Ron Paul blimp trip to Boston delayed

I love how negative Hillary's people feel like they have to go. They are really desparate now. And this was no accident, using her surrogates to do her dirty work. Nice job. Did he eat paste when he was 5 also? We really need to know don't we? Face it, Obama is much more likeable and will have significant cross-over appeal, while "Slick Hilly" will only polarize the election.

As I understand it, the Ron Paul Blimp people are attempting to do in a few weeks what usually takes a few months to organize. A few days delay doesn't detract from the fact that they've already accomplished a near miracle. As to the Boston trip, it is off because of the crazy blizzard that's about to hit. But no blizzard will stop the rally - come out and freeze for freedom with us. :)

Wow....a blimp! Really cool. People need to wake up and take this country back from the crummy dirt bags that are controlling our media and politics. Go Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!

The good news is the blimp will be impressing the crowds in South Carolina. Plus for folks going to the Ron Paul Freedom Rally at Faniuel Hall there will still be awesome entertainment-- the traditional Boston Tea Party Reenactment starts right after the rally ends.

Remember, remember the 5th of November
The moneybomb blew them away
It was all the media could say

But a small bomb it was - that was because
Of what followed in forty one days
It was all the media could say

With Liberty stirred with our faithful word
Boston’s Tea Party again held sway
We yelled with our money - “Freedom’s not funny”
We shouted - “Moneybombs away!”

Remember, remember the 16th of December
We the people will have our say
For America, for the world, for all boys and girls
It’s a very, it’s a very fine day

…teaparty07….

I was really hoping for December weather in Boston like last year!!!

If you are still wondering why so many citizens are planning to donate their hard earned dollars @ www.ronpaul2008.com this Sunday to commerorate the Boston Tea Party; please just Google Ron Paul and find what the TV isn't showing you...
You will find thousands of links to You Tube videos and local news stories showing fellow citizens from around our country waking up, waving signs, volunteering, learning about the fraud and deciding not to sit back and take it anymore!!! Please spend just a few minutes and you will find many out there already that are exactly like you, struggling to be good, honest citizens... Does that look like support of a "fringe" "longshot" candidate with "2% support" to you???
Please don't get told by the media who to vote for, AGAIN!!!

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will.

Choose Liberty Vote for Ron Paul!

Those folks who only form their opinions about candidates through the media should ask themselves a very important question. The question, who are the nutts, the wackos, the radicals, and the fringe? To answer this question you should ask the following questions about the establishment:

- Who were the people that grew the size of federal spending by 900% ($300 billion to $2.7 trillion) from 1976 to 2007?

- Who were immediately convinced when the CIA Director said it was a "slam dunk" when describing the evidence of Iraq's WMD program?

- Does anyone really believe National Health Care will reduce the cost, improve patient access while improving quality of care? (Ask anyone living in Europe if they believe it has achieved those aims in their country).

- Why does Congress and media believe or want us to believe that Iran is an immediate threat to the U.S?

- Do they still believe they can fund a $50 trillion dollar Social Security and Medicare obligation?

So I ask who are the nuts, the wackos, the radicals and the fringe. Its our choice to accept the establishment or to accept Ron Paul.

The old media is now becoming the fringe since we know who controls it and why.

God bless the internet!

Blimp or no blimp in Boston on the 16th, here's why I am going to dump the contents of my wallet via a big credit card donation into Paul's campaign.

Over the years, the Preamble of the Constitution has decayed to this:

"We the Politicians of the United States, in order to form a more perfect advantage, handicap justice, insure domestic futility, provide for the common pretense, promote the general incumbent, and secure the blessings of power to ourselves and our posterity, do disdain and therefore revise this Constitution for the United States of America whenever we feel like it."
WHOA, I SAY WHOA NOW, WHATCHYALL THINK YOU'RE DOING!!!!
(I'm typing at the top of my voice here.)

Time to hire Dr. NO to put a stop to this arrogance and restore it to "WE THE PEOPLE..." You all how the orginal goes.....otherwise get yourself a copy of the Constitution to find out.

Ron Paul 2008

Honest Abe won in 1860,
Honest Ron wins in 2008

Honesty and integrity, that about says it all when I think of Ron Paul. I'm not on the 'fringe' as they like to portray us. I'm college educated, good job, married 33 years to the same lady, and interested in politics for the first time in my life. This is the guy we've been saying for years we need. No, I don't agree with everything he says or thinks, but he is honest and that is more than I can say about any other candidate. If he just closes the bases, uses those troops to secure our borders and ports, and stops the war I'll be more than satisfied.

We won't have a blimp, but we'll have the best weather in the country. Join us in Vegas for Las Vegas Tea Party '07
Go Ron Paul!
http://www.lasvegasteaparty07.com/

The blimp is quite an inspiration that shows a grassroots level support for Ron Paul that no other candidate can come close to matching. I just saw on CPAN, Michael Barone (US News and World Report) saying that there are no republicans that are excited about their candidate. He also made several other remarks that were in complete denial of the Ron Paul juggernaut.

Best I could tell, during the entire show that was discussing the race there was one mention of Paul, and it was a sarcastic blimp comment.

The picture of 300 flooded school buses in a New Orleans parking lot after Katrina is all the evidence I need to prove that a government program will not save your butt. The emergency plan for New Orleans said that school buses would be used for evacuation. When it didn't happen, everyone blamed Bush, but did anyone ask why didn't the 300 bus drivers show up? No, they did not. I guess they were expecting Bush clones to drive the buses, similar to the star troopers cloned by the Empire in the Star Wars movies (Some people must have trouble distinguishing fiction from fact.)

In contrast to that photo, there was a story of a young man who stole one of those buses to save his family and neighbors. His example proves Ron Paul's message of freedom and self-responsibility. If you want a compassionate society, you have to be compassionate yourself and act when someone is in need. You cannot sit on your duff, and expect a clone of the president, essentially any bureaucrat, to act in your place.

We recently had a popular movie about 300 Spartans who acted to save their community. We need a movie about 300 Bus Drivers who failed their community in New Orleans. It would reveal what seriously ails U.S.

Thank God there is a chance for a good doctor to be in the White House, Dr. Ron Paul, to cure what ails U.S.

The Paul Revolution can take heart from this poem related to the Grecian war with Persia.

"Forward, sons of the Greeks,
Liberate the fatherland, liberate
Your children, your women, the altars of the gods of your fathers
And the graves of your forebears:
Now is the fight for everything."

Any chance to get a movie made about 300 Bus Drivers? Maybe in a couple thousand years. But you can vote in 2008 for Ron Paul

Dr. Paul is the most astute politician I have ever witnessed. His positions resound with the people who hear them. If the media didn’t muzzle him this election would have been a known outcome months ago. Dr. Paul wins in the arenas which matter most:

1. Ideas
2. Principle
3. Integrity

His sound positions are resonating so well with people such that other candidates with more air play are taking his idea, especially for limited government, and claiming them as there own. Rather perplexing to see the "front runners" imitate the long shot. Dr. Paul deserves the vote of everyone concerned about the direction of this wonderful country and the rest of the world which is significantly impacted by the goings-on here.

TEAPARTY 2007: VOTE RON PAUL 2008
teaparty2007.com; ronpaul2008.com
Please donate this SUNDAY

Not wanting to sound like a Paulite, but I guess I am. Although I think we need our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; I think we really need to move our troops back home from Europe and Asia. On second thought troops "may" still be needed in S Korea. What would this do for our economy? Well all that money sending troops back and forth overseas could be spent on securing our borders. Once the borders are secure we can quadruple the number of legal immigrants in this country. Why is this important? We don't have enough American citizens to fill all of the new jobs being created in this country. If we don't bring in enough immigrants we will lose American jobs (ie: American citizen jobs) to other countries.

Want change? Tired of political dynasties?

www.ronpaul2008.com

Want to be part of the single biggest fundraiser in history? This will be a December to remember!

www.TeaParty07.com

Each of us, a cell of awareness.
Imperfect and incomplete...genetic blends with uncertain ends, on a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.
Vote Ron Paul or America will be only a memory.

To really understand what has happened to America, one needs to understand and identify the "body politic" that created the United States Constitution.

Governments are created to protect the body politics that create them. When we travel to other countries we are guests and those host governments were not created to protect us. That is the reason we keep in contact with our embassy’s in those countries. Under certain circumstances the United States will issue a warning not to visit a countries where they have closed the embassy and cannot guarantee our protection.

The United States Constitution was created by the citizens of the several states or colonies. The most pressing reason for establishing the Constitution was to raise taxes. The Continental congress could make requisitions upon the states but had no teeth to force compliance when a state would not pay. The PEOPLE did not create the Continental congress, therefore the Continental congress could not tax them directly, and had to make requests the states.

The Constitutional conventions were held to ratify the Constitution for a direct grant of authority straight from the People to allow Congress to act upon them and tax them directly. That is why there were limits to its taxing authority to "bind them in the chains of the Constitution" as Jefferson put it.

Prior to the Civil war Americans knew who they were...they were citizens of the several states. They were citizens of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of ONE of the United States. No national stand alone citizen at that time.
Look through the anuls of history and you will find that people are identified by their citizenship. "Thomas Jefferson OF Virginia, Abraham Lincoln OF Illinois, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania , Robert R. Livingston of New York.
"OF" is the identifier... Look at the memorial at the Alamo--- Davey Crockett OF Tennessee. Whole generations knew who and what they were OF... this goes way back... "Jesus OF Nazareth. IT is our lost generation that does not know what we are "of".

Dredd Scott was a black man, the "property" of the Peter Blow family.
IF you want to learn more about him you can look him up at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

Dredd Scott found himself with his owner in a "free state" where slavery was prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and sued for his freedom. Chief Justice Taney in his learned opinion, cited the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.."

Taney looked at Dredd Scott and found him to be of African descent and not the "posterity" of the PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. He said that as a black man Scott had had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect".
Although the Dredd Scott case lives in infamy, it is stll a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and has never been over ruled to this day. It has been altered by the 13th and 14th amendent , but not overruled.

WE cannot understand where we are today unless we understand were we were and how we got here.
Taney used scandalous language, but from a legal standpoint he was right in this respect. The Constitution of the United States was not created by the African American or black people. It was not created to protect them. Nor was not created by the Japanese Pilipino or Russian people either.

When we go to visit those countries we know that those governments were not created to protect us. WE keep in close contact with the United States Embassy which has treaties with those governments to indirectly protect us.

Dredd Scott was a man imbued with inalienable God given rights, but he was also a man without an embassy or government to protect those rights and the United States Constitution was not created by "his people".

To put it in the words of Lincoln, If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
So how did we get here? Lincoln is known as the great emancipator for "freeing" the slaves. But did he?

Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greely wrote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union

Lincoln said that he did not believe the Constitution gave him the authority to free the slaves. But after several years of bloody conflict, he found authority in the Constitution to CONFISCATE the slaves under his war powers. Lincoln used the words "henceforth shall be Free", but was he really freeing them?

"by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, "

Lincoln is confiscating the slave as property needed by the Union to suppress the rebellion and he only did it in the "States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States".
Lincoln did not free the slaves in those border states not in rebellion against the United States.

Fast forward to the conclusion of the civil war. Lincoln is gone and as a condition of re-entry into the Union (never mind Lincolns indissoluble union) the southern states were required to adopt the 13th amendment ).

Ok, now slavery has been "abolished". What the legal minds are talking about is not the abolishment of slavery. What they mean is PRIVATE SLAVERY not PUBLIC SLAVERY. The title to those slaves under Lincoln passed from private property to federal property.

The Dredd Scott case was still a precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Dredd Scott and his people still had no standing in any court of the United States and were not signers nor posterity of the PEOPLE that wrote the US Constitution. We can change the future, but we cannot change the past.
Prior to the abolishment of PRIVATE slavery, if one damaged a slave, it was the master that had standing to sue.

At this point, now the slaves are free, but have still have no government to protect their God given rights. It is no different than us being in China and we find that back home the United States government collapsed and the embassy closed. We are not Chinese and we have no protection.

To remedy this situation Congress SHOULD have called a convention to amend the Constitution so that the body politic could be changed to include those of African descent. Instead a constitutional amendment (14th) was adopted which created a national citizenship for all "persons born in the United States" and gave congress the authority to legislate on behalf of this new citizenship.(This is where civil rights are written in title 42 and are given in section 1983 to this day "as enjoyed by white citizens".

Thus when congress is passing new civil rights legislation it is not talking about you if you are white... unless you have given up your original state citizenship to take the candy given by the masters of the public slaves.

The distinctions are clear. The original body politic established and ordained the constitution to protect pre-existing rights which were believed to be inalienable, God given, and evidenced by a thousand years of the English Common law system of jurisprudence of established law.

The Common law courts of Law and Equity. We cannot find any of these courts today... although they may be hidden in some obscure court in DC somewhere with no easy access.

The new citizenship is a corporate citizenship created by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Its rights are not derived from the common law, but by acts of Congress.

As the people forgot their original state citizenships and embraced the national one. Congress would offer candy such as Social Security to "ITS CITIZENS" and most of us signed up. Benefits are not without a price. Congress gradually re-established all of our institutions to reflect this new relationship between government and its wards.

A citizen of ONE of the United States became a "United States Person" A congressman of the United States became UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN, The Supreme Court OF the United States became UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (plural) became the UNITED STATES (singular). District Court of the United States became UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT... The Post OFFICE of the United States became "United States Postal Service, Senator OF the United State became UNITED STATES SENATOR, so on and so on.

Some will tell you that the names turned backwards and missing the "OF" means the same thing. Consider, each one of these name changes took an act of Congress. The stationary was changed on millions and millions of documents... just because they thought it had a better ring to it??

Corporate citizens are not the "WE THE PEOPLE" of the Constitution. They are foreign to the original constitution and have no rights protected by it. They look only to the 14th amendment which granted them citizenship empowering congress as their master are wards of the United States Court "system". (Not courts of law or equity)

Since Corporations are legal fiction we call them "persons" even though they are not "human" Both Corporate persons and corporations are paper. Paper cannot speak. Someone must speak for a corportation. All corporations MUST be represented by Attorney. ( Attorneys represent others in their business affairs and in their absence can act, sign or exercise any right as if the principal was present.
When you stand before an administrative court created to administer "justice" to persons. they will automatically presume you are a person and not one of "THE PEOPLE".

That is why there are no Counselors at law admitted to any of these administrative courts.(Counselors as distinguished from Attorneys are an essential element of trial by jury in a true court of Law. j Todays courts are not constitutional and would never pass a legal test to which a Counselor at law would be required to administer before participating which is why the courts no longer admit counselors.

When you stand before today’s court they are not exercising judicial power pursuant to the Constitution, (THEY Do not follow the rules and procedures of the common law system of juriprudence) (The biggest difference is a common law court requires a damaged party as an element of jurisdiction) Today’s courts just look at statutes as suggestions and if the legislature told you to bark like a dog while rubbing your belly, they just ask whether you obeyed not whether someone was injured.

The court is not exercising judicial power it is exercising YOUR power of attorney. Either you can give your power of attorney to one of THEIR members of the bar or they ask you if YOU would like to be one of their attorneys and REPRESENT yourself. (Attorneys are the ONLY ones that represent others and can bind their clients.

If you are in your proper person, you do not represent yourself, you are YOU.. if you appear with counsel (good luck finding a counselor at law)( Alaska supreme court thought the lack of Counselors admitted to practice in the Courts of Alaska an important enough issue to commit fraud to attempt to cover it up). (I would be happy to share the evidence with you... now which court are we going to sue them in?

Counselors do not REPRESENT you, they plead your cause, they are knowledgeable in the law, but they cannot sign for you. They can only work for gratuities and there is no direct connection between money and justice. (Contrary to these den's of thieves that have been set up masquerading as courts of law.) In England one had to study at the inns of Court 16 years before becoming an advocate or counselor.

If you fully understand the difference between a Counselor at law and an Attorney at law, and invoke the 6th amendments right to counsel you will set off a legal earthquake and place the court in a very precarious predicament. It is not a court of law and needs your consent or power of attorney to proceed. The judges may think themselves immune from prosecution, but the attorneys KNOW they are not... and are the weak link in the chain.

The United States Supreme court has ruled that EVERY judge knows that without a intelligent and knowing waiver of the right to "counsel" there can be no jail time imposed. If you form the question well, you will not get an attorney anywhere near your case and even the appointed ones will ask to withdraw from the case... and you will see their hineys shimmer as they run out the court room door leaving you to stand to the charges ALONE.(but the verdict or judgement will be void without the waiver of "counsel".

Ok... another boring rambling letter... but someone somewhere will get clues here and figure out what needs to be done to re-claim the RE-public.

Back to land ownership. Foreigners cannot own land in foreign countries under the law of Nations. Many countries you can now kindo of “own” land… but not really. What they do is create some entity to own it with lawful title held by a citizen or by the State.

After the civil war the original government of the United States ceased to operate. IT still exists, but is latently sitting there and the PEOPLE have not caucused or held conventions in over 130 years. The political power has been deposited in a new body politic that allows foreigners to participate. Actually ONLY foreigners can participate. This new corporate national citizen.

This new body politic cannot pass laws effecting the original body politic just as exxon can not pass by-laws that effect Enron.

All of the acts prior to the civil war are still in effect and are enforceable IF you could find a court of law that has Officers, commissions and officers bonds.(Judicial Power).

In Alaska all the land purchased from Russia is held by the United States under its territorial powers.( THere may be exceptions pursuant to the treaty with russia concerning native lands..)

The State of Alaska ONLY acknowledges foreign citizenships and one has to be a “United States Citizen” to vote or participate on a jury. (IF Alaska was one of the several states pursuant to the U.S Constitution, it would have requirements that one was a citizen of Alaska,

. Alaska is merely a corporation created entirely outside of any lawful authority derived from the original United States Constitution and requires that one is a corporate citizen for participation.

The United States is the Proprietor and if you “own” land it is a title in fief (pheasants hold land under a feudal system or fiefdom where tenure is paid to the owner, not allodial where one holds lawful title.

The State of Alaska is similar to the commercial companies that England granted for commerce in America. In the absence of a lawful government, these companies passed and executed its own laws outside of the kings domain. Alaska is a commercial land grant corporation.

Congress neglected Alaska after its purchase and failed to pass any laws or establish courts of law up here until 1884. For 17 years one could commit murder and there was no law against it... of course it is a crime at common law, but there were no common law courts established to administer it. To this day one can commit abortion in Alaska. Abortion is a crime at common law and always will be, yet congress is yet derelict in its duty to establish courts of Law in Alaska, and the PEOPLE are derelict in their duty to form a government other than this commercial corporation that is established outside the rule of law.

Under the northwest Ordinance, lands northwest of the Ohio river were to be governed by Congress under their territorial powers until such time as “THE PEOPLE” are sufficient in number and form a government under their God given authority.

That has not happened here yet, and as time goes on it becomes more difficult as “THE PEOPLE” don’t know who they are and the country has been displaced with foreigners.

All of the States have been overcome by the federal government imposing the new body politic and an overlay government contrary to the Constitution. The states that were formed prior to the change of the body politic still technically exist. The body politic that created those states and the Constitution (WE THE PEOPLE) has not held conventions or caucused on over 130 years.

To really understand what has happened to America, one needs to understand and identify the "body politic" that created the United States Constitution.

Governments are created to protect the body politics that create them. When we travel to other countries we are guests and those host governments were not created to protect us. That is the reason we keep in contact with our embassy’s in those countries. Under certain circumstances the United States will issue a warning not to visit a countries where they have closed the embassy and cannot guarantee our protection.

The United States Constitution was created by the citizens of the several states or colonies. The most pressing reason for establishing the Constitution was to raise taxes. The Continental congress could make requisitions upon the states but had no teeth to force compliance when a state would not pay. The PEOPLE did not create the Continental congress, therefore the Continental congress could not tax them directly, and had to make requests the states.

The Constitutional conventions were held to ratify the Constitution for a direct grant of authority straight from the People to allow Congress to act upon them and tax them directly. That is why there were limits to its taxing authority to "bind them in the chains of the Constitution" as Jefferson put it.

Prior to the Civil war Americans knew who they were...they were citizens of the several states. They were citizens of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of ONE of the United States. No national stand alone citizen at that time.
Look through the anuls of history and you will find that people are identified by their citizenship. "Thomas Jefferson OF Virginia, Abraham Lincoln OF Illinois, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania , Robert R. Livingston of New York.
"OF" is the identifier... Look at the memorial at the Alamo--- Davey Crockett OF Tennessee. Whole generations knew who and what they were OF... this goes way back... "Jesus OF Nazareth. IT is our lost generation that does not know what we are "of".

Dredd Scott was a black man, the "property" of the Peter Blow family.
IF you want to learn more about him you can look him up at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

Dredd Scott found himself with his owner in a "free state" where slavery was prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and sued for his freedom. Chief Justice Taney in his learned opinion, cited the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.."

Taney looked at Dredd Scott and found him to be of African descent and not the "posterity" of the PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. He said that as a black man Scott had had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect".
Although the Dredd Scott case lives in infamy, it is stll a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and has never been over ruled to this day. It has been altered by the 13th and 14th amendent , but not overruled.

WE cannot understand where we are today unless we understand were we were and how we got here.
Taney used scandalous language, but from a legal standpoint he was right in this respect. The Constitution of the United States was not created by the African American or black people. It was not created to protect them. Nor was not created by the Japanese Pilipino or Russian people either.

When we go to visit those countries we know that those governments were not created to protect us. WE keep in close contact with the United States Embassy which has treaties with those governments to indirectly protect us.

Dredd Scott was a man imbued with inalienable God given rights, but he was also a man without an embassy or government to protect those rights and the United States Constitution was not created by "his people".

To put it in the words of Lincoln, If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
So how did we get here? Lincoln is known as the great emancipator for "freeing" the slaves. But did he?

Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greely wrote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union

Lincoln said that he did not believe the Constitution gave him the authority to free the slaves. But after several years of bloody conflict, he found authority in the Constitution to CONFISCATE the slaves under his war powers. Lincoln used the words "henceforth shall be Free", but was he really freeing them?

"by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, "

Lincoln is confiscating the slave as property needed by the Union to suppress the rebellion and he only did it in the "States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States".
Lincoln did not free the slaves in those border states not in rebellion against the United States.

Fast forward to the conclusion of the civil war. Lincoln is gone and as a condition of re-entry into the Union (never mind Lincolns indissoluble union) the southern states were required to adopt the 13th amendment ).

Ok, now slavery has been "abolished". What the legal minds are talking about is not the abolishment of slavery. What they mean is PRIVATE SLAVERY not PUBLIC SLAVERY. The title to those slaves under Lincoln passed from private property to federal property.

The Dredd Scott case was still a precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Dredd Scott and his people still had no standing in any court of the United States and were not signers nor posterity of the PEOPLE that wrote the US Constitution. We can change the future, but we cannot change the past.
Prior to the abolishment of PRIVATE slavery, if one damaged a slave, it was the master that had standing to sue.

At this point, now the slaves are free, but have still have no government to protect their God given rights. It is no different than us being in China and we find that back home the United States government collapsed and the embassy closed. We are not Chinese and we have no protection.

To remedy this situation Congress SHOULD have called a convention to amend the Constitution so that the body politic could be changed to include those of African descent. Instead a constitutional amendment (14th) was adopted which created a national citizenship for all "persons born in the United States" and gave congress the authority to legislate on behalf of this new citizenship.(This is where civil rights are written in title 42 and are given in section 1983 to this day "as enjoyed by white citizens".

Thus when congress is passing new civil rights legislation it is not talking about you if you are white... unless you have given up your original state citizenship to take the candy given by the masters of the public slaves.

The distinctions are clear. The original body politic established and ordained the constitution to protect pre-existing rights which were believed to be inalienable, God given, and evidenced by a thousand years of the English Common law system of jurisprudence of established law.

The Common law courts of Law and Equity. We cannot find any of these courts today... although they may be hidden in some obscure court in DC somewhere with no easy access.

The new citizenship is a corporate citizenship created by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Its rights are not derived from the common law, but by acts of Congress.

As the people forgot their original state citizenships and embraced the national one. Congress would offer candy such as Social Security to "ITS CITIZENS" and most of us signed up. Benefits are not without a price. Congress gradually re-established all of our institutions to reflect this new relationship between government and its wards.

A citizen of ONE of the United States became a "United States Person" A congressman of the United States became UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN, The Supreme Court OF the United States became UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (plural) became the UNITED STATES (singular). District Court of the United States became UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT... The Post OFFICE of the United States became "United States Postal Service, Senator OF the United State became UNITED STATES SENATOR, so on and so on.

Some will tell you that the names turned backwards and missing the "OF" means the same thing. Consider, each one of these name changes took an act of Congress. The stationary was changed on millions and millions of documents... just because they thought it had a better ring to it??

Corporate citizens are not the "WE THE PEOPLE" of the Constitution. They are foreign to the original constitution and have no rights protected by it. They look only to the 14th amendment which granted them citizenship empowering congress as their master are wards of the United States Court "system". (Not courts of law or equity)

Since Corporations are legal fiction we call them "persons" even though they are not "human" Both Corporate persons and corporations are paper. Paper cannot speak. Someone must speak for a corportation. All corporations MUST be represented by Attorney. ( Attorneys represent others in their business affairs and in their absence can act, sign or exercise any right as if the principal was present.
When you stand before an administrative court created to administer "justice" to persons. they will automatically presume you are a person and not one of "THE PEOPLE".

That is why there are no Counselors at law admitted to any of these administrative courts.(Counselors as distinguished from Attorneys are an essential element of trial by jury in a true court of Law. j Todays courts are not constitutional and would never pass a legal test to which a Counselor at law would be required to administer before participating which is why the courts no longer admit counselors.

When you stand before today’s court they are not exercising judicial power pursuant to the Constitution, (THEY Do not follow the rules and procedures of the common law system of juriprudence) (The biggest difference is a common law court requires a damaged party as an element of jurisdiction) Today’s courts just look at statutes as suggestions and if the legislature told you to bark like a dog while rubbing your belly, they just ask whether you obeyed not whether someone was injured.

The court is not exercising judicial power it is exercising YOUR power of attorney. Either you can give your power of attorney to one of THEIR members of the bar or they ask you if YOU would like to be one of their attorneys and REPRESENT yourself. (Attorneys are the ONLY ones that represent others and can bind their clients.

If you are in your proper person, you do not represent yourself, you are YOU.. if you appear with counsel (good luck finding a counselor at law)( Alaska supreme court thought the lack of Counselors admitted to practice in the Courts of Alaska an important enough issue to commit fraud to attempt to cover it up). (I would be happy to share the evidence with you... now which court are we going to sue them in?

Counselors do not REPRESENT you, they plead your cause, they are knowledgeable in the law, but they cannot sign for you. They can only work for gratuities and there is no direct connection between money and justice. (Contrary to these den's of thieves that have been set up masquerading as courts of law.) In England one had to study at the inns of Court 16 years before becoming an advocate or counselor.

If you fully understand the difference between a Counselor at law and an Attorney at law, and invoke the 6th amendments right to counsel you will set off a legal earthquake and place the court in a very precarious predicament. It is not a court of law and needs your consent or power of attorney to proceed. The judges may think themselves immune from prosecution, but the attorneys KNOW they are not... and are the weak link in the chain.

The United States Supreme court has ruled that EVERY judge knows that without a intelligent and knowing waiver of the right to "counsel" there can be no jail time imposed. If you form the question well, you will not get an attorney anywhere near your case and even the appointed ones will ask to withdraw from the case... and you will see their hineys shimmer as they run out the court room door leaving you to stand to the charges ALONE.(but the verdict or judgement will be void without the waiver of "counsel".

Ok... another boring rambling letter... but someone somewhere will get clues here and figure out what needs to be done to re-claim the RE-public.

Back to land ownership. Foreigners cannot own land in foreign countries under the law of Nations. Many countries you can now kindo of “own” land… but not really. What they do is create some entity to own it with lawful title held by a citizen or by the State.

After the civil war the original government of the United States ceased to operate. IT still exists, but is latently sitting there and the PEOPLE have not caucused or held conventions in over 130 years. The political power has been deposited in a new body politic that allows foreigners to participate. Actually ONLY foreigners can participate. This new corporate national citizen.

This new body politic cannot pass laws effecting the original body politic just as exxon can not pass by-laws that effect Enron.

All of the acts prior to the civil war are still in effect and are enforceable IF you could find a court of law that has Officers, commissions and officers bonds.(Judicial Power).

In Alaska all the land purchased from Russia is held by the United States under its territorial powers.( THere may be exceptions pursuant to the treaty with russia concerning native lands..)

The State of Alaska ONLY acknowledges foreign citizenships and one has to be a “United States Citizen” to vote or participate on a jury. (IF Alaska was one of the several states pursuant to the U.S Constitution, it would have requirements that one was a citizen of Alaska,

. Alaska is merely a corporation created entirely outside of any lawful authority derived from the original United States Constitution and requires that one is a corporate citizen for participation.

The United States is the Proprietor and if you “own” land it is a title in fief (pheasants hold land under a feudal system or fiefdom where tenure is paid to the owner, not allodial where one holds lawful title.

The State of Alaska is similar to the commercial companies that England granted for commerce in America. In the absence of a lawful government, these companies passed and executed its own laws outside of the kings domain. Alaska is a commercial land grant corporation.

Congress neglected Alaska after its purchase and failed to pass any laws or establish courts of law up here until 1884. For 17 years one could commit murder and there was no law against it... of course it is a crime at common law, but there were no common law courts established to administer it. To this day one can commit abortion in Alaska. Abortion is a crime at common law and always will be, yet congress is yet derelict in its duty to establish courts of Law in Alaska, and the PEOPLE are derelict in their duty to form a government other than this commercial corporation that is established outside the rule of law.

Under the northwest Ordinance, lands northwest of the Ohio river were to be governed by Congress under their territorial powers until such time as “THE PEOPLE” are sufficient in number and form a government under their God given authority.

That has not happened here yet, and as time goes on it becomes more difficult as “THE PEOPLE” don’t know who they are and the country has been displaced with foreigners.

All of the States have been overcome by the federal government imposing the new body politic and an overlay government contrary to the Constitution. The states that were formed prior to the change of the body politic still technically exist. The body politic that created those states and the Constitution (WE THE PEOPLE) has not held conventions or caucused on over 130 years.

To really understand what has happened to America, one needs to understand and identify the "body politic" that created the United States Constitution.

Governments are created to protect the body politics that create them. When we travel to other countries we are guests and those host governments were not created to protect us. That is the reason we keep in contact with our embassy’s in those countries. Under certain circumstances the United States will issue a warning not to visit a countries where they have closed the embassy and cannot guarantee our protection.

The United States Constitution was created by the citizens of the several states or colonies. The most pressing reason for establishing the Constitution was to raise taxes. The Continental congress could make requisitions upon the states but had no teeth to force compliance when a state would not pay. The PEOPLE did not create the Continental congress, therefore the Continental congress could not tax them directly, and had to make requests the states.

The Constitutional conventions were held to ratify the Constitution for a direct grant of authority straight from the People to allow Congress to act upon them and tax them directly. That is why there were limits to its taxing authority to "bind them in the chains of the Constitution" as Jefferson put it.

Prior to the Civil war Americans knew who they were...they were citizens of the several states. They were citizens of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of ONE of the United States. No national stand alone citizen at that time.
Look through the anuls of history and you will find that people are identified by their citizenship. "Thomas Jefferson OF Virginia, Abraham Lincoln OF Illinois, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania , Robert R. Livingston of New York.
"OF" is the identifier... Look at the memorial at the Alamo--- Davey Crockett OF Tennessee. Whole generations knew who and what they were OF... this goes way back... "Jesus OF Nazareth. IT is our lost generation that does not know what we are "of".

Dredd Scott was a black man, the "property" of the Peter Blow family.
IF you want to learn more about him you can look him up at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

Dredd Scott found himself with his owner in a "free state" where slavery was prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and sued for his freedom. Chief Justice Taney in his learned opinion, cited the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.."

Taney looked at Dredd Scott and found him to be of African descent and not the "posterity" of the PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. He said that as a black man Scott had had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect".
Although the Dredd Scott case lives in infamy, it is stll a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and has never been over ruled to this day. It has been altered by the 13th and 14th amendent , but not overruled.

WE cannot understand where we are today unless we understand were we were and how we got here.
Taney used scandalous language, but from a legal standpoint he was right in this respect. The Constitution of the United States was not created by the African American or black people. It was not created to protect them. Nor was not created by the Japanese Pilipino or Russian people either.

When we go to visit those countries we know that those governments were not created to protect us. WE keep in close contact with the United States Embassy which has treaties with those governments to indirectly protect us.

Dredd Scott was a man imbued with inalienable God given rights, but he was also a man without an embassy or government to protect those rights and the United States Constitution was not created by "his people".

To put it in the words of Lincoln, If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
So how did we get here? Lincoln is known as the great emancipator for "freeing" the slaves. But did he?

Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greely wrote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union

Lincoln said that he did not believe the Constitution gave him the authority to free the slaves. But after several years of bloody conflict, he found authority in the Constitution to CONFISCATE the slaves under his war powers. Lincoln used the words "henceforth shall be Free", but was he really freeing them?

"by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, "

Lincoln is confiscating the slave as property needed by the Union to suppress the rebellion and he only did it in the "States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States".
Lincoln did not free the slaves in those border states not in rebellion against the United States.

Fast forward to the conclusion of the civil war. Lincoln is gone and as a condition of re-entry into the Union (never mind Lincolns indissoluble union) the southern states were required to adopt the 13th amendment ).

Ok, now slavery has been "abolished". What the legal minds are talking about is not the abolishment of slavery. What they mean is PRIVATE SLAVERY not PUBLIC SLAVERY. The title to those slaves under Lincoln passed from private property to federal property.

The Dredd Scott case was still a precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Dredd Scott and his people still had no standing in any court of the United States and were not signers nor posterity of the PEOPLE that wrote the US Constitution. We can change the future, but we cannot change the past.
Prior to the abolishment of PRIVATE slavery, if one damaged a slave, it was the master that had standing to sue.

At this point, now the slaves are free, but have still have no government to protect their God given rights. It is no different than us being in China and we find that back home the United States government collapsed and the embassy closed. We are not Chinese and we have no protection.

To remedy this situation Congress SHOULD have called a convention to amend the Constitution so that the body politic could be changed to include those of African descent. Instead a constitutional amendment (14th) was adopted which created a national citizenship for all "persons born in the United States" and gave congress the authority to legislate on behalf of this new citizenship.(This is where civil rights are written in title 42 and are given in section 1983 to this day "as enjoyed by white citizens".

Thus when congress is passing new civil rights legislation it is not talking about you if you are white... unless you have given up your original state citizenship to take the candy given by the masters of the public slaves.

The distinctions are clear. The original body politic established and ordained the constitution to protect pre-existing rights which were believed to be inalienable, God given, and evidenced by a thousand years of the English Common law system of jurisprudence of established law.

The Common law courts of Law and Equity. We cannot find any of these courts today... although they may be hidden in some obscure court in DC somewhere with no easy access.

The new citizenship is a corporate citizenship created by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Its rights are not derived from the common law, but by acts of Congress.

As the people forgot their original state citizenships and embraced the national one. Congress would offer candy such as Social Security to "ITS CITIZENS" and most of us signed up. Benefits are not without a price. Congress gradually re-established all of our institutions to reflect this new relationship between government and its wards.

A citizen of ONE of the United States became a "United States Person" A congressman of the United States became UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN, The Supreme Court OF the United States became UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (plural) became the UNITED STATES (singular). District Court of the United States became UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT... The Post OFFICE of the United States became "United States Postal Service, Senator OF the United State became UNITED STATES SENATOR, so on and so on.

Some will tell you that the names turned backwards and missing the "OF" means the same thing. Consider, each one of these name changes took an act of Congress. The stationary was changed on millions and millions of documents... just because they thought it had a better ring to it??

Corporate citizens are not the "WE THE PEOPLE" of the Constitution. They are foreign to the original constitution and have no rights protected by it. They look only to the 14th amendment which granted them citizenship empowering congress as their master are wards of the United States Court "system". (Not courts of law or equity)

Since Corporations are legal fiction we call them "persons" even though they are not "human" Both Corporate persons and corporations are paper. Paper cannot speak. Someone must speak for a corportation. All corporations MUST be represented by Attorney. ( Attorneys represent others in their business affairs and in their absence can act, sign or exercise any right as if the principal was present.
When you stand before an administrative court created to administer "justice" to persons. they will automatically presume you are a person and not one of "THE PEOPLE".

That is why there are no Counselors at law admitted to any of these administrative courts.(Counselors as distinguished from Attorneys are an essential element of trial by jury in a true court of Law. j Todays courts are not constitutional and would never pass a legal test to which a Counselor at law would be required to administer before participating which is why the courts no longer admit counselors.

When you stand before today’s court they are not exercising judicial power pursuant to the Constitution, (THEY Do not follow the rules and procedures of the common law system of juriprudence) (The biggest difference is a common law court requires a damaged party as an element of jurisdiction) Today’s courts just look at statutes as suggestions and if the legislature told you to bark like a dog while rubbing your belly, they just ask whether you obeyed not whether someone was injured.

The court is not exercising judicial power it is exercising YOUR power of attorney. Either you can give your power of attorney to one of THEIR members of the bar or they ask you if YOU would like to be one of their attorneys and REPRESENT yourself. (Attorneys are the ONLY ones that represent others and can bind their clients.

If you are in your proper person, you do not represent yourself, you are YOU.. if you appear with counsel (good luck finding a counselor at law)( Alaska supreme court thought the lack of Counselors admitted to practice in the Courts of Alaska an important enough issue to commit fraud to attempt to cover it up). (I would be happy to share the evidence with you... now which court are we going to sue them in?

Counselors do not REPRESENT you, they plead your cause, they are knowledgeable in the law, but they cannot sign for you. They can only work for gratuities and there is no direct connection between money and justice. (Contrary to these den's of thieves that have been set up masquerading as courts of law.) In England one had to study at the inns of Court 16 years before becoming an advocate or counselor.

If you fully understand the difference between a Counselor at law and an Attorney at law, and invoke the 6th amendments right to counsel you will set off a legal earthquake and place the court in a very precarious predicament. It is not a court of law and needs your consent or power of attorney to proceed. The judges may think themselves immune from prosecution, but the attorneys KNOW they are not... and are the weak link in the chain.

The United States Supreme court has ruled that EVERY judge knows that without a intelligent and knowing waiver of the right to "counsel" there can be no jail time imposed. If you form the question well, you will not get an attorney anywhere near your case and even the appointed ones will ask to withdraw from the case... and you will see their hineys shimmer as they run out the court room door leaving you to stand to the charges ALONE.(but the verdict or judgement will be void without the waiver of "counsel".

Ok... another boring rambling letter... but someone somewhere will get clues here and figure out what needs to be done to re-claim the RE-public.

Back to land ownership. Foreigners cannot own land in foreign countries under the law of Nations. Many countries you can now kindo of “own” land… but not really. What they do is create some entity to own it with lawful title held by a citizen or by the State.

After the civil war the original government of the United States ceased to operate. IT still exists, but is latently sitting there and the PEOPLE have not caucused or held conventions in over 130 years. The political power has been deposited in a new body politic that allows foreigners to participate. Actually ONLY foreigners can participate. This new corporate national citizen.

This new body politic cannot pass laws effecting the original body politic just as exxon can not pass by-laws that effect Enron.

All of the acts prior to the civil war are still in effect and are enforceable IF you could find a court of law that has Officers, commissions and officers bonds.(Judicial Power).

In Alaska all the land purchased from Russia is held by the United States under its territorial powers.( THere may be exceptions pursuant to the treaty with russia concerning native lands..)

The State of Alaska ONLY acknowledges foreign citizenships and one has to be a “United States Citizen” to vote or participate on a jury. (IF Alaska was one of the several states pursuant to the U.S Constitution, it would have requirements that one was a citizen of Alaska,

. Alaska is merely a corporation created entirely outside of any lawful authority derived from the original United States Constitution and requires that one is a corporate citizen for participation.

The United States is the Proprietor and if you “own” land it is a title in fief (pheasants hold land under a feudal system or fiefdom where tenure is paid to the owner, not allodial where one holds lawful title.

The State of Alaska is similar to the commercial companies that England granted for commerce in America. In the absence of a lawful government, these companies passed and executed its own laws outside of the kings domain. Alaska is a commercial land grant corporation.

Congress neglected Alaska after its purchase and failed to pass any laws or establish courts of law up here until 1884. For 17 years one could commit murder and there was no law against it... of course it is a crime at common law, but there were no common law courts established to administer it. To this day one can commit abortion in Alaska. Abortion is a crime at common law and always will be, yet congress is yet derelict in its duty to establish courts of Law in Alaska, and the PEOPLE are derelict in their duty to form a government other than this commercial corporation that is established outside the rule of law.

Under the northwest Ordinance, lands northwest of the Ohio river were to be governed by Congress under their territorial powers until such time as “THE PEOPLE” are sufficient in number and form a government under their God given authority.

That has not happened here yet, and as time goes on it becomes more difficult as “THE PEOPLE” don’t know who they are and the country has been displaced with foreigners.

All of the States have been overcome by the federal government imposing the new body politic and an overlay government contrary to the Constitution. The states that were formed prior to the change of the body politic still technically exist. The body politic that created those states and the Constitution (WE THE PEOPLE) has not held conventions or caucused on over 130 years.

To really understand what has happened to America, one needs to understand and identify the "body politic" that created the United States Constitution.

Governments are created to protect the body politics that create them. When we travel to other countries we are guests and those host governments were not created to protect us. That is the reason we keep in contact with our embassy’s in those countries. Under certain circumstances the United States will issue a warning not to visit a countries where they have closed the embassy and cannot guarantee our protection.

The United States Constitution was created by the citizens of the several states or colonies. The most pressing reason for establishing the Constitution was to raise taxes. The Continental congress could make requisitions upon the states but had no teeth to force compliance when a state would not pay. The PEOPLE did not create the Continental congress, therefore the Continental congress could not tax them directly, and had to make requests the states.

The Constitutional conventions were held to ratify the Constitution for a direct grant of authority straight from the People to allow Congress to act upon them and tax them directly. That is why there were limits to its taxing authority to "bind them in the chains of the Constitution" as Jefferson put it.

Prior to the Civil war Americans knew who they were...they were citizens of the several states. They were citizens of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of ONE of the United States. No national stand alone citizen at that time.
Look through the anuls of history and you will find that people are identified by their citizenship. "Thomas Jefferson OF Virginia, Abraham Lincoln OF Illinois, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania , Robert R. Livingston of New York.
"OF" is the identifier... Look at the memorial at the Alamo--- Davey Crockett OF Tennessee. Whole generations knew who and what they were OF... this goes way back... "Jesus OF Nazareth. IT is our lost generation that does not know what we are "of".

Dredd Scott was a black man, the "property" of the Peter Blow family.
IF you want to learn more about him you can look him up at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

Dredd Scott found himself with his owner in a "free state" where slavery was prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and sued for his freedom. Chief Justice Taney in his learned opinion, cited the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.."

Taney looked at Dredd Scott and found him to be of African descent and not the "posterity" of the PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. He said that as a black man Scott had had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect".
Although the Dredd Scott case lives in infamy, it is stll a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and has never been over ruled to this day. It has been altered by the 13th and 14th amendent , but not overruled.

WE cannot understand where we are today unless we understand were we were and how we got here.
Taney used scandalous language, but from a legal standpoint he was right in this respect. The Constitution of the United States was not created by the African American or black people. It was not created to protect them. Nor was not created by the Japanese Pilipino or Russian people either.

When we go to visit those countries we know that those governments were not created to protect us. WE keep in close contact with the United States Embassy which has treaties with those governments to indirectly protect us.

Dredd Scott was a man imbued with inalienable God given rights, but he was also a man without an embassy or government to protect those rights and the United States Constitution was not created by "his people".

To put it in the words of Lincoln, If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
So how did we get here? Lincoln is known as the great emancipator for "freeing" the slaves. But did he?

Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greely wrote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union

Lincoln said that he did not believe the Constitution gave him the authority to free the slaves. But after several years of bloody conflict, he found authority in the Constitution to CONFISCATE the slaves under his war powers. Lincoln used the words "henceforth shall be Free", but was he really freeing them?

"by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, "

Lincoln is confiscating the slave as property needed by the Union to suppress the rebellion and he only did it in the "States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States".
Lincoln did not free the slaves in those border states not in rebellion against the United States.

Fast forward to the conclusion of the civil war. Lincoln is gone and as a condition of re-entry into the Union (never mind Lincolns indissoluble union) the southern states were required to adopt the 13th amendment ).

Ok, now slavery has been "abolished". What the legal minds are talking about is not the abolishment of slavery. What they mean is PRIVATE SLAVERY not PUBLIC SLAVERY. The title to those slaves under Lincoln passed from private property to federal property.

The Dredd Scott case was still a precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Dredd Scott and his people still had no standing in any court of the United States and were not signers nor posterity of the PEOPLE that wrote the US Constitution. We can change the future, but we cannot change the past.
Prior to the abolishment of PRIVATE slavery, if one damaged a slave, it was the master that had standing to sue.

At this point, now the slaves are free, but have still have no government to protect their God given rights. It is no different than us being in China and we find that back home the United States government collapsed and the embassy closed. We are not Chinese and we have no protection.

To remedy this situation Congress SHOULD have called a convention to amend the Constitution so that the body politic could be changed to include those of African descent. Instead a constitutional amendment (14th) was adopted which created a national citizenship for all "persons born in the United States" and gave congress the authority to legislate on behalf of this new citizenship.(This is where civil rights are written in title 42 and are given in section 1983 to this day "as enjoyed by white citizens".

Thus when congress is passing new civil rights legislation it is not talking about you if you are white... unless you have given up your original state citizenship to take the candy given by the masters of the public slaves.

The distinctions are clear. The original body politic established and ordained the constitution to protect pre-existing rights which were believed to be inalienable, God given, and evidenced by a thousand years of the English Common law system of jurisprudence of established law.

The Common law courts of Law and Equity. We cannot find any of these courts today... although they may be hidden in some obscure court in DC somewhere with no easy access.

The new citizenship is a corporate citizenship created by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Its rights are not derived from the common law, but by acts of Congress.

As the people forgot their original state citizenships and embraced the national one. Congress would offer candy such as Social Security to "ITS CITIZENS" and most of us signed up. Benefits are not without a price. Congress gradually re-established all of our institutions to reflect this new relationship between government and its wards.

A citizen of ONE of the United States became a "United States Person" A congressman of the United States became UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN, The Supreme Court OF the United States became UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (plural) became the UNITED STATES (singular). District Court of the United States became UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT... The Post OFFICE of the United States became "United States Postal Service, Senator OF the United State became UNITED STATES SENATOR, so on and so on.

Some will tell you that the names turned backwards and missing the "OF" means the same thing. Consider, each one of these name changes took an act of Congress. The stationary was changed on millions and millions of documents... just because they thought it had a better ring to it??

Corporate citizens are not the "WE THE PEOPLE" of the Constitution. They are foreign to the original constitution and have no rights protected by it. They look only to the 14th amendment which granted them citizenship empowering congress as their master are wards of the United States Court "system". (Not courts of law or equity)

Since Corporations are legal fiction we call them "persons" even though they are not "human" Both Corporate persons and corporations are paper. Paper cannot speak. Someone must speak for a corportation. All corporations MUST be represented by Attorney. ( Attorneys represent others in their business affairs and in their absence can act, sign or exercise any right as if the principal was present.
When you stand before an administrative court created to administer "justice" to persons. they will automatically presume you are a person and not one of "THE PEOPLE".

That is why there are no Counselors at law admitted to any of these administrative courts.(Counselors as distinguished from Attorneys are an essential element of trial by jury in a true court of Law. j Todays courts are not constitutional and would never pass a legal test to which a Counselor at law would be required to administer before participating which is why the courts no longer admit counselors.

When you stand before today’s court they are not exercising judicial power pursuant to the Constitution, (THEY Do not follow the rules and procedures of the common law system of juriprudence) (The biggest difference is a common law court requires a damaged party as an element of jurisdiction) Today’s courts just look at statutes as suggestions and if the legislature told you to bark like a dog while rubbing your belly, they just ask whether you obeyed not whether someone was injured.

The court is not exercising judicial power it is exercising YOUR power of attorney. Either you can give your power of attorney to one of THEIR members of the bar or they ask you if YOU would like to be one of their attorneys and REPRESENT yourself. (Attorneys are the ONLY ones that represent others and can bind their clients.

If you are in your proper person, you do not represent yourself, you are YOU.. if you appear with counsel (good luck finding a counselor at law)( Alaska supreme court thought the lack of Counselors admitted to practice in the Courts of Alaska an important enough issue to commit fraud to attempt to cover it up). (I would be happy to share the evidence with you... now which court are we going to sue them in?

Counselors do not REPRESENT you, they plead your cause, they are knowledgeable in the law, but they cannot sign for you. They can only work for gratuities and there is no direct connection between money and justice. (Contrary to these den's of thieves that have been set up masquerading as courts of law.) In England one had to study at the inns of Court 16 years before becoming an advocate or counselor.

If you fully understand the difference between a Counselor at law and an Attorney at law, and invoke the 6th amendments right to counsel you will set off a legal earthquake and place the court in a very precarious predicament. It is not a court of law and needs your consent or power of attorney to proceed. The judges may think themselves immune from prosecution, but the attorneys KNOW they are not... and are the weak link in the chain.

The United States Supreme court has ruled that EVERY judge knows that without a intelligent and knowing waiver of the right to "counsel" there can be no jail time imposed. If you form the question well, you will not get an attorney anywhere near your case and even the appointed ones will ask to withdraw from the case... and you will see their hineys shimmer as they run out the court room door leaving you to stand to the charges ALONE.(but the verdict or judgement will be void without the waiver of "counsel".

Ok... another boring rambling letter... but someone somewhere will get clues here and figure out what needs to be done to re-claim the RE-public.

Back to land ownership. Foreigners cannot own land in foreign countries under the law of Nations. Many countries you can now kindo of “own” land… but not really. What they do is create some entity to own it with lawful title held by a citizen or by the State.

After the civil war the original government of the United States ceased to operate. IT still exists, but is latently sitting there and the PEOPLE have not caucused or held conventions in over 130 years. The political power has been deposited in a new body politic that allows foreigners to participate. Actually ONLY foreigners can participate. This new corporate national citizen.

This new body politic cannot pass laws effecting the original body politic just as exxon can not pass by-laws that effect Enron.

All of the acts prior to the civil war are still in effect and are enforceable IF you could find a court of law that has Officers, commissions and officers bonds.(Judicial Power).

In Alaska all the land purchased from Russia is held by the United States under its territorial powers.( THere may be exceptions pursuant to the treaty with russia concerning native lands..)

The State of Alaska ONLY acknowledges foreign citizenships and one has to be a “United States Citizen” to vote or participate on a jury. (IF Alaska was one of the several states pursuant to the U.S Constitution, it would have requirements that one was a citizen of Alaska,

. Alaska is merely a corporation created entirely outside of any lawful authority derived from the original United States Constitution and requires that one is a corporate citizen for participation.

The United States is the Proprietor and if you “own” land it is a title in fief (pheasants hold land under a feudal system or fiefdom where tenure is paid to the owner, not allodial where one holds lawful title.

The State of Alaska is similar to the commercial companies that England granted for commerce in America. In the absence of a lawful government, these companies passed and executed its own laws outside of the kings domain. Alaska is a commercial land grant corporation.

Congress neglected Alaska after its purchase and failed to pass any laws or establish courts of law up here until 1884. For 17 years one could commit murder and there was no law against it... of course it is a crime at common law, but there were no common law courts established to administer it. To this day one can commit abortion in Alaska. Abortion is a crime at common law and always will be, yet congress is yet derelict in its duty to establish courts of Law in Alaska, and the PEOPLE are derelict in their duty to form a government other than this commercial corporation that is established outside the rule of law.

Under the northwest Ordinance, lands northwest of the Ohio river were to be governed by Congress under their territorial powers until such time as “THE PEOPLE” are sufficient in number and form a government under their God given authority.

That has not happened here yet, and as time goes on it becomes more difficult as “THE PEOPLE” don’t know who they are and the country has been displaced with foreigners.

All of the States have been overcome by the federal government imposing the new body politic and an overlay government contrary to the Constitution. The states that were formed prior to the change of the body politic still technically exist. The body politic that created those states and the Constitution (WE THE PEOPLE) has not held conventions or caucused on over 130 years.

if you think barak obama should be the first black president. look at ALAN KEYES, giuliani is biliary with a penis. Romney and Huckabee are religious zealots with religious bases and alienable "god"'s. mccain is still with little bush, and edwards is just ridiculously biting kennedy.

the national televised debates have proven to be fraudulent.. Alan Keys has proven the fact with his "outburst". every candidate has riggle'd out of decisive answers to exacting issues, spewing what should and should not be done. Ron Paul has been the only candidate to give precise judgments on solid issues. the candidates that do not "flip flop" are not taken seriously seeing 30 seconds and interruptions by 60 seconders and the "hopefulls" and "front runners".

im voting ron paul in 2008, and demanding the ability to write in my choice if 2008 is anything like 2007 in Russia.

Every time I check Ron Paul's stand on a different
issue, I'm amazed ! How can he be so clearly right on every one.

He is almost too good to be true.

I think that if we let this chance
to change the heart of this nations government go by, we will
forever regret it and no amount of wealth could ease that shame.

We need Ron Paul more than ever. Unfortunately, he has one major roadblock in his way to the White House: The average American is just plain too dumb to vote for him. The sheeple will never vote for Ron Paul.

God help us if Clinton, Obama, Romney, Guiliani or any of the other clowns win.

We need Ron Paul more than ever. Unfortunately, he has one major roadblock in his way to the White House: The average American is just plain too dumb to vote for him. The sheeple will never vote for Ron Paul.

God help us if Clinton, Obama, Romney, Guiliani or any of the other clowns win.

The only problem with Ron Paul is he is wrong on every issue out there.

* Ron Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN or at least from UNESCO.

* Ron Paul has authored legislation saying that life begins at conception, to prevent federal money from being spent on family planning (that would include contraception), and has tried to amend the Constitution to "guarantee the right to life."

* Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to abolish

the minimum wage, and to eviscerate Social Security.

* Ron Paul wants guns in schools.

* Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to guarantee employees of federal contractors the prevailing wage and wants to make it easier to decertify a union.

* Ron Paul wants to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship.

* Ron Paul wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and prepare for a return to the Gold Standard, which would destroy the economy.

This is just the tip of a very big, very crazy iceberg. See the rest at Orcinus.

(Update: Also see this post at Orcinus.)

Update 2: Ron Paul was one of 8 people to vote against the FTC being allowed to establish a do not call registry.

Have you seen what the rest of the world is saying? Have you seen how the rest of the world would vote?

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, England, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Japan, ...all of them would vote for Ron Paul. Because he speaks so sensibly about peace and simple logical fiscal policy.

Canadians are particularly enaboured with Dr. Paul. That has become obvious. I'm sure they would be down here if they could. I'm sure they'd be willing to protect the good Dr. Ron Paul, but they can't. It's up to the USA to protect Dr. Paul. It seems that incredibly important to the world. Canadians know, because they've lived next door to the monster for much too long. Canada has expressed a gigantic interest in this election. Too bad they can't vote. To bad we can't accept them as body guards. I'd feel pretty damned good if I knew there were a group of Canadians covering my back.

The entire world has a real interest in this election, and a population who is very interested about Dr. Paul's success. Canada is heavily interested. They'd be here if they could. We need them, and Englishmen, and Aussies and Irishmen, and Scots and Germans and Frenchmen and Italians and Spanish and Brazilians, and.... we need all of you.

It's always ticked me off that any time we needed the asses of our Senate massaged, the British would be happy to do it. And if we needed the asses of our Congress to be massages, the Aussies might do it. But the Canadians just wouldn't do either. And now, with this Ron Paul Revolution, I understand why the Canadians refused to rub ass. And they still won't rub ass, but they are here tall now, and fully in support of America. Canadians are the bomb. Solidly for Ron Paul. The respected classy Canada bomb, and they are just that.

And now they are supporting Ron Paul in droves. Sending considerable money. Canada is class, all the way.

RON PAUL 2008!!!!

THIS IS THE ONLY PERSON CAPABLE OF PUTTING AMERICA BACK TOGETHER

www.ronpaul2008.com

As A Canadian watching all this unfold, I am appalled how MSM ignores Ron Paul and props up Huckabee because he is the lessor of all the other hand picked GOP candidates. Paul is the only GOP candidate that would win over any democrat candidate in this election. The US has turned into a one party state with two factions with total disregard to the Constitution. Ron Paul is a beacon of light in a very dark time in US history and here's hoping this Sunday will help restore your once great nation.

Madcow (above) is simply wrong about Ron Paul.

Far from “eviscerating” Social Security, which will go bankrupt on its own anyway, Ron Paul would simply allow young people to opt out. He would not take Socail Security benefits away from anybody. In fact, those receiving them would have more security because Ron Paul would honor the commitments made to those people and not continuously reduce benefits or raise taxes on them.

The gold standard would not “destroy the economy.” That’s just utter nonsense. Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan realizes the need to have a gold standard.

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

The minimum wage only makes it harder for young people to get entry level jobs. Most people make more than the minimum wage without any law being necessary. People are paid what their skills are worth. Forcing employers to pay more than an employee’s skills are worth often keeps the employer from hiring the person at all and it is antithetical to the notion of freedom.

The amusing thing is that the very same Federal Reserve that the poster wishes to save is devaluing the currency so fast that minimum wage laws cannot keep up with the loss of buying power. A person making $7 today has about the same purchasing power as a person making $4 per hour five years ago. This is because the Federal Reserve constantly increases the money supply, causing inflation.

Ron Paul would create a competing currency backed by gold or silver, as the Constitution requires. You could continue using the fiat money that we use now or you could use the other. It would be up to you whether you wanted to keep using money that loses value over time or switch to the money that gains value over time. Your choice.

President John F. Kennedy attempted to do something similar when he signed Executive Order 11110 on June 4th, 1963, creating U.S. notes backed by silver. After his tragic assassination, those notes were quietly recalled.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=59049

Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily “want” the things that other people choose to do with their liberty. He merely realizes that in a free country you have the right to do what you wish, so long as you do not violate the equal rights of other people. For example, he believes that the so-called “war on drugs” is not only a dismal failure and an expensive boondoggle, but it also violates a person’s right to do what they want with their own body. As a medical doctor, Ron Paul strongly discourages people from using drugs. But who owns your body? If not you, who?

Ron Paul only wishes to end birthright citizenship for people who do not have a parent who is already a U.S. citizen. Why should somebody get U.S. citizenship – and all of the financial benefits that come with it -- simply because that person’s foreign citizen parents managed to sneak into the U.S. or happened to be vacationing here at the time? If one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you would still get automatic citizenship, no matter where you were born. How is this not sensible?

Contrary to what madcow asserts, Ron Paul makes by far the most sense of any of the presidential candidates from any party. He wants to end foreign interventionism which not only costs us dearly in lives (and for what?) but also is making us go bankrupt. It took from George Washington to Ronald Reagan for this nation to accrue its first one trillion dollars in national debt. The debt is now $9 trillion. Almost half of that has been added under the George W. Bush administration. Add to that the liabilities of Medicare and Social Security and this nation is headed for a world of hurt if serious changes are not made in the immediate future.

Ron Paul is the only candidate proposing a course of action which is consistent with our founding principles and which can save us from financial ruin while also respecting our liberty and bringing prosperity to all Americans. If you value peace, freedom and prosperity, vote for Ron Paul. If you value war, bankruptcy, recession, loss of liberty and coercion, then vote for anybody else. It doesn’t really matter who.

Madcow (above) is simply wrong about Ron Paul.

Far from “eviscerating” Social Security, which will go bankrupt on its own anyway, Ron Paul would simply allow young people to opt out. He would not take Social Security benefits away from anybody. In fact, those receiving them would have more security because Ron Paul would honor the commitments made to those people and not continuously reduce benefits or raise taxes on them.

The gold standard would not “destroy the economy.” That’s just utter nonsense. Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan realizes the need to have a gold standard.

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

The minimum wage only makes it harder for young people to get entry level jobs. Most people make more than the minimum wage without any law being necessary. People are paid what their skills are worth. Forcing employers to pay more than an employee’s skills are worth often keeps the employer from hiring the person at all and it is antithetical to the notion of freedom.

The amusing thing is that the very same Federal Reserve that the poster wishes to save is devaluing the currency so fast that minimum wage laws cannot keep up with the loss of buying power. A person making $7 today has about the same purchasing power as a person making $4 per hour five years ago. This is because the Federal Reserve constantly increases the money supply, causing inflation.

Ron Paul would create a competing currency backed by gold or silver, as the Constitution requires. You could continue using the fiat money that we use now or you could use the other. It would be up to you whether you wanted to keep using money that loses value over time or switch to the money that gains value over time. Your choice.

President John F. Kennedy attempted to do something similar when he signed Executive Order 11110 on June 4th, 1963, creating U.S. notes backed by silver. After his tragic assassination, those notes were quietly recalled.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=59049

Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily “want” the things that other people choose to do with their liberty. He merely realizes that in a free country you have the right to do what you wish, so long as you do not violate the equal rights of other people. For example, he believes that the so-called “war on drugs” is not only a dismal failure and an expensive boondoggle, but it also violates a person’s right to do what they want with their own body. As a medical doctor, Ron Paul strongly discourages people from using drugs. But who owns your body? If not you, who?

Ron Paul only wishes to end birthright citizenship for people who do not have a parent who is already a U.S. citizen. Why should somebody get U.S. citizenship – and all of the financial benefits that come with it -- simply because that person’s foreign citizen parents managed to sneak into the U.S. or happened to be vacationing here at the time? If one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you would still get automatic citizenship, no matter where you were born. How is this not sensible?

Contrary to what madcow asserts, Ron Paul makes by far the most sense of any of the presidential candidates from any party. He wants to end foreign interventionism which not only costs us dearly in lives (and for what?) but also is making us go bankrupt. It took from George Washington to Ronald Reagan for this nation to accrue its first one trillion dollars in national debt. The debt is now $9 trillion. Almost half of that has been added under the George W. Bush administration. Add to that the liabilities of Medicare and Social Security and this nation is headed for a world of hurt if serious changes are not made in the immediate future.

Ron Paul is the only candidate proposing a course of action which is consistent with our founding principles and which can save us from financial ruin while also respecting our liberty and bringing prosperity to all Americans. If you value peace, freedom and prosperity, vote for Ron Paul. If you value war, bankruptcy, recession, loss of liberty and coercion, then vote for anybody else. It doesn’t really matter who.

Madcow (above) is simply wrong about Ron Paul.

Far from “eviscerating” Social Security, which will go bankrupt on its own anyway, Ron Paul would simply allow young people to opt out. He would not take Social Security benefits away from anybody. In fact, those receiving them would have more security because Ron Paul would honor the commitments made to those people and not continuously reduce benefits or raise taxes on them.

The gold standard would not “destroy the economy.” That’s just utter nonsense. Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan realizes the need to have a gold standard.

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

The minimum wage only makes it harder for young people to get entry level jobs. Most people make more than the minimum wage without any law being necessary. People are paid what their skills are worth. Forcing employers to pay more than an employee’s skills are worth often keeps the employer from hiring the person at all and it is antithetical to the notion of freedom.

The amusing thing is that the very same Federal Reserve that the poster wishes to save is devaluing the currency so fast that minimum wage laws cannot keep up with the loss of buying power. A person making $7 today has about the same purchasing power as a person making $4 per hour five years ago. This is because the Federal Reserve constantly increases the money supply, causing inflation.

Ron Paul would create a competing currency backed by gold or silver, as the Constitution requires. You could continue using the fiat money that we use now or you could use the other. It would be up to you whether you wanted to keep using money that loses value over time or switch to the money that gains value over time. Your choice.

President John F. Kennedy attempted to do something similar when he signed Executive Order 11110 on June 4th, 1963, creating U.S. notes backed by silver. After his tragic assassination, those notes were quietly recalled.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=59049

Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily “want” the things that other people choose to do with their liberty. He merely realizes that in a free country you have the right to do what you wish, so long as you do not violate the equal rights of other people. For example, he believes that the so-called “war on drugs” is not only a dismal failure and an expensive boondoggle, but it also violates a person’s right to do what they want with their own body. As a medical doctor, Ron Paul strongly discourages people from using drugs. But who owns your body? If not you, who?

Ron Paul only wishes to end birthright citizenship for people who do not have a parent who is already a U.S. citizen. Why should somebody get U.S. citizenship – and all of the financial benefits that come with it -- simply because that person’s foreign citizen parents managed to sneak into the U.S. or happened to be vacationing here at the time? If one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you would still get automatic citizenship, no matter where you were born. How is this not sensible?

Contrary to what madcow asserts, Ron Paul makes by far the most sense of any of the presidential candidates from any party. He wants to end foreign interventionism which not only costs us dearly in lives (and for what?) but also is making us go bankrupt. It took from George Washington to Ronald Reagan for this nation to accrue its first one trillion dollars in national debt. The debt is now $9 trillion. Almost half of that has been added under the George W. Bush administration. Add to that the liabilities of Medicare and Social Security and this nation is headed for a world of hurt if serious changes are not made in the immediate future.

Ron Paul is the only candidate proposing a course of action which is consistent with our founding principles and which can save us from financial ruin while also respecting our liberty and bringing prosperity to all Americans. If you value peace, freedom and prosperity, vote for Ron Paul. If you value war, bankruptcy, recession, loss of liberty and coercion, then vote for anybody else. It doesn’t really matter who.

Madcow (above) is simply wrong about Ron Paul.

Far from “eviscerating” Social Security, which will go bankrupt on its own anyway, Ron Paul would simply allow young people to opt out. He would not take Social Security benefits away from anybody. In fact, those receiving them would have more security because Ron Paul would honor the commitments made to those people and not continuously reduce benefits or raise taxes on them.

The gold standard would not “destroy the economy.” That’s just utter nonsense. Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan realizes the need to have a gold standard.

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

The minimum wage only makes it harder for young people to get entry level jobs. Most people make more than the minimum wage without any law being necessary. People are paid what their skills are worth. Forcing employers to pay more than an employee’s skills are worth often keeps the employer from hiring the person at all and it is antithetical to the notion of freedom.

The amusing thing is that the very same Federal Reserve that the poster wishes to save is devaluing the currency so fast that minimum wage laws cannot keep up with the loss of buying power. A person making $7 today has about the same purchasing power as a person making $4 per hour five years ago. This is because the Federal Reserve constantly increases the money supply, causing inflation.

Ron Paul would create a competing currency backed by gold or silver, as the Constitution requires. You could continue using the fiat money that we use now or you could use the other. It would be up to you whether you wanted to keep using money that loses value over time or switch to the money that gains value over time. Your choice.

President John F. Kennedy attempted to do something similar when he signed Executive Order 11110 on June 4th, 1963, creating U.S. notes backed by silver. After his tragic assassination, those notes were quietly recalled.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=59049

Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily “want” the things that other people choose to do with their liberty. He merely realizes that in a free country you have the right to do what you wish, so long as you do not violate the equal rights of other people. For example, he believes that the so-called “war on drugs” is not only a dismal failure and an expensive boondoggle, but it also violates a person’s right to do what they want with their own body. As a medical doctor, Ron Paul strongly discourages people from using drugs. But who owns your body? If not you, who?

Ron Paul only wishes to end birthright citizenship for people who do not have a parent who is already a U.S. citizen. Why should somebody get U.S. citizenship – and all of the financial benefits that come with it -- simply because that person’s foreign citizen parents managed to sneak into the U.S. or happened to be vacationing here at the time? If one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you would still get automatic citizenship, no matter where you were born. How is this not sensible?

Contrary to what madcow asserts, Ron Paul makes by far the most sense of any of the presidential candidates from any party. He wants to en