Well here is another story that proves the government does not want you to know the truth about taxes or bother them with the facts. This issue is growing and before long the truth is going to come out for the people to see. This article comes from World Net Daily. I will be going to Atlanta this afternoon for a seminar and will post the next article on Monday.
God Bless and have a great weekend.
Elaine

ORDER YOUR THEFT BY DECEPTION VIDEO AT: Theft By Deception.Com


Anti-tax campaign shut down
Website banished after state flooded
with e-mails to lawmakers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A California grass-roots advocacy group with a "no more taxes" campaign claims the state hindered the right of citizens to express their views by triggering a chain of events that led to the shutdown of the nonprofit organization's website and destruction of thousands of e-mails meant for lawmakers.

The state's Legislative Data Center in Sacramento, which manages e-mail for the legislature, insists that the problem is a technical matter. But Campaign for California Families, or CCF, filed a cease and desist complaint in court yesterday afternoon, charging that the state interfered with the First Amendment rights of citizens.

"The state of California has acted unreasonably and with brute power to shut down the voice of the people, who are using civilized and legal means to petition their government," CCF director Randy Thomasson told WND.

The complaint – which names Gov. Gray Davis, the state legislature and a data center employee – says the defendants "intentionally, knowingly and maliciously destroyed or interfered with the transmission of over 20,000 individual communications between Californians and the governmental officials that represent them."

Budget battle

On Monday, the lobby group urged concerned citizens to come to its website to type out an individual message that would be forwarded by e-mail to 118 state legislators and Gov. Davis. The e-mails had the sender's return address.

The campaign comes ahead of a legislative battle over how to solve California's massive budget crisis.

After receiving about 30,000 of the messages on Tuesday, Diana Waldo, a state employee of the Legislative Data Center in Sacramento blocked further e-mails from coming in via CCF and contacted the group's Web host, Vortech Inc., in Orlando, Fla., according to a copy of e-mail correspondence obtained by WND.

On Wednesday, CCF was notified that its website had been shut down by Vortech. The Florida company sent the message through its "reseller" in California, Go56.com, the firm that set up CCF's website.

Waldo, who is named in the legal complaint, maintained in an interview with WND that her intent certainly was not to cut off the anti-tax messages.

She said that some of the e-mails were being sent to lawmakers who no longer were in office, and she was concerned about the massive volume, wondering if the source could schedule another, less busy time to send the messages. She said that, on average, the center gets about 60,000 e-mails a day.

Waldo said that by looking at the message headers – a string of addresses contained in the e-mails that show the Internet path from sender to receiver – she found Vortech's name. She said she knew nothing about CCF, though she noted that the messages had a common theme.

Free speech or spam?

CCF's attorney, Richard Ackerman of the United States Justice Foundation, believes the state should be able to handle that kind of volume in order to hear what its citizens think.

"The number of messages is as important as the message itself," said Ackerman. "They have a First Amendment right to bring grievances against the government."

Ackerman also argued that a 2002 California law considers electronic communication part of the public record.

"When the e-mail landed at the government office, they destroyed the record," he said.

Jim Gilles, director of the Legislative Data Center, maintained that the content of the messages had nothing to do with the problem.

"We don't censor e-mails that come to the members," he told WND. "When we get 10,000 bad addresses an hour, that clogs up the server and grinds it to a halt. It isn't unique to us."

Thomasson conceded that about 10 of the 119 recipients were no longer valid, but contends that Gilles' figure is way too high. He argues that about 1 out of 12 invalid addresses is a small percentage, comparable to the proportion of missent mail the state is accustomed to receiving.

Vortech owner Brad Pugh, noting that his company has a "zero spam policy," claimed that because of CCF's e-mails, his 5,000 customers experienced a slowdown, delaying mail for up to 24 hours.

Thomasson insists that the messages are not "spam," the widespread distribution of unsolicited advertising.

"This communication was totally different," he said. "The e-mails sent by people to their legislators constitutes free speech and has nothing to do with buying anything, but rather with protecting people's wallets."

State Sen. Tom McClintock, a Republican from Thousand Oaks, northwest of Los Angeles, noted that the messages are individually composed.

"We get hundreds of forms of spam that are identically worded from liberal groups seeking tax hikes and expanded spending," he told WND.

"I would be very interested to know what liberal groups have had their e-mail blocked from the Capitol," he said.

"Personally, I resent it because it means I may have constituents who sent me a message who expect a reply and won't get one, because the Legislative Data Center has decided for me that I don't want to see my messages," said McClintock.

Vortech's Pugh said his company has nothing against free speech, "but when they send an e-mail from us to them, and it wasn't asked for, at that point it's considered spam."

New site

Ken Anderson, the owner of Go56.com, said he designed CCF's website to handle a lot of e-mail and believes the amount sent out is relatively small.

"There are political action groups all over the U.S. that do this kind of volume of e-mail," he said.

After examining a 16-hour period, he found 338 people had initiated messages that went to 110 addresses per individual, which amounts to about 37,000 e-mails.

He said that until Wednesday afternoon, he had no indication there was a problem.

"This really started happening when California began blocking its e-mail," he contended.

Thomasson said that Vortech has permanently banned his group from having its website hosted by the Florida company. He hopes, however, to have www.savecalifornia.com running again today via another host.

"We're going to fight this and redouble our 'no more taxes' efforts," said Thomasson. "The Democrats bad policy is going to backfire and people are going to take back their government."

CCF says in its mission statement that it "believes the institutions of marriage and family, religious freedom, parental rights, and taxpayer rights must be respected, esteemed, and protected by law."

In 1999, the group purchased two dozen full-page newspaper ads to help defeat a bill it says would have promoted the homosexual lifestyle in public schools, colleges and universities.







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR








Those people who are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants. -- William Penn

Do you remember the story of the little boy in Holland who found a leak in one of the dykes and stuck his finger in it to prevent a flood? That is exactly what is happening to those who do not wish the truth about taxation to get out to the people. Well the truth is getting out and in a panic the powers that be are participating in censorship. Time Warner who owns a major market of online isp's , told the provider of the We The People Broadcast to "pull the plug on them". We the People is investigating and will get a full report out as soon as possible. I will post that report when it is available.

I believe that the only way to even attempt to save our beloved country is for the citizens to get informed and arm themselves with truth. I am placing a post below from the website Theft By Deception. They are offering their startling new video and expose on the IRS and Taxation issue at a very reasonable price and every American who wishes to know the truth should own this one. This video absolutely shows the fraud with the governments own laws and documents. I will provide a link below where you can get your copy. Bob and I ordered the video and have watched it three times. We are shocked at the truth.

God Bless
Elaine Moreland




THEFT BY DECEPTION

The misrepresentation and misapplication of the United States federal income tax constitutes the largest acquisition of wealth by way of deception in history. A handful of government lawyers fabricated an intricate maze of legalese which created a perfectly Constitutional tax (a tax on income derived from certain types of international and foreign commerce), but which at the same time could easily be misread to give the impression that the income of all Americans is subject to the tax.

For decades the American people have been conditioned to believe that the income tax applies to their income, and have been trained to pay “their” taxes. All the while, hidden in the labyrinth of statutes and regulations, the law itself showed that the federal income tax was never “their taxes” at all. (Insisting that someone pay an “income tax” when that person receives no taxable income is equivalent to insisting that someone pay a whiskey-importing tax when the person does not import whiskey.)

This deception has been so successful for so long that now most people find it difficult to even begin to doubt the “conventional wisdom” on the subject. When one first reads this web page he may instinctively think “that can’t possibly be true.” However, the average citizen will also admit that he surrenders his hard-earned money to the IRS solely because of an assumption, not because he has ever seen the law for himself.

(Ironically, the flawed “conventional wisdom” has been greatly strengthened by the so-called “tax protestor” movement, which has for decades spread flawed and often nonsensical arguments, usually arguing that there is something wrong with the law, because they too were ignorant about what the law itself actually says.)

In addition to misleading the public, the government lawyers who orchestrated this scheme also misrepresented the law to their own subordinates in the IRS, knowingly allowing them to misapply the law, and allowing Americans who never owed the tax to be harassed, robbed, and even imprisoned. The general public’s false assumptions are shared by the vast majority of IRS employees (who demand money from those who do not owe it), and by the tax professionals (who incorrectly tell most Americans that they owe the tax). All the while, the few inside the system who knew the truth allowed the American people to make this trillion-dollar “mistake” year after year.

The federal income tax statutes and regulations were designed to be confusing and deceptive. Due to the intentionally complex web woven by the architects of this deception, even after the “legalese” had been fully deciphered (which occurred only a few short years ago), it was still a challenge to make the truth widely accessible and understandable. Getting the public to pay attention to a message this unconventional is nearly impossible if it cannot be explained (and proven) in a ten-second “sound bite.” So even after the proof and extensive supporting evidence were publicly available (for example, in Larken Rose’s “Taxable Income” report, which can be downloaded here), the truth was still in a form that took significant time and effort to digest and comprehend. Because of that, until now only a very small percentage of the population has had a glimpse at the truth.

At last the truth has been put into a form that is not only thoroughly documented and solidly reasoned, but is also readily understandable to the average citizen. Using the medium of video, concepts can be explained in a way that is far more understandable than is possible using the written word alone. The video “Theft By Deception” was designed specifically to remove all of the inherent difficulties in understanding the truth about the federal income tax.

Understanding the truth no longer requires the memorization of countless section numbers, or the ability to mentally keep track of a jumble of citations. Many hundreds of hours were put into the making of this video, with the goal being to give maximum understanding and knowledge of the issue, in the minimum amount of time, while minimizing the mental strain often associated with reading legalese.


1) This 88-minute video gives a logical, well-documented proof that the federal income tax, while being entirely valid and constitutional, simply does not apply to the income of most Americans, according to many decades of federal income tax statutes and regulations. (The video was designed so that the viewer does not need any prior knowledge about the law to understand the issue.)



2) The video shows what the tax professionals (including employees of the IRS) do and do not know about the law, and why they believe that most Americans owe the tax.


3) The video explains why Congress did not tax the income of all Americans, and why they instead imposed a far more limited tax (which was then grossly misrepresented to the public).

4) The video shows how government lawyers have been trying for decades to obscure and hide the truth about the very limited nature of the tax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Note: The video does not teach you to combat the IRS, or give any “how to” lessons on resisting this fraud. The key to ending this injustice is mass education, which is the purpose of the video.)

Get Your Copy Today At: Theft By Deception Website







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

Zechariah 2
8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.


The Lord Is Bringing Truth To Light In Jerusalem!

In spite of all that the world is trying to do to the little country of Israel, God is watching over the "apple of His eye". More Biblical truths have been revealed today and it is exciting. Mount Moriah is the spot of the Temple of God which was destroyed 3 times. In spite of Muslim attempts to wipe out any archaelogical findings that prove this, the Lord is allowing more ancient documentation of this fact to be found. I am posting an article that should give goose bumps to the student of the Bible. What is so wonderful is the fact that portions of these writings quote scripture almost verbatim. So hold on to your hat and take a look at this one. Jesus is coming soon! Remember that Antichrist must defile a newly built Jewish Temple.
God Bless

From The Jerusalem Post:

Stone tablet with inscription from Book of Kings being studied


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press Jan. 13, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israeli geologists said Monday they have examined a stone tablet detailing repair plans for the Jewish Temple of King Solomon that, if authenticated, would be a rare piece of physical evidence confirming biblical narrative.

The find, whose origin is murky, is about the size of a legal pad, with a 15-line inscription in ancient Hebrew that strongly resembles descriptions in the Bible's Book of Kings.

It could also strengthen Jewish claims to a disputed holy site in Jerusalem's Old City that is now home to two major mosques.

Muslim clerics insist, despite overwhelming archaeological evidence, that no Jewish shrine ever stood at the site. That claim was made by Palestinian officials in failed negotiations with Israel in 2000 over who would be sovereign there.

The origin of the stone tablet is unclear, making it difficult to establish authenticity.

The Israeli daily Haaretz on Monday quoted an unidentified source as saying it was uncovered in recent years, during renovations carried out by the Muslim administrators of the mosque compound known to Muslims as the Haram as-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary, and to Jews as the Temple Mount.

From there, it reached a major antiquities collector in Jerusalem, Haaretz said. The Holy Land has a thriving trade in antiquities, often operating on the edge of the law.

The sandstone tablet has a 15-line inscription in ancient Hebrew that resembles descriptions in Kings II, 12:1-6, 11-17, said Israel's Geological Survey, which examined the artifact. The words refer to King Joash, who ruled the area 2,800 years ago.

In it, the king tells priests to take "holy money ... to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labor to carry out the duty with faith." If the work is completed well, "the Lord will protect his people with blessing," reads the last sentence of the inscription.

The Jerusalem collector has declined to come forward, and David Zailer, a lawyer for the collector, would not say where the tablet was found or give any further details.

Gabriel Barkai, a biblical archaeologist, said the collector asked the Israel Museum to determine the authenticity of the inscription and was told the museum's experts could not rule out a forgery. The Israel Museum declined comment Monday.

The collector then took the tablet to Israel's Geological Institute, whose experts studied it over the past year. "Our findings show that it is authentic," said Shimon Ilani, who performed geological tests on the inscription. Carbon dating confirms the writing goes back to the 9th century B.C., he said.

In the outer layer, Ilani and his colleagues found microscopic flecks of gold that could have been burnt into the stone when a building containing both the tablet and gold objects was destroyed.

This could mean the tablet was actually part of Solomon's Temple, which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C., said Amos Bean, director of the institute.

"These specks of gold are not natural material, but a sign of human activity," said Bean. "They could be from gold-plated objects in the home of a very rich man, or a temple. ... It's hard to believe that anyone would know how to do these things to make it look real."

The stone itself was probably from the Dead Sea area and was originally whiter than its current dark gray, Bean said.

Hershel Shanks, editor of the Washington-based Biblical Archaeology Review, said the tablet, if authentic, would be "visual, tactile evidence that reaches across 2,800 years."

Barkai said the inscription's resemblance to biblical passages "has far-reaching implications of the historical importance of the biblical text."

Several other inscriptions excavated in recent years refer to characters or events from the Bible. A stone inscription found in northern Israel includes the phrase "house of David." Most experts consider this to be the first ancient writing outside the Bible that refers to King David or the Davidic line of kings, which has corroborated the basic history of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Adnan Husseini, the director of the Islamic Trust that administers the Jerusalem mosque compound, denied Monday the tablet was found during renovation work there.

In recent years, the Islamic Trust has turned an underground vault in the compound into a large prayer area, prompting complaints by Israeli archaeologists that important artifacts are being destroyed. At one point, the archaeologists said truckloads of soil from the holy site were dumped uninspected into the nearby Kidron Valley.

The mosque compound is Islam's third-holiest site, while the adjacent Western Wall, the last remnant of the second Jewish Temple compound, is Judaism's holiest site. Most rabbis ban Jews from entering the Temple Mount for religious purity reasons.

When Israel conquered east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war, it permitted Muslim clergy to continue administering the hilltop area to avoid conflict with the Muslim world.

The mystery surrounding the stone tablet, its murky origins, appearance on the private antiquities market and a collector unwilling to come forward, mirrors the controversy over an inscription on an ancient burial box that may be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus.

The burial box, or ossuary, had the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," leading some to believe it was used to store the remains of James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Other experts said the inscription might be a forgery.
My Comment: There always has to be sceptics to discount truth.

Further Links On This Exciting Topic :
Temple Mount Faithful
Lebanon Cannot Get Wazzani Water Pumping







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

Good Sunday Morning.

Today I am posting exerpts from the We The People Broadcast last Tuesday night. The program is entitled The Liberty Hour. Three minutes into the live broadcast, an expert hacker was able to disrupt the broadcast ( isn't that special!) and prevent the people from seeing the presentation. There are those in this country who do not want the people to waken from their slumber and learn the truth.

However, the broadcast was saved and copied. You can go to the We The People site to listen to the audio or download the video to view the program in its entirety. This week the technicians have worked to correct the problem that occurred last week. I will post the time and date tomorrow morning.

I am posting exerpts from the broadcast below to give you an idea of what was discussed. It is imperative that all Americans get informed of the dangers we face as a free people. There are those in our government who seek to hurl us into a New World Order and hate our Constitution. I know it is hard to believe but it is true. Go to the We The People site and begin educating yourself as to what we can do to restore our government to sanity. For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must do this! If people will just take one hour a week to listen in as Christians and fellow Americans reveal what can be done we just might be able to at least slow down the coming juggarnaut of the New World Order. May God help us to get this word out!

Elaine Moreland

WTP-TV January 7, 2003

THE
LIBERTY
HOUR

with Bob Schulz WTP-TV

Bob Schulz: Good evening… and welcome to THE LIBERTY HOUR

We are glad you could join us.

I’m Bob Schulz, Chairman of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the We The People Congress.

The Liberty Hour is brought to you by concerned citizens – ordinary, non-aligned citizens -- who love our country and our Constitution but who have grave concerns about our government because our government no longer honors our Constitution.

An arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable government that has no respect for the precious liberties of every American citizen is destroying our sacred Bill of Rights – our Rights, Liberties and Freedoms.

The People, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, have reached a crossroad. We will either act together to focus our spiritual and earthly energies toward solving this problem or we will languish in ambivalence and indecision until our Republic, our Constitution, our way of life and eventually our freedom are gone.

We, the People, must not allow the Constitution to become a dead letter.

Later, during this broadcast, I will outline a bold but doable PLAN that the We The People Foundation and Congress will spearhead – a plan designed to bring our servant government back under the control of the People and our Constitution.

We CALL on all concerned Americans to unite behind the PLAN. The hour IS late.

At the heart of the PLAN, which I will soon outline, is a Mission Statement as follows:

"With the grace of God and with malice toward none, and to force the leaders of the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government to respond to each of the four Petitions for Redress of Grievances that were recently served on every member of the Congress and President Bush, we will do everything in our power, including the creation of a Legal Defense Fund, to get three hundred thousand (300,000) employers, employees, retirees and self-employed people to immediately begin retaining and keeping in their possession the money that they would otherwise have turned over to the federal government."

Now, Before getting into some of the details of the PLAN, I believe it necessary to provide the rational behind the PLAN and some information about who we are and our philosophy.

We will begin by hearing from one American who has heard THE CALL. He is one of America’s finest citizens, an Officer and a gentleman, a successful businessman, a family man, a man who loves God and Country, a man who HAS served America well, Charlie Beall. Charlie ….

Charlie Beall: Good evening. I’m Charlie Beall. Welcome to the first live broadcast of the Liberty Hour from We The People Foundation. This evening, you are witnessing history in the making. This live broadcast represents the beginning of an unprecedented multi-media communications initiative by We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education.

In the coming months, through regularly scheduled live broadcasts, we intend to reach millions of Americans with the truth about our Constitutional form of government; our God-given, unalienable rights and freedoms; and the sacred duty that We The People have to support and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education is a non-partisan, pro-Constitution, network of patriotic citizens who love our country, and are dedicated to America’s founding principles of faith in God, limited government, equal justice, due process of law, and respect for personal freedom and private property.

For the past three years, we have been leading the fight to restore our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and bring our government back under the control of the People, where it belongs.

We The People come from all walks of life, and our numbers are growing daily. We are truck drivers and active duty military personnel, we are welders and carpenters, doctors and attorneys, judges and police officers, CPAs and ex-IRS agents, schoolteachers and religious leaders. We are from every ethnic background, faith tradition, color and creed. Simply stated--we are Americans---and we share a Constitution and Bill of Rights that sets us apart as one nation, under God.

This past week, We The People Foundation delivered personal notices of tonight’s live broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people nationwide. Personal notices were delivered to President Bush, Senior Cabinet Officials, every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, State Legislators, Federal Circuit and Appellate Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Supreme Court Justices, the Governors of every state, the Mayors of our largest cities, Newspaper Editors, Radio Talk Show Hosts, Religious Leaders, Police Chiefs, County Sheriffs, IRS Officials, CPAs, Tax Attorneys and thousands of other government officials.

Tonight, our servant government is being put on notice: Obey the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, or We The People will take whatever non-violent measures that are necessary to bring you back under our control where you belong.

America’s founders clearly understood and accepted God’s design and purpose for civil government, and were willing to sacrifice there lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor –everything they had--- to be free. They established a Constitutional Republic that recognized the People’s unalienable right to their lives, their liberty and their property, with minimal government interference. Thus, America was conceived as a magnificent experiment in freedom that was unique in the annals of human history. And while the journey was tumultuous at times, the freedom won by our forefathers was ultimately extended to all citizens regardless of race, color, religion or national origin---a testament to who we are as Americans, and what we truly stand for, as "One Nation, Under God".

What kind of government do we have in America today? Does our federal government function according to God’s design and purpose? Do our federal, state and local government officials defend and protect the most vulnerable among us from evil and injustice? Are the majority of our highest elected officials and government leaders in Washington honest, honorable and loyal Americans who can be trusted to protect and defend our Constitution? Do our judges acknowledge God’s ultimate authority over our nation and our nation’s laws, or do they kneel at a different altar?

Unlike most politicians--who seldom fight the wars that they start--those of us who have honorably served our nation in uniform have a special duty to protect America’s future generations from the deception and exploitation of false patriots in our government. There is no honor in the slaughter of innocent, helpless civilians for any political end. Our forefathers intended America to serve as an example of strength, justice and liberty to the world.

We must recognize that the powerful political and economic interests that have dragged America into war after senseless war over the past 50 years, have betrayed the ideals, the honor and the values of our forefathers, and have compromised the sovereignty and independence of our great Nation. Their perfidious conduct is repugnant to our Constitution and the principles upon which we stand as a Nation. For over 225 years, America has stood as a beacon of light and hope to the world. People of all nations, creeds and religions have come to our shores yearning to be free.

The cause of enduring freedom belongs to all Americans. But, We The People must demand honest, just and accountable government, or we cannot hope for God’s continued blessing upon our nation.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a critical juncture in the history of our Republic. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are hanging by a thread. America, as envisioned by our founders, and preserved by the blood of those who have fought to keep us free, will not survive without constant vigilance by We The People. Today, the majority of our elected representatives, our judges, and the heads of our federal law enforcement agencies, are systematically, and with impunity, violating their oaths of office.

They have betrayed their sworn and sacred obligation to support and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Every day, more and more of our People are being denied equal justice in our courts, protection of our private property, and respect for our unalienable rights and dignity as free Americans. We have allowed career politicians, government bureaucrats and federal judges to gradually assume vast powers that were NOT delegated to them by We The People in our Constitution.

If America is to survive as the hope of the world, we must resolve to bind our government down once again by the chains of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Let me give you an example of what has been happening behind the scenes in our nation’s capitol. On October 3, 2002, in a public, recorded debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas reminded Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, the Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, that the Constitution requires a Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States can be deployed in hostilities overseas. In response to Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Hyde then had this to say about our Constitution and Bill of Rights:

And I quote:……": There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. There are things that are no longer relevant to a modern society—things that are inappropriate, anachronistic"…end quote.

To those who love our country, who honor and cherish the ideals and principles upon which our great nation was established, we must ask ourselves---how have we come to this point where our government leaders can openly express such contempt and disrespect for our Constitution, and our God-given rights as Americans. To the millions of military veterans, law enforcement officers and other patriotic Americans who have taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution, Congressman Hyde’s comments should be viewed as nothing less than treason.

But tragically, the majority of our elected representatives in both political parties---as well as the powerful financial, corporate and special interests that control them, share Congressman Hyde’s arrogance and disrespect for our Constitution. These people have come to believe that our Constitution is a dead letter. That our sacred Bill of Rights is anachronistic and irrelevant in our modern times. That America’s independence as a sovereign nation, and our tradition of personal freedom should be exchanged for membership in a New World Order.

A New World Order that despises our faith in God, our Constitutional form of government and our unalienable freedom as Americans. I proudly served our country as an officer in the United States Marine Corps, and like millions of American veterans, intend to keep my oath to support and defend the Constitution and protect our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic---including politicians and government officials like Congressman Hyde who have no respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

While average Americans have been preoccupied with earning a living, raising our children, and trying to be law-abiding citizens, our government, for decades, has been diligently working behind the scenes to assume more and more power and control over our daily lives. Working Americans have been economically enslaved by a fraudulent income tax system that steals the fruits of our labor and squanders our financial resources on unconstitutional government programs, aid to corrupt foreign governments, and preemptive military intervention across the globe. It is sad but true--the average American family today pays more in taxes-- than it pays for food, clothing and shelter combined.

After years of exhaustive legal research and public hearings in Washington, DC, We The People Foundation has irrefutably proven that our personal income tax system in America is fraudulent in its origin, and illegal in every aspect of its operation. It is immoral, unjust and dishonest. It is not required to fund the lawful, constitutional functions of our government. Our elected leaders are well aware that they have other, constitutional means, such as excise taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, imposts and duties, to raise sufficient revenue for the legitimate operations of government.

So, why do our government leaders allow this fraud to continue against the working people of America? Simply stated, it is nothing more than greed and the desire for absolute political power and authority over the People. Let’s be clear, the fruits of our labor do not belong to Caesar, and we are not commanded by our Creator to kneel before false idols or submit to civil government that is immoral, coercive and unjust. The personal income tax system in America undermines everything that we stand for as a free people.....To be continued tomorrow.COMMENT:

Visit We The People Today and get involved in helping to save our country...







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR



Those people who are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants. -- William Penn

"The US Supreme Court has stated that because these rights existed antecedent [prior to] the formation of either the states or the national government they are outside the government's power to alter, modify, or abolish. How's that for some strong protection!"

In this final posting on citizenship, I pray that some new truths have been revealed as to our real status as American Citizens. Our forefathers wanted to "bind government to the chains of the Constitution" and protect the God given rights of the people. Never did our founders believe that government should have the right to fraudulantly grab 65% of our income for any reason. The right to the fruits of our labor and the right to own property and travel was given to us by our Creator and no government has the right to lien on these. The Constitution provided the way for government funding and it was not anything like is occurring today.

What does this mean for us? The truth is that we the people have been defrauded. We have been deceived by one of the greatest schemes ever to hit this earth and we are still being deceived. I beg you to order the video, Theft By Deception, Larken Rose has revealed the truth behind the deception with the governments own documents. Here is a quote from his site:


Contrary to what "everyone knows," the truth of the matter is this: Congress could not, and did not, impose a tax on the income of most Americans, because of the strict limits on federal power imposed by the Constitution. Instead, they imposed a far more limited income tax, applicable primarily to income from certain types of international and foreign commerce, but wrote the law in such a way that it could easily be misinterpreted. The law itself is perfectly valid and constitutional; it is simply being misrepresented and misapplied by the tax professionals and government officials. As a result, tens of millions of Americans now make payments to the IRS based on the false assumption that they are just paying "their taxes."


To order the video go to: Taxable Income

If this statement does not shock you then we are lost!!!! If you knew a banker was stealing your money the moment you deposited it in his establishment, what would you do? Think About It!

Conclusion: Citizenship


With these powerful rights in our hands, one might wonder what sort of "rights" are possessed by "citizens of the United States".

The Poor Stepchild "citizen"

If the Citizens of the states of the Union have their "unalienable rights", what then do "citizens of the United States" have? Frankly, not much of value. For the balance of this section, we will use the term "federal citizen" to denote a "citizen of the United States".

A federal citizen has only those rights that have been granted to him by Congress by way of the numerous and various civil rights acts, and such rights as may have been invested in him by an activist US Supreme Court that felt it could legislate from the bench.

Let's be clear - the "rights" of federal citizens are not given to them by God, as are our unalienable rights. Their rights are given to them by Congress alone, and the most significant point to understand and keep in mind is that, "What Congress giveth, Congress may taketh away". It has always been this way and it will always be this way. The only thing that may be surprising in all of this is that this is the first time you're hearing it! Most Americans have no idea that there are two "classes of citizenship", nor do they understand the vast distinction between the two, and what it means in their lives.

Let's look at what the courts have said about federal citizenship:


"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369. 373, 255, P 760.
"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..."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)

While Elk v. Wilkins is a 14th Amendment case, the concept is still true concerning all federal citizens. In other words, all federal citizens must be, by their very definition, a person who is "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the federal government (such as a citizen of Washington DC). Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens.


"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (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."
Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226
"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
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)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"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)

It should be noted that many of the rights not attributed to federal citizens in the cases above have since been granted to them either by Congress or by the courts. These early decisions simply clarify and solidify the reality that federal citizens are not the same "class of citizen" as state Citizens.

Like so many areas in which the federal government has tread, it has unbalanced the equation. Where at one time there was no real problem with there being different classes of citizenship, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Congress went into overdrive with civil rights legislation. The result was a labyrinth of "rights" and protections for federal citizens. Some of these have even found their way into additional Constitutional amendments. Because the state Citizen is a member of The People; the people in whom the sovereignty of the states, and by association, the national government resides, such a Citizen is left to protect his own rights, with no special process to help him accomplish that end. In short, he must defend his rights with all his will, his energy, his money, and passion in the courts for as long as it takes to reach a final outcome.

Conversely, the federal citizen need only lodge a complaint with the appropriate federal agency and the power of the federal government moves to punish the person who has allegedly violated that federal citizen's rights. Of course this is legally appropriate since a federal citizen is little more than a ward of the national government. Such second-class citizens must be cared for by the government as they are not the masters of their government, but mere servants to it, and it is the master's responsibility to care for his servants.

Visit Original Intent For Further Information







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

CITIZENSHIP: WHO ARE WE? PART 2

Good Morning. Today we are going to share a little more information on citizenship. I pray this will allow all who read to determine their status in our wonderful country. You may not be who you thought you were! Lets take a look at this interesting topic further and Think About It.

God Bless
Elaine

Citizenship: Part 2

As we have examined, courts in the latter part of the 19th century were quite clear on the intended purpose of the Freedman's Bureau Act, the Enforcement Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment. However, what has the Supreme Court said in this century?

In Hurd v. Hodge (1948), the court explained that in order to understand the Civil Rights Act of 1866,


"...reference must be made to the scope and purpose of the 14th Amendment; for that statute and the Amendment were closely related both in inception and in objectives which Congress sought to achieve".
The Court further stated that the purpose of the 14th Amendment,


"was to incorporate the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the organic law of the land".
The "original intent" link can also be found in several other cases as well. Justice Harlan noted that privileges and immunities protected by the 14 Amendment included [used in its restrictive sense] those set forth in the first section of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Thurgood Marshall noted that,


"the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment is the same Congress that passed the 1866 Freedman's Bureau Act",
and he concluded that the rights set forth in the Freedman's Bureau Act were dispositive of Congress' intent in the 14th Amendment.

In 1987, Justice William Brennan traced the "rights" [actually congressionally granted "privileges"] that are secured by the 14th Amendment to the Freedman's Bureau bill. He then went on to state that,


"The main target of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were the 'black codes' enacted in the Southern States..."
As can be readily seen, even relatively recent Courts have acknowledged the fact that the 14th Amendment was simply intended to integrate elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedman's Bureau Act into the Constitutional structure of the nation. Accordingly, the 14th Amendment only applies to non-citizens (aliens) who were the exclusive focus of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedman's Bureau Act.

Now that the intent, meaning, and proper application of the 14th Amendment have been illustrated, it is clear that the Amendment made "federal citizens" out of specific aliens who otherwise would have had no form of citizenship at all. By converting these "aliens" into "federal citizens", they fell under the protection of the federal government with regard to those "rights" that had been conferred upon them by the 14th Amendment.

In consideration of these facts, Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) defines the 14th Amendment this way:


The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;...
Note the vagueness in the definition - "...creates or at least recognizes for the first time...". This vagueness is because Congressional intent purported to embrace only the recently freed slaves, but at the same time, the bare language of the Amendment, (without consideration of Congressional intent) seems to merely recognize the long standing principle that the federal government has its own citizens, who are not state Citizens; a legal reality that existed long before the 14th Amendment.

We have covered a lot of ground in this piece and it is important to note that with all of the evidence that is available, it has never once been asserted by any member of Congress, or by the courts, that the 14th Amendment, or the phrase "citizen of the United States" as used before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, applies to native born Citizens of a state of the Union. It should also be noted that the original use and application of the phrase "citizen of the United States" still continues today, unaffected by the 14th Amendment, which embraced only a very narrow and specific group of persons.

To summarize the points that we have touched upon thus far:

1.There is an original Citizen of a state of the Union.
2.There is a "citizen of the United States" as that phrase has always been used.
3.There is a "citizen of the United States" as that term is used in the 14th Amendment.

At this juncture one might rightly ask what the practical distinctions are in the three forms of citizenship. Before we move forward with that, we should observe that the 14th Amendment merely constitutionalized the concepts by which the United States had been operating for decades under the doctrine of international law, defining the derivation of citizenship. What made the 14th Amendment necessary was that for the first time the federal government intended to grant federal citizenship to persons born within a state of a Union.


Rights of Citizens of the states of the Union
The Declaration of Independence states that, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" This clearly lays out the foundation of our rights - we are all equal before God, and the law; we possess rights which are "unalienable"; those rights are given to us by God (our Creator). Although the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence said that "all men" are created equal, when it came time to create the legal framework of a government, they understood that they could not include "all men" in a Constitution, but could only speak of those people who had formed the states, which then resulted in the states creating a national government of limited power. It is the state Citizens to whom the phrase "all men" would have to be limited for governmental purposes. Accordingly, as the form of our governments began to take shape, the people who would be able to claim these, "unalienable rights", which the "Creator" granted, would only be the Citizens of the states. While this may seem like a narrow restriction, one must remember that a government can only make laws (including its Constitution) for its own "body politic", and no one else.

So what are these mysterious "unalienable rights"? The Declaration of Independence says that, "among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". While "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is pretty all encompassing, the words of the Framers tell us that there are more rights involved, and that "among them" are found the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". In other words, the language of the Framers tells us that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a designated group of rights within a larger body of rights referred to as our "unalienable rights".

This larger body of "unalienable rights" is vast. In fact, it is so vast that no one, not even the judicial branch, has ever attempted to list the rights contained therein. This is best illustrated by the old adage that, "My right to swing my fist ends somewhere before it hits your nose". In short, a Citizen can do virtually anything he or she wants, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another Citizen, or endanger the community. Also inclusive in these rights are your protections against mistreatment by government; the primary protections being expressly stated in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.


"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
-- John Adams, Second President of the United States. (1792-1801)

The US Supreme Court has stated that because these rights existed antecedent [prior to] the formation of either the states or the national government they are outside the government's power to alter, modify, or abolish. How's that for some strong protection!







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

WHAT TYPE OF CITIZEN ARE YOU?

Today's posting deals with citizenship. We were all taught in Public Schools that we are Citizens of The United States. Are we? Many will get angry if you tell them they are not but the truth is not always so simple. The reason I am posting this series is because it will clearly show why you may not be a citizen subject to the graduated income tax laws of the Federal Government. Take time to read this article slowly ( I read it out loud). I promise that you probably were never taught this material and it will suprise you to know the truth. Hang with me on this posting and after it is completed, I believe that you will realize some things that are amazing! This four part expose on citizenship will clear up a lot of misunderstanding about this subject. You just might not be who you thought you were. Think About It!

God Bless
Elaine

Article is posted from the Original Intent Website:

Citizenship

As Americans, we are socialized to believe that we are all Citizens of this great nation we call the United States of America. Quite frankly, most Americans are pretty emotional about the issue. Try telling your neighbor, who fought against Hitler in WWII, that he's not a citizen of the United States, and see what reaction you get!

The problem is that the people who write laws don't write them in the same manner that you and I speak. [See the section on "legal terms" within The Law page on this site.] Laws are written to achieve certain goals and the words used within laws are selected to achieve those goals. Sometimes the goals are legitimate and the language that is used, while confusing at times, is necessary to achieve the goal. Other times confusing language is used for no other reason than to obscure the truth from the casual reader.

The issue of citizenship is no less clouded by such use of language than is any other area of law. The definitions of words or "legal terms" must be sought out diligently and the context in which they are used always carefully considered. [See The Law for information on "words" v. "legal terms" and issues of "context".]

In the Constitution of the United States, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" appears. Because this phrase appears within a Constitution, not a statute, the meaning of the phrase is determined by the meaning intended by those who wrote and signed the Constitution. If the intended meaning is manifest, there is no power on earth, including that of a criminal in a black robe, which can alter the meaning of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase "Citizen of the United States" is well understood. That phrase is shorthand for the sentence, "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution". The important element that you should understand is that the "Citizen of the United States" spoken of in the Constitution of the United States is more properly and accurately a Citizen of the state in which he lives. The phrase "Citizen of the United States" is actually a euphemism used for convenience and brevity, and not a legal title.

After the Constitution was signed by all the states, the federal government began acquiring "territories". At the time, these territories were limited to the lands west of the established boundaries of the states, and lands not claimed by the states. People born in those federally held territories, by parents who were not Citizens of a state, became de facto "citizens of the United States". Although at that time there was no statutory authority for such a thing, international law had (and still has) a long established doctrine that, absent any extenuating circumstances, a person is a citizen of the national jurisdiction (or sovereignty) in which he's born. The federal territories were outside of the sovereignty of the individual state governments, and within the sovereignty of the United States government; hence the de facto status as a "citizen of the United States". This principle also applies to persons in Washington DC, which is under the exclusive sovereignty of the United States. [For the sake of clarity, we use a lower case "c" for a citizen of the federal government and an upper case "C" to denote a Citizen of a state of the Union.] It should be noted that "citizens of the United States" are not The People who created the states, then by state action, created the federal government. These "federal citizens" are not "parties to the Constitution" and therefore did not have legal claim to the same rights, privileges, and immunities that state Citizens did.

One should take careful note that the Citizens of the states of the Union are the only Citizens who possess all the rights, privileges, and immunities spoken of in the US Constitution, plus whatever additional rights are secured to them by their own state Constitutions. At the end of this section you will see federal and state court cases that clearly show that the rights of one class of Citizen are thoroughly different from the "rights" (actually Congressionally granted privileges) of the other class of citizen. This distinction in the "class of citizenship" continued without significant comment or concern until the end of the Civil War.

Although the Civil War was not fought over slavery (despite what you were taught in the public schools), the end of the Civil War nevertheless brought about the end of involuntary servitude and slavery in America. [See Article XIII of the Constitution of the United States.]

Prior to the Civil War, the southern states did not recognize blacks as persons who could become Citizens of their states. In fact it was well understood by the Citizens of these southern states that when their state Constitutions protected the right to own "property" or "chattel", that right included holding slaves. That was exactly what the framers of these southern Constitutions had intended and so that understanding was accurate and factual.

After the South lost the rebellion, the United States took the opportunity to free the slaves. This was easier said than done because the Constitutions of the Southern states hadn't changed a bit just because the South had lost the War. Their Constitutions still did not recognize blacks as persons who could attain citizenship.


"Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same even afterward…except as such was surrendered to the federal government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by the United States Constitution."
Blair v Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249, S.P. People v. Coleman, 60 D. 581
Congress was faced with a difficult dilemma; it wanted the freed blacks to become Citizens, but there was nothing in the US Constitution that gave Congress the power to alter the Constitutions of the Southern states. The best Congress could do in an immediate sense was to consider the South under "military occupation" of the United States (which it was) and recognize that as such, the Southern states came within the authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. [See US Territorial Authority in this site.] What this meant was that as long as the Southern states were held as a "defeated foe" Congress could pass legislation that would operate within the area known as "the Southern states". However, in the future, when Congress would restored the Southern states to their former status as regular states of the Union, all such federal legislation would cease to operate in the Southern states. This meant that Congress needed a two-phase solution. The first phase being the enactment of federal laws to operate within the "occupied territories" and the second phase being a Constitutional amendment to secure the principles of those laws even after the laws themselves lost authority in the Southern states.

It should be noted at this point that although the slaves were now free, and had been born in a state of the Union, they still were not Citizens of that state. In short, they had no citizenship at all. Under long established doctrines of law, a person who is not a citizen of a place in which he resides is an alien. The legal position of the freed slaves was tenuous - yes, they were free, but they were aliens in the land of their birth and were thus not entitled to the same rights, privileges, and immunities as Citizens. Although defeated in battle, the people of the South were not yet ready to capitulate on the slavery issue and they moved quickly to use the "alien" status of the blacks against them. Almost immediately after the surrender of the Confederacy, many Southern states started enacting "Black Codes". These laws were intended to operate only upon "persons not citizens" (a phrase right out of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393), and thus effectively limit the new found freedom enjoyed by the former slaves by requiring them to apply for licenses to do anything from holding a job, to hunting for food.

Because the Southern states were under the "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" of Congress at this time, any state or local laws that conflicted with federal law would immediately become void and unenforceable. Congress moved quickly to quash the Black Codes. In rapid succession Congress passed the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Collectively, these acts prevented the enforcement of the Black Codes and simultaneously imbued the freed black slaves with federally granted privileges that are euphemistically called "rights". It is in the Enforcement Act that we first see the phrase "citizen of the United States" used as a "legal term" embracing only the recently freed black slaves. This term is then used again in the both the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the same limited manner. It should be noted at this point that the phrase "citizen of the United States" had been used for nearly 8 decades before the Civil War, but always to speak of persons within federal territories. This was the first time that Congress had used the phrase to denote a person who had been born within a state of the Union. Congress could only apply the term in this way, within federal law, at that specific point in history because the South (where the freed blacks lived) was "federal territory" as long as it was being held by the United States military as a "defeated foe".

Phase two of Congress' plan was put into action with the drafting of the 14th Amendment. Here are its pertinent parts to this discussion:


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
In drafting the Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them.

Because the Congressional Acts were merely intended to "hold the line" until the 14th Amendment was ratified, their intent is significant in determining the intent of the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866:


"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizen of every race and color shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens."
Please note that when the drafters of this bill meant to indicate a Citizen, they clearly used the word "citizen", however when defining "who" the Act applies to, the drafters used the word "person". As they used both words within the same paragraph, it is obvious that the drafters were keenly aware of the distinction.

Clearly Congressional intent was to provide non-citizens with the same fundamental rights as de jure state Citizens (who in that day, were exclusively white). This intent was further clarified in President Johnson's speech when he vetoed that bill. President Johnson made this statement as part of his speech:


"It [the Civil Rights Bill of 1866] comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, Negroes, mulattoes and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races born in the United States is made a citizen thereof."
Once again, it can clearly be seen that the intent of the this Act was to embrace "persons" (as defined in Dred Scott case), but in no way was intended to address or alter the relationship of the de jure white Citizen to his state of birth or domicile.

In the case of United States v. Otherson, the US Supreme Court found it necessary to review the historical foundations of the Enforcement Act. The Court found that Senator Stewart, who had sponsored the Enforcement Act legislation, had made the following remarks regarding the Act's intent. Stewart noted that the bill,


"...simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protections of our laws".
He also added that,


"This bill extends [the equal protection of laws] to aliens, so that all persons who are in the United States shall have the equal protection of our laws."
These realities were not lost upon the various courts that were later called upon to make determinations as to the intent of the various civil rights acts or the 14th Amendment. In Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal Sup Ct. 43, the Court made the following statement:


"No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
As we are now repeatedly drawing a distinction between blacks and whites, this is probably a good point to stop and address the topic of racism as it relates to this article. This is a historical examination of the law as it existed in the various states and the United States prior to, and after, the Civil War, and how the foundations laid down in those laws and court decisions may still affect our lives today. This article is not intended to critique or pass judgment upon the moral correctness (or lack thereof) of the laws which existed at that time, or upon the decisions of the US Supreme Court in reference to slavery, the Civil War, the various Civil Rights Acts, or the 14th Amendment. It is merely a history lesson with certain inevitable conclusions drawn at the end. Please do not impute any bias, in either direction, to Original Intent. Having said that, let's carry on.

******Review******There are three classes of citizens in this country.

1. A natural born citizen of the several states that automatically makes you a citizen of the United States.
2. A citizen according to the 14 Ammendment.
3. Native Americans

Part 2 will be posted tomorrow.









GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR