2 votes

To what country do you really belong?: A Lesson for those who haven't figured it out yet.

Do you really know what country you belong to? To what nation you pledge allegiance? The rules and laws of which state you work so hard to make just? The politicians of which country you find so repugnant that you try, with all your might, to replace with "good and just" politicians who merely follow the same rules as their predecessors?

Here's a clue to the answer.

http://www.pacinlaw.org/expatriation/




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NULLIFICATION

Thank you sir for exercising your right to nullify unlawful "authority" thereby assuming said authority over public servants.

''But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." James 2:18

''1What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces a of the world. 4But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.b 6Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,c Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.'' Galatians 4

http://www.dailypaul.com/296847/tom-woods-idea-of-nullificat...

Tom Woods

I'm not sure that Tom Woods is not a false profit.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I am a pilgrim passing through.

Same here

We shall rejoice forever in our home to come with never again a threat of sin, death, tears, pain, or sorrow.
We have been bought with a price and our sins washed away forever, never to be remembered again.
I believe the time is very short and soon we will be rejoicing!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

I don't belong to America...

I just belong in America...

America belongs to it's People

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Peoples.

Peoples. There are many peoples in America. Each state has it's own, just like Europe, as in: "the peoples of europe."

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Natural Born Citizen of the USA

And proud of it!

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Really?

Do you know what that means? Have you read the link? Were you born in DC?

Aren't you the law man, Jed?

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

See this thread for your answer.I've already explained in detail

http://www.dailypaul.com/296489/natural-born-citizen-defined

and here is another thread to learn from, for dummies...

http://www.dailypaul.com/296549/no-one-in-the-us-can-become-...

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I think you misunderstand me

I'm not asking if you are eligible to be president, just trying to get you to see that we don't live in one country, but a union or federation of countries. The deception starts with the confusion of what "United States" means. It is either a description or a proper noun, but not both at the same time.

Here are some comments for you in other threads.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3163893

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3161951

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I agree with this comment you're making.

But the notions that I read on your link, were not saying that at all. It was about repatriation. That's what I saw. Then subsequent comments were about not 'belonging' to any nation, etc., etc.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Sorry to be so confusing.

It's about moving from one jurisdiction to another, from the 14th Amendment US citizen private, commercial, Roman Civil Law jurisdiction, to the de jure common law jurisdiction of Artical 4 State Citizenship.

The process is a kind of expatriation, but more properly, I think, called a correction of nationality. The 14 Amendment, by operation of law, presumes you to be a US citizen regardless of the actual state in which you were born. This is contrary to international law, The Law of Nations (where, by the way, 'natural born citizen' is defined) until , at the age of 18-1/2 we consent.

To see that the American states in union are free independent and sovereign states like any others in the world witness the treaty of Paris, September 30th, 1783. To wit:

"Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
~ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris.asp

No two states can occupy the same jurisdiction: Article 4 section 3 1. ".. but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, .."

Thus, Even conceding that the US may be a state, which it is not, one cannot be a citizen of both the US and say, Wisconsin. One must choose.

Glad I could overcome the confusion. :-)

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Yes I do.

History & logic yield a clear definition of "natural born citizen":

1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, then presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, proposing that the President be a "natural born citizen" (NBC): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Foreigners were those with foreign citizenship or allegiance, including "dual" citizens.

2) Shortly after the convention concluded, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the President be "born a citizen of the United States": "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407);

3) The Convention adopted the more stringent NBC requirement for Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution presidential eligibility clause, as distinguished from Hamilton's "born a citizen" standard, and of course, from a mere "citizen" standard: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

4) NBC was a legal phrase with which the founders were well familiar from the works of Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" and from other authors and works which they used to accomplish their goal of insuring that future Presidents would have undivided loyalty and allegiance to America;

5) Americans had recently won their independence from the British in a bloody 8-year long war and were justifiably concerned about the loyalty and allegiance of future Presidents and the risk of foreign influence on their new nation and its chief executive and commander-in-chief;

6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by his birth on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to one or even two foreign (including British) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unthinkable to the founders and could not have been overlooked or adopted by them.

7) The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the wake of he Civil War, merely defined "citizens" as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it says nothing about NBC, which is a special type of citizen. In not even attempting to redefine NBC or amend or delete Article II, Section 4, it left NBC alone, ratifying its status as a special type of citizenship.

THEREFORE: the only logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC requires:

1) Child's birth on US soil; and
2) US citizenship of both parents at child's birth.

Furthermore, citing and following its dicta (opinions not needed for its rulings) in several of its earlier Supreme Court cases, NBC was
defined by the US Supreme Court in its holding in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which held that the plaintiff was a CITIZEN of the US because she happened to be a NBC, stating that: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens". This holding has been followed and cited by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases and has never been overruled.

The Court in Minor, in light of the 14th Amendment, chose not to define "citizen", leaving that definition for another day, but determined that Ms. Minor was in fact a NBC, as defined in its dicta in previous decisions, and therefore logically was, of course, a "citizen". This finding that Minor was a citizen was essential to its decision in the case; therefore, its definition of NBC is not merely dicta, or comment in passing not necessary for its decision, but law binding on other Courts as precedent until overruled by the Court itself.

Despite the foregoing, many people and even some misguided lower Courts, have ignored or dismissed Minor and subsequent Supreme Court cases that have cited it, thought it is binding law and precedent, and continue, whether intentionally or negligently, to confuse, misunderstand or equate "natural born citizen" (NBC) with "born citizen", "citizen at birth", or "native-born citizen", or with mere "citizen", when logic and common sense make it clear that NBC is a more stringent subset of citizenship, the type of citizenship that most of us acquired "naturally" upon our birth in this country to American citizen parents.

This type of citizenship is "natural" since it is the only type of citizenship that requires no special laws, treaties or constitutional amendments and results naturally upon our birth; so logically we can be nothing other than American citizens, free of foreign identity or allegiance, whether dual or otherwise. Shouldn't American presidents be required to have the same type of citizenship that most of us Americans have, free of foreign identity and influence? Of course! That's why the founding fathers chose the "natural born" citizenship requirement for President, and not merely "citizen", nor "born citizen, "citizen at birth", "native-born citizen" or their equivalent.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I understand the confusion.

So you have it in #2: "Citizen of one of the States.." So are you an Article 4 Citizen of one of the states, or a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States?

The term United States either referrers to a description of the states united, or to the federal corporate entity known as the United States. It can not be both, however, a description and a proper noun at the same time.

So is your citizenry the country of Illinois, or the federal corporation located in DC, which is not a state of the union btw?

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

So, essentially, what your point boils to is. "there is no law"

You are really advocating for anarchy and/or a borderless world, therefore a globalist world. No borders. No nations.

Sorry, that is exactly what the illuminati wanted. That was their philosophy / theory.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

A citizen of what? If you

A citizen of what? If you knew, you might reconsider. ;-)

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Read that.

Very funny. But the question remains.

Man exists in some sort of relationship with other Men. This is the basis of a state in law, the "state" of Men living together under common law exercising their sovereignty over the land and all else on it through some form of government.

The law is what we are manipulated with. If we could all better understand where we are presumed to stand in law, where we have consented to stand in law, and where we would truly wish to stand in law, we would better know how to act against those who would wish to subvert, oppress, and control us.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Sure, I read it.

I generally liked the perspective presented in your link. Yeah, screw the likes of Roman Civil Law! I belong to no country, state, nation, or government. Sure, I'm a citizen of Minnesota, and it's through the mechanism of Minnesota State government that I exercise my "political rights", for what it's worth. I don't even know what being a citizen of the United States would mean. I'm a citizen of Minnesota, and Minnesota is a member(citizen?) of the United States. Laws are simple. Laws are little standing agreements that help me protect myself from you. Any law that doesn't fit into that description isn't really law but a trap, abusive manipulation or grandiose ideation...

So you're a citizen of the world? No? Then just call yourself...

... an outlaw, because you are. There's no shame in that, either. Being an outlaw. But if you are not a citizen of the US, and not another nation, you still have to get along with other people. There are rules. There will always be rules. The goal is to have as few if them as possible, and have them be as localized as possible. Americas system is pretty good, but it has NOT been adhered to.

All this absolute anarchist, borderless talk is exactly what the Illuminati were about. It is an end-around to globalism. It's BS, it's Utopian fantasy-world non-sense.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

"I'm a citizen of Minnesota"*

*excerpt from my previous comment

"I belong to no country, state, nation, or government."

Your point, and the point of this entire thread, is not exactly clear.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

"Belong" is not a legal term.

In fact, my mind usually goes into spiritual concerns when I see the term. My country belongs to me [our country, our government(s) belongs to us]. Minnesota belongs to me and my fellow Minnesotans. I'm a citizen of Minnesota, but I don't belong to Minnesota. I belong to the chick in the thong.

world citizen? outlaw? shame??? rules? anarchist? borderless? Illuminati? Utopian fantasy-world?

...all sounds too complicated for me. I'd like to claim that I don't know where all that came from and that I've no idea what you're talking about there, but I sorta do. I just don't know how it all applies to me.

"you still have to get along with other people"

I do. I belong where I'm welcome. I've traveled quite a bit. I can't think of a place I've ever been where I haven't been welcomed. I mostly though, belong with my kids at the shore of Lake Superior throwing rocks, especially on a day like today.

Being a citizen of the US

Being a citizen of the US means being able to vote. State nationals cannot vote. It means, according to international law, to be foreign, or alien, to the state in which you live, unless you live in DC or one of the protectorates. There's a word for someone who is a foreigner but votes in another country. I think he's called an insurgent.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Excellent!

So you're one of the few that knows that Minnesota is a country, like all other the other states, a nation in union with other countries in the American union. And so you also know that, as a one who was born there, it is the nation of your origin, and the one to which you "belong."

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/