August 21, 2019

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

“Red Flag” “Extreme Risk Order” Gone Wrong

What could possibly go wrong? That was the question I asked the other day when I wrote about so-called “Red Flag” laws designed in principle to stop crimes before they happen…yeah, right.

Since that writing we have had an incident in Maryland where police went to a man’s house in order to “execute” a “Red Flag” order and ended up executing the man instead of the order.

In addition, there is a case in Vermont where hearsay and emotional nonsense resulted in an “Extreme Risk Order” being carried out in which police executing the order went to a man’s house, not in anyway involved in a supposed plan to cause harm but because he was a relative, and owned firearms, confiscated all of his firearms, which incidentally were locked up inside the home.

This gives us some ideas of “what could possibly go wrong.” To some the intent is good but the execution stinks. Are we now so damned strongly delusional that we can justify the taking of one man’s life thinking we MIGHT be protecting the life of another? Evidently.

It should have been proven over and over again that forcing a ban on guns of lawful citizens and/or taking those firearms away does nothing to get at the root problem of why there is violence in our society. Instead, it creates more crime. Are we to believe and accept that when law enforcement personnel are carrying out their orders, the loss of life and/or the suspension of one’s rights is in order because of hearsay and unwarranted suspicion? Is this what President Trump meant when he said to hell with Due Process. Are we to arrest the “bastards” and then ask questions later? If so, welcome to the corporation of police states, or perhaps you like the word fascism better, carried out by willing totalitarians brainwashed to think they are doing the right thing.

What could possibly go wrong? And yet, we still see so-called Second Amendment supporters clamoring with Leftist totalitarians to do “reasonable” things, like the destruction of the Bill of Rights, all in the name of public safety.

Go ahead. Support those “Red Flag” laws. Then sit back and enjoy your own created furtherance of slavery and oppression.

Share

“Red Flag” Laws Are More Than Asking a Judge to be Clairvoyant

David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), writes in his latest column that “Red Flag Laws” ask our judges to be clairvoyant, to predict what someone might do if they had a gun in their possession.

The issue here is that when someone deems, from their own perspective, that a person might be a danger to themselves or to other people, should have their constitutional rights – in this case the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – taken away from them forever or until such time as a judge or others think that right should be restored.

What can possibly go wrong?

The mindset in this post normal society of immorality and social decadence, is that a person is incapable of being responsible for their actions. While this may be partly true when comparing times of the past with those of the future, such irrational thinking is based upon fear and ignorance.

Where once people minded their own damned business, today the trend is to get into the face and affairs of others, especially when another person is operating from a position of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that disagrees with the accuser, i.e. that person willing to file a petition to have another person’s rights stolen from them.

Isn’t the biggest of all questions in this regard, who is going to become ruler of the chicken house? I’ve been around the block a time or two and there exists virtually nobody involved in politics/law enforcement (they go hand in hand), or even health and mental health professionals, who should be trusted to make any kind of judgement as to whether a person is deemed dangerous to themselves or to others, short of the obvious lunatic.

Trahan points out (in a different articles) that laws designed to steal a person’s Second Amendment rights are unique only to the Second Amendment where it is being required to take some kind of “competency” test before you can exercise a right. The argument is often that, in this case, a Second Amendment right can cause the death of a person. So what! Any honest person can tell you that all rights can, directly and indirectly result in bodily injury, mental injury, and sometimes death.

Guns are singled out and always have been. They are singled out because of the mind control and manipulation of all things in this totalitarian/fascist country to keep the masses scared to death, forcing them to call upon more government to keep them safe. The remarkable insanity of this approach is that people call upon the most corrupt and hypocritical organization that exists in the world today, to keep them safe and to protect them. It shows what a fantastic job these fascist bastards have done, when once we were taught that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure the tyrannical pond scum of governments would not take from us our rights.

Strong delusion prohibits people from seeing such a basic concept!

At the end of Trahan’s piece he writes: “One of the important lessons I have learned is that the underlying causes of domestic violence, mental health problems and suicide are far more complicated than just taking away a gun.

Furthermore, advocates know best how to address these issues. Instead of trying to find more sophisticated ways to justify a new law that runs counter to our fundamental constitutional rights, I suggest bringing these groups together, with lawmakers and state leaders, to examine these issues in a much more comprehensive and cooperative manner.

It seems like a better approach than relying on laws that ask judges and law enforcement to predict the future.

It is of political necessity for public servants to make statements about “bringing groups together,” but in reality, this post normal existence has moved far beyond any pragmatic approach to solve societal problems. Such approach always results in diminished rights.

So where does that leave us? Simple. Trahan already points out the existing laws that deal with those who choose to use violence. These so-called “Red Flag Laws” are a most dangerous act that places god-like responsibilities into the hands of some in whom I wouldn’t entrust the care of my chickens. Seriously! Do you want some scum-ball politician or incompetent, agenda-driven, crooked judge deciding what’s best for you?

Fear and ignorance of guns leaves a person with irrational hallucinations. And yet I recall the aftermath of the Boston Marathon when people lined the streets watching and applauding as law enforcement, without proper due process of the law, went door to door, sometime busting down doors, pointing weapons of mass destruction at innocent people, under the guise of looking for “terrorists.” This is what fear can do for you. That fear is so well engrained into the minds of the feckless masses, they fail to see the truth and importance of the protection of our existence through the total protection of our rights.

No person should be allowed, say nothing of granted, the authority to stand in judgement as to whether any person is a danger to themselves or others, let alone pretending they can predict the future.

The issue here is not the gun and never has been. To declare the gun the problem is as intelligent as saying lips are responsible for what a person says.

Until such time as this society is willing to address the real problems they have created through their decadence, perversion, and adiamorphicism, frantically and irrationally trying to find just one more LAW that will stop a gun from killing someone, it remains the epitome of craziness.

Share

Ban Maine’s Nomination to Head Public Safety?

Should we choose to support the new Maine governor, Janet Mill’s, pick to head up the Department of Public Safety, then it would be hypocritical to veer from Mike Sauschuck’s reasoning, or lack there of, and we should ban all things that we perceive as scary. Oh, wait a minute. That is already underway in this misguided, brainwashed, sissified, perverted society we have created.

In a report found online, Sauschuck was quoted as saying that when a person was seen openly carrying a rifle, “What he did was scare the hell out of a lot of people.” If that’s his and his followers’ beliefs, then by all means let’s ban Michael Sauschuck, those who support him, and many of his followers because, putting it bluntly, he and his ilk “scare the hell” out of me.

And part of what scares the hell out of me (seriously though, nothing scares the hell out of me) is his other statement made where the report filed this: “he said he stands by his personal views and believes no constitutional right is unlimited.”

This is the totalitarian effort on display all across America. If no constitutional right is unlimited, then why bother to have any. Let’s simply erase anything in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (along with “settled” laws like Roe v. Wade) that might even suggest some sort of liberty or freedom that was once exercised freely in this out of control society. After all, if no right is unlimited then the end result always becomes a complete erasure of any and all rights.

The basic foundation of a “conservative” approach to the governing of a people is limited government and the protection of all rights, whether those rights are considered unalienable (never questioned and/or from GOD ALMIGHTY) or are issued as privileges by the fascistic government.

Without the rule of law whose strength lies in the protection of individual rights, chaos ensues. It always has and always will.

When any person in a position of authority over others operate from a position that no laws are sacred and meant to be broken or changed in a progressive fashion that spirals deeper into immoral existence, oppression follows. Anyone would know this who studies true history.

It’s scary if you can see it. But few can or will, even when it is too late…like it already is.

Share

“Access” to Gun Safety Equipment a Red Herring?

This morning I was reading David Trahan’s first in a series of how to change the discussion about guns to one of safety rather than control and/or limitations of rights. Sounds like a great idea. But….

It is for the most part impossible to offer any counter argument against anyone or anything that is seeking to promote gun safety, without being viewed as a radical, uncaring person. After all, who doesn’t want to stop accidental shootings of the innocent?

But like taking away gun rights from the lawful people claiming such will make us all safe and eliminate gun violence, will actions, in the name of gun safety, accomplish more than will be taken away by limited access to your own guns?

Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), suggests that finding a way to increase access to gun safety equipment (safes, locks, etc.) along with an education program to convince people that “proper” use and storage of guns is the “proper” way to be “safe.”

In gun control discussions, those who advocate for gun control, including the radical extreme of a complete ban on them, do so from a position of emotional nonsense with no statistical evidence that banning guns stops violence. It might stop the occasional “accident.”

On the contrary, there is substantial evidence to show that creating “safe zones” and placing bans and restrictions on guns causes the complete opposite result than what was sold as a solution to a problem.

Gun rights advocates stand up in defense of the quasi-right to keep and bear arms by claiming this statistic to substantiate their position. Doesn’t it make sense that if prohibiting people the right to own a gun causes the incidence of gun violence to increase – say Chicago and D.C. – then this same logic should be used all across discussions about guns, gun rights, and gun safety.

This brings us to the question about promoting gun safety from a position of “educating” (followed by government demand) people about how to “properly” store a gun to keep it out of the reach of those who shouldn’t have access to it – child or criminal.

Where are the statistics and actual data that supports the claim that “proper” storage reduces or prevents access to guns that might be used by criminals or getting into the hands of children? And where are the data that supports any notion that locking up guns doesn’t affect a person’s ability to protect themselves in the case of needing quick and easy access to a gun.

I recall discussion in the Heller v. D.C. Supreme Court decision about whether it was constitutional to require any gun owner to have to keep all their guns under lock and key at all times. It was decided by that Court that it was, in fact not only unreasonable but unconstitutional for the government to enforce such a mandate. Of course the difference here is that one is a mandatory government problem and the other presented as voluntary, and yet we find a group labeled as a gun rights advocate, promoting voluntary gun lock-up.

There needs to be some real believable evidence presented before anyone should be discussing programs that will lead to the mandate that guns need locks and/or to be locked up.

If it is true that gun control laws only punish the law-abiding citizens, and an honest man might conclude that any kind of locking system is a restriction of the Second Amendment – a right to keep and bear arms, and in Maine’s case “shall never be infringed” – then isn’t promoting a bit of a red herring suggesting locks, that limit a person’s right to quick and easy access, in fact an “infringement” of that right?

I would like to see proof that the lives possibly saved by locking up guns is going to outweigh the loss of life and property because locks disallow quick and easy access in order to protect a person and his/her property.

But as always it has to be presented as a person’s choice. If the evidence is so strong to convince gun owners that locking up their guns is going to save lives, then let it remain their choice. I would hope that in Trahan’s suggestions of how we talk about gun safety, he includes easy access to gun safety classes for all. I grew up with guns throughout my home and my parents taught me all about them. That education works and we didn’t need, nor would it have been practical, to lock our guns up. Perhaps the money savings offered could be better spent in teaching everyone, including children, how to safely use a firearm.

And just for the record, even using Trahan’s mathematical calculations that determines with membership to certain clubs (elitism), discounts, and tax breaks, $400 for a gun safe is beyond my bank account and I’m sure that of many other people. It’s easy to toss out dollars and cents, without having much sense.

Just like how removing guns from the lawful citizens does nothing to prevent gun violence, teaching people to lock up their guns will do nothing to educate all people about how to use them and be safe around them.

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

Infringe Did and Still Does Mean “INFRINGE”

Everyday is the season to infringe upon the Second Amendment. It never ceases and newly-elected politicians love to jump on the totalitarian gunboats, armed for bear, gunning (no real pun intended) for any chance they might get to further infringe (destroy) the Second Amendment. The current political season is no different than others.

The far Left’s staging of events to instill fear, hatred, and anger in the masses have set the stage they hope will carry them over the threshold (that threshold being private gun ownership) that will win them a victory that will end in defeat for all…just you wait and see. But will we even be able to recognize such defeat?

Back in January of 2016 I wrote an article about how Americans consider the Second Amendment to be essentially the only right, inalienable or constitutional depending on how you choose to view it, that is worthy of complete and unrestricted infringement. They don’t necessarily see all the other “rights” in the same way. Surely destruction of those rights is just as potentially dangerous as keeping and bearing arms – if only honesty could admit that.

Of course the original words of the Second Amendment state that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

It has always been argued, never with much conviction or honesty, that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment they didn’t mean that citizens, i.e. the people (small “p”), had a right to arm themselves and/or to keep arms in their possession.

An honest assessment of the intent of the the Second Amendment has been made clear through endless examination of historic documents. To support the historic significance of the right of the people (small “p”) to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Supreme Court, in it’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, declared that the Second Amendment did guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to the people (small “p”).

Of course the downside to the Heller decision is that the majority opinion, given by the late (probably murdered) Justice Antonin Scalia, said nothing about “reasonable restrictions” or infringements to the Second Amendment. And so, even though the Supreme Court ruled that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, there has never been any ruling to determine if any “infringements” can be levied on this right, even though the Second Amendment clearly is written that the right shall NEVER be infringed. What is it here that we are not getting? Therefore, the infringement battle train continues to roll and, no doubt, will never end.

In part of the honest examination of the historic facts that drove the Second Amendment creation, I am going to look at and share with readers the etymology (origins) of two words found in the Second Amendment – “arms” and “infringed.”

Let’s start with “arms.” According to Etymonline.com, since around 1300 a.d. the root word for “arms” meant weapon. This root definition has never really changed. In examining the etymology of many words, over the span of history, the meanings of words change, and sometimes drastically. In this case arms still mean weapons…period.

Argument might be made in this research that the use of the word “arms” may have referred to “military” weapons. I realize that in some cases those who have chosen to use the history of words in their defense of the claim that the Second Amendment applied to “militias” and not the general public, too much history exists that proves the intent of the Founders was to give the people (small “p”) the right to keep and bear arms.

If one is willing to accept that historic research as a true fact, then further argument could be made that the Second Amendment should not restrict that right by prohibiting “military” weapons from those which can be kept and bared.

Regardless, there is no mistaking that when the Founding Fathers used the word “arms” it clearly meant weapons, arms, military tools. They understood the importance of a means to deter a tyrannical government. I wonder if they envisioned a tyrannical people (small “p”)?

The second word to examine is “infringed.” Like the word “arms”, since its creation, infringe has always meant what we today consider the meaning of infringe to be.

Once again, if we look at Etymonline.com, we see that since the 15th century, use of the root word meaning infringe, i.e. “enfrangen,” to violate, or from Latin, “infringere,” damage, break, has never changed in any real meaningful way

When the Founding Fathers selected the two words, “arms” and “infringe,” wasn’t it exactly clear that they were talking about “weapons” and the popular definition of infringe to mean that this right shall NEVER BE violated, damaged, or broken?

Why then do we brainwashed Americans insist on infringing upon this right? Even those claiming to hold dear the Constitution, often claiming how all others tread on it and ignore it, and yet these same mindless folks work tirelessly day in and day out to destroy the Second Amendment, some thinking they are saving it by infringing upon it?

Regardless of what can be presented as evidence, I hold out no hope that the people (small “p”) will ever understand that they are working toward their own destruction.

Oh, what have we done, and what are we doing?

Share

Animal Perversion, Wicked Lies, and Filth About a Wolf

The Daily Mail epitomizes how a perverse society projects human emotions and characteristics on animals. In this case a wolf…or what these folks choose to call the wild or semi-wild dog.

Prior to presenting their vomit and regurgitated extremely terrible misinformation, lies, emotional claptrap, and perversion, the author also reveals their hatred toward man while emoting their aberration concerning wolves they blindly, ignorantly, and with intended anger and hatred decide to mislead readers by calling the person who LEGALLY shot and killed a wolf, a “trophy hunter.” Probably this “trophy hunter” is also a “climate denier,” a “racist,” a “bigot,” a “Republican,” and of “white privilege” who deserves nothing less than huge fines, jail time, and with the suggestion of millions, even death. Damn, are we a sick society?

Not only do these delusional deviants get to decide whether a man or an animal should die or be afforded any resemblance of rights, i.e. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, their empty, programmed, automatonic, paralyzed minds mandate that any hunter, regardless of what species they are hunting and for what purpose, are “trophy” hunters.

Therefore, using the same absence of rational reasoning powers, anyone who likes animals is a pervert and should be institutionalized.

Two can play this game.

Share

Gun Ownership: A Right? Maybe – Granted Privilege? Limited

I do tire of the so-called “Constitutional Experts” who think they know the Constitution. And yes, here goes another attempt at the same. You can turn me off if you want to.

The NRA posted a rebuttal to an anti-handgun rant by a University of Maine professor (electrical engineer – makes sense to me) attempting to prove the professor is misguided and not up to grade with his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Most readers have an understanding of where I stand when it comes to one’s RIGHT to self-protection and the choice I should have as to how I wish to do that. So, I’ll spare you any rebuttals to the arguments between the professor and the NRA as to who has a right or what that right might be concerning gun ownership. I will, however, raise some questions, some of which readers will think perhaps I’ve stepped off the deep end and maybe I have.

The NRA claims, as most “experts” and misguided citizen/slaves, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for us common folks – “we the people” and not “We the People.” Think again. However, I don’t much care for government’s lies and B.S. when it comes to their mere existence. They can all go to hell as far as I care. I claim my right to protection as granted to me by my Creator and that decision and the actions I choose are between me and Him. I must, therefore, (study to show myself approved unto God) decipher when to “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar and when Ceasar becomes contrary to God’s Word – again my choice established between me and Yahweh.

The Second Amendment is not a right – certainly not an inalienable right. If having the “right to bear arms” was an inalienable right, as we have wrongfully been taught, such a right would never be questioned or changed. The Second Amendment is constantly questioned and always being changed. When you consider the Constitution, it tells us that in order to amend any part thereof there is a process supposedly made necessary to accomplish that. That process has NEVER been undertaken. Congress, with the prompting by activists (a condition that exists to garner votes and money) merely passes new laws that completely alter the guts of the Second Amendment, or any other right or law.

But then we, the citizen/serf/slave, in our misguided educations (indoctrinations) think that the actions of Congress to rewrite the Bill of Rights or vary from what they consider the contents of that constitution, is “unconstitutional.” There is no such thing! Get over it!

How often these days do we hear people invoking their knowledge of the Constitution by making statements claiming some new law is unconstitutional? Endless! Such claims always appear from anyone who doesn’t like a new law or an amendment to an existing law, i.e. Amendment Ten, Second Amendment, etc. And through all of the cherry picking of what fits the agenda in question (all sides do this), they forget the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the Constitution – Article I Section 8. (written for the rulers, not for you and me)

Missing from this brainwashed existence is the understanding of what becomes law. Most think when Congress passes a new law, that is the law…period. Not so.

Court rulings often amend, obscure, muddle, and outright change what we believed to be law. It’s their “duty” to “interpret” the laws – wink-wink. The “winning” side and the “losing” side each get to write an opinion. Those opinions become part of the long list of precedences set that, unless questioned and challenged in a rigged courtroom, become quasi-law used for whatever purposes anyone so chooses. (Never trust a lawyer, right?)

Policy is also an unknown factor in crafting laws. Why do you think presidents, now and in the past, spend so much time writing and publishing their “policy” statements? Presidential Policy becomes law and is used in crafting all new laws designed to oppress the citizen/serf/slave.

The right to keep and bear arms never has been a clear-cut case of an unquestioned right. While it might do some good to fight for what you perceive as an “unquestioned” right to own a gun for whatever reason you so choose, the government operates as a rigged system. They control what you and I can and can’t do. Our “rights” suddenly become privileges because that rigged system can and does yank those privileges from us.

While the battle over the Second Amendment continues, it is only stalling the inevitable. The day will come, and it WILL come, when our fascist Congress will, once again, exercise their authority through THEIR constitution, to pass all laws necessary and proper to do whatever they want to you and me. We lose, they win!

Participating in this man-created criminal enterprise called government, places us in willing participation as a citizen/slave…and evidently, we like it.

The NRA and the professor and many more who will come after them are doing what they have been taught to do. It’s a shame in many ways. So long as things that exist the way they do is of benefit to the corrupt criminals in Washington, you will think you are protecting your rights. You are not! You are doing the bidding for them greedy, crooked, lying bastards! One day you will wake up (hopefully) and ask, what the hell happened?

 

Share