Click on the image above to get started
For mire information call Keith Broaders @ 386-344-3555
Native Born Versus Natural Born Citizens
When the Constitution was written its authors wanted to make sure that anyone who ran for the office of President would have the undivided loyalty of the people in their new nation. They indicated that any Native Born citizen of any of the states could run for Congress, but only Natural Born Citizens would be able to run for the Presidency in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
They wanted to prevent the possibility that a "subject", of the British Criown or any other foreign power could ever be elected President of the United States. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen the candidate would need to have parents with undivided loyalty to the United States.
They did not want a member of the British Parliament to be able to marry an American Citizen and allow their children to have a right to run for the Presidency. They felt that the child would be a dual citizen and would have his allegiance divided between two countries.
They also knew that centralized power was both a lure to corruption and a bad idea, so the constitution was written to provide protections at many levels against this happening. They divided the government in to equal powers with checks and balances. They introduced the idea that the states should have a voice independent of the general public, in order to protect the needs of each autonomous Republic (state), within this new union in Article I Section 3. They gave us The Bill of Rights and made sure that the government itself would coin (stamp), and control the value of money with Article I, Section 8, Clause 5.
However, this is not the way it is today. Today, foreign bankers and their agents have infiltrated our government at every level. Members of the BAR Association have seized control of our courts. We even have numerous men and women serving in Congress who are citizens of Israel and for the first time in the history of America, we have a President who has chosen a fake name and won't show us proof that he is indeed a Natural Born Citizen.
As a matter of fact, our Supreme Court is packed with lawyers who are members of the B.A.R. Association and "subject to its jurisdiction" not loyal to America. The lawyers in Congress and the members of the Supreme Court are agents of the financial elite, take their marching orders from the international bankers who own the Fed.
Native Born or Natural Born, we are not in control of the situation at this point. If we don't wake up, we will soon find ourselves in a country we barely recognize.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Roland on
-
The definitive exposition on this question is at http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
-
Permalink Reply by William (Bill) Shuster on
-
Love the article, Liked the reply as well. Lots of research material here. NOW if we can only get the congress to read and follow this information is and has been the problem. The chief justices should have thrown the bum out during the first primaries.
-
-
The issue really is WHAT CONSTITUTION is being talked about. Is it the Original on from 1789, as amended 1791 (Bill of Rights) or are we talking about the current CONstitution of 1871, which is the DC one?
Additionally, since 1871, the so-called PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES takes 2 OATHS (Public and then PRIVATE). The Public one is in view of anyone who is there or watches on TV. The Private one is in the WHITE HOUSE.
Originally, the one who won the election by POPULAR VOTE was declared the WINNER and then took the OATH to the 'Office of the President'. He was to select a PRESIDENT of the United States, not hold both OFFICES, which is what it is now....
As for BAM BAM, the question of the BIRTH CERT was not entirely the right question. It should have been this question: Did the birth of BAM BAM come from a man and a woman who were both born on the usA or not? The answer is NO, so this would make him ineligible; but wait, there are no requirements to be PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, just for the Office of President.
Based on the statement below taken from the link from Jon Roland
Drafted in secret by delegates to the Constitutional Convention during the summer of 1787, this four-page document, signed on September 17, 1787, established the government of the United States.
If this document was to stand for the country, the word 'OF' is not the same as 'FOR'; thus this document was nothing more than that which the ROTHSCHILDS mandated be done to begin with; The ARTICLES of CONFEDERATION has never been repealed and as such, this is really the document we should be working from but since the word again is 'OF', then it raises another question as well.
First and foremost where is it anywhere that any of us are BOUND by some document created back in 1787 or 1871 anyway? Any of us should be able to decide (Free Will), not by FORCE, to OBEY some document that truly was meant for the POSTERITY of those who 'WITNESSED' the CONstitution, not signed such. The document to begin with had to go to the states to be ratified but for most, this document was not seen for many years after it was WITNESSED....
Those men who WITNESSED the document, many of them were agents to the CROWN. The ROTHSCHILDS mandated payment for funds (LOANS) to fight the REVOLUTIONARY WAR and to this date, the LOANS granted by the ROTHSCHILDS have never been repaid; having said that. one only needs go to these two documents to see this. So since the debts have never been repaid and these treaty can't be dismissed, they are still in effect today. But really, where did any of us have any say in this? Like I said, everyone is a FEDERAL PERSONNEL, per 5 USC 552a(a13) and to get a better understanding of this, one need only check out these two links to get a better info for comprehension.
1) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a and
2) https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/5-usc-552aa13/ (this has more indepth explanation about by having and using a SSN and being eligible for (DEFERRED) payments, one is subject to the STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS and LAWS of the UNITED STATES and the STATES, as NO state today follows the CONstitution anyway and only uses STATUTES to enforce COMMERCIAL LAW or the that of the 'LAW MERCHANT' -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-104. This is by way of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). All COURTS operate using this PRIVATE CODE and hold everyone to it. These courts are not COMMON LAW COURTS but ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS. They, for the most part only deal with enforcing STATUTES and what is called 'VICTIMLESS CRIMES'; ex: TRAFFIC STOPS of any kind, unless there is an 'INJURY' directly a result of some kind. None of this deals with any state CONstitution but only STATE CODES, RULES, REGULATIONS or STATUTES. These courts are either ARTICLE I or ARTICLE II Courts, not ARTICLE III Courts, which deal with EQUITY.
1) Treaty of Versailles -- REPAYMENT of DEBT incurred during the WAR contract of 16th July, 1782ARTICLE 1.
The payment of the six millions livres, French money, above mentioned, shall be made from the funds of the royal treasury, in proportions of five hundred thousand livres during each of the twelve months of the present year, under the acknowledgments of the Minister of the said United States, promising, in the name of Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to reimburse and refund the said six million livres in ready money at His Majesty's royal treasury, at the house of the Sieur Grand, banker at Paris, with interest at five per cent per annum, at periods hereafter stipulated in the third and fourth articles. The advances which His Majesty has been pleased to allow to be made on account of the six millions in question, shall be deducted in the payments of the first month of this year.
2) The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 -- third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three
Article 4:
It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.
As long as one has an SSN, they are subject to the STATUTES, as 'FEDERAL PERSONAL'. Folks need to do two things:
DO:
1) RESCISSION of CONTRACT and
2) RELEASE OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENT
See that ATTACHED POWER POINT on CONTRACTS, as that is all the COURTS do, and that is ADMINISTER CONTRACT LAW....
Ted - Attachments:
-
-
I know the time for a peaceful change is long gone, which is why the founders gave us the 2nd amendment. However, we lack the fortitude to commit to the Founders intent when they wrote the Constitution, so we need another key point to clean out the corruption. Where is the next Concord event we need to start to clean out this corruption out of our country? It's coming and the corruption in Government knows it is, which is why they want to get rid of our God Given right to self defence against the corruption in Government.
The EPA, under the liar in office right now, has closed down the last lead smelter we had in 2014. No more lead refining is allowed in this country under the currant office holder. If he couldn't get our fire arms, all he needs to do is ban the refining of lead to slowly disarm the people, and none of us are even aware of this. This was done because this office holder is out of control in his abuse of office. The coming financial collapse of America is very near now and his spending habits will be one of the hallmarks of what started this collapse to begin with. Impeachment of this one person will not resolve this mess, so the next and only option is by force and he knows this too. We have found the enemy, and this time it's domestic.
It's long past time to end the Crown's presence on our soil. Enforcement of the Original 13th Amemndment will end the presence of BAR members holding public office. Every single Judge at least once in their life time has violated their oath of office, they are sworn members of the multitude of BAR associations across this country. Time to end the scharade once and for all.
-
-
Yes the ONE RIGHT THAT SECURES THEM ALL.... The SECOND AMMENDMENT.
Let's put the original 13th back on the books that was NEVER removed by an act of congress.
The ORIGINAL 13th Amendment
United States Constitution (annotated) 1938. Notice the footnotes at the bottom.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kd6p3wd12pwed1o/Laws%20Constitution%20of%20the...
[Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution, 637] Go to page 637
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t78s4mw4p;view=1up;...Virginia State Law book 1819 (abbrv. 34 pgs see page 30)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1tga3wlgucsxvy/Laws%20of%20Virginia%20March%2...The Virginia Book of March 12, 1819 printed by Thomas Ritchie viewed above is in this timeline.
http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/13thamend-%20chrono.htmThis is a page from America's Own Book printed 1853.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZmxOmpDfxPE/ULarat9OIiI/AAAAAAAAAz0/Q-wN82W8nN...'s+Own+Book+-+Amendments+7-13.jpgI WANT TO KNOW if the ORIGINAL 13th amendment was in the books for 50 years where is the act of congress or order to remove it?
This is a great research site.....
http://www.amendment-13.org/privatepubl.html
and
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtmlPS That is a original Mason Seal in the Virginia book. I held it in my hands and witnessed these copies as true to original.
or go here.... all the above is in this link....... http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/original-13th-amendment
-
-
Rosanna, I too, support the National Liberty Alliance efforts to restore our Constitution, our efforts cannot be ignored now.
Thank you for your excellent research and the links you posted, there is no excuse for why the Original 13th amendment isn't being enforced today other then the BAR associations current domination of our legal system.
The famous quote from Shakespeare is true to this day. He knew what so many in Government do not. You can not trust a Judge who is unaccountable to the people, judicial immunity is a violation of the Bill of Rights here in Oregon, article 1 section twenty, it's a short bill, it only about two and a half sentences long. It goes like this: No immunities or privileges shall be granted to a citizen or class of citizens that shall not apply to all citizens. That's more or less it.
Yet our CONgress does this every day, they make exceptions all the time for themselves and they single handily create their own pay raises without having to explain why they deserve a pay raise.
Thanks for your posting and I'm looking forward to more of your excellent posts!
-
-
Jon,
I wrote a WRIT to the FEDERAL court Monday.. In part it was researched off an article you wrote on Quo Warranto. I know people brush the "oath" thing off but there is NOTHING that is more important. If they won't honor that and get it filed we don't have a snowballs chance for justice. It is the FIRST basic DUTY in office. Their bonds are DEPENDENT on their faithful performance of duty and that means upholding ALL the laws.
I have attached the short QUO and MANDAMUS with SUBPOENA. Would anybody please look the documents and if they don't open PLEASE let me know.
I know this is a little off the subject of "right to hold office by birth" but it still involves the right to hold office and I really need some "POSITIVE" people who will think "out of the box" and make this work. Ex REL is for EVERYBODY. Brady has already been sued TWICE and he lost and the victims won. I was one of them thru a Writ of Mandamus, for of all things, refusing me public records. But now I need to charge him with the crimes he committed on my parents abuse and the theft of their estate. http://www.eldermurderabuseandexploitation.blogspot.com/2014/02/1-e...
Do you know why I included CORSA and STATE FARM as respondents? It is explained in the Writ.
I would appreciate comments or you can call me. I need all the help I can get. thanks Rosanna
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on
-
Visit my facebook page.
-
-
-
-
-
thank you for posting the website. I have been trying to study Natural Law and incorporated it in my actions in court. I believe this Bible study lesson belongs with this website.
Master Life
The more we learn to live in harmony with God's Law, the more we will master life.
POSITIVE LAW VS. NEGATIVE LAW
Biblical Law is applied Christianity and that is where the main focus of this Mastering Life series is going to be. But for the moment, we are going to take a break and compare God's Law with man's law to discover why one works and the other doesn't.
Look at the following points:
Negative Law
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image.
3. You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honour your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet.
Positive Law
1. Everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion.
2. Everyone has the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.
3. Everyone has the freedom of peaceful assembly.
4. Everyone was the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
5. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
6. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
7. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote.
8. Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada.
9. Plus many other provisions and rights.
Which set of laws do you prefer? Personally, I like positive law. It makes me feel good to know what my rights are as compared to being told what I can't do. Most of us are human enough to like that idea. Then why did God chose negative law? Isn't that a major criticism of Christianity - "You're always telling me what I can't do?"
The simple answer is [and we'll look at the reason in a moment] that negative law works and positive law doesn't. Think about it. If positive law is so great then why does it protect and promote high taxes, abortion, murderers, homosexuality, rapists, etc.? Why does it give us ineffective crime punishment? Why is the economy always up and down? Why do the poor become poorer and the rich richer under positive law? Keep on asking questions like these until you realize: It doesn't work!
Looking at the above list, we see God's law is almost all negative. Even the two positive commands have implied negatives. Remember the Sabbath is followed by you shall do no work on the Sabbath. Honour your father and mother is supported by laws telling us what not to do.
God's negative law has positive results which lead to true freedom. Man's positive law has negative results which lead to tyranny and bondage.
Once again you are my illustrator. On a piece of paper draw a circle. Inside the circle write the word "Rights". On the outside of circle write the words "Forbidden Zone". Now draw large cracks and holes in the circle.
Positive law draws a circle just as you have done. It says, "You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to...etc." All our rights are protected [supposedly] inside the circle. The basic implication of all positive law is: Whatever is not permitted is forbidden. In other words, if we haven't been given the right to it, then we can't have it - and there is a whole lot of space outside the circle!
That would be bad enough, but positive law can never stop there. As you drew, there are large cracks in the circle. Because positive law is concerned with our "rights", it must have laws to defend them and make sure we get them. In short, under positive law, the law comes to control every aspect of life. Isn't that what we see happening in Canada, the US, and other nations today? It is the ultimate humanistic/socialistic dream of salvation by law in direct conflict with the Christian doctrine of salvation by Christ alone.
The health of the people is the highest law in a positive law system. While that sounds great, it must [because of the very nature of the beast] lead to tyranny. In seeking the supposed highest good - as determined by government bureaucrats - the law must attempt to control all people and all their activities.
"Because the law is unlimited, the state is unlimited. It becomes the business of the state, not to control evil, but to control all men. Basic to every totalitarian regime is a positive concept of law." R.J. Rushdoony
And so in a positive law system laws multiply like rabbits in order to try and control every aspect of life [sound familiar?]. The result is that nobody can keep them all. And only specialized [and expensive] lawyers have any hope of making sense out of them. The end product is an enslaved people forced to dance to the whims of the lawmakers or face their wrath. What a price to pay for rejecting God's law system!
Now take up your illustrator's pen once again. Draw another circle. Inside the circle put the words "Forbidden Zone". On the outside of the circle put the word "Permitted". This is God's negative law system. It says, "Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not...etc." In God's system everything inside the circle is forbidden and the boundaries are clear. The basic implication is: Whatever is not forbidden is permitted. [That is why we have to be very careful with our 'thou shalt nots', because if God hasn't forbidden it - in word or principle - then it is allowed.]
Negative law forces the law to deal with specific evil acts. This means that, except for the forbidden zone, man's life is beyond the law. As long as we are not acting in the relatively small forbidden zone or headed for it, the law is uninterested in what we are doing. If we go to the forbidden zone, the law will jump up and yell, "Thou shalt not." In any other case, negative law doesn't care what we do.
Do you see why negative law brings freedom and positive law brings tyranny?
Positive law is unlimited law, negative law is limited to controlling evil. Positive law assumes people are childish so the state must "father" them. It must provide for them and make sure everything in their lives is taken care of. It is total interference! Eventually, it makes people totally dependent on the state, unable to make decisions for themselves. It destroys human beings and tramples liberty and individual thought.
"A medical colleague returning from Finland in the 1980s told me how Russian men would marry Finish women so they could emigrate to Finland. Once there, however, the array of decisions that the average citizen makes concerning housing, shopping, etc., was just too much for many of them to bear. Overwhelmed by the task of taking responsibility for their life, the men went back to Russia where scarcity and aggression make choice a rarity. This destruction of the questing human spirit, of the confidence in one's ability to cope with the world, is the most devastating effect of the extreme aggression of communism." Dr. Mary Ruwart, Healing Our World
While this is seen most in extreme communism, it is the end result of all positive law - including the varieties of socialism practiced in Canada and the United States.
"Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit..." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Negative law deals with things realistically. It knows people are not childish but irresponsible. They are in deliberate rebellion to God - a rebellion that only comes to an end with the salvation found in Jesus Christ. So negative law doesn't try to save people [that is legalism] or "father" them. It concentrates on prohibiting and punishing public acts of evil.
"When the law loses its negativity, when the law assumes a positive function, it protects the criminals and the fools, and it penalizes responsible men." R.J. Rushdoony
Isn't that what is happening today? It is almost safer to be a criminal than an upright citizen! Regardless of its intent, positive law will always end up supporting evil and evil men at the expense of the innocent and the law abiding.
After having said all that, I need to make one more thing clear. Although the foundation of God's law is negative that does not mean there are no positive commands.
The basic structure of negative law does have some positive commands, just as the basic structure of positive law has negative commands. The positive commands, within the negative frame, show we are responsible to take action to protect and to help other people. We cannot retreat within ourselves and say, "I haven't broken any laws so everything is OK." God has given us responsibilities we must fulfill. Let's take a look at a couple of examples.
"If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him. If you meet the donkey of one who hates you laying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it." [Ex. 23:4-5, NKJV]
Here we have a positive command. If someone [even an enemy] has lost something and we find it, we are responsible to return it. We cannot look the other way when someone needs help - it doesn't matter who that someone is - we are required to give the help needed.
"And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall give money to their owner, but the dead beast shall be his." [Ex. 21:33-34, NKJV]
Again, we have a positive command. This time we learn we are responsible to take reasonable safety precautions or we will bear the consequences.
This also clearly illustrates the difference between negative law and positive law. Negative law simply states that if you dig a pit you had better cover it or you will be responsible for any resulting damage [no government inspectors needed!]. Positive law would tell us where we could dig the pit, how deep and wide it could be, what kind of cover to put on it, and probably make us buy [extort] a digging permit before we could dig it. And people want to live under positive law!?!
Since negative law has some positive commands and positive law has some negative commands, how can we tell if the law is part of the negative or positive law system? To figure that out we must look at the basic law structure in which a specific law is found. If the foundation of the law is built on the premise of controlling and punishing evil then we have negative law. If the premise is one of controlling people [who have committed no moral crime] to ensure everyone gets their "rights", then we are dealing with positive law.
Old Testament Israel was supposed to be an example of the positive effects of negative law. Unfortunately, they insisted on living in the forbidden zone and/or allowing it to degenerate into the positive law of people control. For this reason, except perhaps under Joshua, they did not live up to the ideal of a negative law society.
There was a time when most European nations acknowledged that Negative Biblical law was the way nations were supposed to be governed. To the degree they followed Biblical law, they prospered. To the degree they lived in the forbidden zone or followed positive law, they suffered. For example, the New Haven Colony in America recorded the following in their community laws [updated to modern English]:
March 2, 1641/2: And according to the fundamental agreement, made and published by full and general consent, when the plantation began and government was settled, that the judicial law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, as far as it is a hedge and a fence to the moral law, and neither ceremonial or typical nor had any reference to Canaan, has an everlasting equity in it, and should be the rule of their proceedings.
April 3, 1644: It was ordered that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses...be a rule to all the courts in their jurisdiction in their proceedings against offenders.
When a negative law society exists it becomes a great temptation for the leaders to corrupt it into a positive law system [for the good of the people, of course], and so gain power and control over people that they were not intended to have. The leaders must be people of integrity, committed to the negative Biblical Law system. And the people must be continually on guard against any law, however small, that violates Biblical Law for no system is corrupted by giant leaps but by small seemingly insignificant steps.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program unto one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas
"It is a known fact that the policies of the government today, whether Republican or Democrat are closer to the 1932 platform of the Communist Party than they are to either of their own party platforms in that critical year." Walter Trohan
....and Canada is even further down the road to socialism.
In the next lesson we will cover "Is The Law Life Or Death To Me?" and look at "The Beauty Of The Law."
*****
Master Life AssignmentsNote: This assignments are written from the assumption that the student has completed the Feed Yourself Course. Some of the assignments may not make sense if you have not taken that course.
1. Mediate on Isaiah 3.
3. Memorize Joshua 1:8.
*****
© 2024 Created by Keith Broaders.
Powered by
