What is the Mark of the Beast?
FREE Download ebook .pdf format.
Citizenship is a complex issue, and many volumes have been written on the subject. I might not, on the next few pages, convince you that state Citizens are not US citizens. But I'll try.
Here are the basics: You do not need to be a citizen, but if you are a citizen, there are only two kinds of citizenship: state citizenship and federal citizenship. Those who reside in federal territories or receive federal benefits are federal citizens. "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383). Citizens give up natural rights in exchange for political privileges. State citizens have political rights, such as the right to run for President, and such as the protections acknowledged by the first eight amendments. Alternatively, Federal citizens cannot have political rights. Federal citizens are subjects on the federal plantation. Example: only state citizens can become President, no one from a federal territory, such as Washington DC, can run for President. Again: territories, such as Washington, DC, are outside the US. Again: Federal people cannot have political rights, and cannot run for President.
If you don't understand this yet, I'll try to explain the chain of command. State citizens created state governments. State citizens are masters of their servants. An association of these servants (who once called their association "The United States in Congress Assembled") became your federal government. Your US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia. I repeat: exclusive legislation in all cases. DC residents and Fourteenth Amendment citizens are subject to the servants of the servants of the state citizens. They are not state citizens. These servants and sub-servants cannot grant rights. "Rights" do not come from servants. You cannot be granted rights you already have.
Appendix D covers the distinction between the term "person" and the term "sovereign." You had all the birthrights of a sovereign. I want to introduce you to the sovereign power that you gave up when you consented to be governed.
Sovereignty is delegated from Yahuah to you, and it is up to you to keep it.
After the Revolutionary war, Ben Franklin led a delegation to negotiate the Treaty of Paris, which was signed September 3rd 1783. This document is what gives America the right to exist. King George signed over to all Americans the rights of the sovereign, except those that he retained. All Americans understood, at that time, exactly what power they had.
US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20:
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."
The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825):
"The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound."
Read that again. That's right! Your birthright means you are not bound to statutes that take away your rights. Unless, of course, you signed something to give up your birthright. [Aside: notice the phrase "shall not be bound" is similar to other Republics, such as the historical account in Acts 22:29 that a Roman officer cannot bind a Roman citizen. Notice that the word "bind" is used in the Bible to refer to a mark that is both on hands and foreheads. Deuternomy 6:8, Deuternomy 11:18, Proverbs 7:2-3. Now notice that the word 'pledge' as in a pledge of allegiance means to bind. Strong's H2254. A pledge of allegiance is an oath to be bound, and is symbolically a mark on your hands and forehead.]
Even the very definition of "Liberty" means you cannot be regulated. Study the terms "Liberty" and "Liberties" in the Law Dictionary. Another Example: the US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399: The term Liberty "... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary ..."
If this doesn't describe your liberty, then perhaps you signed something to give up your rights. Notice that protecting public interest is not a function of government, at least according to your Supreme Court. Your government was instituted among men to protect the rights of the innocent. PROTECTING PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONTRARY TO PROTECTING RIGHTS. Ben Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither. Thomas Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty must be periodically fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Conclusion: the federalists have been given exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC. There are no sovereign rights in Washington DC.
Continuing with the topic of federal jurisdiction:
The Presidency is an office of servitude, not an office of authority. Unless, of course, you signed something to make you subordinate to his authority.
The story that I think best contrasts today's esteem of servants with the true nature of servitude is the story of Thomas Jefferson's inauguration. President Jefferson was sworn into office, and went home to his boarding house for lunch. All seats at the table were occupied, and no one offered their seat to the civil servant, so he ate his inauguration day lunch alone in his room.
I'll quote from his inauguration speech later.
The next time you are filling out a form that asks you to check a box, don't be so quick to confess that you are a US citizen. (And don't be so willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers). Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages.
Article IV of the Articles of Confederation extended privileges of citizenship to mere inhabitants, with this phrase:
"... the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states"
The Articles of Confederation uses phrases in which nouns are not capitalized proper nouns, and never use the preposition "of," examples:
The US Constitution omits references to free, and uses phrases with proper capitalized nouns, and often use the preposition "of":
The 14th Amendment created a type of federal "citizenship" which is analogous to ownership.
In your U.S. Constitution prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the word "Citizen" was ALWAYS capitalized: Article 1, Section 2 (twice); Article 1, Section 3; Article 2, Section 1; Article 3, Section 2 (five times); Article 4 Section 2 (twice); and the 11th Amendment (twice). But, it is NEVER capitalized in the five occurrences within the 14th Amendment. Congress did not forget the proper use of English. One refers to the proper title of the government's Master. The other is a word for government property. Which one are you?
The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship. Originally intended for the 4 million freed slaves who had no means of support, it allowed for federal ownership of those who needed federal entitlements in order to survive. As previously explained, it "is an absurdity" to think that your Constitution would ever be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals. Under your Constitution, welfare for individuals is not possible without ownership (because welfare is the responsibility of owners, church and family). This is Biblical.
Equal protection under the law ?
Lawyers will tell you that the 14th Amendment was the great equalizer. They will tell you that your rights to equal protection under the law come from the 14th Amendment. They will then ask you why you would question such strong protections?
Compare the following two quotes that acknowledge equal protection under the law: The 14th Amendment, Section 1: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... " The 5th Amendment "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
The US Supreme Court in 1878 case of Davidson v. New Orleans stated that your Constitution is not redundant. They mean different things.
Recommended reading on the topic of the 14th Amendment: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266.
Another topic. The phrase: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
Do you owe direct and immediate allegiance to your servants?
Another Topic. The term "citizen" as used in government laws
In Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined what the term `citizen' means in federal statutes. Notice that the term `citizen,' when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens:
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
"A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other."
In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."
The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626: "In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122: "... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
(Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don't you understand?)
125 Fed 322, 325: "The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]
That's right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.
State Citizens have their same rights in all the states because your Federal Constitution in Article 4, Section 2 guarantees that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."
The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other ..."
Colgate v. Harvey then concluded that the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms are not guaranteed to 14th Amendment citizens.
Merely reciting which kind of citizen you are, is admissible by anyone taking you to federal court. Be careful about checking a box on a form claiming US citizenship. Example: The US Supreme Court in Urtetiqui v. D'Arcy 34 US 692: "Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant's behalf."
Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens of each state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123: "There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State"
That's correct! If you claim to be a US citizen, you are claiming that you are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of a State Citizen (a right guaranteed by Article 4, Section 2). You are not protected by your U.S. Constitution. You have no rights. Like Esau, you sold your birthright.
Hebrews 12:16: See to it that no one is profane, like Esau, who flippantly sold his birthright.
If you are a citizen, it is because you have voluntarily submitted to the dominion of your political community. Whether you like it or not. No matter how evil.
US Supreme Court in the 1875 case U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542: "Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights .... The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government."
A Bible Believer, however, would not consent to be governed. He already has a King. He already has a citizenship. Philippians 3:20 (NIV): "But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Master Yahusha Messiah,"
United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
Notice the terminology "enter into society" in the 1798 U.S. Supreme Court case Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386:
"The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of the legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit ..."
And notice the same terminology in Andrew Jackson's second inauguration speech March 4, 1833: "Constantly bearing in mind that entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty ..."
Again notice that citizens have given up a share of liberty, whereas non-citizens keep their rights.
Have you entered into a society that uses a vote to determine the morality of abortion, sodomy, divorce, usury, pornography, and property seizure? You paid your fair share for these abominations. Yahusha told us not to have dominion over others. believers would
None of these are possible for someone who is trying, with a vote (or a gun*), to force perverted values on others, or to exercise dominion, or to force others to provide for them.
*(Aside: Ballot and bullet and bully are etymologically the same word. They all refer to rock throwing. Examples: President Lincoln 8/26/1863 said "Among free men there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet." Another example: The apostle Paul, admits that before he was converted he stoned to death the saints. He confesses in Acts 26:10 "When they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.")
State governments were originally founded on Biblical principles. Here in these United States, or any other Republic, the citizens are the higher power of Romans 13:1. The civil servants who daily blaspheme God are not the higher powers ordained of God. They are a terror to good works. Romans 13:1 (KJV): "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Romans 13:3 (KJV) "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." The same principles that require you to obey lawful government require you to punish tyrants.
Here are Citizenship issues for the advance student who wants to do some research:
I've found coincidences that seem related to the 14th Amendment.
First, The 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US, and Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2)(b)(i) lists indigent children and immigrants as the only ones who can qualify for Social Security Numbers. Note that the words "including children" may be construed to exclude all non-children. For the advanced student: try to find proof that the word "children" in this section of the Social Security Act refers only to government wards.
Second, there are ASSIGNED Social Security Numbers and ISSUED Social Security Numbers. Compare Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2) with 20 CFR 422.103 through .104, and 26 CFR 31.6011(b) and (c).
Assigned Social Security Numbers
Issued Social Security Numbers
Are always called Account Numbers
Are never called Account Numbers
Are not for children (in neither SS Act nor SS regulations)
Are for children (SS Act only)
Are not for children (regulations only)
Third, Internal Revenue Code, Section 6109(d), (I've added the emphasis): "The SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER ISSUED to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title."
Search as much as you want, but you won't find an issued account number. Yet, this is what your tax law wants. Every April 15th, you swear a perjury oath to the federal god that you have a number that does not exist.
There is one last topic to consider. The word "enumerated" as used in the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration has stated on their former web site:
"The process of issuing Social Security numbers is called "enumeration," and over the years it has been one of the most interesting topics involving Social Security."
Now, here is the legal definition of ENUMERATED: The term is often used in law as equivalent to "mentioned specifically," "designated" or "expressly named or granted;" as in speaking of enumerated government powers, ITEMS OF PROPERTY, or articles in a tariff schedule...