Home » Big Issues » Constitutional Issues » Cartoon: Liberals fail at destroying 14th Amendment

Cartoon: Liberals fail at destroying 14th Amendment

A rare win for states’ rights and equality came in a decision by the Supreme Court decided to uphold Michigan voters’ decision to amend their state Constitution to “ban public institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, or public contracting.”

The only loser in this case is the antiquated, unjust idea of Affirmative Action and the liberal activists who support it.

 

affirmative action, liberals, activism, 14th amendment, us constitution, fourteenth amendment

×
×
×


Get the latest news, reviews and features directly into your inbox.

By submitting above you agree to the Absolute Rights Privacy Policy

Like Absolute Rights on Facebook


2 comments

  1. Very sorry Eric.I mistakenly rated your excellent article with a negative.
    I actually enjoyed it and appreciate your thoughtful wisdom.
    Howie

    (0)
  2. In this article the author is advocating that WE THE PEOPLE must stand up for our God given and Constitutionally protected rights, however, due to the wording of the Preamble to the Constitution, I do have a question and some concern as to who it is that can properly claim to be of The People of The United States, as that class declared and established itself in that Preamble.

    To quote the Preamble, in relevant part, we read, “We the People of the United States … in order to secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity … do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States of America.”

    This wording is clearly limiting and exclusionary. Intended to include only the People who were there at that time, and Their Posterity – “… to Ourselves and Our Posterity … “. These words clearly exclude anyone and everyone who cannot or who do not, properly claim to be of the Posterity of those People who rebelled against King George III.

    After all, it was those People who personally risked Their Lives, Their Fortunes and Their Sacred Honor in their defiance and rebellion against their King, the Monarch of the British Empire, King George III.

    In the eyes of the King and his Red Coats, and in the eyes of the sovereign governments of all other countries, the Rebels against King George were traitors, to be hung or executed by firing squad any time any of them were apprehended.

    So it was more than reasonable that the Framers of the Constitution should establish that the primary purpose of the government they were creating was to Secure the Blessings of Liberty (to be enjoyed by those on this land), should be secured and limited, without reservation; to Themselves and Their Posterity, to the exclusion of all others, as might be from time to time determined by such People.

    As an example in comparison, consider Walt Disney’s intention and purpose in establishing his Disneyland amusement park empire. I am confident that everyone will readily agree that Walt Disney’s primary purpose in that momentous undertaking, was to monetarily enrich himself and his Posterity, reasonably to be at the expense of the customers who voluntarily purchased tickets to enter Disneyland, Disneyworld, etc.

    Is there any doubt that all of those paying customers understood and agreed that their purchase of their tickets to enter Disneyland was limited to allowing them to enter, walk around, take a seat on the various rides, or watch the stage presentations in the various theatres located inside Disneyland. That such customers could avail themselves of the various food offering facilities and just generally enjoy whatever the Disneyland management offered during the paying customers visit. Finally, that the customers all knew and understood that when the closing time for that day arrived, all the customers were required to exit Disneyland and their paid entry fee did not in any way establish any manner of ownership interest in Disneyland or endow them with inheritance expectations upon the death of Walt Disney.

    What I am explaining here is that when the Founding Fathers were creating our government it was recognized by the Founders that someone was going to have to pay the expenses of operating the government they were establishing, and being the Aristocrats that they were, not having previously been among those who were taxed, they intended to set up our government so that there would be a legitimately determined and acceptable class of individuals here upon whom the burden of providing the funding could reasonably be laid. Similar to the customers of Disneyland. After all, it is clear that those who migrated here after the shooting was over, risked nothing close to that which was endangered by those who personally rebelled against King George, so how could there be any proper claim of the migrants, who volunteered themselves into US citizenship, to demand, claim or even expect, to be accorded the same rights and privileges that the People reserved to themselves. If you don’t want to pay our government’s expenses, then go back to or stay where you are, wherever you were born.

    Now, of course, it would take a while before a sufficient number of such “customer”class accumulated themselves here on this land, however, Providence always provides, so the gold rush of 1849 constituted a major magnet that brought hundreds of thousands of new immigrant (potential taxpayers) to our country. As they were naturalized into United States citizenship they were thereby obligated to provide the funds needed to operate the government.

    A few years later President Lincoln, without any just cause what-so-ever, as commander in chief of our military, while Congress was NOT in session, Lincoln ordered the United States navy to blockade the Harbor at Fort Sumter, to prevent the Southern Confederacy from engaging in international commerce.

    The Southerners put up with that blockade for several months, but finally, they decided to take over the Fort, which the South was able to do with no loss of life on either side, but this was all according to Lincoln’s plan, whereupon he ordered his generals to retaliate, and Lincoln’s unconstitutional andeclared war of aggression against the South was on.

    Fast Forward to 1864, 1866 and 1868. In 1864 Congress determined that in order for the freed slaves to be politically recognized it would be necessary, through some means, to imbue the former slaves with some recognized manner of political status, such as United States citizenship.

    As a result of this determination, the Congress of 1864 created what later became the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Thirteenth was ratified in 1866, and the Fourteenth declared to have been ratified in 1868.

    It is more than somewhat significant to take notice that the politicians selling the Fourteenth Amendment to the white population, assured all the white people that they need not be concerned about the Fourteenth Amendment because its one and only purpose was to establish a citizenship status for the former black slaves.

    The problem with this sales pitch, was simply that there was no such limitation or provision in the Fourteenth Amendment and neither is there any wording in that amendment that in any way limits its application to the former slaves, or enables or declares such former slaves to be citizens or wording that in any way declares anyone to be declared to be a citizen of the United States due to their birth here on this land.

    What the Fourteenth Amendment does do is to declare that all persons born in the United States, who in some manner, distinctly separate from the Fourteenth Amendment, individually intentionally volunteer themselves into subservient United States citizenship, are then, thereafter, totally under the dominion of the Executive Branch (President Obama). Pay attention to the words, “All persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, …”. There in nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that declares anyone to be subject to the jurisdiction of any entity.

    How does a free born person of any color, become subject to the jurisdiction of an artificial entity created by mere men? The men who created the Constitution and government of the United States had no more authority to declare anyone born here to be subservient to their creation than did the men who created Wal-Mart have authority to require anyone to be an employee or customer of Wal-Mart.

    Moreover, the inclusion of the words, “… , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, …” in the opening clause of the 14th Amendment, clearly establishes and recognizes that mere birth here is not sufficient to establish citizenship. That, if any person desires to become a citizen of the United States such person must himself, initiate some manner of political ceremony wherein the individual volunteers himself into United States citizenship, in order for such person to become, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

    For the government here to in any way declare that anyone born here on this land becomes, automatically, a citizen of the United States, flies directly in the face of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude. Therefore, there is nothing in the 14th that declares anyone born here to be a citizen thereof; pay attention to the actual words!

    However, there is substantially more in the Fourteenth Amendment relative hereto:

    In the Fourth Article is it provided and established, in regard to those persons who volunteer themselves into United States citizenship, that such citizens “shall not challenge the validity of the public debt”; “Citizens of the United States, shut up and pay up!”, just like customers of Disneyland! Except that customers of Disneyland are aware of their temporary paying guest status while inside Disneyland.

    This Fourth Article provision brings us back to what I mentioned above, in regard to the intention of the Founders, to assign the responsibility of funding the government to those who are not or do not properly claim to be of the Posterity of the People of the United States, as such individuals established themselves in the Preamble.

    We must pay attention to the way the word “People” is used, and of the context in which it appears. The word “citizen” carries with it a clear and obvious acknowledgment of political subservience to a political superior, no matter the context. Such meaning is automatically always inherent in the word “citizen”. This is most certainly NOT the case in regard to the word “People”!

    There is and can be no such thing as a “Sovereign Citizen”, no matter how strongly someone believes such to be the case. “Sovereign” means no political superior; “citizen” is an inherent acknowledgment of political subservience to a political superior, of subservience to a political sovereign. A “citizen” can NEVER be sovereign! “Sovereign Citizen” is a non-sequitur, nonsense, a contradiction in terms, an impossibility, wishful thinking of the unthinking!

    The word “People” generally carries with it no political meaning, however the word “People”can be imbued with a political meaning if the context is which the word is used is intended to imbue the word with a political meaning, such as is clearly the case in the manner in which the word “People” is used in the Preamble. “We, the People of the United States, in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is clearly a political statement intended to establish the People of the United States as a political class, politically sovereign over the government they were creating. And likewise sovereign over any subservient political class which might form under the government the people were creating; how could it reasonably be otherwise?

    Because of the common use of the word “people”outside of any political meaning, we must be careful how we use the word and we must understand that claiming to be of We The People does not mean or establish that those using the word in that context have standing to cause such usage to have or to imbue them with the political standing of the People of the United States as was established in the Preamble. For example:

    “All those people over there are citizens of the United States.” Is the equivalent to:
    “All those humans over there are citizens of the United States.” Is the equivalent to:
    “All those men over there are citizens of the United States.” Is the equivalent to:
    “All those women over there are citizens of the United States.”

    The following applies to all 4:
    “Those citizens over there do not have political standing claim to be of The People of the United States.

    In the above four examples, the words “humans, men and women,” are all contextually synonymous with the word “people” in that common context; however as there is no political implication in any of the sentences the use of the word “people” in one of the sentences does not serve to in any way to cause the words “people”and “citizen”to be politically synonymous, or cause the word “people” in that sentence to be construed as a reference to the Sovereign People of the United States.

    Another point, those of us who are of the Posterity of the People of the United States whose antecedents revolted against and ousted King George III from our land, have individual standing to exercise our political superiority individually. This may have been your intention in your presentation. I only mention this here to clarify that point.

    The problem I perceive with those participating in the Bundy Ranch event in Nevada, is that I feel confident to presume, that all, or at least the vast majority thereof, claim to be citizens of the United States, and also have driver licenses, Social Security Numbers and are registered as voters, all claiming to be citizens of the United States. This can get very sticky for them because there is no provision in any United States Code establishing a means or a procedure whereby a person who officially claims to be a citizen of the United States can abdicate or renounce such status except by leaving the United States and going to a United States Embassy or Consulate in a foreign country and then filing official documents renouncing their United States citizenship.

    On that same point, I am not aware of any official procedure whereby a person born in the United States becomes a citizen thereof. (Actually, a physical impossibility to be born in the United States as the United States does not physically exist – and neither does Wal-Mart, as both are artificial entities – going to a store owned by Wal-Mart is not the same as going to Wal-mart. Please note that I wrote “artificial” not “fictional”. Neither are fictional.).

    I know there are Federal Statutes purporting to declare that persons born in the United States are automatically citizens thereof, however a mere Act of Congress cannot supersede or negate the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude, and citizenship is self evidently a condition of servitude, therefore any and all such statutes are void on their face.

    It seems that those born in the United States are recognized as being citizens merely upon their individual claim of being such a citizen. This makes it virtually impossible for the government to prove anyone has officially volunteered themselves into subservient United States citizen status.

    Most of what I have written here came to me as a result of my “victory” over the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, California way back in 1970, forty-four years ago.

    There had been an income tax rebellion in Southern California in 1969, in which I was one of the most outspoken and active leaders. As a result the IRS filed criminal charges against me in Federal Court, charging me with willful failure to file or pay income tax.

    I went to the trial in 1970, without an attorney and without filing one piece of paper in opposition or explanation.

    When the case was called there were only five people in the room, the judge, bailiff, clerk, federal IRS prosecutor and me. The prosecutor began his opening statement, “Citizens of the United States have an obligation to blah, blah, blah”; whereupon I stood and entered my oral objection.

    The Judge asked: “Why are you objecting Mr. Williams, he hasn’t said anything yet?”

    Me: “Well, he said citizens of the United States have obligations to do all the things he was mentioning, and that may be true, however he does not have anything in his file to put me in that class”.”

    Judge: “Are you renouncing your citizenship?”

    Me: “How could I renounce that which I never applied for?”

    Judge: “Where were you born?”

    Me: “At the time of my birth I was gasping for breath, I could neither read nor write. I did not know where I was, who I was or even what I was.”

    Judge: “What did your mother tell you?”

    Me: “At the time of my birth I did not then understand the mother child relationship. I could not then pick my mother from a lineup of one.”

    Judge: “What was on your birth certificate?”

    Me: “At the time of my birth I did not them understand the importance of such a document and I do not know if one was created or not and I deny that one was, and (pointing at the prosecutor I said), he can’t prove it.”

    Judge: “I am taking this matter under consideration and you will be notified.”

    That took less than five minutes. That was forty-four years ago and I am still waiting. I have never ever filed or paid income tax, even when, for twenty-two years I operated my own furniture manufacturing company where I made “tons”of money.

    Of additional significance in that court event was the questions the judge did not ask. There was no mention of all caps name, driver license, Social Security Number, UCC, Maritime law, my regular use of Federal Reserve notes, whether or not I was a registered voter or any of the other many adhesion contract claims voiced by so many in the Freedom Movement.

    Since then my research and experience of others successfully using my procedure, has caused me to conclude that the only issue is their ability to present proof from their files that you volunteered into their jurisdiction. Put the burden of proof on them.

    If I am in traffic or other court of no record, I am going to notify the judge with a paper that I will be operating a sound recorder during the proceedings. When “my” case is called, I will NOT state my name for the record because they will presume I mean the name I derived from a birth certificate, where the state has become the owner of the name under the state’s abandoned property law.

    I will at that time inform the court that I am known as and respond to Eric Williams, however. Eric Williams is NOT my name, Eric Williams is who I am. I will then further inform the court that I had filed a Notice and Demand (NOT a motion(, demanding that the accusing party (the State Prosecutor) present his proof that I have willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the authority of the artificial government of the state of Arkansas, and based thereon, I otherwise stand mute.

    The concern here, is to keep control of the proceedings. I would not answer any of their questions as they have no standing to inquire of me until they present their proof that I volunteered myself into their jurisdiction. If asked if I am a citizen, I will respond by asking them, “How does someone born free become a citizen; what are the duties and responsibilities of citizenship; where is there any statute explaining how a free born individual becomes a citizen; why would anyone want to be a citizen?

    Depending on the conversation, I might state that I claim to be and therefore am of the Posterity of the rebels of July 4, 1776. and claim my right to live here on this land under the common law right of inheritance, to enjoy the fruit of the successful rebellion of my antecedents, without being molested by the enforcement officers of the state.

    When I met my wife she had agreed with the IRS to send monthly payments of $600.00. She had sent one such payment about a month prior and the second about two days prior. I advised her to immediately call the bank and put a stop payment order on that second check to the IRS. I then created a letter which she sent to the IRS. That was about a year ago, She has heard no more from the IRS.

    My point here is to help the Freedom advocates understand what they must do in order to properly claim to be of The People of The United States. If asked if they are a citizen, they should respond with a question, “What is a citizen”, what are the duties and responsibilities and how does a free born individual become a citizen?” Also ask, “Is it not true that your 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, and is it not self evident that citizenship is a condition of servitude, so does that not make it impossible for the government to declare anyone to be a citizen?”

    I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

    (-1)
Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

. .