The Calendar – Updated and Expanded (Mirrored)

Torah Family

Published on Apr 18, 2019

This teaching brings the ever confusing and intimidating topic of the Biblical calendar down to size to help everyone gain a better understanding. This updated and expanded version not only details the simplicity of the Biblical calendar but also explains why there are various views of the calendar today. While we respect the multiple aspects of the calendar, this will show where and why we differ with them.

Context, and Calendars, and Why it Matters

How we read and study matters, especially when it comes to law, whether civil or religious, and especially where it pertains to the Bible. If we have not been trained to read and study in context, all too often, we can find ourselves creating a whole new tradition or law out of thin air, a tradition or law that is not actually supported by what we had just read and studied, but one that is of the nature of an unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’.

Imagine yourself listening to a seminar or bible teaching, either live or recorded, and thinking to yourself, ‘that sounds plausible’ and as soon as the seminar/teaching is over you begin the task to prove what you just heard is really true. You go to your computer & search the internet for any and all available thesis on the matter and if need be, you go to your local library and seek out available books that may contain further evidence to support what you heard, and not stopping there, you might also purchase some books because you know they will aid you with other studies and these books would make great additions to your personal home library.

Now the anticipation really sets in, because if what you heard is really true you want to share it with others, so let the journey begin!

Having now in your possession the material to read & study, whether a book or a thesis, you begin with the oldest dated resources you have now acquired on the subject, so to catalogue the journey in chronological order in hopes that it will help our understanding. The first is a thesis with only four chapters and so we begin by reading the opening, then you read the synopsis & say, ‘hey, just by reading this opening you already know what the conclusion is and this thesis is then catalogued as supporting the ‘plausibility’. Next you take a quote from chapter one that is cited in the synopsis of chapter one and mark that as witness #1. Then after that is recorded, you go to the actual chapter, find the quote and mark that as witness #2, ‘Voila!’, you now have two witnesses that you have included in the research paper you are writing on the subject as being two separate witnesses.

I kid you not, this happens more often than you might think!

Does anyone see the folly in this type of research? If not, they should because this is the exact scenario by which the majority is deceived into running down the road of destruction and unrighteousness.

Also, this type of scenario is how ‘traditions’ are born and the more that follow the tradition, the harder it is for another to bring the actual facts of the subject out into the light of day, for ‘tradition’ is a great ‘undertaker’ whose creators and their followers go to great lengths to make sure that the truth that was buried stays buried, and more often than not, the burial was done in ignorance and not out of any sense of malice.

I have witnessed this many times. A person, say a professor, a church leader, a reporter, or even an elected official will quote from a Supreme Court ruling and announce, this is what the court ruled, when in truth, the actual ruling said the exact opposite and then what happens? The gullible public at large, because they are too busy to take the time to prove whether what they heard was true or not, they believe the falsehood. My favorite example of this is Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1 (1916) which is one of the most egregious traditions born in the 20th century by an unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’ that came by way of many who parsed a sentence in Chief Justice White’s opinion to support their conclusion that the unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’, that was the reason the case came to be in the first place, was and is true. The quote they use is:

“….. the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation–that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.” [end quote]

However, the a main part of the context regarding the ruling of the court begins in the very next sentence of that opinion written by Chief Justice White that the entire court agreed with:

“And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear….”[end quote]

And so what happened in this case? The unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’ that the court ruled as an ‘erroneous assumption’ became tradition that is enforced to this day unless one is learned in the truth and knows how to legally apply it so that the earnings which Elohim provided them to be used for His purpose are actually used for His purpose rather than blindly handing over to Caesar what rightly belongs to Elohim.

This is also how it is with the Word of Elohim, the Holy Scriptures. Many take a parsing from here and a parsing from there, and, ‘Voila!’, they have just created a new tradition that has no actual foundation in His Word of Truth, His Holy Scriptures, and the more they get to believe and follow their new tradition the greater the name they make for themselves.

Take for example Exodus 12 verses 1 & 2..

And YHWH Elohim spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, ‘this is the beginning of months for you, it is the first month of the year for you.’

There are no other instructions regarding the yearly calendar or how months are determined spoken at this time, His Word is utterly silent of any further details, so what does the context reveal to us?

#1: The matter was spoken to two people, i.e., two witnesses.
#2: Whatever month it was that YHWH Elohim spoke these words, it was a month on the Egyptian calendar that the Israelites were already familiar with.
#3: It was only the first month on the calendar that was at issue, correction only needed to be made as to which month on the calendar the Israelites were already practicing was the actual 1st month of His appointed calendar for the preservation of His appointed times on earth.

As to #1, it was commanded in Numbers 10:10 that the sons of Aaron were to blow the trumpet at the beginning of each month, and again, by the time this command is given, not a jot or tittle of instruction was given as to how one was to determine the beginning of the month.

Now as to #2, there is a plethora of research done on ancient Egyptian calendars & the most exhaustive source I have found on this subject is compiled in the book “Ancient Egyptian Science Volume II: Calendar, Clocks, and Astronomy“. In this book, which contains the research of several highly esteemed archaeological researchers on this subject, we read:

Like all ancient people, the ancient Egyptians used a lunar calendar, but unlike their neighbors they began their lunar month, not with the first appearance of the new crescent in the west at sunset but rather with the morning when the old crescent of the waning moon could no longer be seen just before sunrise in the east. Their lunar year divided naturally, following their seasons, … because 12 lunar months are on the average 11 days short of the natural year, a 13th or intercalary month was introduced so as to keep the seasons in place.

and later we read:

The first important bit of evidence was an inscription discovered and published by Brugsch first in 1862 and again in 1864. It can be translated as follows: “He (Khons, the God of the Moon) is conceived on the Feast of psdntyw (i.e., on the first day of the lunar month); he is born on the Feast of the Month (i.e., on the feast of the Second Day of the Month); he comes to maturity on the Feast of the Half-Month (i.e., on the Feast of the Full Moon or Fifteenth Day of the Month).” This seems quite good evidence that the Egyptians conceived that the first day of the month was the day of invisibility of the first crescent, that the second was the day of first visibility of the new crescent, and that the fifteenth day was the day of the full moon. And indeed Brugsch drew the conclusion that Parker was later to develop more fully, namely, that the month started with the first day of invisibility of the crescent, and the second day marked “the first visible apparition of the lunar disk”. He notes that a “host of religious texts” supports his interpretation of this passage.

This is what the Israelites were practicing, it was the monthly calendar they were familiar with and it is a monthly calendar that is supported by the pattern given to us in Genesis 1 which I will come back to later, for now let’s move on to point #3.

Next, looking at the evidence put forth by those who took a parsing from here and another from there and who magically made one witness become two, this sect of the lunar-solar waxing crescent calendar followers believe and teach what all the other nations surrounding Egypt were practicing, thereby, setting aside the context established in Exodus 12:1-2 for the sake of tradition. Here is the “lead teacher’s” ONLY explanation with a cited reference source that is in reference to Psalms 81:3 “Blow the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day“:

It is likely that kesah is related to the Aramaic word “Kista” and the Assyrian word “Kuseu” which mean “full moon” (see Brown-Drive-Briggs page 490b) [Hebrew, Aramaic, and Assyrian are all Semitic languages and often share common roots]. This fits perfectly with the description of Keseh as the day of the Hag since two of the three Pilgrimage-Feasts (Hag HaMazot and Hag HaSukkot) are on the 15th of the month, which is about the time of the full moon.

First of all, …it is likely? And second, …is related to the Aramaic? Is this how a traditional Hebrew scholar would speak when presenting their evidence? Not in any personal experiences I have had. They all are very concise and never propose their understanding with terms such as ‘likely’ or ‘may be related to’. The witness this supposed scholar presented is an outright and, might I add, purposeful effort in obfuscation!

So why the obfuscation? Because if he gave the Talmud Tractate number on the subject, he would soon be found to be lacking support for his unsubstantiated ‘plausibility’ of a waxing crescent moon as being the new moon. This is revealed in the rabbinic court’s ruling on Psalm 81:3, a Psalm which concerns the first day of the seventh month which is an annual appointed time of YHWH Elohim commonly called the Feast of Trumpets, or in Jewish circles, Rosh Hashanah.

“The first of Tishri is the New Year’s Day for ordinary years.” For what purpose is this rule? Answers R. Zera, to determine the equinoxes (and solstices); and this agrees with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who says that the world was created in Tishri; but R. Na’hman says (it is the new year) for divine judgment, as it is written [Deut. xi. 12]: “From the beginning of the year till the end of the year,” i.e., at the beginning of the year it is determined what shall be at the end of the year. But whence do we know that this means Tishri? It is written [Psalms, lxxxi. 3]: “Blow on the new moon the cornet at the time when it (the new moon) is hidden 1 on our solemn feast day.” What feast is it on which the moon is hidden? We can only say Rosh Hashana (New Year’s Day), and of this day it is written [ibid. v. 4]: “For it is a statute unto Israel, a judgment (day) for the God of Jacob.”

And so I contacted this supposed scholar of the Hebrew language and asked him a few direct questions that left no room for confusion and the first response I received was nothing but more obfuscation, so I replied back with additional questions based upon his first reply, questions that were direct & to the point, and along with those questions, I included a list of the resources I used to determine my understanding of Psalm 81:3 as it was applied before Psalm 81:3 was written, and according to all Hebrew sources on the matter, it is still taught as being the correct understanding today. As of this publishing, this supposed scholar of the Hebrew language has yet to respond to the authoritative witnesses, in the authoritative resources used by all renown Hebrew scholars, that I had shared in my e-mail to his initial reply. I had sent my initial e-mail on 4/22 at 11:42 am, he promptly responded at 11:57 am and I then replied back at 1:24pm and included this request: “I do not want to belabor this, I am just seeking further understanding from further resources you used to determine your understanding other than the BDB”. All I have heard since then is ‘crickets’.

Now on the other hand, one of his most admired students did make a stronger attempt, but alas, he was the one who magically made two witnesses appear from one original witness. He takes the following quote from the synopsis to Chapter 1 of the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Rosh Hashanah and he cites the quote in the synopsis that is from the MISHNA as one witness and then uses the same quote in the actual chapter that is from the GEMARA that immediately follows the exact quote from the MISHNA, and is but a retelling of what the MISHNA had just said a couple of paragraphs prior, and then cites that as another witness. And as with the ‘lead teacher’, I had asked this student if he had read & studied chapter two of the Tractate Rosh Hashanah and his reply was that he could not recall at that time if he had read & studied it.

“It once happened that more than forty pair (of witnesses) were on the highway (to Jerusalem) and R. Aqiba detained them,”

Next this student of the supposed Hebrew scholar makes a bold statement about the ordinances for sighting the new moon yet he never cites the actual language of the Talmud tractate that tells us what those ordinances are.

A special court has been established to accept evidence concerning the sighting of the New Moon, as required by Jewish law.

One thing to keep in mind here is that the requirement to establish a ‘special new moon court’ is nowhere to be found in the Bible, this is a man-made Jewish religious law that was established out of another man-made Jewish religious law that treated these ‘new moon’ days as Sabbaths with all the burdensome rules and regulations they had placed on the weekly & annual Sabbath days. And so to make an exception, they devised even more laws that allowed for the witnesses to ‘break the Sabbath’ in order to bring their report to the ‘special new moon court’ who refused to move an inch, but stayed indoors, so as not to ‘break the Sabbath’ that they had created.

So what does the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Rosh Hashanah say are the ordinances by which a witness’s testimony is considered valid or false, ordinances that both the ‘lead teacher’ and his students fail to include in their papers they have written on the subject? First we need to establish some facts regarding the cycles of the moon and when it is visible to the naked eye, both in its final waning stage and its first waxing stage. The only time the moon can be seen rising in the eastern sky just before sunrise is during the final qtr. phase of moon’s monthly cycle. Therefore, once the moon goes dark, it is not visible in the eastern sky just before sunrise during the first three qtr. phases of the next cycle of the moon because the moon always rises after the sun rises during these three phases. Another argument that the ‘lead teacher’ and his students use has to do with the sliver of the moon being seen in the morning and then again in the evening. They claim, as a supposed matter of fact, that anyone who claims they saw the moon at both times is a false witness, however, once again, they do not take into account, as the rabbis do in the Talmud, that during certain winter months when the daylight hours are very short, it is not unusual to see the final waning crescent of the moon both in the morning and then again in the evening. I have witnessed this myself many times.

Also, as we move on to read the ‘Jewish’ ordinances concerning what time of day the sightings were taking place, keep in mind that Jewish religious law is not written like the laws we are used to reading. They are written in the manner of a court transcript and in that transcript is where we find what was considered valid testimony and what was considered false testimony, i.e., ordinances.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha that R. Gamaliel said to the sages: “Thus it has been handed down to me from the house of my grandfather (Zamalill the elder) that sometimes the new moon appears elongated and sometimes diminished. R. Hyya saw the old moon yet on the morning of the twenty-ninth day, and threw clods of earth at it, saying: ‘We should consecrate thee in the evening, and thou art seen now? Go, hide thyself!'”
Said Rabbi to R. Hyya: “Go to Entob and consecrate the month and send back to me as a password 1 ‘David, the King of Israel, still lives.'”

MISHNA: There was a large court in Jerusalem called Beth Ya’azeq, where all the witnesses met, and where they were examined by the Beth Din. Great feasts were made there for (the witnesses) in order to induce them to come frequently. At first they did not stir from there all day (on the Sabbath), 1 till R. Gamaliel, the elder, ordained that they might go two thousand ells on every side; and not only these (witnesses) but also a midwife, going to perform her professional duties, and those who go to assist others in case of conflagration, or against an attack of robbers, or in case of flood, or (of rescuing people) from the ruins (of a fallen building) are considered (for the time being) as inhabitants of that place, and may go (thence on the Sabbath) two thousand ells on every side. How were the witnesses examined? The first pair were examined first. The elder was introduced first, and they said to him: Tell us in what form thou sawest the moon; was it before or behind the sun? Was it to the north or the south (of the sun)? What was its elevation on the horizon? Towards which side was its inclination? What was the width of its disk? If he answered before the sun, his evidence was worthless. After this they introduced the younger (witness) and he was examined; if their testimony was found to agree, it was accepted as valid; the remaining pairs (of witnesses) were asked leading questions, not because their testimony was necessary, but only to prevent them departing, disappointed, and to induce them to come again often,

MISHNA: Formerly they received evidence as to the appearance of the new moon the whole (of the thirtieth) day. Once the witnesses were delayed in coming, and they disturbed the songs of the Levites. They then ordained that evidence should only be received until (the time of) the afternoon service, and if witnesses came after that time both that and the following day were consecrated. After the destruction of the Temple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained that evidence (as to the appearance) of the new moon should be received all day.
GEMARA: What disturbance did they cause to the songs of the Levites? Said R. Zera to A’hbha, his son: Go and teach to them (the Mishna) thus: “They ordained that evidence as to the appearance of the new moon should not be received, only that there might be time during the day to offer the continual and the additional sacrifices and their drink offerings, and to chant the (daily) song without disturbing the order.”

MISHNA: It happened once that two witnesses came and said: We saw the moon in the eastern part of the heavens in the morning, and in the western part in the evening. R. Jo’hanan b. Nouri declared them to be false witnesses; but when they came to Yamnia, Rabbon Gamaliel received their evidence as valid.

What we have learned from the ‘transcripts’ of the proceedings of the court is that in each instance, the witnesses were sent out to bring back testimony of the moon rising in the east during the final qtr. phase of the moon’s monthly cycle. Period!

Now as to the ‘Feast of the Fifteenth’, that was noted in the book “Ancient Egyptian Science Volume II, Calendars, Clocks, and Astronomy’, the same is with YHWH Elohim’s Appointed times of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that begins at sunset immediately following the Passover sacrifice.

R. Na’hman said to certain sailors, “Ye who do not know the calendar take notice that when the moon still shines at dawn (it is full moon, and if it happens to be Nissan) destroy your leaven bread (for it is then the fourteenth day).”

It is plainly clear that if a person is waiting to witness the first sliver of the waxing new moon, the dates they keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Tabernacles on are nearly always going to be at least a day or two after the full moon when it is now clearly visible to the naked eye that the moon is no longer full, but is growing old and losing its light. This also proves that what the ‘lead teacher’ claimed as truth is, in fact, not true at all.

…(Hag HaMazot and Hag HaSukkot) are on the 15th of the month, which is about the time of the full moon.

The truth of the Feasts that begin on the ‘fifteenth’ day of the first and seventh months was revealed to me many years ago when we had set up camp down at the river to remember and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall. At that time we were following tradition and we had gone down and set up the camper a few days in advance. It was on that first evening as I was taking the dog for a walk that I looked up and saw the full moon rising in the eastern sky and I thought to myself, this isn’t right. The Feast was to begin at the time of the full moon, not two days later!

And so why should this even be important to us today? The majority like to quote the Scripture that says, no man knows the day or the hour, and in doing so, they ignore the other Scriptures that say those in Messiah will not be caught as a thief in the night when Messiah returns because they are children of the light. Once one clears out all the clutter that was added to the following verses by translators, who didn’t understand the importance of the Appointed times of YHWH Elohim, nor did they remember or honor them, instead setting them aside for man-made religious traditions, they twisted what Paul had said to their own destruction, because, had they not added to Paul’s words and had simply stuck to what the Greek text actually says, they would have translated it as:

1Th 5:1-2 Now, brothers, as to the time, yea the Appointed time, you do not need to be written to. For you yourselves know very well that the day of יהוה comes as a thief in the night.

The context of these verses, as well as the context of all the surrounding text to these verses, clearly reveals that Paul is speaking of one specific day on Elohim’s Holy Appointed calendar, the day of YHWH Elohim that is described by Moses and the Prophets as the day that the moon gives no light. There is only one Appointed time when this occurs and that is the first day of the seventh month which is the Feast of Trumpets. According to Scripture, this day is “The Day of YHWH” which is often referred to by many as “The Day of the LORD”.

Remember the ten maidens in Matthew 25:1-13? They all knew of the Appointed time, however, not all had prepared themselves to stay put so to be sitting still and patiently waiting the Grooms arrival. Half of the maidens had to leave to go shopping because they showed up unprepared for the Groom’s arrival. They knew the approximate time the Groom would arrive, however, because of tradition, half of them failed to bring with them all that was needed because in their minds the arrival was still a day or two away, and since the others who were prepared did not bring any extra oil with them, the five foolish maidens set out on foot to go shopping and upon their return the door to the wedding Feast had already been opened & closed.

And this all brings us back to Genesis 1. It is written that in the beginning Elohim created (bara) the heavens and the earth which means everything existed, but Elohim had not yet prepared them,  i.e., given light to them. All was dark including the sun & the moon. It was not until sometime after the 3rd day that Elohim prepared (asah) the sun and the moon and then after preparing them we are told that they are to be as signs (oth) in the heavens for days, for years & for His Appointed times (moed).

The Creator’s calendar began the counting of all time, days, days of months, and days of years from the first day that all was created (bara). The moon on the very first day, of the very first month, of the very first year of all creation, that day the moon gave no light, just as the ‘special new moon court’ testified it to be according to what is written in His Holy Scriptures, His Word of Truth. And this brings us to the 1260 days, aka, 3 1/2 years. Well, ask yourself, 3 1/2 years of what?

There is a weekly Sabbath every seven days, and then there are seven annual Sabbaths in His Appointed calendar, which annual Sabbath occurs in the ‘midst’ of those seven, i.e., in the middle? The Feast of Trumpets, the day & hour when no man is able to see those few minutes in time when the old light has faded and the new light begins, only YHWH Elohim in Heaven knows! Even King David understood the importance of witnessing the waning moon so to know when to hide from Saul who was seeking to kill him.

1Sa 20:5 And David said to Jonathan, “See, tomorrow is the New Moon, and I ought to sit with the sovereign to eat. But let me go, and I shall hide in the field until the third day at evening. … 18 So Jonathan said to him, “Tomorrow is the New Moon, and you shall be missed, because your seat shall be empty.

Both David and Jonathan knew it was not safe for David to go up to the Feast, or to come out of hiding until after the new moon had passed and his evidence that the new moon had passed was when David and Jonathan were able to visibly see the light of the moon growing in illumination and strength after the third day!

And this is why “Context, and the Calendar Matters” for all who claim to be children of Elohim, whether native or grafted in, and yes, as it is written both in the Old Testament and New Testament, some of those grafted in are the natural branches who remain broken off because they have yet to receive Yeshua (Jesus) as their Messiah! It was YHWH Elohim who placed a veil over their heart that they would not understand, and only when that veil is lifted through their belief that Yeshua (Jesus) is indeed their Messiah and confesses that belief with their mouth, is understanding then given. And so those of us who have been grafted in, we must be careful not to boast against the natural branches that were broken off lest, because of our arrogance, we find ourselves broken off as they were! But nowhere is it written that we are to set the unbelieving natural branches up as teachers and scholars over any assembly, in fact, Yeshua (Jesus) warns us to beware of those men and their teachings, because it is through their twisting of His Word of Truth, His Holy Scriptures, and then taking His Word of Truth out of context, that man is able to create all kinds of false doctrines and false calendar systems so to deceive the masses.

Pro 6:16-19 These six matters יהוה hates, And seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, And hands shedding innocent blood, A heart devising wicked schemes, Feet quick to run to evil, A false witness breathing out lies, And one who causes strife among brothers.

Therefore, let us quit using this matter of the calendar to cause further strife. One person may prefer ‘tradition’ because they have not sufficiently studied the matter out, as we had done in the beginning of our walk in His Sabbath truth, while another who has studied the matter out has chosen to practice truth as Elohim spoke it, while also remaining in fellowship with those who prefer to practice tradition. No matter the choice, it is a personal choice that neither side should hold against the other.

The truth of the matter is, YHWH Elohim was and is perfectly capable of preserving His calendar as He established it in the beginning, even through the Pharaohs of Egypt through whom He preserved the Israelites until the time of their deliverance from Egypt, as opposed to one of the surrounding nations of Egypt who all began their calendars after the second or third day of the new moon, depending on when the first waxing crescent of the renewed moon was seen in the evening.

In conclusion, I leave with those who desire to continue to berate and cast out believers in Messiah, because they do not follow their unsubstantiated calendar ‘traditions’ and refuse to lie to others about their belief so to support the unsubstantiated ‘tradition’, these words of Messiah.

“For he who is not against us is for us” [Numbers 11:24-29; Mark 9:33-41; Luke 9:46-50]

Beware of Ignorant Lawyers Posing as “Constitutional Experts”

The internet can be a very useful tool for researchers of any area of the US Constitution, however, it is also a source used by many useful idiots who, because they have gamed some sort of collegiate degree, they believe themselves to be the ultimate authority in textual interpretation of the US Constitution and its subsequent statutes at large. Take the website supremelaw.org for example. The website is owned by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. who’s website was created for the sole purpose of making a living by supposedly teaching constitutional law when in fact, it is nothing but a course in understanding Mr. Mitchell’s uneducated view of the US Constitution.

What lead me to Mr. Mitchell’s website was a search I was doing in regards to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 as it pertains to the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. What Mr. Mitchell would have us believe is that the 14th Amendment changed the relationship & nature of citizenship in the 50 united States of America in that it transformed the ‘natural born citizens’ residing in any of the 50 states into ‘aliens’ for the purpose of taxation thereby alienating the creators from the creation. Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the 14th Amendment created a whole new class of citizens, federal citizens of the District of Columbia and its territories, specifically for purposes of taxation all the while ignoring the fact that it was the representatives of the States united at that time under the US Constitution that ratified the 14th Amendment that made sure that the former slaves of any of the several states of the Union would, from thence forward, have the same legal standing as the free men of the Union. It changed nothing in regards to A1, S8, C4 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, … “.

Also, Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the term ‘United States’ as it appears in A1, S8, C4 of the US Constitution refers ONLY to the District of Columbia and the territories that the Federal Government has immediate “authority” over. This is an uneducated interpretation as the Congressional records of the Constitutional convention tell us that the term ‘United States’ as it appears in the US Constitution has several meanings and therefore it is the context of any given article or subsection of that article that dictates the proper meaning of the term used therein.

Therefore, it was not the authors of the 14th Amendment that changed the meaning of the term ‘United States’ as it pertains to citizenship, it is Mr. Mitchell’s ignorance of the rules of interpretation of law that enables the ignorant public at large to remain further ignorant and even more susceptible to their wrongful application of the law that leads them down the path of self inflicted harm because of their ignorance of the law, or their reliance on a person with big letters behind their names as if those big letters are a guarantee that that person actually has studied the actual statutes so to know the law such as Mr. Mitchell who admits to NOT reading the laws. From the very onset of his book, The Federal Zone, Mitchell admits that he has not gone to the actual statutes, but simply relied on treatises written by men or women of the same Constitutional ignorance as Mitchell because of course, they are supposed experts.

Well, let’s test Mr. Mitchell’s expertise.

In the book, The Federal Zone, Mitchell begins by touching upon the Supreme court case, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Mr. Mitchell’s contention is that it was not the fact that Brushaber was an investor that held stock in a federally held corporation located in the territory of Utah (Utah had not yet become a state of the union) that was the determining factor of the case. Mitchell would have us believe that it was Brushabers’ claim that he was a citizen of the State of New York and resident of the borough of Brooklyn, NY that gave rise to the reason that Brushaber lost the case. Mitchell would have us believe that by claiming to be a ‘citizen’, regardless of the place of residency, Brushaber was claiming to be a citizen of the federally owned District of Columbia because, according to Mitchell, 14th Amendment citizens are aliens of the ‘States of the Union’ and therefore, it was Brushaber’s use of the term ‘citizen’ in reference to himself that made him subject to taxation rather than his financial activity with the federal government that Brushaber engaged in that caused Brushaber to become subject to taxation under the 16th Amendment. This is legal chicanery at its worst and the cause of many fined and jailed citizens who follow such nonsense.

The whole premise of Mitchell’s website, as far as I can determine, is to create  a following so to have the constitutionally legal 16th Amendment repealed and the constitutionally created IRS abolished. It is also Mitchell’s contention that Congress never passed any legislation creating the  Department of Internal Revenue. As I stated above, Mitchell admits to not having actually read the statutes at large, therefore, how would he know that the statute of July 1, 1862 titled “An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt” began by stating:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of super-intending the collection of internal duties, stamp duties, licenses, or taxes imposed by this act, or which may be hereafter imposed, and of assessing the same, and office is hereby created in the Treasury Department to be called the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with an annual salary of four thousand dollars, who shall be charged, and is hereby charged, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, with preparing all the instructions, regulations, directions, forms, blanks, stamps, and licenses, and distributing the same, …”

Now to recap, Mitchell believes that the Department of Internal Revenue and its taxing authority was subsequent to the passing of the 14th Amendment when in fact, the statute that became the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was created by Congress four years after the establishment of the Department of Internal Revenue and a full four years after the Internal Revenue began collecting the constitutional taxes authorized by the US Constitution. What Mitchell has done is to erroneously put the cart before the horse because Mr. Mitchell was too lazy to do his own research, wholly relying on the constitutional ignorance of others like himself, thereby, not being of the educated mind of our founding fathers, many of whom never stepped one foot in a law school, Mr. Mitchell has ignored the fact that in order for the creation to do what the creators created it do, it would need a revenue system that would give it the means by which to do that which it was created to do.

And then there is Mitchell’s utter lack of understanding of exactly what an excise (duty) tax is, a tax on activity regardless of the person’s citizenship status.

Suffice to say, I can now, without a shadow of a doubt, conclude this review of supremelaw.org and its owner Paul Andrew Mitchell, by rendering my official opinion as an educated citizen of the United States of America and resident of one of the 50 States of that Union, that Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell, regardless of the big letters he displays after his name from the empty degrees he holds, Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell is NOT an expert on the US Constitution or the 14th & 16th Amendments to said Constitution and that no one should, for the purposes of educating themselves, entertain anything that is published at Mitchell’s website as a source of constitutional truth.

For those who are truly interested in  becoming the type of educated citizen that the founding fathers as well as the drafters of the 14th & 16th Amendments were, begin by reading,  The Fascinating Truth About The 16th Amendment followed by Bob’s Bicycles. This will give you the proper factual foundation that every truly educated citizen builds their constitutional education upon so to be able to apply the law as Congress, at the time of the adoption of the law, intended them to apply it.

Shalom

 

Pro 28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. 5 Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely

Yes Virginia, In You is a Gift of Personal Righteousness

Virginia, you, as I were taught that we can only be saved through the Righteousness of Messiah. Throughout the ages children of God have been taught that we have no righteousness of our own and are totally covered under His. But is this Scriptural? Is this true? No it is not. In fact the truth is the exact opposite of what we were taught.

In Matthew 3:15 Messiah says “Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fill all righteousness”. This means that John’s part in Messiah’s baptism was counted to John as righteousness.

Mat 21:32 “for John came to you in the way of righteousness…”

In Matthew 5:6 in the Sermon on the Mount Messiah says “blessed are those who thirst after righteousness” and then 4 verses later He tells us that in doing righteousness we will be persecuted and in that persecution for doing righteousness, we will be blessed.

Ok Virginia, I know, you are thinking, well Messiah is speaking to the Jews but do we really know for sure that they were all Jews, that they were all citizens of region of Judea which is the correct and proper definition for the word “Jew(s)” in the bible.

We can quickly understand who Messiah was speaking to by going to the book of Acts. In chapter 10 verses 34-35 we see Peter upholding Messiah’s righteousness teaching He gave during His Sermon on the Mount.

Act 10:34 And opening his mouth, Peter said, “Truly I see that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation, he who fears Him and does righteousness is accepted by Him.

You see Virginia, righteousness simply means doing what is right according to the instructions that the Word of God gave through Moses. (Mt 5:17-20, 22:37-40, 23:1-3) This is what it means to work out our own salvation. With all our heart, mind and strength we strive to do His instructions as He gave them, to do them to the best of our ability and not as a means of salvation but as evidence of our belief in Him that gave them to us to keep us safe and to bless us.

Act 7:37 “This is the Moses who said to the children of Israel, YHVH your God shall raise up for you a Prophet (Word of God) like me (Moses) from your brothers. Him (Word of God) you shall hear.’ 38 “This is he (Moses) who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Messenger (Word of God) who spoke to him (Moses) on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the Living Words to give to us, 39 unto whom our fathers would not become obedient, but thrust away, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt,

Heb 4:2 For indeed the Gospel was brought to us as well as to them (at Mt Sinai), but the word which they heard did not profit them, not having been mixed with belief in those who heard it.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we saw His esteem, esteem as of an only brought-forth of the Father, complete in favour and truth.

Every parent understands that as a parent, they know what is best for their children and we being children of God, God knows what is best for us. When we say that we know better than God and turn to worship Him and live in society according to our own will and not His, we are acting like ungrateful and rebellious children. What happens when we disobey our parents of the flesh? We are disciplined. The same is for our Father in Heaven. When we disobey Him, we remove ourselves from His safety covering (His grace/favor) from which all blessings flow and in doing so we are left exposed to the curses of the world.

Heb 12:7 If you endure discipline, God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become sharers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Moreover, we indeed had fathers of our flesh disciplining us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they indeed disciplined us for a few days as seemed best to them, but He does it for our profit, so that we might share His apartness.

Now knowing and understanding that in the flesh we can never be perfect as Messiah was perfect, God from the beginning has revealed an additional Righteousness to come. A Righteousness that has now been fulfilled for all to come under, all that have gone before us and all that are to come, as God’s Word and His promises are outside of time. They speak to all generations as if all generations existed at the same time.

Rom 3:21 But now, apart from the Torah, a Righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Torah and the Prophets, 22 and the Righteousness of God is through belief in Yeshua Messiah to all and on all who believe.

Heb 11:1 And belief is the substance of what is expected, the proof of what is not seen. 2 For by this the elders obtained witness. 3 By belief, we understand that the ages were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made of what is visible…8  By belief, Aḇraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he was about to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Aḇraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness … Gen 15:6 And he believed in YHVH, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness. Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed My voice and guarded My Charge: My commands, My laws, and My Torah.

Who and what was it that Abraham believed and in that belief Abraham obeyed?

Gen 15:1 After these events the Word of YHVH came to Aḇram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Aḇram. I am your shield, your reward is exceedingly great.”

Belief in the Son is belief in His Word as the two are one in the same and through Messiah’s Righteousness and His shed blood, we now have security to know that as long as we strive to do that same righteousness that John the Baptist did by being obedient unto death, as long as we acknowledge our sin, ask forgiveness then go and do that sin no more, we too can reach the goal of eternal life just as His only begotten Son, the Living Word did.

1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, stay in Him, so that when He appears, we might have boldness and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone doing righteousness has been born of Him.

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one lead you astray. The one doing righteousness is righteous, even as Messiah is righteous… 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Everyone not doing righteousness is not of God,

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible teaches us that there is righteousness for us to attain to. Not for salvation but as evidence thereof. We do what we believe because we believe in what we do. Salvation came in the form of the flesh to instruct and teach us the proper way to do righteousness in the flesh. He did not take it away for if He did then even His own Righteousness which we need in the end is also taken away. If that which defines what sin is according to God (the Father in whose Authority Messiah came in) is gone, then that leaves us in a pretty precarious state as then we have no need of a Messiah at all and everyone can continue to do what is right in their own eyes according to their own will rather than according to God’s will.

Yes Virginia, the Living Word was nailed to the cross, however, that Living Word then resurrected in all its Glory and Splendor as it was in the beginning so that it would forever shine forth throughout the entire world. Through resurrection, the Living Word defeated eternal death thereby obtaining eternal victory over the Adversary of the Living Word.

Know this then, if we are in the Light of the Living Word and He in us, then the Light of the Living Word and all His Righteousness reflects in all that we do because we believe and strive with all our heart, mind and strength, and in humble submission to the One who gave life to both we and His Living Word, if we do this just as the Living Word did while He was in the flesh that was according to what He was supposed to do according to the Father’s instructions, we too will achieve to the same righteousness as our forefathers did and in ‘That Day’ we all together will receive our own crown as Messiah did.

Heb 11:39 And having obtained witness through the belief, all these did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided what is better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

So Virginia, do not let anyone continue to deceive you. You do have your own righteousness in you and this righteousness is a gift, a blessing from God your Father and He is patiently waiting for you to un-wrap this gift, then share this gift from Him with the world.

 

 

 

Charge of God’s “Light” Brigade

As some may recall, from recent news, a “National Call to Prayer” for the economic crisis in our nation was held in Texas. I found it rather interesting that they chose Saturday as the day rather than having it held as a national event during Sunday worship services. Why Saturday & not on Sunday when the majority of all Christians worship? Well, this morning during my daily walk with God, the light bulb went off! Let me tell you about it.

One of my now all-time favorite movies is “The Blindside”. The message it sends is so powerful and speaks to so many subject matters that one cannot fully grasp its power in one sitting. The overtones of all the spiritual healing that Jesus taught through his works that are written in the New Testament are astounding. The overtones of His protection for His children cannot be escaped for ones who truly seek Him.

So where did the light come in for me?

The one scene that has stood out for me for some reason was towards the end. The dreadful term paper all students fear as it holds such great weight to their final reward. Do they pass or do they fail? And the choice of literature one chooses for that paper is as important as the paper itself. How do you write about something you do not know or understand? Is not understanding, the root of all knowledge? Let’s reflect on the understanding…

“Their’s is not to question why, their’s but to do & die”

What was Alfred Lord Tennyson really saying when he wrote the now famous “Charge of the Light Brigade”? What knowledge through understanding can we gleam about God from this famous poem?

“Their’s not to question why”

All our life we are told to question everything, especially authority. I agree to a certain extent as all things in life need to have boundaries that protect them. Those boundaries are put there for our protection and what happens when you cross over the boundaries of protection? You are exposed to all sorts of danger & evil. So what we really should have been taught is to question authority with discernment. Proper discernment regarding authority tells us that man is fallible but God is not. God never changes & neither does His Word. He set boundaries for His children for a good reason and one day He will tell us all about it.

Until then, with proper discernment, let’s go to the Gospels to discern the proper understanding of Matthew 5:17-20.

 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

I want to point out two key phrases in this passage: “Law & Prophets” and “to fulfill”.

“To fulfill”. . . Church authority, theology of man, has taught us that this means that through the crucifixion & resurrection, we are no longer bound to the 10 Commandments or Gods’ statutes & ordinances He spoke to His people through Moses & the Prophets. We are now saved by grace through faith alone. If we sin, all we have to do pray for forgiveness and then keep living our lives the way WE want to as the flesh is separate from the spirit. But is that so? When did circumcision of the heart first appear? Modern clergy & theologians tell us it began in the New Testament with Jesus but I beg to differ with them as God clearly spoke it through Moses in the desert before His children even entered the Promised Land.

Deuteronomy 30:6 ~ And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Ezekiel 11:19 ~ Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh

This is the new covenant spoken by Paul in his letter to the gentile church at Corinth.

2 Corinthians 3: 4-6, 12-18 ~ And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. . . Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Paul is teaching that even though the veil remains for many of His children, God has lifted that veil for those who have entered into His faith; including those who had never heard the Word of God let alone read about it.

In God’s language, one of the roots words for fulfill is H7999 (shalom) שׁלם. Reading right to left we have the Hebrew letters sheen: fire, destroy (sh), lamed: strength, authority (l) and mem: chaos (m).  Can you see the simplicity of God’s language? Does this word remind you of an oft spoken & sung word in the church? It should. To fulfill is to bring peace. SHALOM! Shalom is “The authority that destroys chaos!” Hebrew doesn’t have vowels thus those jots & tittles Jesus spoke of are what fills in the vowels so we know which Hebrew word He is speaking. Without those jots & tittles His spoken & written word gets all twisted & messed up. And who does that best? Man does!

For the discerned heart then, how do we get peace? Through RESTORATION. In Hebrew, God’s language spoken though Moses & the Prophets, to fulfill is to RESTORE! Not to abolish. Jesus said He came to RESTORE not abolish!

Now that we have that down, we need to understand what Jesus really spoke about the “Law & the Prophets”. Were those really His words?  And why are they Capitalized?

In the Hebrew scroll of Matthew that the Greek NT was written from, Law & Prophets is written as one word, (Torah) תּורה. Again, reading right to left we have the tav: mark of as in mark of the covenant, seal as in covenant seal (t), the vav: nail that binds (in this case it is a silent connector), the reysh: head (r) and the Hey: behold, reveal (h). Sounded out we get the spoken word “TORAH”. In other words, what Jesus was saying is that “Behold, the New Covenant of I AM”. The reason “Law & Prophets” is capitalized is that it is “The Word”, the spoken & written eternal & forever covenant of God that Jesus came to instruct upon as man had messed it all up!  God had it written down so it could be taught to all generations, from beginning to end and that is why the Five Books of Moses are called the “Torah”. They contain everything we need to know about our Messiah & our spiritual marriage covenant with God. These five books contain all of the “I shalls and I shall nots. Ask yourself, what happens when you break a marriage vow? Then ask yourself how could it be that He came to abolish that which He came to restore which is His everlasting covenant that binds He to us & us to He? Does a marriage counselor tell a couple that in order to sustain the marriage they must keep breaking their vows? Absolutely not! So where did the idea that Jesus came in order to break His Father’s everlasting covenant come from? Well, that is for another lesson and it is a very enlightening one at that. For now, let’s continue on by returning to Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem.

“Their’s but to do & die”

Sounds fatal doesn’t it? Taken in a legalistic sense yes; but let’s look at it from a spiritual sense.

“Do”, to serve, to labor, to guard. What was the first commandment God gave to Adam? To do, he was to lovingly tend & guard the garden. He was to be the protector of the gates as not to let any weeds or chaos enter into it. But what happened? Adam fell asleep on the job so to speak and guess who snuck in, the snake who thrives on chaos. He, whose entire being depends on it. Chaos is what happens when we do not protect our hearts from its host. When we do not faithfully tend & guard in God’s Torah, chaos breaks out in our lives, both physically & mentally because we do not understand the awesomeness of His power as the head of the spiritual family. God is our commander, our leader, our protector & our salvation. Every house has rules in order that chaos does not break out and in God’s house there is no exemption. But like a responsible parent’s love, His guides us with tough love and with a gentile hand during the times we truly mess up.

In Hebrew, love is spelled רחם. Again, reading right to left we have the reysh, the head (r), the chet, the fence that protects (ch as in Bach) and the mem, the chaos (m). God tells us that love is “The head that protests the children from chaos”. Does a loving parent let their child run amuck causing chaos in the entire neighborhood as well as their own home or do they gently sit them down to instruct them, to guide them, which in turn protects them from their ignorance? When one loves their parents with their whole heart they strive to always please the parent.

“Die”, to go, walk, come. Where did we come from? Where are we walking? Where shall we go? These are all very important questions each one of us must answer.  Jesus said in Mark 10, “take up your cross and follow me” and Psalms 85 tells us that His footsteps are our pathway. Wow, sounds like both action & direction as we see from the Hebrew definition of “die”. Mark 7 & Luke 13: Make straight my path, enter through the narrow gate, narrow is the gate and difficult is the path, wide is the gate & the path to destruction.

It is human instinct to take the path of least resistance, is it not? Well, since we are not talking of human flesh, we need to concentrate on whose spirit is leading us through the path of our life in the flesh. It is this path that leads us to where we will be going. Do we die to the chaos of the flesh that leads us down the broad path to the wide gate of destruction or do we die to the spirit of eternal life by lovingly tending & guarding His Word to make straight the path to the narrow gate in order that we do not miss it. If the world does not see Him in us, how are they to know He even exists? Some of the scribes and Pharisees had changed so much of God’s Word that a lot of people, including scribes and Pharisees didn’t even recognized Jesus as the Messiah while He walked with them in the flesh. Out of ignorance, they instead sought out destruction, the destruction of the Messiah that had come for them.

Matthew 5:20 ~ For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven

Jesus was talking about trustful & faithful obedience, not abundance of knowledge. The adding to & subtracting from God’s word by scribes & Pharisees had caused great chaos. Jesus considered them the lowest of the low. Jesus came as our light in order that we may understand; so that we would be a testimonial light to the future generations of the world after He ascended to be with His Father. He, Jesus, taught that that understanding comes from Moses, “have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” (Mark 12)

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a set-apart nation, a people for a possession, that you should proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, Footnote: Ex 19:5-9. 10 who once were not a people, but now the people of God; who had not obtained compassion, but now obtained compassion. … 21 For to this you were called, because Messiah also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps,^{1Footnote: 11 Cor. 11:1, 1 John 2:6.} 22 who committed no sin,1 nor was deceit found in His mouth,”2 Footnotes: 1John 8:55, John 15:10, 2 Cor. 5:21, John 3:5. 2Isa.53:9.

Which leads me back to the question, why have a national call to prayer to plead to God to destroy chaos on Saturday and not on Sunday? Maybe because they thought they could more easily get God’s ear on His day of rest & worship rather the man-made one that was adopted from the chaos that first appeared in the Garden of Eden? The chaos that was at the foot of Mt Sinai when Moses first descended with God’s 10 Words that God, himself, spoke to the crowd for all to hear; the chaos that rejected God’s Sabbath for a day appointed by man and for man against the will and desire of Our Father in Heaven.

Well, I do not know what the outcome of the national prayer will be; however I do know how the poem ended.  Alfred Lord Tennyson went on. . .

Into the valley of death rode the six hundred! . . . When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made! . . . Honor the charge they made, Honor the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred.

The brigade feared not. They whole heartily honored and trusted their leader, never questioning his authority or commands. Now that’s FAITH! That’s Glory! That’s HONOR!

God is seeking hearts like that of the Six Hundred for His Brigade! Keep watch for the news of the new Saturday Sabbath study/worship coming soon.

Why Liberals & So-Called Conservatives on Both Sides of the Aisle Despise the 14th Amendment

US citizenship is the most sought after commodity on the market today. Yes, you read correctly, “commodity”.

Where else in the world can one go and be paid to retire, living off of other people’s property, when they have no work history? Where else can one go to have a baby and then, in the name of that baby, reap the property of those they have no loyalty or allegiance to? Where else in the world can one enter illegally and not be subject to the laws thereof?

Why the good ole’ US of Despotism of course!

The doctrine of old, that is still lawful doctrine as far as I know, is that a child can not be held responsible for the actions of the parents so long as that child is a minor. But when that child reaches the age of majority, the age of reason and knowledge of the law, the child themself becomes responsible to make sure they are in legal good standing. I, myself personally, don’t know one person who would deny a child brought here illegally or birthed here illegally, the right to citizenship if that child, upon reaching legal age of 18, stands on moral ground and takes the proper legal action to correct the indiscretion placed upon them by their parents to becoime legal and law abiding members of our society. This is the doctrine of all moral societies from the beginning of time, that every member of that society be bound to the same standard in all law. No classification of race or ethnicity required. We are all but of one race, the human race, in the eyes of a constitutionally bound & blindfolded justice system.

You ask then, just how did we get to where we are today when there are so many laws that pit one race against another & one ethnicity against another? Through judicial activism & greedy immoral citizens & non-citizens who found out they could vote themselves a paycheck via personal & corporate government welfare by voting in representatives that support everything but common sense, self-reliance & self-responsibility.

So let’s begin the lesson on the 14th. I’ll take it slow for those that are new to the issue and for those that have been entrenched with me in it for years, but still haven’t quite grasped this oh so simple concept.

Rule #1: Constitutions are not made to be complicated. They are written so that even the most common & uneducated citizen would be able to read and understand what is written so that they are able to obey the law without having to hire a lawyer every time they need to partake in society either personally or commercially. This is where I lose most of the lawyers as those of high education can’t seem to grapple with the law unless they make a complicated mess of it in their minds.

Rule #2: Every word or phrase, every jot or tittle in a Constitution is to have but one meaning when it is context pertains to a single subject matter such as the 14th Amendment. It’s subject matter is US citizenship, thus all words & phrases pertain to citizenship, how it is obtained, and what is required to obtain it …IN THAT ORDER!

But, before we explicitly break down the 14th, let’s go back to “the beginning” and see how US citizenship morphed from the days of old subjectship under feudal British monarchial rule to rule of law under a nation of sovereign citizens.

The year was 1775, oppression was abundant on this land of the freeman, each state a separate sovereign under the British crown, yet also under their own local colonial jurisdictional rule. Some of the colonies formed by the Brits, while others were formed by freemen of other nations who were later conquered and taken over by the Brits. The laws of these great colonies were as vast & nonconforming as the subjects that dwelt in them.

By July 4, 1776 all the colonies had personally declared their independence from Great Britain. The July 4th Declaration was merely a formal declaration that all the colonies now stood in solidarity with one another in order to break the chains of oppression that had been cast down upon them by their loving ruler. They adopted a Confederate Constitution, went to war & won. But soon, they realized that unless they united completely under a federal constitution, all they had fought for would be lost because after the war, they all went back to their individual states with laws still as vast & nonconforming as before. They soon found themselves pitted against each other with the ruler they had just defeated waiting in the wings to swoop in and conquer them once again.

One of the big debates they had was over citizenship. Just who were the members of this new Republic called the United States of America? The north wanted to abolish slavery right off the bat, but the slave states would have none of it, threatening to break away from the union. In a very wise decision, it was adopted that after a certain date, the slave trade would see a permanent end. In another very wise decision, the 3/5ths clause, the slaves states were not allowed full representation in the US Congress unless they freed all their slaves. Oh they tried to buck the 3/5ths clause, but the abolition states insisted that if the slave states wanted representation for what they called property, then the abolition states could also count all their property(furniture) for representation purposes. Well, very aware of the abundance of wealth the abolition states held over the slave states, it didn’t take long for the slave states to concede and adopt the 3/5th clause put forth by the representatives of the abolition states. There was also no talk of sex for at that time it was one household, one vote whether it be a woman or a man at the head of that household. A doctrine I whole heartily believe we should return to. And in many states, color did not factor into the equation. Black & white stood side by side in the voting line.

This is how a representative government works. The head of the household represents the house as a whole. The house as a whole elects representatives for local, state, US House & presidential electoral college members. The electoral college members represent the state as a whole in the presidential election and cast their vote for the candidate that best represents their state as a whole. Then last but not least we have the states who represent the body of the state as a whole and they were to elect the persons to represent the state in the US Senate. That is until it was usurped by liberals on both sides of the aisle.

But I digress. Back to citizenship.

Immediately after the Declaration of July 4, 1776, the states began repealing old feudal law & replacing it with the Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God as declared in the Declaration of Independence & reiterated in the Articles of Confederation.

Virginia, a colony with the deepest ties to Great Britain finalized their change in 1779 under the governorship of Thomas Jefferson.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

No longer did Virginia recognize British feudal law of subjectship as a definition as to who its members were. The only new members born into the state had to be born to parents who were already members of that state. These were & are the natural born. All others being aliens must be naturalized according to the laws of the state. The majority of the states followed suit, many adding religious requirements that were totally legal under the Articles of Confederation. On the other hand, a few states held fast to the feudal definition of subjectship, the state as the master & the individual as the subject slave. Quite repulsive isn’t it, to think that they fought a bloody war only to keep the members of their own society under the same legal oppression they had fought against.

Moving along, we come to 1790 and the passing of the 1st naturalization & immigration laws under the new Constitution of the Republic of these United States. This law held that all children born to American parents, regardless of soil of birth were natural born citizens. All others were aliens who were afforded the opportunity to become naturalized citizens, either at the time of their parents naturalization or upon their own accord at the age of 21. But the language was ambiguous at best. In 1795, the natural born language was repealed as it pertained to children born to US citizens abroad, however the language for children born to aliens remained intact.

In 1802 congress revisited the naturalization laws in order to correct abuses that had taken place under the previous administration. The Act of 1802 repealed all previous naturalization Acts and in their place, stated:

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

So, let’s break this down for those that are blinded easily by the chaff that hides the meat of the grain.

parents…united under one allegiance, upon marriage, international law & US state & national law recognized that the wife automatically became a citizen of the husbands country and the husband was the legal representative for the entire family.

the children…those born to alien/foreign parents on American soil

who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject(naturalized citizenship) by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof(laws of the state under the Articles of Confederation) … this refers to the feudal law of subjectship which at birth, naturalized the child of a foreigner and makes that child a subject slave of the state from the moment of birth, regardless of the parents wishes

being under the age of 21 at the time of their parents being naturalized…still a minor and under the authority & protection of the parents

admitted to the rights of citizenship if dwelling in the United States…they could only claim US citizenship if living in the US proper under the authority & protection of their parents who were living in the US & who had become US citizens

In other words, what we have here is the federal government stating in 1802, in no uncertain terms, that birth in this country is not the prerequisite to citizenship. It is the allegiance of the parents, the adults who are the guardians & protectors of the child, and unless the adult parents become citizens, the child has no other option than to try to obtain it at the age of 21. For those whose parents never did obtain US citizenship, the process was made easier and the waiting period was waved as long as the child had lived in and was educated in the US consistently for a certain period of time prior to their coming to the age of 21.

I have found no better voice to this than that of a Mr Saunders of the 28th Congress during debate on naturalization that finally ended with the above law being upheld:

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

And please don’t misquote me. This does in no way pertain to children born to parents after the parents are naturalized, for at that time, the child is legally born to citizen parents and thus is a true natural born citizen. One born with a complete & undivided allegiance to the United States of America under the color of the law.

So, thus far, the federal government has recognized but 2 paths to US citizenship, birth according to the laws of nature which produce the natural born citizens and the rest, regardless of place of birth, fall under the statute laws of immigration & naturalization. However, let’s move forward and see if it stuck.

In 1859, naturalized US Americans were still being held unlawfully in the countries of their birth so President Buchanan had his Dept of Justice, Attorney General draft a legal OP that was published nationwide and sent out to all embassies across the globe. The US Embassies then forwarded this legal memorandum to all foreign governments, declaring once again, the laws of citizenship of the United States, both at birth & naturalization.

“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

This OP was still being cited by Harvard law as precedent to the definition of US citizenship when Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah was born.

This OP was also the legal document used to draft the 1866 Civil Rights Act that was ratified as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of these United States in 1868. It is the legal document for the sister Act to the 14th Amendment which is the Expatriation Act of 1868, passed on July 27, 1868, immediately following the ratification of the 14th in order to finally & forever proclaim the US doctrine of a single allegiance to the US, either at birth or naturalization. It is the legal meat & the teeth to the oath of allegiance & renunciation all naturalized citizens must take and it is the legal meat & teeth that the US State Dept uses to protect its citizens abroad.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

No dual allegiance allowed. It is hereby declared inconsistent with our form of government and is a bain to the keeping of public peace. One nation, one people under one allegiance to, one Supreme Law, the Constitution of the United States.

OK, now that we have traced the history and found out that nothing had changed regarding children born to aliens on US soil since the time of the adoption of the US Constitution to the ratification of the 14th, we can now return to the 14th. Using the precedent set forth in all previous legislation pertaining to US citizenship and the legal document that gave it its force that was cited & upheld by the Supreme Court in both the Minor & Elk cases, let’s see what the paths to US citizenship are? Are there really only 2? YES!

All persons … Chief Justice Waite in 1874:

The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … again Chief Justice Waite in 1874:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

Then 10 yrs later Gray upholds the ruling of the court written by Chief Justice Waite as it pertains to the paths to Us citizenship as it stands under the 14th Amendment:

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. 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. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized

So, the 14th defines persons as either born or naturalized. Then we take the next step to see which path they can legally gain citizenship thru by using the “subject to the jurisdiction” rule as defined by Congress & the courts since 1790; and we see that according to the 14th Amendment, the only ones who attain US citizenship via either path are those that have always had but one exclusive allegiance to the US since birth, the natural born, or those that formally & personally(individually) declared their one exclusive allegiance the the US upon naturalization.

It’s all right there folks. Both Supreme Court justices, both in the deciding opinions of the court citing the same legal precedent specifically sent forth by the US Congress in 1802 and reiterated in 1845 and finally by the Buchanan Admin OP in 1859 which became the legal document that formed the 14th Amendment, that thusly led to the constitutionality of citizenship as defined by 14th being upheld by the Supreme Court. Two paths to US citizenship, birth via the Laws of  Nature which produces the natural born citizens or naturalization by renouncing & swearing an oath of immediate & exculsive alliegiance to the Constitution fo the United States, neither the twix shall meet. One can not be born with allegiance to a foreign nation and claim natural born citizenship status later in life. The law does not suport it.

Thus finally I leave you with this historical evidence from the…Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950)

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

Yes, this is the reason Harvard was still citing the 1859 Buchanan OP when Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah was born. Obama was 1st & foremost a British subject at birth, just as his father was. This was the law recognized by all nations, that a child born in wedlock follows the nationality of the father, not the mother until such time as a divorce or an adoption may take place or upon the child reaching the age of 21. The only change in the 1950’s pertained to children born to single mothers abroad, NOT children born in wedlock.

Therefore, the crux of US citizenship is neither birth nor naturalization, it is allegiance to the US Constitution & the political system of the US  federal government and to them ONLY! However, birth is the only path to which one can attain to the office of the presidency . The highest office of the land which holds the responsibility of enforcing the Law of the land, the US Constitution and on each & every inauguration day, the person elected to that office takes an oath swearing to do so and is suppose to have had but one allegiance from birth. Exclusive allegiance to the United States of America and the US Constitution. Without the law, we live under despotism & tyranny of a doctorial government. Without the enforcement of our citizenship laws as they are defined in the 14th Amendment, we become a land without sovereign borders and are doomed to destruction through economic redistribution of our private property that the despotic governments seizes from us without authority of the Law of the land, the US Constitution, to give to others who are not legally authorized to receive it.

So, Welcome to the United States of Despotism under the tyranny of an illegitimate president who got there by the politically elite of all ranks disregarding the law and yet these so-called conservative politician and pundit elitists are astonished at how many times the British-American-Indonesian has ignored it.

GO FIGURE! AMERICAN IGNORANCE IN ITS PRIME ON DISPLAY FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE & LAUGH AT! AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/open-letter-to-all-south-dakota-national-media/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-all-states-need-to-adopt-presidential-eligibility-laws/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/

The Hypocrisy of Easter Celebrations

As we come to the final days of Passover when we celebrate the Risen Christ and as I journey into a deeper study of the Christian faith, I find myself learning many eye opening truths that were never taught to me by my church leaders since youth. Truths that I did not teach my children & have not taught grandchildren because I failed to explore Christian doctrine outside of the church teachings.

For the 1st time in my life, I did not decorate for the Christmas season last December & for the 1st time, I am not decorating nor celebrating an Easter,”Estore”, season either. Why? Well, let’s start with the words of Martin Luther …

“The world at the present time is sagaciously discussing how to quell the controversy and strife over doctrine and faith, and how to effect a compromise between the Church and the Papacy. Let the learned, the wise, it is said, bishops, emperor and princes, arbitrate. Each side can easily yield something, and it is better to concede some things which can be construed according to individual interpretation, than that so much persecution, bloodshed, war, and terrible, endless dissension and destruction be permitted.

“Here is lack of understanding, for understanding proves by the Word that such patchwork is not according to God’s will, but that doctrine, faith and worship must be preserved pure and unadulterated; there must be no mingling with human nonsense, human opinions or wisdom.”

“Estore” is a sun goddess worshipped by the pagans during the spring equinox. Bunnies & eggs are her signs of the fertility of mother earth. So the questions begged to be answered are, why did the Roman Catholic Papacy use the name of a pagan god to define one of Christianity’s most important events? Why are Christians all over the globe today still celebrating this pagan event at home & in the Church when God rebuked these pagan religious traditions?

When Judeo-Christian monks worked mendaciously to gain followers by destroying pagan history and defaming the elder gods as demons, they had no weapons to deface the innocence of Eostre. Instead, they adopted her holiday and attempted to graft their values onto it. As the Judeo-Christians could offer nothing better, they simply claimed what existed as their own, changed the story slightly, and then tried to cover up and break people’s connection to the past.

“Ostara, Eostre seems therefore to have been a divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light, a spectacle that brings joy and blessing, whose meaning could be easily adapted to the resurrection-day of the christian’s God. – Jacob Grimm, “Teutonic Mythology”

2 Corinthians 6: 14-16 tells us …

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

The resurrection is about baptism, the immersion into the waters, as a sign of renewel & rebirth of the life of Christ. The Bible no where speaks of bunnies & eggs. The Lord does tell us is that many will come, but few will enter His gates …

^“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it”

When the Pilgrims first settled in American, these pagan customs were banned. These celebrations were deemed unlawful. The Christian Pilgrims had fled Europe for a land in which they could establish Christian communites based on the biblical teaching of Jesus Christ. They wished to shred every heresy & pagan doctrine forced upon them by the Roman Catholic Papacy & the English Church, who had become nothing more than Religious Political & Military entities, that ruled with an iron fist & who kept their people under oppression. In Constantine’s plight to rid the world of paganism, instead of banishing these pagan customs, the Church adopted them as Christian theocracy thinking that they could rid the world of them by giving these pagan customs a Christian definition. In 2 Corinthians 6: 17, we hear His command as to aligning the Church with pagan customs…

” Therefore,  COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord.”AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you”

Now, what does this say of modern Christianity when so-called Christians still cling to pagan traitiditions? It says that paganism is alive and well in the churches of all religions across the globe. The message it sends to me is that Christian churches must cling fast to pagan traditions in order to fill the pews so that they can keep their political & religious military alive. So that they can keep their monetary coffers filled to the brim.

If the Christian churches wished to truly celebrate Passover & Eternal Life through the resurrection of Christ, a more befitting celebration would be to usher in a season of global Baptism. A season of renewal & rebirth through cleansing. The washing away of the old so that one may arise with the new.  Now, that’s a MESSAGE!

How glorious a sight would that be, to see thousands Baptized the same way they did during the times of Christ. This is what Passover & Pentecost is about. Isn’t it about time Christians start standing for the truth instead of continuing to partake in pagan customs? The Scriptures give us the rule in no uncertain terms in Acts 5: 29 …

 ‘We must obey God rather than men’

So, as you gather  tomorrow with family & friends to celebrate, ask yourselves … what are you celebrating & how are you celebrating it?

Open Letter to ALL South Dakota & National Media

Shad Olson recently had Sam Kephart on his show discussing Donald Trump and his prospects as a 2012 presidential candidate. When Sam said “the power of candor in the age of deceit“, he couldn’t have spoken more powerful words. Please bear with me while I explain a bit why Sam really hit the nail on the head.

Our country is in a full speed destructive mode because of the lack of  honor & integrity of our leaders & govt representatives, and just as important, their lack of knowledge of the US Constitution and what those Articles in it mean as well as American history.

I have spent the last 3 years doing indepth research & study of the Constitution, especially Article II qualifications, the 14th Amendment & its sister Act, the Expatriation Act. US citizenship is precious and our leaders are giving it away like penny candy. But more importantly, in a this age of deceit & George Soros, the leftist marxist socialist communists need to destroy the definition of “sovereign US citizen” so that their definition of “global, no-borders subjectship”, where the only rights we will have is what the elite are willing to give us, can fully emerge.

They nearly have common citizenship destroyed & now they are going after the White House and they thus far, with the help of the lame stream media”, may have forever set a dangerous precedent for presidential qualifications unless we pull the rudder & reverse course immediately.

“…the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. ~ Thomas Jefferson December 9, 1805” 

Until just recently when Obama announced his 2012 campaign bid, his FTS (fight the smears) campaign website stated:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.” 

I have the webshot saved.

With that said…why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than citing the United States Constitution & the 14th Amendment? He is after all, a constitutional scholar is he not? How many people know that it is the US Govt & White House policy that dual citizenship is forbidden but especially in the Executive Branch, even for the lowliest file clerk? How many people know that dual citizenship is not law? That dual citizenship is in fact, unconstitutional. Therefore, the US State Dept can not guarantee protection to dual citizens when they are in foreign countries, especially the countries they claim to be also citizens of and this is why the US State Dept has warnings about this in several locations on their website. 

“Matthew 6:24: No man can serve to masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” 

This is the “Law of Nature & of Nature’s God” that is stated in the Declaration of Independence. A child can not be made an alien to their parents lest he be made a slave to man. They are under the tuition of the parents (parens patriae) until they reach the age of consent and choose for themselves what nation/government they will attach their allegiance to. And don’t get me started on the destruction of the family as “One Unit” that began with the marxist feminist movement. 

The US Constitution does not recognize slavery. In fact it does the opposite and refutes it when it refers to representation in Article I. The slave states were constitutionally confined to a smaller representation as those states did not recognize their salves as persons, but rather property. The only way for a state to gain full representation in the US Congress was to free the slaves and recognize them as the free & equal persons they are under the “Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God” as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We are slaves only to God, not to man. 

In his opening stement, the US House judiciary subcommittee chairman on the US Constitution during hearings on presidential qualifications in 2000, stated for the record:

“The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.”

George Washington in his farewell address stated:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter…

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government…

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…”

Foreign influence, especially emotional influence that stems from an immediate familial foreign source, in a US president, is to be avoided at all cost and thus the reason for the president to be a “natural born” citizen. Natural born means exclusive allegiance to the United States at birth, the same as it is for immigrants upon taking the oath at the time of naturalization. “Subject to the jurisdiction”, as found in the 14th Amendment, has nothing to do with soil, it has to do with political allegiance; where one holds his political rights. Where one’s permanent domicile is & where he takes part in those political rights. That is why up until the late 70’s, when the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, voting in a foreign country was grounds for immediately losing ones US citizenship.

My research is extensive & grounded with historical evidence dated from our founding era to date. It is not personal supposition as many have been posting all over the internet, especially by those with some sort of law degree. The true law & its rich history must be exposed and I believe it will be at the state levels where it gets it foothold. We owe this to our Posterity, to our fine men & women in uniform & to the preservation of our society that the founding generations shed their blood for.

I encourage you to make use of my research and help spread the word so that we may reverse course & reclaim our sovereignty, our heritage & especially the US Constitution. Our national & economic security depends on it.

God’s Grace & Peace,

Linda Melin

dlmelin@unitelsd.com

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

main starting research article as well as the most recent research articles with the best evidence:

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-all-states-need-to-adopt-presidential-eligibility-laws/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/

14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

The definition of “natural born” comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?

Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive” allegiance at birth was to the United States.

This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.

Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One” standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One” in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One” union.

“Jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others are aliens in the eyes of the law of the US Constitution.

Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law

My research has finally come full circle with an absolute and irrefutable conclusion and I want to thank all the patriots whom inspired me to research “out of the box”.

As I had already reported in my Congressional “Natural Born Citizen” series, in 1987 Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote that Prof. Lawrence Tribe is

[n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before…[T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes

As we already know, Lawrence Tribe was Obama’s law professor at Harvard whom Obama supposedly did extensive research for. What I conclude with, is research from the Harvard Law Review archives. Research that neither Tribe or Obama hoped would become public knowledge. For if this legal information cited by the US courts did become public; it would have immediately crushed Obama’s eligibilty for the presidency. And that is why, when it came to testimony for S.Res. 511, “A Bill Proclaiming John Sidney McCain III a natural born citizen“, Tribe was called in to give obfuscation to the exact meaning and intent of Article II qualifications for the presidency.

As I have said, the key to defining who the citizens are lies within the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and more specifically, what “jurisdiction” does it pertain to? Therein lie the question which must be answered. And as I have previously reported, the US Supreme Court has stated that unless otherwise specified in the Constitutional Amendment itself or in subsequent legislation, jurisdiction cannot have conflicting consequences. It cannot have one meaning for persons born and another for persons naturalized. The subsequent legislation, the 1868 Expatriation Act, passed just days after the 14th was ratified defined what the term jurisdiction in the 14th pertained to. It is political jurisdiction, owing exclusive allegiance to the United States, the same as it had been since the revolution. But how do we know this? By researching “out of the box” that’s how.

The legal premise that the founders grounded the revolution on was the “inalienable right of expatriation” that every person is born with.

Declaration of Independence ; July 4, 1776

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Expatriation Act July 27, 1868

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Expatriation is a God-given right that no man can take from another. And while there are plenty of revolutionary era documents supporting this, for the purposes of eschewing todays leftist propagandists like Tribe, the lame stream media & the Obama camp, who see only a revisionist theory based on their interpretation of what the United States future should look like. I will keep my argument within the scope of the 14th Amendment & the 1868 Expatriation Act ,which is still on the books and which gives Congress the legal authority to continue to require that all naturalized citizens must formally swear an oath renouncing & abjuring forever any & all foreign allegiances. This will also include the official US Government documents, with current supporting legal references, that contain the meaning of language of the 14th & the Expatriation Act. These 2 laws cannot be defined exclusively, they must be defined inclusively otherwise they completely cancel each other out leaving both of them wholly unconstitutional & without authoritative legal weight for the Federal or State governments & courts to act upon.

After decades of foreign nations, but especially those under British feudal law, ignoring this right of expatriation, the Buchanan Administration put out two official releases(9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859)) which stated:

 “The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

These official releases were used by Congress who authored the legislation & later the Courts in defining the words set forth in the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later became the 14th Amendment as well as the 1868 Expatriation Act. The US government declared once and for all that exclusive political allegiance to the United States government is what makes a citizen. A person can be born a native to the soil and yet not be a citizen because upon their birth, they did not owe exclusive allegiance to the US Government. They were considered inhabitants either here permanently or temporarily depending in status of their parents at the time of birth. Only if the parents became naturalized prior to the child turning 21, or upon the child acting on their own accord at or after the age of 21 do they become legally & officially a US citizen.

So what has all this got to do with the 14th & the Expatriation Act? Fast forward to 1922 the US Assist Solicitor General, Richard W. Flournoy, citing ATT’Y General Black.

Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:

“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”

Under the oppressive feudal law of perpetual allegiance, subjects had to get permission from the Sovereign, the King, before traveling outside of the limits of the territory. Everywhere they traveled, their allegiance and that of their children whether born in or out of the territorial confines of the Crown, was due first and foremost to the Crown. Likewise, children born to aliens within the territorial limits of the Crown owed fealty first to the Sovereign Crown and could not leave the limits of the territory without express permission from it.

This is not, nor ever has been the rule of law in the United States since the revolution. When independence was declared, the founding fathers declared that, from that moment on, the individual is Sovereign and needs no permission from the government to travel from state to state, or country to country. The fact that passports are required is so that while traveling outside of US territory, one has an official document stating that they are a US citizen and therefore the US Government has the right,  under the law of nations, to step in to protect them legally should the need arise as it did in the Ernst case. This sovereignty was expressed in no uncertain terms within the confines of US Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…

Article IV, Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

Throughout the early 20th century after the WKA decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court, by a Justice whose own appointment was questionable, many changes were made to the US Code. However, one thing that has remained constant is the oath that all foreigners must take before becoming a US citizen. Since WKA relied so heavily on English feudal law for its decision, what was the real original common law of England pertaining to those who were the sovereigns of the nation? For that we go to the Michigan Law Review (50 Mich. L. Rev. 927 1951-1952) that is cited by Harvard law professors.

 The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

In the 50’s, there was still speculation as to whether a person born in a US territory, but not yet a state, could become president. There were also surmounting concerns over the dual nationality that children born on US soil to parents, either of whom were foreigners, but not diplomats, claimed to have because of the erroneous decision sent down by the Supreme Court in the 1898 WKA case. The one constant that the US had to rely on was not that of the soil, but that of the blood & of the 1868 Expatriation Act. Had WKA removed himself from the US after that decision, the fact that he had formally renounced the allegiance to China that he had at birth, is what gave him his right to his citizenship. At the coming of age, he made a declaration as to which country he wished to attach his allegiance to before the US State Dept. issued him a passport.

These questions would once again be laid to rest by Harvard (66 Harv. L. Rev. 707 1952-1953) and their repeated reference back to the 1859 OP released by the Buchanan Administration and ATT’Y Gen Black.

For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)

When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)

Only persons who held an allegiance to a foreign nation either at birth or naturalization are subject to deportation, because that person did not owe exclusive allegiance to the United States at either time. So how did Harvard determine who could & who could not lose their citizenship? For that we go to 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1512 1959-1960.

…later there was considerable controversy whether aliens who became American citizens could effectively cut their original ties. This was a different issue from that discussed in Perez and Trop. The earlier controversy resulted in the celebrated opinion presented by Attorney General Black to President Buchanan, and the Expatriation Act of 1868,” both upholding the individual’s right of expatriation. The vigor of the American point of view had its effect upon Great Britain, where in 1869 a Royal Commission recommended the end of a system of perpetual allegiance. (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859). Act of July, 27, I868, ch. 249, I5 Stat. 223.)

A person born with conflicting allegiances, and who has never formally renounced & abjured one of those allegiances they claim to have, will not be left stateless. The big claim that the progressive revisionists make in their court arguments today is that somehow a child born on US soil to foreigners will be left stateless. This simply is not true. The revisionists use the argument to inject emotion & fear to further their cause which is to establish global citizenship, where there are no borders between nations. In other words, they are using our republican form of government to establish a “Global Republic” under one government of the United Nations.

So folks, it isn’t the government who forms (births) the citizens, it is the people themselves who’s inalienable right of expatriation gives them the right to choose which government they will attach their allegiance to. And since children at birth or prior to the age of consent (21) are not able to do so legally, they are therefore under their parents governance as well as the governance of the government in which the parents owe allegiance to. Their nationality & allegiance is that of their parents.

Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, their nationality follows that of their fathers.

 Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, a family is a unit comprised of but one allegiance, that of the husband/father. This is necessary for the survival & preservation of all civilized societies, but especially that of a Republic. A doctrine that has been written down from time immemorial.

Sovereign birthright citizenship is the common law “Right of Blood” in which every King of England depended upon to preserve to their posterity, their right to the Sovereign throne & the right to govern the kingdom. Since the July 4, 1776  Declaration of Independence & the ratification of the US Constitution, this birthright citizenship has belonged exclusively to the children, the posterity, of United States citizens.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This right does not, nor ever has it ever belonged to the children of foreigners who by chance are born on US soil, regardless or not that the parents happen to be diplomats . At birth, their primary fealty is to the foreign government of their parents’ allegiance & that allegiance is what establishes their nationality at birth.  Therefore, as Supreme Court Justice Waite, in Minor v Happersett, as well as Justice Grey, in Elk v Wilkins concluded, there are but two paths the citizenship, either by birth or by statute. Children who are born to an alien father/mother on US soil, are citizens by statute, not by birth. Their citizenship is one of election upon renunciation of the foreign allegiance should they so choose to claim it and by this fact alone, a loss of US citizenship could never deem them stateless.

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

Copyright 2011 : This article may not be reprinted for distribution or cross-posted on the internet without the express consent of and attribution to the author.