I sometimes have...
I sometimes have to remind myself that despite the lack of comments to my Dash postings I need to continue with them.
It is pretty obvious that a lot of what I write gets overlooked by the HIVE community, and I’m alright with that, as these Dash and Daily Dose posts are intended for future offspring to look back at to get an idea of who I was and how I saw things from my perspective.
So with that in mind I want to go back to something I posted about recently (06/21/20) and expand upon it since no one has bothered to ask where I came up with being a citizen of the US is by choice and not by birth as some folks are inclined to believe.
Yes, I know...
Yes, I know there are other ways to become a US citizen but all of them, including birth here, involve making the choice to be a citizen of the US. I didn’t say it was “you” making the choice either, most parents aren’t aware that they are making the choice for you (the infant) when they fill out the papers at the hospital when you are born.
I showed in...
I showed in my Dash that the 14th amendment lists both US citizens and persons when talking about subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Persons wasn't defined ; it was a substitute for "state citizen" as you will see.
Now you could argue the point that the people who wrote the 14th amendment were just “confused” or not really well educated and any other hogwash you want to come up with.
Even better than that; you could argue that old Sult is confused or just plain ignorant and that might be a better argument; but still not a valid one.
One thing that...
One thing that I have going for me and in support of my claim is that the courts already have ruled on being born in a state of the United States and so I will share that with you right now.
“Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment.” , Elk vs. Wilkins, Neb (1884) 5s,ct41,112 U.S.,99,28L Ed.643.
That’s pretty clearly written right there. John Elk was suing to establish his citizenship and his right to be an elector having been born in Nebraska and the court ruled against him. That was back in a time when people actually wanted to be citizens.
My how things have changed; now people are looking for a way out of US citizenship since the government has become so oppressive.
I cannot stress...
I cannot stress strongly enough that things are not as we have been told or led to believe.
The art of deception has been honed and perfected since the 1860’s by the so called “elected officials”. Today I’m going to share something else with you that will surely surprise you.
How about we look at some court rulings?
There isn’t a better place to find out just what the judiciary says about citizenship since the courts are where things are decided.
Before we do; get these terms clear in your mind. “United States citizen”, “US citizen”, and “citizen of the United States” are terms to describe 14th amendment citizens.
"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)
Here in this opinion cited we see there is difference between privileges and immunities belonging to citizens of the United States but the opinion didn’t want to let the cat of the bag by clarifying that the state citizen actually has rights, it tries to lead you to think it is lesser privileges and immunities.
"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)
Again the court acknowledges there are state citizens and once again they don’t elaborate as to which could actually be better for the person. Naturally a person would think that the US citizenship would be superior to just a lone state but that isn’t the case.
"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)
I can’t stress enough how important these two classes of citizens are; but one major ruling should do it for you. Here it is;
"Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability." U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).
You can be a state citizen without being a citizen of the United States and that is huge because the IRS can’t tax a state citizen who is not a US citizen.
The14th Amendment recognized that "an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several states without being a citizen of the United States," (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, "a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a state." (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)).
I know that reading court rulings is boring for some folks but we really need to understand just what is at stake when claiming to be US citizen.
Nowadays when a mother gives birth at the hospital the hospital staff is having the mother fill out forms before the nurses even have the baby cleaned up in some cases.
One of those is a form to get the baby a social security number and the indoctrination into a lifetime of slavery has just begun for that baby.
If you are young and contemplating having children do your due diligence about US citizenship; it isn’t all it is cracked up to be.
Unless of course you like being a slave; and the thought of your children being slaves doesn’t bother you then go right ahead and fill out that social security form.
Until next time,
Sult
Photo credits: Sult N Papper
