligation to Pay Taxes and Fines

Image by Cayusa via Flickr

One of my readers left the following comment under one of my articles:

“In your opinion, does the definition of person enter the picture. I am not sure what you mean by “capacity” of person. I am in New Mexico and here the word, person, in the New Mexico Criminal Code & the word person in the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code is different. I am not a person as defined in the N.M.M.V.D. Code but it certainly appears that I am a person as defined in the N.M. Criminal Code.  In trying to explain this to a police officer a while back, he immediately called somebody & said: ‘I have a person here that says he is not a person.’”

 

That comment got me thinking.  I started to write a brief “reply” to try to briefly explain my understanding of “person”.  But my reply continued to grow until I realized that it was not a mere “reply,” but (at least) the germ of an article.  In fact, this article has grown to about 7,500 words, and veered off from mere “persons” to speculate on the significance of emergency, treason, genocide and even our obligation to pay income taxes and traffic fines.  The article is long and unfocused because many of the “insights” are coming to me for the first time, as I write.  But, despite the rambling nature, I think the article offers some insight (or at least conjecture) that you may find interesting.

 

Capitis Diminutio–more on the All-Upper-Case Name

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

Here’s a well done video from someone else who’s also persuaded that the all-upper-case name identifies some entity or capacity other than that of a living man made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by his Creator with “certain unalienable Rights”.

I don’t absolutely agree with everything in this video.  I’m sure that the video’s author doesn’t absolutely agree with everything I believe, either.  At least one of us–and probably both of us–have more to learn.  But for the moment, we both agree that the all-upper-case name “may be hazardous to your (political) health.”

The point is that the all-upper-case name theory is being increasingly explored and advocated by other people.  The “lunatic fringe” (of which I’m a card-carrying member) is growing thicker every day.  And sometimes, the “lunatic fringe” becomes the “cutting edge”.

7 minutes:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I21wE-h_g

 

More on the All-Upper-Case Name

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

For at least 15 years, I have subscribed to the theory that the names “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” usually signify not only two different entities–but two kinds of entities.  I know that that “Alfred Adask” is the proper name for a living man (me).  I strongly suspect that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies some sort of estate, account or legal fiction–something other than the living man “Alfred Adask”.

Some people think that theory is nonsense and I don’t much blame ‘em.  After 15 years of embracing that theory, I still can’t prove it.  But on the other hand, after 15 years of advancing that theory, no one has (to my knowledge) disproved that theory.

Here’s an email from one of my radio and/or blog audience that questions the theory.  My email reply follows.