February 22, 2019

The Universal Right of Self Determination Places Men Who Exercise The Right Into Another Social Compact Owned By Others

Political Charters Create Corporate Countries As Fictions… You’re still formulating a fiction… The social compact must meet the requirements of a higher authority to be approved…

“The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),played an important role in trying to redress a situation in which, in copyright terms, the world emerged from the war “virtually split into two entirely separate and independent parts”. Launched in 1945 as successor to the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC), UNESCO anchored its copyright policy in the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights.””

The U.N. is a privately owned politically chartered property.. Just like any other..

Who owns the Politically Chartered United Nations… ? Thats who you’re subjects of under the Universal Right of Self Determination.. Are those owners so clever that you’ve placed yourself under their Customs and Traditions Doctrines? Because they own it, do prepare the process of the right of self determination according to how they say so or they deny your claim to it.. Become a citizen under a new contract with the United Nations.. Who owns the U.N.? I know who owns the U.N.. The United Kingdom with the United States Through the Atlantic Charter established the United Nations, for his Majesty the King.. Who is subservient to the Caesar sitting in the Temple of the Divine Serpent.. So don’t piss down my neck and tell me you’re a free man when you are not… Constitutions of the World, WORLD CHARTER SIGNED (1945), The Earth Charter: Constitution of the Global Super-State,

Politics, and Political Charters it must be remembered is ‘someones’ figment of the imagination or creation of the mind that makes up their personal view of the way they see the world and its relationships within their own imaginings. This view resides in their mind and their mind alone, and therefore it is fictitious in nature and can be reflected on paper as a contract ‘mimicking’ the physical world.. Discovery of proper use of the original thinkers formulation of the process places one under the origin thinkers, or under the holder of the intellectual property rights of the customary processes, jurisdiction.. Thats where you’re at..

UNESCO’s strategic deceptive foil of cover as camouflage, in the use of its development of “collectivist” terms for a “Declaration on Human Rights”, won them the approval of their competing proposals for the Self-Ennobling Ones to accept, as the best means of providing for an excuse to convince the victims of designed eugenicist wars, to relegate their ‘freedoms of independence’ to closer cooperation, or corporation, by compelling acquiescence of the general populace to such terms, out of “fear” of a repeat performance of world war, in it being said, that closer cooperation would quell the brutal urges of man.
They, the general populace at large, having no inkling whatsoever, that their compulsion to accept these copywritten terms had been by design, would also have no inkling, that UNESCO’s proposals had the further advantage of completely blinding them into not coming to an understanding that what was copywritten by them in turn, through the Self-Ennobling One’s instruments of deception, (without qualification under registration of ‘noncommital-to-contract’ to copywritten-countries, but merely to record), would effectively provide the means for the Self-Ennobling Ones agencies to ‘collectively’ interfere in the ownership of their intellectual property.
Interfere as superior authorities to a now admitted subordinate position of a registrant, and that through copyright registration ‘without qualificaiton’, it was an admission that registrants were mentally incapable of maintaining their own affairs, in the same way a child lacked the mental capacity to provide for themselves, by demonstrably not understanding the requirements of speaking-up in their own self-interests, as an adult would understand to do, given their circumstances in the world as being functionally independent, and with the recognition that that independence brings, of having the cognition to voice that independence in line with their self-interests and circumstances.
Failure to speak-up, would no doubt reflect on their mental capacities as being immature and in need of assistance by rightly remaining in the charge of an adult parental figure providing for stewardship, to guide and decide what would be in their best interests. Such arrangements, of course, could find their victims intellectual rights the subject of ‘profitable confiscation’ by any number of ‘seemingly’ legitimate means.
The reader to the preceding may remain unperturbed, since as it ought to be well known, any formal relationships entered into, calls for honesty in the interests of fairness for obvious, fair and full disclosure to be provided – for the very reason that genuine ‘fairness’ can only be the basis of authenticity and therefore legitamcy – otherwise, whatsoever arrangements were entered into without full disclosure made known as to the true nature of the operations of the parties to a relationship, would justly render those arrangements ‘null and void’. And that being the case, without having even to speak of ‘the requirements of justice’.
Continuing, page 535
“Prior to the Brussels conference, UNESCO had already noted how copyright was a “barrier” to the “free flow of culture among all the peoples of the world”. In the next few years, UNESCO instigated a number of copyright initiatives culminating in 1952 with The Universal Copyright Convention(UCC).
In sum, the UCC offered an international multilateral convention with lower levels of protection than Berne, thus providing a vehicle for the US to come into the fold of multilateral international copyright agreements. Several specificities in national legislation kept the US outside Berne until 1989; these were primarily the compulsory registration of copyright and the controversial manufacturing requirement, which afforded English-language books copyright protection in the US only if manufacturedon American soil. As a compromise between the formal registration required by US law and the no formalities-Berne framework, the UCC introduced the use of a ©symbol, making it possible for the US and other countries to sign the UCC without having to change their national legislation.”
Sources:
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTIONAND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property
World Intellectual Property Organization
Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world:
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)

As long as people remain confused about the true nature of political charters, social compacts, constitutions, contracts, then what they think are their Natural Rights will be trodden on by contractual experts acting honorably.. And people like KC and DW will tell you’ you’re a moron because you don’t want to replicate what these lying thieves have done for centuries, using Customary and Traditional contractual processes to fk over everyone in their path…

Universal Copyright Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention
Again, we note the understandings reached concerning issues of creative intellectual property rights, when we learn of those acting on behalf of the authors to creative property, organizing their interests through their forums to settle on agreement, when we read, 1. Introduction, page 1, of, ‘Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights in the 1930s’ –
After a series of bilateral agreements the main European book trading countries enacted in cooperation with culturally aware publishers and authors a multilateral agreement, the Berne Convention, in 1886. Although the American states passed the first Inter-American copyright agreement at the same time, the Convention of Montevideo in 1889, it was the Berne Convention, which proofed to be a reliable political instrument in the course of the twentieth century pointing the way ahead when intellectual property rights were institutionalized on a global scale first with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1967 followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.

The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property
Rights in the 1930s
Isabella Löhr, University of Leipzig

COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS, those who don’t understand the dangers fictions can pose, are to be further deluded into thinking that they matter, with this –

  1. Epilogue: Geneva, October 2007, page 549
    “In October 2007, the WIPO Development Agenda was established by the WIPO General Assembly. Scholars have hailed it as a possible new departure for the international intellectual property regime, which has been completely dominated since 1994 by the trade-based rationales of WTO and the infamous Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS has eclipsed and helped render the UCC “wholly peripheral to the current international copyright framework” and is targeted for critique by developing nations, echoing concerns already articulated already in 1967. The Stockholm Protocol, a satellite “disconnected from its orbit”, is another instrument relegated to the cemetery where intellectual property texts go to die. Yet, each of these texts is part of the historical foundation from which the Development Agenda draws inspiration.
    Although it remains to be seen what clout the Development Agenda will have to redress past wrongs and more recent sins in the power relations between developed and developing nations, it proposes substantial changes in both its general direction and WIPO governance. In 1884, 1885, and 1886 only a handful of nations were present to formulate the original Berne Convention, and they represented a diplomatic elite. Fifty-seven states and more than 400 inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations were present in Stockholm. At present, WIPO counts 184 member nations and over 250 NGOs among those who participate in Geneva deliberations. NGOs now out weigh states in total number, greatly accelerating the presence of civil society in these global arenas, suggesting, to Ruth Okediji, that states are not as important in setting the agenda as they used to be.”
    Source:
    Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
    COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTION AND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
    Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
    http://www.academia.edu/432552/Colonial_Copyright_Postcolonial_Publics_the_Berne_Convention_and_the_1967_Stockholm_Diplomatic_Conference_Revisited

===

The political WORLD system is an PRIVATELY OWNED intellectual propertied exclusive system representing the OWNERS interests, and it is impossible for any persons, groups, peoples, whatever their status or philosophies may be regardless of what is said of their political leanings, to genuinely represent people away from those prioritising interests of the world systems OWNERS, Those ignoring this reality deserve what they get. To reiterate, all, absolutely all political parties represent the exclusive interests of the World Systems OWNERS; irregardless of perspectives perceptions or beliefs to the contrary..

Definition of Confidence trick
A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence scheme, scam and stratagem) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust. Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

Commemorating the UN charter.. The Charter of the United Nations.. The Political Charter of the United Nations.. Hmmmm… “The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister…representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom…” Ah those fascinating details of the Atlantic Charter… Both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister are representing His Majesty… ” In the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, the Allies pledged adherence to this charter’s principles.”
“The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter.”
The policy was issued as a statement; as such there was no formal, legal document entitled “The Atlantic Charter”.
Source:
Atlantic Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter

The United Nations “pledges” adherence to the Atlantic Charter, means that the United Nations “allegiance” is to the Atlantic Charter. It is therefore the Atlantic Charter that is in ownership of the United Nations and it, the Atlantic Charter, is in turn in the ownership of the Office titled His Majesty, which Office of Monarchy will pass to the Heirs of that Office.
How interesting that we read, that even before the end of the Second World War, the Atlantic Charter ‘somehow’ prophetically determined the ‘designs’ of the post-war world.

So, would his Majesty be the Previous King of Great Britain, who served Caesar.. The Roman Pontiff..

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forms the central coordinating core instrument and forum of the United Nations, representing as ‘plenipotentiary’, the direct will of the Office of Monarch

The ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to member states and the United Nations system.’

Am I to understand the Atlantic Charter to be law, given to mean that it is the will and wish as personally owned private law, through that of the Office of His Majesty, currently in our time Her Majesty, and not that of a legal document constituting a bilateral offer. From the preceding, it perhaps could be seen that the Atlantic Charter constitutes, in effect, a unilateral offer that brings into employment as employee’s, those that wish to accept ‘acting out their lives’ through continued employment to it. Then from there, it could be said and seen that the Offeror, having fulfiled an obligation to perform in making available the written instrument through which acceptance can be made to it, would have honoured his bargain. As with all else in line with ‘political charters’.

Under the subheading, ‘Drafting the Declaration’, we read –
“One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.”

Unless of course it is against ones religion to associate oneself within their nifty little Customs and Traditions Usage compacts..

Then of course we find the articles, 1 January 1955 – Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: original manuscript prepared for printing.
The United Nations Charter open to the signatory page.
International Organizations
Charter of the United Nations, 1945

Under the subheading, ‘Charter Provisions’, we read beneath the subtitle, ‘Preamble’, the words –
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined”

A perculiar phrasing given the word, peoples, since the word, ‘people’, on its own is both singular and plural in number in its description of those individuals to be found in the physical world.
Whereas the term, peoples, cannot be of the physical world since the term, people, caters for that territory, and therefore, peoples is a description relating to someone’s personally owned private fictitious noun of their own making, within the territory of their imagination.
Furthermore, for the perculiar people to find themselves within the house of the United Nations, as the phrasing mis-leads us to believe, they would need to agree to accept an offer to be able to enter such a house and only then could they be found within its walls; setting aside the notions of personally owned private fictitious intellectual copywritten jurisdictional territory presented here as, the United Nations.

So the rest of the Universal Right of Self Determination is understood… You’re still bowing your knee to others…

Key points of consideration
– a failure to understand the nature of constitutions and legislative authority necessarily being personally owned private copyrighted intellectual property, and not withstanding that legislation emanating from these written instruments represent personally owned private law under the ownership of the self-validating clergy’s offices
– multinationals are not the principle controling corporations for a push to global government. It is the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s personally owned private fictitious corporate copyrighted countries that are pushing for world government
– the former Pope, John Paul II, fully advocated for global goverment in his Self-Ennobling representative office of Pontifex Maximus; the greatest of ‘bridge-builders’ (king)
~
The Meaning and Origin of “Pontifex Maximus”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI7pO2DlCRY
Pontifex Maximus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus
THE POPES ARE CAESARS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ktf0d-ms7U
~
We read –
“…superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars.”
Source:
Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume VII, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #19, page 27, published by Apud G. Storti, 1782 edition.
Material Source:
Adm. rev. p. F. Lucii Ferraris … Prompta Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica …
by Lucius Ferraris
Published 1782
Volume 7
Publisher Apud G. Storti

19, page 27

PAPA Art. II
https://archive.org/stream/admrevpfluciife05ferrgoog#page/n36/mode/1up
Google Translator and disambiguation, given in parts as:
Congruunt ulterius quo ad Papae summam auctoritatem
(‘Consistent further to the Pope’s supreme authority and powers’ – given to mean, ‘the Pope’s supreme authority and power are derived from or consist of’)
et potestarem textus juris Caesarei
(‘the text of the law and the powers of Caesar’ – given to mean, ‘power of Caesar’s law’)
Final disambiguation:
Congruunt ulterius quo ad Papae summam auctoritatem et porestarem textus juris Caesarei
“The Pope’s supreme authority and power are derived from, the power of Caesar’s law”
Reference Sources:
Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca
http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_IUSPROMPT.htm

  1. Congruunt ulterius quaod Papae summam auctoritatem et potestatem texius juris Caesarei.
    Consistent beyond that superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars.
    PAPA – POPE
    ARTICULUS II – ARTICLE 2
    Quoadea quoeconcernunt papae dignitatem, auctoritatem, seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.
    Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility.
    SUMMARIUM – SUMMARY
    http://biblelight.net/1823-24.htm
    Sourced:
    Columns 1823 – 1824 (92K) – A summary of 82 points – a rough English Translation (incomplete)
    Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica.
    Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition
    by Lucius Ferraris
    http://biblelight.net/prompta.htm
    Title names of the Pope
    http://vaticannewworldorder.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-this-page-you-will-find-authentic.html
    “Quotes” of the Popes: Their Context and Legitimacy
    http://americanberean.blogspot.com/2012/05/quotes-of-popes-their-context-and.html
    ~
    – the catholic church was never blackmailed, infiltrated, or taken over :
    Divine right of kings –
    The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
    Comment:
    Divine Right of Kings –
    If we consider that all men are ‘equally endowed’ by nature’s Cause with ‘innate freewill’, then the information we find in reading what is said about the Divine Right of Kings, as well as what is said concerning ‘the Church’, is something of a curiosity, since the Will of God, we would reasonably deduce in relation to man, is quite clear when it comes to all men everywhere – who are endowed with ‘an equal measure of freewill before nature’s Cause or nature’s God’, without exception in the realm of the physical world.
    The source of a rebellion to what man sees as God’s Will, on the matter of freewill, would not be God as the source of rebellion contradicting Himself; we would reasonably deduce regarding ‘equal freewill’ in all men, but the source of rebellion, if we look to Heaven for heavenly authority and the source of what God would not make absurd in us, would then be an alternative to God’s Authority and the use by men of that ‘alternative authority’, in making ‘absurd’, equal innate freewill endowed by nature’s Cause or nature’s God in all men.
    The Crown of the Cæsars Passes to the Papacy –
    From Chapter 2, entitled, The Crown of the Cæsars Passes to the Papacy, we read,
    The Roman Church, without dispute, had by 538 inherited the seat of the Caesars, as Adolf Harnack recorded in his book What is Christianity?,
    It [the Papacy] is a political creation, and as imposing as a World-Empire, because of the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Pope, who calls himself “King” and “Pontifex Maximus” is Caesar’s successor. (New York, Putnam, 1901, second edition, page 270).
    The same historian concluded that—
    The Roman Church in its way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation. (Ibid.)
    Alexander Clarence Flick in his historical work, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, concluded that,
    The mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of the Pontifex Maximus was continued in that of the Pope. . . . Even the Roman language has remained the official language of the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1959 pp 148, 149).
    http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/twobeasts/tb02.htm
    SOURCES & ALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR READINGS IN CHURCH HISTORY
    What is Christianity? (1957) by Harnack, Adolf von, 1851-1930, New York, Harper 1901
    https://archive.org/details/whatischristian01saungoog
    Adolf Harnack – German historian and theologian
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack
    Adolf von Harnack
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack

– the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy are as one in the world of fiction
– the modern vatican, the United Nations (UN), is in the possession of the Self-Ennobling Ones
– the workings and laws of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. Canon Law and its branches being the legislative laws of countries) are not the business of the world at large and rightly remain the private business of the Self-Ennobling Ones

Share

Hermaphrodite Of Licentious Liberty Melting

Scorpion Stinger Flame Still Burning Bright…

Share

AI: The Final Nail in the Coffin

*Editor’s Note* – Below is an Executive Order by President Trump that ensures that the masses of American slaves will finally relinquish any remaining abilities to think. Artificial Intelligence is the tool that will finish that job.

Most people are so well-indoctrinated they are unaware of what Artificial Intelligence (AI) is. They suppose it’s some kind of magically crafted new digital encyclopedia of information containing nothing but true facts. In reality, AI is ONLY what the ruling establishment wants you to know. I can’t stress that enough. You are unwilling and/or incapable of this realization but it is the truth anyway.

For generations now, the takeover of the education factories in this country, along with a preplanned and well designed flood of media and technology, has successfully brought the people to a point where they question nothing and accept everything. In short, they know not what they do.

The world’s addiction to technological gadgetry, which includes the mindless activity of sticking a “smart” phone (why is is smart?) in front of your face 24/7 unaware that Rome is burning, has finally brought all things to a point where the Ruling Establishment (because you are clueless as to who they are) to a point where they can finish the job of turning you into a complete ignorant, brainwashed zombie with AI.

In recent years, the same Ruling Establishment has successfully desensitized and brainwashed our culture to not only accept homosexuality, but to promote it avidly along with the grocery list found in LBGTQ. Planned anger and hatred possess the moment brought on by the same Ruling Establishment’s promotion and perpetuation of racism, bigotry, intolerance, a destruction of common decency, immorality, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. They are readying a society for the full, unquestioning implementation of AI.

In the past couple of years, this Satanic Ruling Establishment has been in high gear promoting Socialism/Communism. The brainwashing is so well established that not only is the effort to promote this cultural decay not recognized by the masses but they eagerly cry out for it.

And now, AI is going to drive the final nail in the coffin of what is left of what was once considered by many a great society (maybe). Don’t think so?

If AI was no big deal then why has President Trump taken it upon himself to deliver a long Executive Order to “maintain American leadership in AI?” Why, if AI was nothing more than the product of private enterprise, does the President of the United States need to not only make sure that America leads the way in AI, but to “to shap[e] the global evolution of AI in a manner consistent with our Nation’s values, policies, and priorities?”

And we mustn’t forget that within this Order comes the revelation that all AI must be created in a way that ensures that the Government’s control over AI includes TRACKING.

My generation is essentially the last generation to know and use books and the written word for learning. When we are gone, books will cease to exist, most likely locked in a vault requiring privileged access.

Our society has been forced into digital addiction and a blind acceptance of all things digital regardless of true facts or false facts. There is no hope.

AI is the product of nothing more than ONLY the information the Global Power Structure wants you to have. NOTHING ELSE. Ask a cylinder for your next breath, what to do, how to do it, or better yet let the AI do it for you. We are naturally and have been programmed to become a bunch of fat, lazy slobs eager for some gadget to come along and do our thinking along with all activities it is programmed to do for us. It is your Big Brother, a ball and chain, a Beast, a guarantee that you will continue to be willing participants in what Cicero called Bread and Circuses. Just feed you the information and you exist.

Trump’s order to promote AI will ensure that there are even fewer people with the ability to think and ask questions disturbing the Global Power Structure’s plans for the destruction of all those necessary to carry out their future plans. You have failed to recognize these bastards want you dead and out of their way. BUT DON’T ASK AI.

AI is important enough, just as all the other actions that have been heavily promoted to destroy any morality and decency in this country, that a long list of things are being laid out to make sure that the brainwashing is complete and never questioned again.

The below Executive Order is long, but contains information that everyone should be concerned about. Unfortunately, few care or are capable of an attention span long enough to read through it. The majority are incapable of understanding the words. Most will ignore it and any who might have an inkling of curiosity, will wait for it to come out in the AI version.

Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy and Principles.Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to drive growth of the United States economy, enhance our economic and national security, and improve our quality of life. The United States is the world leader in AI research and development (R&D) and deployment.  Continued American leadership in AI is of paramount importance to maintaining the economic and national security of the United States and to shaping the global evolution of AI in a manner consistent with our Nation’s values, policies, and priorities.  The Federal Government plays an important role in facilitating AI R&D, promoting the trust of the American people in the development and deployment of AI-related technologies, training a workforce capable of using AI in their occupations, and protecting the American AI technology base from attempted acquisition by strategic competitors and adversarial nations.  Maintaining American leadership in AI requires a concerted effort to promote advancements in technology and innovation, while protecting American technology, economic and national security, civil liberties, privacy, and American values and enhancing international and industry collaboration with foreign partners and allies.  It is the policy of the United States Government to sustain and enhance the scientific, technological, and economic leadership position of the United States in AI R&D and deployment through a coordinated Federal Government strategy, the American AI Initiative (Initiative), guided by five principles:

(a)  The United States must drive technological breakthroughs in AI across the Federal Government, industry, and academia in order to promote scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and national security.

(b)  The United States must drive development of appropriate technical standards and reduce barriers to the safe testing and deployment of AI technologies in order to enable the creation of new AI-related industries and the adoption of AI by today’s industries.

(c)  The United States must train current and future generations of American workers with the skills to develop and apply AI technologies to prepare them for today’s economy and jobs of the future.

(d)  The United States must foster public trust and confidence in AI technologies and protect civil liberties, privacy, and American values in their application in order to fully realize the potential of AI technologies for the American people.

(e)  The United States must promote an international environment that supports American AI research and innovation and opens markets for American AI industries, while protecting our technological advantage in AI and protecting our critical AI technologies from acquisition by strategic competitors and adversarial nations.

Sec. 2.  Objectives.  Artificial Intelligence will affect the missions of nearly all executive departments and agencies (agencies).  Agencies determined to be implementing agencies pursuant to section 3 of this order shall pursue six strategic objectives in furtherance of both promoting and protecting American advancements in AI:

(a)  Promote sustained investment in AI R&D in collaboration with industry, academia, international partners and allies, and other non-Federal entities to generate technological breakthroughs in AI and related technologies and to rapidly transition those breakthroughs into capabilities that contribute to our economic and national security.

(b)  Enhance access to high-quality and fully traceable Federal data, models, and computing resources to increase the value of such resources for AI R&D, while maintaining safety, security, privacy, and confidentiality protections consistent with applicable laws and policies.

(c)  Reduce barriers to the use of AI technologies to promote their innovative application while protecting American technology, economic and national security, civil liberties, privacy, and values.

(d)  Ensure that technical standards minimize vulnerability to attacks from malicious actors and reflect Federal priorities for innovation, public trust, and public confidence in systems that use AI technologies; and develop international standards to promote and protect those priorities.

(e)  Train the next generation of American AI researchers and users through apprenticeships; skills programs; and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with an emphasis on computer science, to ensure that American workers, including Federal workers, are capable of taking full advantage of the opportunities of AI.

(f)  Develop and implement an action plan, in accordance with the National Security Presidential Memorandum of February 11, 2019 (Protecting the United States Advantage in Artificial Intelligence and Related Critical Technologies) (the NSPM) to protect the advantage of the United States in AI and technology critical to United States economic and national security interests against strategic competitors and foreign adversaries.

Sec. 3.  Roles and Responsibilities.  The Initiative shall be coordinated through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence (Select Committee).  Actions shall be implemented by agencies that conduct foundational AI R&D, develop and deploy applications of AI technologies, provide educational grants, and regulate and provide guidance for applications of AI technologies, as determined by the co-chairs of the NSTC Select Committee (implementing agencies).

Sec. 4.  Federal Investment in AI Research and Development.

(a)  Heads of implementing agencies that also perform or fund R&D (AI R&D agencies), shall consider AI as an agency R&D priority, as appropriate to their respective agencies’ missions, consistent with applicable law and in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) R&D priorities memoranda.  Heads of such agencies shall take this priority into account when developing budget proposals and planning for the use of funds in Fiscal Year 2020 and in future years.  Heads of these agencies shall also consider appropriate administrative actions to increase focus on AI for 2019.

(b)  Heads of AI R&D agencies shall budget an amount for AI R&D that is appropriate for this prioritization.

(i)   Following the submission of the President’s Budget request to the Congress, heads of such agencies shall communicate plans for achieving this prioritization to the OMB Director and the OSTP Director each fiscal year through the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program.

(ii)   Within 90 days of the enactment of appropriations for their respective agencies, heads of such agencies shall identify each year, consistent with applicable law, the programs to which the AI R&D priority will apply and estimate the total amount of such funds that will be spent on each such program.  This information shall be communicated to the OMB Director and OSTP Director each fiscal year through the NITRD Program.

(c)  To the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, heads of AI R&D agencies shall explore opportunities for collaboration with non-Federal entities, including:  the private sector; academia; non-profit organizations; State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; and foreign partners and allies, so all collaborators can benefit from each other’s investment and expertise in AI R&D.

Sec. 5.  Data and Computing Resources for AI Research and Development.

(a)  Heads of all agencies shall review their Federal data and models to identify opportunities to increase access and use by the greater non-Federal AI research community in a manner that benefits that community, while protecting safety, security, privacy, and confidentiality.  Specifically, agencies shall improve data and model inventory documentation to enable discovery and usability, and shall prioritize improvements to access and quality of AI data and models based on the AI research community’s user feedback.

(i)    Within 90 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to identify additional requests for access or quality improvements for Federal data and models that would improve AI R&D and testing.  Additionally, within 90 days of the date of this order, OMB, in conjunction with the Select Committee, shall investigate barriers to access or quality limitations of Federal data and models that impede AI R&D and testing.  Collectively, these actions by OMB will help to identify datasets that will facilitate non-Federal AI R&D and testing.

(ii)   Within 120 days of the date of this order, OMB, including through its interagency councils and the Select Committee, shall update implementation guidance for Enterprise Data Inventories and Source Code Inventories to support discovery and usability in AI R&D.

(iii)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, and in accordance with the implementation of the Cross-Agency Priority Goal:  Leveraging Federal Data as a Strategic Asset, from the March 2018 President’s Management Agenda, agencies shall consider methods of improving the quality, usability, and appropriate access to priority data identified by the AI research community.  Agencies shall also identify any associated resource implications.

(iv)   In identifying data and models for consideration for increased public access, agencies, in coordination with the Senior Agency Officials for Privacy established pursuant to Executive Order 13719 of February 9, 2016 (Establishment of the Federal Privacy Council), the heads of Federal statistical entities, Federal program managers, and other relevant personnel shall identify any barriers to, or requirements associated with, increased access to and use of such data and models, including:

(A)  privacy and civil liberty protections for individuals who may be affected by increased access and use, as well as confidentiality protections for individuals and other data providers;

(B)  safety and security concerns, including those related to the association or compilation of data and models;

(C)  data documentation and formatting, including the need for interoperable and machine-readable data formats;

(D)  changes necessary to ensure appropriate data and system governance; and

(E)  any other relevant considerations.

(v)    In accordance with the President’s Management Agenda and the Cross-Agency Priority Goal:  Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset, agencies shall identify opportunities to use new technologies and best practices to increase access to and usability of open data and models, and explore appropriate controls on access to sensitive or restricted data and models, consistent with applicable laws and policies, privacy and confidentiality protections, and civil liberty protections.

(b)  The Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Energy, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall, to the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, prioritize the allocation of high-performance computing resources for AI-related applications through:

(i)   increased assignment of discretionary allocation of resources and resource reserves; or

(ii)  any other appropriate mechanisms.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Select Committee, in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), shall submit a report to the President making recommendations on better enabling the use of cloud computing resources for federally funded AI R&D.

(d)  The Select Committee shall provide technical expertise to the American Technology Council on matters regarding AI and the modernization of Federal technology, data, and the delivery of digital services, as appropriate.

Sec. 6.  Guidance for Regulation of AI Applications.

(a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director, in coordination with the OSTP Director, the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and the Director of the National Economic Council, and in consultation with any other relevant agencies and key stakeholders as the OMB Director shall determine, shall issue a memorandum to the heads of all agencies that shall:

(i)   inform the development of regulatory and non?regulatory approaches by such agencies regarding technologies and industrial sectors that are either empowered or enabled by AI, and that advance American innovation while upholding civil liberties, privacy, and American values; and

(ii)  consider ways to reduce barriers to the use of AI technologies in order to promote their innovative application while protecting civil liberties, privacy, American values, and United States economic and national security.

(b)  To help ensure public trust in the development and implementation of AI applications, OMB shall issue a draft version of the memorandum for public comment before it is finalized.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of the memorandum described in subsection (a) of this section, the heads of implementing agencies that also have regulatory authorities shall review their authorities relevant to applications of AI and shall submit to OMB plans to achieve consistency with the memorandum.

(d)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), shall issue a plan for Federal engagement in the development of technical standards and related tools in support of reliable, robust, and trustworthy systems that use AI technologies.  NIST shall lead the development of this plan with participation from relevant agencies as the Secretary of Commerce shall determine.

(i)   Consistent with OMB Circular A-119, this plan shall include:

(A) Federal priority needs for standardization of AI systems development and deployment;

(B) identification of standards development entities in which Federal agencies should seek membership with the goal of establishing or supporting United States technical leadership roles; and

(C) opportunities for and challenges to United States leadership in standardization related to AI technologies.

(ii)  This plan shall be developed in consultation with the Select Committee, as needed, and in consultation with the private sector, academia, non?governmental entities, and other stakeholders, as appropriate.

Sec. 7.  AI and the American Workforce.

(a)  Heads of implementing agencies that also provide educational grants shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, consider AI as a priority area within existing Federal fellowship and service programs.

(i)   Eligible programs for prioritization shall give preference to American citizens, to the extent permitted by law, and shall include:

(A)  high school, undergraduate, and graduate fellowship; alternative education; and training programs;

(B)  programs to recognize and fund early-career university faculty who conduct AI R&D, including through Presidential awards and recognitions;

(C)  scholarship for service programs;

(D)  direct commissioning programs of the United States Armed Forces; and

(E)  programs that support the development of instructional programs and curricula that encourage the integration of AI technologies into courses in order to facilitate personalized and adaptive learning experiences for formal and informal education and training.

(ii)  Agencies shall annually communicate plans for achieving this prioritization to the co-chairs of the Select Committee.

(b)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Select Committee shall provide recommendations to the NSTC Committee on STEM Education regarding AI-related educational and workforce development considerations that focus on American citizens.

(c)  The Select Committee shall provide technical expertise to the National Council for the American Worker on matters regarding AI and the American workforce, as appropriate.

Sec. 8.  Action Plan for Protection of the United States Advantage in AI Technologies.

(a)  As directed by the NSPM, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in coordination with the OSTP Director and the recipients of the NSPM, shall organize the development of an action plan to protect the United States advantage in AI and AI technology critical to United States economic and national security interests against strategic competitors and adversarial nations.

(b)  The action plan shall be provided to the President within 120 days of the date of this order, and may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.

(c)  Upon approval by the President, the action plan shall be implemented by all agencies who are recipients of the NSPM, for all AI-related activities, including those conducted pursuant to this order.

Sec. 9.  Definitions.As used in this order:

(a)  the term “artificial intelligence” means the full extent of Federal investments in AI, to include:  R&D of core AI techniques and technologies; AI prototype systems; application and adaptation of AI techniques; architectural and systems support for AI; and cyberinfrastructure, data sets, and standards for AI; and

(b)  the term “open data” shall, in accordance with OMB Circular A-130 and memorandum M-13-13, mean “publicly available data structured in a way that enables the data to be fully discoverable and usable by end users.”

Sec. 10.  General Provisions.

(a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 11, 2019.

Share

Skeletor Pelosi With Phoenix And Stinger

They ALL keep identifying themselves and EL through HIS Watchmen told you so…

Share

Servitude Until Death Do Us Part

Share

Some “Science Experts” Studied Cattle Farting

And a clique of fools believes those “experts” say so; Keep in mind that science just means knowledge and they’re claiming they know it all about cattle.. They are pretenders…

So the argument is that cattle are a huge cause of climate change.. These are “educated” adult people, with what we would or might “believe” are impressive credentials.. So the best thing for the climate is feedlot beef. Which is high in omega 6 sick animals, sick meat.. And that meat makes people sick.. Then of course that meat is sprayed down with a chemical wash known as liquid carbon monoxide.. Not to mention other drugs in the feedlot feed, and other tricks of the trade to make that meat taste good, but appear to be healthy meat.. So the anti grazing environmental gurus are pushing diseased meats from feedlots as better for the environment.. Problem is that met is not better for human health.. Acidic meats cause cancer not just in people but in animals.. George Wuerthner would serve you burger and steaks that have had the tumors and puss removed.. Wuerthner is a classic example of playing the game of making many misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change arguments against other contrary arguments that are possibly just as misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change. It’s a vicious circle of bullshit by academiac-quacks..

“Cattle are by far and away the most significant source of GHG emissions of any livestock group. The simplest and best way that any individual can reduce their GHG emissions is to stop producing and eating beef.”—George Wuerthner

So apparently even the ranch where I buy grass raised grass finished high in omega 3 non acidic high in alkalinity beef on their own 4,000 acres should shut down their business to please this pseudo science charlatan George Wuerthner..

“Grass fed beef is even worse. “Studies have shown that grass-fed cattle produce 20% more methane in their lifetime than grain-fed cattle. This is due to two different factors:
1) cattle naturally emit more methane when digesting grass. 2) grass-fed cattle reach market weight more slowly than feedlot cattle, so they’re emitting methane over a longer time (Marshall, 2010).” (Marshall, J. (2010, January 27). Grass-Fed Beef Has Bigger Carbon Footprint.

“Even if grazing could, under some circumstances, increase soil carbon, this must be balanced against the GHG emissions that result from livestock production. Depending on what is included in the accounting, domestic livestock are responsible for between 14% to 50% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Even at the lower 14% figure, this is more than all global transportation from airplanes to cars.”—George Wuerthner

George is crazy as a shit house rat.. Brainwashed fool extraordinaire.. And thats being kind, perhaps he knows he’s pushing deindustrialization for the purpose of depopulation… That then would make him as evil as a shit house rat…

It’s astonishing how the Luciferian’s behind the Global Warming CC=33 Climate Change Hoax have formulated so many twists and turns in the scientific assumptions rhetoric of their UNEP eugenics depopulation agenda..

Stop growing healthy food and eat poison is the bottom line coming out of the environmental cults scientific rhetoric…

The U.N.E.P. United Nations Environmental Policies and “Globalist” Biodiversity Assessment is a Luciferian plan in implementation at this time being an imposed famine designed to smash the middle class, to destroy that class to the maximum extent possible and to starve as many people to death as possible while doing it.. Destruction of the economic model that supports that class.. Of course this operation will destroy the poorer classes as well.. According to that tome the ultimate destroyer of the ecosystems environments is over population of direct drivers and indirect drivers causing all environmental impacts.. Depopulation is their solution.. Including the UNEP clones that advocate for those policies… What we’re observing experiencing is the evolved process similiar to the process of imposed crashing of the economy that caused the Great Depression.. Which was an orchestrated depopulation event.. The advocates of these polices who will be victims of these policies are extremely ignorant people…

An idiot can be defined in rational terms as someone who thinks in terms of “belief” rather than ‘proof’ as in the assessment of known facts. Those who are True Believers, have no use for facts, they simply appeal to the authority of the creed of their choice of scientific texts. Science is another man made religion that is baseless theory taken on faith and has been politicized thus further destroyed by political bias.. There are those who become dogmatic in their fields in science, and leap to unfounded conclusions just like other religious people of other man made up religions do.. The cult of United Nations Environmental-ism Policies of which the WLNs cult are clones of is no exception..

Basically what is being said by George Wuerthner is that over population of average people is the cause of environmental destruction, climate change, more so than the elites owned mega international corporations that essentially make all of the legislated rules used to manage the herd of citizens.. It’s us not the Luciferian elites.. Not their wars of aggression, not their vast array of nuclear power plants, large over populated over grown cities, not their millions upon millions of planes..

Not their NASA rhetoric, not the blasting off of rockets into no where space, not their fossil fuels that we could live without when we know that the technology to go all electric is suppressed, and the steam engine technology that has been suppressed.. It’s your healthy disease free cattle.. It’s those millions of elk those wolves slaughtered that kept most of us away from the toxic meats coming out of the feedlots.. Keep in mind at the same time this clique of cultists preach that millions of farting large carnivores eating millions of elk and buffalo is a healthy ecosystem.. The hypocrisy on display by the UNEPTITARDS of the WLNs clique is astonishing..

The United Nations Environmental Policies and Global Biodiversity Assessment – Sustainable Developments Sustainability’s justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonize with the earth’s environment, wildlife and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. That’s a pretty disgusting philosophy to get behind.. You guys are sick…‘Sustainability and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of non elitists average people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as vegan serfs to the ruling elites that dreamed this shenanigan up…

Yep, the WLNs clique is without a doubt a group of UNEP cloned clowns…

Share

No NAZI Philosophy In The U.S. Aye? BS!

And both political parties delivered it to you…

Share

Who Was Edward Abby

Every time I’ve seen pics of Abby I think of John Huston.. I wonder who Edward Abby was.. Which famous actor played the Abby role.. Jason Robards? John Huston? I don’t know, I can only speculate.. The only thing concerning Abby That I’m certain of is Edward Abby was a character played by a very clever and talented actor.. A controlled opposition operative.. Abby was Hayduke.. Abby was Jack Burns.. Abby like most of those infamous writers was fantasizing through his writing about being that hero.. Like L’mour fantasizing about being the bad ass expert with guns and fists hero in his western novels.. It’s all the same..

Thats John Huston in a 007 movie..

Huston again..

Edward Abby..

Edward Abby..

Jason Robards

Edward Abby

Edward Abby









Abby wrote desert solitaire, The Monkey Wrench Gang, The Brave Cowboy, and several other interesting books with clever messages to socially indoctrinate influence whoever read them.. The Brave Cowboy became a movie starring many of Huston’s good friends..

I can prove none of this suspicious speculation.. I can have fun with it..

Hayduke Lived on me thinks… The Brave Jack Burns live on too.. By the way all of these guys careers and passing was by the numbers, gematria.. And part of their “Hermeticism” show is the practice of pseudo-scientific magic adopted by the Masons for their amazingly flawed deceptions show.. Edward Abby was in on it…

Share

Those Priests Are Jolly Good Fellows That Nobody Can Deny

Right there in plain sight too…

Share

Citizen Did And Still Does Mean Subject

CITIZEN = SUBJECT

AMERICAN = ENGLAND By The Informer

    Before getting into the case at hand you MUST understand a little known concept in English writing and the legal term and use of certain words by the court. Failure to understand will result in a poor reading of the case. And, in fact all other cases you read. That is why there is so much misunderstanding amongst people when they read a case. I can read a case and get an entirely different set of facts that most all people do not see. Most people are after a specific thing in a case to prove a point and miss a lot of good material.

Commas are a very important piece of understanding a sentence.

COMMA.n. A segment, to cut off. In writing and printing, this point [,]denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary

RULES OF PUNCTUATION–COMMAS THAT SET OFF.

4.1.1 Commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent. Items of this sort are contrasting expressions. <Work, not words, is what is needed.>

4.1.2 Commas usually set off appositional or modify words, phrases, or clauses that do not limit or restrict the main idea of a sentence. <We leave at three O’clock, when the bell rings.>

4.2.2 Whenever in spoken English there is an enumeration of items, a rising or sustained pause separate and distinguishes each member of a series. In writing, a comma likewise separates words, phrases or clauses that occur in a series.<He opened the can, removed the contents, and replaced the lid.>

4.4.2 It is equally important to insert a comma to prevent misreading or ambiguity. <As the car struck, the utility pole fell with a crash.>

WEBSTER’S SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1970 PUNCTUATION

    So you can see just how important commas are and where they are placed in a sentence. You may want to refer to this when reading the case.

    Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it in LAW?

Standard definition Webster’s Dictionary.

OR. Conj.. Used as a function word to indicate an alternative.

So it is a conjunction.

CONJUNCTION. The state of being conjoined; occurrence together in time or space; connective.

Therefore, it can mean the word on either side of “or” are one and the same.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd edition. 1969

OR. A conjunction normally in the disjunctive. A conjunction properly used with “either” in stating a proposition in the alternative.

BLACK’S LAW 4th ED

OR, conj.. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means ‘in other words,’ ‘to wit,’ or ‘that is to say.’ Or is frequently misused; and courts will construe it to mean ‘and’ where it is so used. However, where the word ‘or’ is preceded by the word ‘either,’ it is never given a conjunctive meaning.

    Now you are going to see how important that little word is, as well as the comma. Here I just gave you a prime example that the comma in the preceding sentence separated two independent things, word and comma. Look at punctuation rule 4.2.2 and 4.4.2. Apply it to all other law and you will be shocked that you have probably misread or misconstrued every law and case that you have seen. Now I have given you a second example in the preceding sentence where I used the word OR to mean AND. Since I did not use the word either in the sentence the word misread, OR means AND. And you wonder why these kids from age 35 back to age 18 have no concept of what they read and can’t understand a thing about the world today when it comes to a simple contract? And you wonder why I and only a few other researchers see what you don’t see in law or court cases and say we are wrong because you don’t understand punctuation or the word Or means AND?

    Hopefully I will not have to explain after you read the case. You will pick up on the fact that the term citizen of the United States was used well before the 14th Amendment was ever adopted, like pre 1824. You will see that the word ‘either’ NEVER appears in the decision. However you will see the word ‘neither’ used twice. Remember sentence construction from 6th grade where the “neither nor” rule applied like the “either or rule?” How many remember being taught that like I was?

    You will see that citizen subject is one in the same and is what I have been saying since 1990. So you are not and never were a sovereign. Also you will see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.

    This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the 14th did was to put all under the military rule and was designed for corporations as evidenced by the fact the first time it was used to defend a black man was in the early 1930’s. Come on now, from 1868 to 1933 that no case ever used it for a man, either white or black, should tell you something. In here you will see that those sovereigns give subjects (citizen) only privileges and it is considered a GIFT. Yes you will catch it when reading. Keep searching for the word RIGHTS as you read the case. Are they natural or conferred? Also, if all the so-called “Christians” use the definition as a follower of “Christ,” then they are not “Christians.” When you read what you have to give up to become a SUBJECT (citizen) of another sovereign and renounce all allegiance, I dare say we have no “Christians” in America whatsoever, save a very, very, few. It is all hype as they are all fence sitters. And they wonder why the Lord Almighty doesn’t come down and clean the mess up? Because they are a big part of the mess. Look how many call themselves citizens of the United States or a citizen of the political subdivision of the corporate United States, namely a State? Look for the dates April 14, 1802 & March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) and see what they declared way before the 14th Amendment. Yes dear reader, read this case well especially since I highlighted those words and punctuation for clarity. Now after reading this, do you think all those tons of cases you read have to be reread because the courts are not taking them with any seriousness because you misread them? I wonder what they really said in all those cases? Especially since after reading this case you will immediately see where you placed yourself, by claiming the Constitution is yours. And you probably said, I took an oath to defend it, even though it is not protecting me like I thought it said and by golly, as a citizen of this great state of the Union I am not a United States citizen, even though I voted either for or against Clinton. Now look what the court stated it had claiming jurisdiction over this alien because of what he did, not whom he said he was. Make sure you find the word “contract” in the decision. Every time you see “or” replace it with “AND”. As I have said all along, especially in my New History of America, we are nothing but slaves on the Plantation, never were the sovereigns you thought you were, and have no control over any State officer of the corporation although they like you to think you do. The Constitution they speak of is all rhetoric and meaningless. Plantation does not mean a farm either. So with all this knowledge of English and punctuation lets read what I scanned.
 

THE

FEDERAL REPORTER.

VOLUME 56.

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND CIRCUIT
AND .DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES. PERMANENT EDITION,
JULY–OCTOBER, 1893,

WITH TABLES OF FEDERAL REPORTER CASES PUBLISHED IN VOLS. 3, C. C. A. REPORTS; 4, U.S. APPEALS REPORTS
 

A TABLE OF STATUTES CITED AND CONSTRUED IS

GIVEN IN THE INDEX

ST. PAUL:
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
1893.

Pg 576 FEDERAL REPORTER, vol 56.

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893.) No. 211

1. ALIENS–Who Are–EFFEC’T OF STATE LAWS.·
A foreign-born resident of the United States, who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen, but has never complied with any other provision of the naturalization laws, is none the less an alien because of the fact that the constitution and laws of Minnesota, wherein he resides, have conferred the elective franchise and other privileges of citizenship on foreign subjects who have declared their intention to be naturalized, and that he has actually voted for member of congress and state and county officers.

2. SAME–Naturalization Laws. ·
Nor is his status altered by reason of the fact that, when he so declared his intention, he was entitled, by reason of length of residence, to be naturalized, under Rev. St. § 2167, for that section merely dispenses with the two-year delay between the declaration of intention and the actual admission to citizenship which is prescribed by section 2165.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Affirmed.
Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:

On October 7, 1891, Frederick Reum, the defendant in error, brought this action against the city of Minneapolis, the plaintiff in error, for a personal Injury that resulted from its negligence. He recovered Judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out. In his complaint he alleged that he was an alien, and a subject of the King of Saxony, and this allegation was denied by the defendant. The evidence disclosed these facts: The plaintiff was born in the kingdom of ‘Saxony in 1859. His father and mother were natives of that kingdom, and the former resided there until he died, in the Infancy of the plaintiff. In 1863, after his father’s death, the Plaintiff and his mother came to the state of Minnesota, where they have since resided. In 1885 he was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota; but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The state of Minnesota has conferred upon all foreign subjects resident within its borders who have declared their intention to become citizens the elective franchise, the privilege of holding any office within its gift, and practically all of the privileges of citizenship in the power of that state to confer. In November 1890, the plaintiff voted for a member of congress and for state and county officers in Minnesota. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegation that the plaintiff was an alien. The court denied the motion, and this ruling is the supposed error assigned.

David F. Simpson, (Robert D. Russell, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
John W. Aretander, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.) In Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Mr. Justice Miller, who was then presiding in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, held that a state could not make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, and that a resident of Minnesota who was born a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg, had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States many years before he brought his suit, had resided in the state of Minnesota for 15 years, had several times voted at elections held in that state where the constitution of the state authorizes such residents to do so without naturalization, but had never applied to be or been admitted to citizenship under the federal naturalization laws, was still an alien, and a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg. This decision has been followed by the courts, and acquiesced in by the profession. It is now vigorously challenged by counsel for plaintiff in error.
    Section 2, art. 3. of the Constitution of the United states, provides that the judicial power of the nation shall extend to “controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects;” and the acts of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat.552,) and of August 13, 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) confer jurisdiction of all these controversies in cases involving over $2,000 upon the circuit courts. Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167; Vatt. Law Nat. p. 101; Morse, Nat. 61, 125. A change of nationality cannot be made by the individual at will. Each nation has the right to refuse to grant the rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons not born upon its soil, and, if it determines to admit them to those rights and privileges, it may fix the terms on which they shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.
    The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “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.” As the plaintiff was born in the kingdom of Saxony, of parents who at the time of his birth were subjects of the king of Saxony, he is not a citizen of the United States unless he has been naturalized therein. The United States, in the exercise of their undoubted right, have prescribed the conditions upon compliance with which an alien may become a citizen of this nation. The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165,) provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise. First. He shall, two Years at least prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.”

    By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1; Rev. St. § 2167,) it is provided that:
    “Any alien, being under the age of twenty-one years, who has resided In the United States three years next preceding his arriving, at that age, and who has continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five; but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission, and shall further declare on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States; and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.
    There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which this plaintiff could have been naturalized. The counsel for plaintiff in error, however, alleges that he became a citizen of the United States (1).because at the time he declared his intention to do so he might have been admitted to citizenship, under the provisions of section 2167; (2) because various acts of congress have conferred certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreign-born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens; and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow.
    Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies must be made between him and the United States. The United States have prescribed the conditions under which such an alien may make this contract, the place where, and the manner in which, it shall be made, and have declared that it can be made on those conditions, and in that manner, and not otherwise. Rev. St. § 2165. The conditions are that he shall declare on oath, that he will support the Constitution; that he does renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to that one of which he was a subject; that it shall be made to appear to the court that he has resided in the United States five years, and in the state where the court is held one year; that he has behaved as a man of good moral character during all of this time, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The place where these conditions must be complied with is in one of the courts of record named in the acts of Congress, and the method by which the contract is to be made is by plenary proof to that court of a compliance with these conditions, which must be evidenced by its judgment. The plaintiff has complied with none of these terms. He has not even applied to any court to be admitted to citizenship. He has not consented to become a citizen of the United States on the terms they offer to him, or on any terms, but he still insists he is not a citizen, and that he is still a subject of the king of Saxony. On the other hand, the United States have not consented to accept the plaintiff as a citizen, on any terms, much less to waive all the essential conditions without a compliance with which Congress has declared an alien cannot be naturalized. The minds of both parties must meet to make a contract, and, where neither party consents, there can surely be no agreement.
    That the plaintiff, on October 25, 1890, had resided in Minnesota, as boy and man, long enough to qualify him to become a citizen under section 2167, is not material. The conclusive answer to the argument here urged is that the declaration of an intention to enter into a new relation for whom parties are qualified does not establish the relation. A man and woman who declare their intention to be married at some future time do not thereby become husband and wife. On the other hand, a declaration of intention to enter into a relation or to do an act at some future time is very persuasive evidence that the relation was not entered upon, and the act was not done, at the time the declaration was made. It must be borne in mind that the only effect of section 2167 was to relieve the plaintiff from waiting two years after filing his declaration before being admitted to citizenship. That section expressly provides that in all other respects he shall comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. The plaintiff’s declaration on October 25, 1890, when he was qualified to be naturalized, that he intended at some future time to become a citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not then apply to be admitted to citizenship, nor comply with any of the conditions prescribed by law for his naturalization, compels the conclusion that he did not then denationalize himself, but that he still remained a foreign subject. That Congress, in various acts, has conferred certain privileges and imposed certain burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, are declared to constitute the national forces, and as in the patent laws, (Rev. St. § 4904,) the pre-emption laws, (Id. § 2259,) and in the mining laws, (Id. § ,2289,) where certain privileges are conferred on citizens of the United States, and “those who have declared their intention to become such,” in no way militates against, but strongly supports, the correctness of our conclusion, because, if foreign-born residents, by declaring their intention to become citizens, could ipso facto become such, it would have been futile to name them in all of these acts as a class distinct from our citizens. That Congress has, by various special acts, many of which are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 158, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, naturalized certain classes of persons who had not complied with the terms of the general laws on this subject, is not important here, because the plaintiff is not a member of any class thus naturalized. Nor is the decision in Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, in point in this case because Gov. Boyd was there held to be one of a class of foreign-born residents that was naturalized by the acts of Congress admitting the state of Nebraska into the Union. These acts conferred the rights of citizenship upon foreign-born residents of Nebraska who had declared their intention to become citizens. The plaintiff was a resident of Minnesota.
    A single argument remains to be noticed, and that is that the state of Minnesota has conferred on plaintiff the elective franchise, the right to hold any office in its gift, and, in reality, all the rights and privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow; and therefore it is said he is a citizen of that state, and not a foreign subject, and the federal court has no jurisdiction of this action. It may be conceded that a state may confer on foreign citizens or subjects all the rights and privileges it has the power to bestow, but, when it has done all this, it has not naturalized them. They are foreign citizens or subjects still, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts over controversies between them and citizens of the states is neither enlarged nor restricted by the acts of the state. The power to naturalize foreign subjects or citizens was one of the powers expressly granted by the states to the national government. By section 8, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States, it was provided that “the congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Congress has exercised this power, established the rule, and expressly declared that foreign-born residents may be naturalized by a compliance with it, and not otherwise. This power, like the power to regulate commerce among the states, was carved out of the general sovereign power held by the states when this nation was formed and granted by the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. It thus vested exclusively in Congress, and no power remained in the states to change or vary the rule of naturalization Congress established, or to authorize any foreign subject to denationalize himself, and become a citizen of the United States, without a compliance with the conditions congress had prescribed. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 405; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Minor v. Happersett, 21 How. 162; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375,
    In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. A foreign-born resident, who has not been naturalized according to the acts of Congress, is not a “citizen” of the United States or of a state, within the definition given by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, but remains a foreign subject or citizen; and any controversy between him and a citizen of a state which involves a sufficient amount is thus clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, under any fair construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The jurisdiction thus conferred it is not in the power of any state, by its legislative or other action, to take away, restrict, or enlarge, and the action of the state of Minnesota regarding the citizenship of the plaintiff was not material in this case. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328; Cowless v. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 118; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 286; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236, 239; 6 Sup. Or. Rep. 714; O’Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. Rep. 531.
    The result is that the power granted to Congress by Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is exclusive; and the naturalization laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power constitute the only rule by which a foreign subject may become a citizen of the United States or of a state, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws. It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by article 3, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress.
    A foreign subject who is qualified to become a citizen of the United States, under section 2167 of the Revised Statutes, does not become such by filing his declaration of intention so to do. That section requires that he shall renounce allegiance to the sovereignty of which he is a subject, take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and comply with the other conditions prescribed in the second and third paragraphs of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, in order to become naturalized; and until he does so he remains a foreign subject.
    The court below was right in denying the motion to dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

    Well I hoped you learned something from reading this case with the correct understand of punctuation and the word OR. Karl Granse gave me this case when we were researching citizenship way back in ‘93 or so. I just decided to dig this out when I saw this type argument posted on the internet the first week in February that was close to this. Wow, just think, the word “either” never appeared once in the decision therefore every time the word “OR” was used it is a conjunction meaning AND. Since all citizens of the United States have renounced allegiance to the Sovereign Lord Almighty and given up His citizenship, Eph. 2:19, for another king/sovereign they are neither Christians for they gave up following the Lord nor sovereign with any unalienable rights, only conferred rights by the political establishment. It is that simple. Notice that nowhere were The Lord’s unalienable Rights ever mentioned, only conferred political Rights which are always inferior to Natural rights and is the only reason the country runs, on political rights. Ever hear either the term “politically correct” or “this court cannot decide your tax case argument because it is a `political issue’?”
    Nothing is an unalienable right because the Crown’s corporation of England still rules American “citizens” as it did its “subjects” in England. Only the term changed, i.e. we still are slaves to the feudal (federal) system.

Sincerely,
The Informer

Share