Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Post Your Desktop December 2017
- Thread starter ghboard2010
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Last edited:
What is your picture meant to portray? I'm not understanding it but I'm also not a US citizen.
There is a movement in the US called sovereign citizens. Basically, they think that the laws and regulations of the government don't apply to them as "freemen of the land". It's all based in extremely bad readings of US law in which they think that most laws are connected to corporations, and not people. The image is basically meant to convey what they believe in. Basically, they want to live in the US and benefit from our government, but not play by it's rules - simple rules, like having a drivers license, registering their vehicle, or paying taxes. Wikipedia has a better explanation that I can give in a short space here. It's the kind of stuff that Alex Jones and his ilk like to peddle and makes mainstream conspiracy theorists and right wing kooks look normal. As a normal US citizen, it's abhorrent, arrogant, fantasy land stuff. If you live in this country, you follow it's rules, or you push for changes. You don't wholesale reject them and think they don't apply to you.
e
Yeah it is a long read and I hope ya'll don't get lost here. . .
Close but no cigar, sovereign and citizen do not belong together as phrase. The illustration is depicting the difference between the land based jurisdiction American state nationals( flesh and blood people like you and me) aka Idahoans Texans, Kentuckians, etc., and international jurisdiction of the sea 'persons' AKA US Citizens. Each state is actually a independent nation-state. Massachusetts is as distinct from Connecticut as France is from Germany{EU shenanigans not with standing}. The "federal union'' was intended to facilitate international commerce between the land based nation-states{Missouri, New York, etc.} other nations across the sea.
In essence we are a union of sovereign land based nation-states. Note also, a citizen cannot ever be sovereign as a citizen is subject to jurisdiction of the sea statutes and courts{International Commerce} where as a sovereign is subject to the jurisdiction of the land {International Trade}. No, trade and commerce are not synonymous.
The last thing any self respecting man or woman want identify as is a US Citizen; rather it is our best interest to recognize our status as American State Nationals{New Jerseyites, Virginians, etc.}. From that we can then begin to restore our local, and state courts as they still exist yet have lain dormant since the alleged "Civil War". Hmmm, why did the author use that word alleged when referring to that action called the American Civil War??? Well alleged applies for two very specific reasons. First, the United State Congress has the sole authority to declare war. That never happened, I challenge anyone on earth to locate this document; it does not exist. Secondly, there is no peace treaty signed by any of the combatants in this conflict. Surrender on the battlefield does not constitute a peace treaty. Nor does the President declaring peace on the the land which President Grant three times between 1865 and 1867. A peace treaty is legal and lawful document between warring factions, a contract as it has signatories to the document. There is no existing peace treaty to this day, thus this conflict has not lawfully, nor legally ended. And how could there be a peace treaty as there was never a formal declaration of war by Congress from its inception.
FYI: the original American constitution{The Constitution for the united States of America} as drafted and signed in 1787 is a different document than we see today[The Constitution of The United States of America] drafted in 1871 but not actually signed by the original signatories; as they were dead at the time, but also not countersigned by any one involved in its current incarnation, thus technically a void document. Carefully observing the two documents reveals a very glaring discrepancy. The 1871 document curiously omitted the original thirteenth amendment; the TONA act. This amendment precluded members of the BAR, or anyone else holding a title of nobility from occupying public offices. The Titles of Nobility Act(TONA) does not appear in the 1871 version of this document. As this original Article to the constitution is contested today its existence in the original bears series consideration.
The original document [as originally drafted and signed 1787]: http://constitution.org/constit_.htm
Well, I hope ya'll are getting a very different view of that picture. Let's all steer clear of the sovereign citizen malarkey as it is more of the same fraud and deceit foisted upon us from the British Crown, and the BAR. . . definitely food for thought, and grounds for further research by every patriotic American. And yes Virginia, this issue is complex and unnecessarily convoluted. annavonreitz.com for anyone interested unraveling the last 150 years of fraud and deception perpetrated against us. . .
I told ya' it'd be a long post, there is a Yuuuuggge amount of details to absorb on this issue, and it is not 'digested' quickly nor easily.
Look, I’m not going to argue with you about this, as arguing with a fool will only drag me to their level. However, to steal and add to a phrase I’ve heard recently: Everything in that wall of gobbledygook you just said is wrong. That’s sovereign citizen 101 material. That you believe in it makes me fear for our society. Please don’t respond to me to convince me. Take your gold fringed, admiralty law nonsense elsewhere. I say this as a self respecting United States citizen, too.
