Posts Tagged ‘citizenship

06
Feb
13

Assasinating American Citizens Is Now Officially ETHICAL, WISE, and LEGAL

The idea that everyone is inocent until proven guilty – also referred to as Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – has been a staple of civilized law for centuries. I grew up with this idea that if accused of anything that I would have the chance of rebuttal. I grew up with the notion that in America I couldn’t be taken away, thrown in a cell, and held indefinitely unless someone had proven that I had done something worthy of such treatment.

assassinationThings have apparently changed in today’s world in this regard. Today as Americans we are filled with fear of the unknown. We seem far removed from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s words which were later echoed by John F. Kennedy where they said, the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Today we fear something on every corner – we fear that a terrorist is standing in line with us to blow up a plane, we fear that we will die of some new super-flu, we fear that Iran will bomb us tomorrow, and we fear that our neighbor will use their AR-15 to shoot down our children. Many of these things are largely unfounded – very few planes have been hijacked and used as weapons in the history of humanity, very few people die from some contagious virus, nobody has indefinitely proven that Iran is building a bomb, and you’re more likely to die from a kitchen knife or a hammer than an AR-15.

But it is fear that motivates us to do things or to give up things we normally wouldn’t do with logic and reason. Fear is irrational and our government knows this – Rahm Emanuel infamously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” In other words, when people are confused and cowering in fear, the impossible then becomes possible.

I am specifically speaking today about the idea of what we allow when we fear uncertainty. Nobody wants to be killed by a terrorist so to combat this fear we allow our government to handle the issue. However, when we allow the government to handle the issue we allow them to impede on us and our freedoms. In recent history our American government has passed legislation, implemented agency policy changes, or signed Executive Orders to seek out Americans they deem unsavory and assasinate them… without trial… or without any definitive proof that they have actually done anything other than talk bad about America or hang out with bad people who don’t like America.

When will Americans find such an action intolerable? For now the policy is distant – we are killing American citizens in other countries. Our news barely reports on it and when they do they are sure to invoke two American fears – that they are an Islamic and that they are a terrorist. In doing so, we disregard teh fact that the person was just as we are – an American citizen who is supposedly protected under law practice such as due process, burden of proof, and starting an investigation with a valid probable cause. This is what we citizens here are afforded here in Arizona, Ohio, and the rest of the United States so why isn’t this courtesy also afforded to citizens overseas?

I believe this is a very slippery slope and especially true when you consider how many times the government has accidentially killed the wrong person (for example, there was no wrongdoing found at Ruby Ridge but that didn’t stop them from shooting half a family). I am sure that Americans won’t care about this policy until they are the ones being detained or killed. Sounds like something Martin-Niemöller wrote about with Nazi Germany.

See associated article here.

Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men — all killed in the fall of 2011 — were U.S. citizens.

And their lives illustrate the complexity of the issue, recently brought to light amid a newly discovered government memo that provides the legal reasoning behind drone strikes on Americans.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed by a missile strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, while al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was killed in the country just weeks later.

Since the attacks, family members have called the deaths unjust and sued the U.S. government, calling the killings unconstitutional.

Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, became well known for his fiery anti-American sermons posted throughout the Internet.

Samir Khan, who’d lived in both New York and Charlotte, N.C., produced a magazine called “Inspire” that became known for its extreme jihadist views.

But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.

Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.

Nassar al-Awlaki, grandfather of Abdulrahman and father to Anwar, said he tried to protect his grandson as Anwar al-Awlaki’s profile grew.

In December, Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN, “In Anwar it was expected because he was under targeted killing, but how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman. Small boy, U.S. citizen from Denver, Colorado.”

Nassar al-Awlaki said his grandson snuck out of their Yemen home one night, leaving a note for his mother saying he would return in a few days. The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant.

“Since the issue regarding Anwar came, I tried to insulate the family of Anwar from everything, regarding this matter,” Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN. “I took care of him, and suddenly after 2 year absence from his father, he decided to go to our government in Yemen to seek information from his father. That was the only reason he went, and he did not tell us.”

The Obama administration has remained mostly mum regarding Abdulrahman’s death, and at times has struggled to explain it.

“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children,” former White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said to a gaggle of reporters in October. “I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

During his presidential campaign, Republican Rep. Ron Paul criticized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, saying: “Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. … But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.”

Anwar al-Awlaki’s ties to the United States go back to his father Nassar, who came to the country to earn a master’s degree. His son was born in New Mexico, and though the family returned to Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki came back to the U.S. for college, eventually becoming an iman.

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, he became a popular spokesman for moderate Islam, and was often used to juxtapose perceptions that Islam is a religion that spreads hate. But less than a decade later, he was hiding in Yemen as a name on the CIA’s kill list.

“I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said in an audio message in March 2010.

Conversely, Khan was never interested in the peaceful side of Islam. The New York Times reports that as a teen, Khan’s attraction grew exponentially to militant sites on the Internet after 9/11. Parental concerns and intervention from community leaders proved unsuccessful. Khan was 25 when he died in Yemen.

In July 2012, Samir Khan’s mother, Sarah, joined Nassar al-Awlaki in a lawsuit against four senior national security officials.

“I don’t really necessarily agree with some of the things Anwar said against the United States, but does that mean they should kill him outside the law?” asked Nassar al-Awlaki.

Advertisements
30
Mar
10

The Story of the Buck Act

If you have ever wondered why the federal government can do whatever it wants (whether it be taxes or forcing you to have health care, or filling out paperwork to have a baby), here is why. Original here.

In order  for you  to understand  the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.

When passing  new statutes,  the Federal  government  always does everything according to the principles of law.  In order for the Federal  Government to  tax a  Citizen of  one of the several states, they  had to create some sort of contractual nexus.  This contractual nexus is the “Social Security Number”.

In 1935,  the federal government instituted Social Security. The  Social  Security  Board  then  created  10  Social  Security “Districts”.   The combination of these “Districts” resulted in a “Federal area”  which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939,  the  federal  government  instituted  the  “Public Salary Tax Act of  1939”.   This Act  is a  municipal law of the District of  Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any “Federal area”.

Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section  8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution.  So, in 1940, Congress passed the “Buck  Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113.  In Section 110(e), this Act  authorized any  department of the federal government to create a  “Federal area” for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of  1939”.   This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111.  The rest of  the taxing  law is  found in  the Internal Revenue Code. The Social  Security Board  had already  created a “Federal area” overlay:

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

There is  no reasonable  doubt that  the federal  “State” is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:

Sec. 105.  State, and  so forth,  taxation affecting Federal areas;  sales or use tax(a) No  person shall  be relieved from liability for payment of, collection  of, or  accounting for  any sales or use tax levied by  any State,  or by  any  duly  constituted  taxing authority therein,  having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground  that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area;   and such  State or  taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and  power to  levy and collect any such tax in any Federal  area within  such State  to the same extent and with the  same effect  as though such area was not a Federal area.

Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110].

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a “Federal area”? A  “Federal   area”  is   any  area  designated  by  any  agency, department, or  establishment of  the  federal  government.  This includes the  Social Security  areas  designated  by  the  Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a  home that  has a  federal bank  loan, a road that has federal  funding,   and  almost   everything  that   the  federal government touches  through any  type of  aid.    Springfield  v. Kenny, 104  N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).  This “Federal area” attaches to anyone  who has  a Social  Security  Number  or  any  personal contact with  the federal  or state  governments.   Through  this mechanism, the  federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as  well as  the Sovereignty  of the  several states,  by creating “Federal  areas” within  the boundaries  of  the  states under the  authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:

2.   The Congress  shall have  Power to  dispose of and make all needful  Rules and  Regulations respecting the Territory or other  Property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  and nothing in  this Constitution  shall be  so construed  as to prejudice any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any particular State.

Therefore, all  U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia]  residing in  one of  the states  of the  Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as  an “individual entity”.  See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.  Under the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S.  Secs. 105-113,  the federal  government has created a “Federal area”  within the  boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through  purchase, conquest  or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial  law upon  all people in this “Federal area”. Federal territorial  law is  evidenced by  the Executive Branch’s yellow-fringed U.S.  flag flying  in  schools,  offices  and  all courtrooms.

You must  live on  land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any “Federal State” or “Federal area”, nor can you  be involved  in any activity that would make you subject to “federal  laws”. You  cannot  have  a  valid  Social  Security Number, a “resident” driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your  name, a  “federal”  bank  account,  a  Federal  Register Account  Number   relating  to  Individual  persons  [SSN],  (see Executive Order  Number 9397,  November 1943), or any other known “contract implied  in fact”  that  would  place  you  within  any “Federal area”  and thus  within the  territorial jurisdiction of the municipal  laws of  Congress.  Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial  in nature  and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of  Congress.   (See American  Banana Co.  v. United Fruit Co.,  213 U.S.  347, 356-357  (1909);   U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217,  222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949);  New York Central R.R. Co.  v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)

There has  been created  a fictional Federal “State within a state”.   See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct.  465, 476,  97 L.Ed. 617 (1953);  Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.  (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.)  This fictional “State” is identified by the use of  two-letter   abbreviations  like  “CA”,  “AZ”  and  “TX”,  as distinguished from  the authorized  abbreviations like  “Calif.”, “Ariz.” and  “Tex.”, etc.   This  fictional State  also uses  ZIP codes which  are  within  the  municipal,  exclusive  legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

This entire  scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”, 4  U.S.C.S. Secs.  105-113, to implement the application of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939” to workers within the private sector.   This subjects  all private  sector workers  who have  a Social Security number to all state and federal laws “within this State”,  a  “fictional  Federal  area”  overlaying  the  land  in California and  in all other states in the Union.  In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California.  This establishes that you do not live in a “Federal area” and that you are exempt  from the  Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live “in this State”.

The following  definition is  used  throughout  the  several states in  the application  of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application.  This definition is also included  in all  the codes  of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:

“In this  State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of  the State … and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

This definition concurs with the “Buck Act” supra which states:

110(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

110(e) The  term “Federal  area” means any lands or premises held or  acquired by  or for the use of the United States or any department,  establishment,  or  agency  of  the  United States;  and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within  the exterior  boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

So, do  some research.   I  have given  you all  the  proper directions in  which to  look for  the jurisdictional  nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.

05
Mar
10

They Will Move You to the District of Columbia

Title 26: Internal Revenue Code
Subtitle F: Procedure and Administration
Chapter 79: Definitions
§ 7701: Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(39) Persons residing outside United States If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—

(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.

If you are a resident or citizen of the United States that does not live in a United States judicial district, then you will be treated as if you were living in the District of Columbia so that they can (1) put you in their jurisdiction to take you to court and (2) summon you to court. Why do they have to “move” you to DC to do all this?




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories

Advertisements