RSS

Category Archives: U.S. vs The U.S.A.

Protecting the “States” against Invasion


It all depends on the PLACE.  It all depends on WHERE. [courtesy Google Images]

It all depends on the PLACE. It all depends on WHERE.
[courtesy Google Images]

If you’ve followed this blog for a year or more, you should be aware that I subscribe to the hypothesis that the government has chosen to treat the “states of the United States” (like “Texas,” “Illinois” and “Florida”) as territories rather than States of the Union (“states of The United States of America”) like “The State of Texas,” “The State of Illinois,” and “The State of Florida”.  (You can see a list of articles dealing with this theory at: https://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/)

If this hypothesis is true, it’s important because under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of The Constitution of the United States, the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories.  Within a “territory of the United States,” the Congress is the sovereign and can do anything they like.  They have unlimited powers in the territories.  The people of the territories have virtually no rights that they might be absolutely able to enforce other then those currently allowed by Congress.

Within the States of the Union, the people are sovereign and Congress has only those limited powers described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

So, it makes a big difference whether you are presumed to act and “appear” within the jurisdiction of a territory like “Texas,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” or TX” or if you’re presumed to act and live within the jurisdiction of a State of the Union like “The State of Texas”.  In the first instance, you are a subject without any rights that you can count on.  In the second instance, you are a sovereign with a multitude of unalienable Rights granted you by the God of the Bible and beyond denial by the government of that State of the Union.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Territorial “states”?


Gangsters--within and without government--fight for territory. [courtesy Google Images]

Gangsters–within and without government–fight for territory.
[courtesy Google Images]

In my article “A Reader Wonders—Art. 1.10.1 vs. Art. 4.3.2”, I hypothesized that that loss of gold and silver coin in domestic circulation caused the governments of the States of the Union to become insolvent and non-functional. I speculated that, in the resulting governmental void, the national government passed emergency legislation to allow “territorial states” and/or “administrative districts” to supplant the insolvent governments of the States of the Union.

In the aftermath of that article, some readers have asked for statutory evidence of when those “territorial states” were created by law.

I don’t know where and when these hypothetical “territorial states” were created in law.  If the hypothesis is true, that information remains to be discovered and confirmed.

But if it were true that: 1) the governments of the States of the Union did not become legally insolvent until after both the gold- and silver-based currencies had been removed from domestic circulation; and 2) the last of the silver-based currencies disappeared between A.D. 1964 and A.D. 1968—then it would seem to follow that the governments of the States of the Union didn’t stop functioning until the early 1960s.  Therefore, the hypothetical territorial-state governments did not come to full power until sometime in the early 1960s (when, incidentally, the Viet Nam war was heating up).

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , ,

21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1): Definition of the word “State”


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Title 21 of the United States Code (USC) deals with “Food and Drugs”—and principally government the U.S. Food & Drug laws and F.D.A..   Section 321 (21 U.S.C. § 321) is entitled “Definitions; generally” and provides some of the primary definitions used in Title 21.

21 U.S.C. § 321 is of special importance to me because it was there that I first realized that the government food and drug laws are all based on definitions that presume that you and I to be “animals” rather than “men made in God’s image and given dominion over animals” (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and “men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).  As “animals” we have no significant rights that the government is bound to recognize.  Government wants us defined as “animals” in order to render us more “manageable” by the courts and police state.

The government’s presumption that we’re only animals is evidence of genocide, treason, and spiritual warfare being committed against the American people by our own government.

Government’s predilection to degrade us to the status of “animals” isn’t a recent phenomenon.  The earliest instance I’ve been able to find is Section Six (definitions) of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act which defined both food and drugs based on the presumption that the American people are mere animals.  The government has engaged in these acts of genocide for over a century.

So far as I know, I may be the first layman to have read the “man or other animals” (MOOA) definitions in over a century and realized what they meant on a spiritual basis.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , ,

US vs USA


Philadelphia - Old City: Independence Hall - T...

Philadelphia – Old City: Independence Hall – The Signing of the Constitution in A.D. 1787. But did the “Singning” constitute Ratification?  (Photo credit: wallyg)

A couple of friends sent an email to me concerning the meanings of “United States,” “United States of America” and “The United States of America”.  I replied as follows:

It seems to me that the Founders were incredibly casual with their use of the terms “United States” and “The United States of America”.  They routinely used the term “the United States of America” (in the Preamble, for example) to almost certainly mean “The United States of America”.  That allowed later generations of villains to define “United States of America” in a way that’s other than “The United States of America”.  They left us an almost astonishing burden of ambiguity and confusion.  In retrospect, their failure to precisely define what “United States” and “the United States of America” meant is equivalent to an Achilles Heel that opened the door to great treason in this country.  They assumed the meanings of those terms were obvious and would remain obvious to their descendants.  They were mistaken.
 

Tags: , , ,

Geo. Washington: 1st President of the United States or 8th President of The United States of America? Or Both?


English: * Title = Gilbert Stuart's Portrait o...

Gilbert Stuart’s Portrait of George Washington (The Constable-Hamilton Portrait) Year = 1797) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received an email from “menaradi” that reads as follows:

“Just read your article on the Constitution and enjoyed it, but came across this one and thought you might like to read it, especially the 2nd to last paragraph of this article…. tell me why don’t we know about the 1st seven presidents of this country????

http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html”

I suspect that the answer to your question may be that the first “president” (John Hanson?) was not president of the “United States“–he was president under the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) and was therefore president of “The United States of America“.

Later, in A.D. 1789, the people created a new “government” by means of The Constitution of the United States.  That new government was the government of the “United States“–but not of “The United States of America”.  The first president of the “United States” was George Washington–but it’s possible that Washington may also have been the eighth (?) president of The United States of America.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , ,

Consent


This image was selected as a picture of the we...

Founding Fathers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The most radical statement in 2,000 years of western political history is found in the third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence”:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Declaration that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights is the foundation for individual sovereignty and government as a public servant rather than a public master.

The third sentence of the Declaration is almost as profound:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The first half of that sentence declares the fundamental purpose of government as envisioned by the Founders:  to secure to every man, woman and even unborn child their God-given, unalienable Rights.

The second half expresses another principle that is fundamental to freedom:  governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Thus, the concept of “consent” is fundamental to the foundation of governments established by the Founders.

But what, exactly, does consent mean?  Can I run stop signs if I don’t “consent” to obey traffic laws?  Can I avoid paying income taxes by simply withholding my consent to be bound by Title 26 of the United States Code?

The concept of consent is both fundamental our de jure form of government—and extremely hard to grasp and apply.  OK—you do have the right to consent or not to consent, but you don’t have the right to consent or not to particular laws . . . or do you?

The concept of consent is particularly important if a fundamental hypothesis advocated on this blog—the difference between The State (the States of the Union) and “this state” (an administrative division of a singular territory of the United States)—is valid.   If “this state” is a real governmental structure that exists as an alternative to The State, it appears that we may only be subject to the laws of “this state” based on some manifestation of our consent to submit to “this state”.

Thus, if we could more fully understand the concept of consent, we might be able to avoid being subject to the laws of “this state”.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , ,

The United States of America vs the United States


The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 178...

Image via Wikipedia

I received a comment elsewhere on this blog that asked for an analysis of the difference between “The United States of America” and “United States”.  I replied as follows:

As I understand it, the word “constitution” signifies a document that originally creates, incorporates or “constitutes” some new entity.  We say “The Constitution of the United States,” but the same text might just as easily have been entitled “The Charter of the United States” or “The Incorporation Papers of the United States”.  As I understand it, the instrument entitled “The Constitution of the United States” is the document that “constituted” the entity named “United States”.

Note that even though a document that performs the function of  “constituting” or creating a new entity, that document need not be expressly named “The Constitution of [That Entity]”.  It could have an name that never used the word “constitution” but still performed the function of “constituting” a new entity.

We’re all familiar with the federal “Constitution”.  There’s a problem with that document.  The author’s never attached an explicit title at the top of that document and so there’s some confusion about its proper name.  Some think that document is properly named “The Constitution of the United States”.  Some say, “The Constitution of The United States of America.”  Others say, “The Constitution for the United States of America”.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,