Comment: USA vs. uSofA

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Why I don't agree (see in situ)

USA vs. uSofA

I appreciate your thoughtful response. Hawaii like all states (countries or nations) in union in America possess a natural sovereignty as expressed in The Law Of Nations and acknowledged in law by the treaty of Paris 1783. They have their own constitutions for this reason. The union has been, for many reasons, a prosperous one. But the underlying thread of its history has been the struggle to establish a central bank and set up the mechanisms by which to extract the wealth and property from the people of the several states. But it wasn't until the "so called" Civil War did Congress and the federal government exert authority over the internal sovereign rights of any state beyond that of its role as international agent for the union states, its only legitimate purpose. It was never intended to have jurisdiction over the people of the several states, but achieved this coup by implementing the 14th Amendment which legally nullified the suffrage of state nationals, and provided for a new and novel civil status: the US citizen who is now solely governed by the "national" (really international) government, and by its federal territories or subsidies "the State of..."

Federal citizenship is slavery because it exists outside of the several state's national boarders where the natural rights of men and women are protected by the Constitution. Washington DC is not a nation and not a state of the union. The "law of the land," the Constitution in not in effect there. If you are a US citizen the Constitution affords you no protection. Leaving its jurisdiction for that of the nation where you were born (providing you were born in one of the union states) is a rational man's only course of action.

I am not knocking the union, but speaking out against its elimination through the Marxist/ fascist federal citizenship which eliminates lawful and natural nationality by birth.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: