|This Land WAS Your Land ||
Between the LInes
This land was your land
Posted: June 24, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
I wrote a book a few years ago about property rights.
It was called, "This Land Is Our Land."
I didn't think of it as an optimistic book at the time.
But after yesterday's chilling U.S. Supreme Court ruling that government can seize our property against our will for no other reason than it capriciously chooses to do so, the title is certainly no longer accurate.
We do not own our property any more in America. [Unless you have "allodial title" to the land you DO NOT own it, you only rent it. A "mortgage" is evidence of RENT. If you pay a tax on what you think is yours, then it's not. IF the municipality can seize the land your house is on because you have missed some tax payments, then it's not your land.]
Imagine the home you own - the one you scrimped and saved your entire life to purchase, the one you planned on living in for the rest of your life, the one you planned to pass on to your heirs - was taken from you, [The house isn't taken, the LAND is taken, your house just happens to be in the way. Your house in on something that belongs to someone else and they simply reclaimed it.] capriciously by a small group of local officials in conspiracy with wealthy developers who want to level it and build office buildings.
You may not have to imagine it. It could happen to you any time. It has already happened to a group of Connecticut homeowners - salt-of-the-earth, working Americans whose modest homes represent their life savings, their estates, their life's work. [Where's this guy been, it's happening everyday in this country to someone. Government seizure simply isn't an issue the media finds news worthy. Why do you think Willie Nelson started "Farm Aid" all those years ago?]
That was the finding of the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. Your property is not your property. [They ruled correctly. If you RENT it then you don't OWN it. Besides, the Supremes were referring to US citizens, NOT state Citizens. IF you don't like the dues you gotta pay the club, then quit.]
That home you invested so much of your life in - it belongs to the government. [No it doesn't. The LAND belongs to the government.] It is only on loan to you until the day the government chooses to loan it to someone else. That is the message of the black-robed tyrants. Listen to it well.
This is the most basic freedom - upon which all the other liberties we hold dear are built. [Ok, this is kinda on point. He's referring to LAND upon which the house sits. BUT as a US citizen* you CAN NOT own land in one of the commonwealths, that little right belongs to the state variants alone.]
That's what the founding fathers explained. Freedom of speech? It descends, they said, from the right to property. Your thoughts, your beliefs, your opinions were equated with your personal property and possessions. That's why you had the right to express them according to your conscience. [And ALL the "founding fathers" were state Citizens! There was no such CLASS/STATUS recognized at law termed "US citizen" until 1866!]
Notice I said "had."
Five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court undercut every freedom we know in America. [They may be fascists but they ruled correctly, this ruling has absolutely no impact on state Citizens who hold a land patent. Now why do the public schools refuse to teach kids about land patents? Why go to public schools when you have Google? Enter "land patent" into Google and see what you get then go to any high school library and find ONE book containing ANY reference to "land patent" Start with the US History section, after all where better to being one's search about the "revolutionary concepts" of the founders, right?!]
I do not exaggerate when I say they have done more damage to the Constitution than any five people in history. [This is incorrect. What they addressed only applies to members of Club Fed. All they did was change the policies affecting their members.*]
Stop worrying about Osama bin Laden and nuclear-armed terrorists. All they can do is kill you. Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stephens and Stephen G. Breyer have done something worse. They would have you live in servitude to the state. They would reduce all free Americans to serfs. They would make government your master. [This is misleading except the part about bin Laden and nuculer armed terrorists. US citizens are already vassals! They legally altered their birth status and became second class citizens in this country. In other words, they voluntarily went from being a Citizen of Rome to a "Subject" of Rome. Doesn't anyone read history regarding status?]
The Congress better stop worrying about trivial issues like flag desecration. The Constitution has just been trampled, spit upon and torched. In doing so, these judicial terrorists have done more harm to the American way of life than weapons of mass destruction ever could. [Again, passionate but misleading. The members of Club Fed took a hit, the Constitution remains intact.]
If this ruling is permitted to stand by the U.S. Congress, it's simply time to start shopping for a new country or start planning the revolution. I don't know what else to say about it. [Or maybe reclaiming YOUR BIRTH RIGHTS. Gee, what might happen if one changed their status from US citizen to state Citizen? Ask the question: Is a US citizen synonymous with state Citizen? There's some answers below.]
President Bush needs to speak out against this travesty of justice. The Congress needs to be heard from. Yes, the Congress has the power, should it ever have the courage to use it, to set aside a ruling like this and permanently enjoin the court from ever ruling in the future against the well-enshrined, inalienable, well-documented, constitutionally protected right to own and enjoy property.
This country was birthed in a war of independence fought against an unaccountable empire that failed to acknowledge and respect the rights of colonists in America. But the grievances of those heroic patriots that created the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known were trivial compared to the grievances 21st-century Americans have against the empire in Washington.
The only question is whether or not we have the courage of our forefathers. Are we willing to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to reclaim our American birthright of freedom? [Again, passionate but misleading. There is no "American birthright of freedom", he's in fact referring to rights of state Citizens. Each of the 13 commonwealths were SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT "NATIONS". The court's said that too but he appears to no be aware of that fact. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hancock, Hamilton were all state Citizens. "United States, in Congress assembled" is found in the Articles of Confederation 28 times. Congress is not a country and neither is the United States in the context to which I'm referring and to which the Supremes were referring, it's the name of a COMPANY, see below. And the founders would have thought you were an idiot if you identified yourself as a US citizen because when they constructed DC there was NO SUCH THING as a US citizen, there were only state Citizens.]
It's time for a new tea party. It's time for a new Lexington and Concord. It's time for a new Declaration of Independence. It's time for civil disobedience and throwing off the shackles of rule by men. It's time to begin plotting how to re-establish the rule of law under a sovereign God. [The rules are fine, unless of course you're a US citizen. Maybe the tea party ought to consist of acknowledging the true facts about status. Maybe the tea party could be about quitting Club Fed and reclaiming one's birth status.
* Now what's so hard to understand about the following?:
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." Uh, as I understand it, "federal government" and Californa are two entirely different things.
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
"Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper." Again, what's so damn hard to understand about the following?:
In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.
15) "United States" means - And yet again, what's so hard to understand about the following?:
(A) a Federal corporation:
United States Code, Title 28 - Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, §3002. Definitions, (15)(A),
"In clause (4), the words 'United States' are substituted for the words 'Federal Government'."
10 U.S.C.S., '2231(4), History: Ancillary Laws and Directives, p. 19
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15) ''United States'' means -
(A) a Federal corporation; CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States
SECTION 9301- 9342
9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. You'd think that if Jones v. Temmer was WRONG it would have been overturned by now, BUT IT HASN'T and you'll note that the decision was rendered in 1993!!!
Jones v. Temmer, 829 Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993)
The TEA PARTY needs to begin in our own heads. We need to replace HEARSAY with TRUTH.
"State Citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and the State has no power to divest or impair these rights." Favot v. Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. App. 284, 276 P. 1083.
"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of he state". It's "quite clear" but not to the author of the article.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual".
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)
"That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,..."
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
This is another fine mess you've gotten us into Stanley.