YOUR GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF THE WORD “CITIZEN”
Citizenship is a complex issue, and many volumes have
been written on the subject. Citizenship
and residency and domicile are lawyer weasel words that are made
deceptively complex in order to prevent you from entering into the Kingdom
Christ bestowed upon us a Kingdom, where we are
prohibited from exercising lordship over others.
Luke 22:25-29 "And He said to them, "The kings of the
Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority
over them are called 'benefactors.' But not so among you; on the contrary,
he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who
governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or
he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as
the One who serves. But you are those who have continued with Me in My
trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one
We already have a Citizenship. Philippians 3:20 "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which
we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,"
Ephesians 2:19 "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of
NOTICE THAT CITIZENSHIP INVOLVES EITHER (1) LORDSHIP
(prohibited to Christians by Christ’s command “not so among you”) OR
(2) VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE OR (3) ALLEGIANCE TO AN ALTERNATE FORM OF
AUTHORITY CALLED “BENEFACTORS”
We are a holy nation according to 1 Peter 2:9-10”
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim
the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous
light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had
not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy."
Notice that Paul got in trouble whenever he used his
Here are the basics of government citizenship: You do
not need to be a citizen, but if you are a citizen, there are only two
kinds of citizenship: state citizenship and federal citizenship.
Those who reside in federal territories or receive federal benefits
are federal citizens. "A
citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal
government..." (Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383). Citizens give up natural rights in exchange for political
privileges. State citizens
have political rights, such as the right to run for President, and such as
the protections acknowledged by the first eight amendments.
Alternatively, Federal citizens cannot have political rights.
Federal citizens are subjects on the federal plantation.
Example: only state citizens can become President, no one from a
federal territory, such as Washington DC, can run for President.
Again: territories such as Washington, DC are outside the US.
Again: Federal people cannot have political rights, and cannot run
If you don't understand this yet, I'll try to explain
the chain of command. State
citizens created state governments. State
citizens are masters of their servants.
An association of these servants (who once called their association
"The United States in Congress Assembled") became your federal
government. Your Constitution
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all
cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia.
I repeat: exclusive legislation in all cases. DC residents and Fourteenth Amendment citizens are subject to
the servants of the servants of the state citizens. They are not state citizens.
These servants and sub-servants cannot grant rights.
Rights do not come from servants.
You cannot be granted rights you already have.
Appendix D covers the distinction between the term
"person" and the term sovereign.
You had all the birthrights of a sovereign. I want to introduce you to the sovereign power that you gave
up when you consented to be governed.
Sovereignty is delegated from God to you, and it is
up to you to keep it.
After the Revolutionary war, Ben Franklin led a
delegation to negotiate the Treaty of Paris, which was signed September
3rd 1783. This document is
what gives America the right to exist.
King George signed over to all Americans the rights of the
sovereign, except those that he retained.
All Americans understood, at that time, exactly what power they
US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9,20
of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King,
by his prerogative."
The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825):
people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes,
restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly
named. Acts of limitation do
not bind the King or the people. The
people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign
... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the
common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not
named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be
divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be
Read that again.
That's right! Your
birthright means you are not bound to statutes that take away your rights.
Unless, of course, you signed something to give up your birthright.
[Aside: notice the phrase “shall not be bound” is
similar to other Republics, such as the historical account in Acts 22:29
that a Roman officer cannot bind a Roman citizen.
Notice that the word “bind” is used in the Bible to refer to a
mark that is both on hands and foreheads.
Deuteronomy 6:8, Deuteronomy 11:18, Proverbs 7:2-3. Now notice that the word ‘pledge’ as in a pledge of
allegiance means to bind. Strong’s H2254. A
pledge of allegiance is an oath to be bound, and is symbolically a mark on
your hands and forehead.]
Even the very definition of Liberty means you cannot
be regulated. Study the terms
Liberty and Liberties in the Law Dictionary.
Another Example: the US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US
390, 399: The term Liberty “... denotes not merely freedom from bodily
restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in
any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to
marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according
to the dictates of his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is
that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting
public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary..."
If this doesn't describe your liberty, then perhaps
you signed something to give up your rights.
Notice that protecting public interest is not a function of
government, at least according to your Supreme Court.
Your government was instituted among men to protect the rights of
the innocent. PROTECTING
PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONTRARY TO PROTECTING RIGHTS.
Ben Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for safety
deserve neither. Thomas
Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty must be periodically fertilized
with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Conclusion: the federalists have been given exclusive
jurisdiction over Washington DC. There
are no sovereign rights in Washington DC.
Ephesians 4:14-15 (KJV)
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro,
and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the
truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even
Colossians 2:20 (KJV)
"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the
world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Continuing with the topic of federal jurisdiction:
The Presidency is an office of servitude, not an
office of authority. Unless,
of course, you signed something to make you subordinate to his authority.
The story that I think best contrasts today's esteem
of servants with the true nature of servitude is the story of Thomas
Jefferson’s inauguration. President
Jefferson was sworn into office, and went home to his boarding house for
lunch. All seats at the table
were occupied, and no one offered their seat to the civil servant, so he
ate his inauguration day lunch alone in his room.
I'll quote from his inauguration speech later.
The next time you are filling out a form that asks
you to check a box, don't be so quick to confess that you are a US
citizen. (And don't be so
willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury
oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers).
Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human
rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages.
Article IV of the Articles of Confederation extended
privileges of citizenship to mere inhabitants, with this phrase:
the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and
fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens in the several states"
of Confederation uses phrases in which nouns are not capitalized proper
nouns, and never use the preposition "of", examples:
"states in this union"
The US Constitution omits references to free, and
uses phrases with proper capitalized nouns, and often use the preposition
"Citizen of the United States"
"Inhabitant of that State"
"Resident within the United States"
"People of the several States"
“residents of the same state”
The 14th amendment created a type of federal "citizenship" which is
analogous to ownership.
In your Constitution prior to the fourteenth
amendment, the word Citizen was ALWAYS capitalized: Article 1, section 2
(twice), Article 1 section 3
, Article 2, section 1, Article 3, section 2 (five times), Article 4
section 2 (twice) and the 11th amendment (twice).
But, it is NEVER capitalized in the five occurrences within the
14th amendment. Congress did not forget the proper use of English.
One refers to the proper title of the government's Master.
The other is a word for government property.
Which one are you?
The 14th amendment created a new class of citizenship. Originally intended for the 4 million freed slaves who had no
means of support, it allowed for federal ownership of those who needed
federal entitlements in order to survive.
As previously explained, it “is an absurdity" to think that
your Constitution would ever be interpreted to provide welfare to
individuals. Under your
Constitution, welfare for individuals is not possible without ownership
(because welfare is the responsibility of owners, church and family).
This is Biblical.
Equal protection under the law ?
Lawyers will tell you that the 14th amendment was the great equalizer.
They will tell you that your rights to equal protection under the
law come from the 14th amendment. They
will then ask you why you would question such strong protections?
Compare the following two quotes that acknowledge
equal protection under the law:
The 14th Amendment section 1, "... nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... "
The 5th Amendment "... nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
The US Supreme Court in 1878 case of Davidson v. New
Orleans stated that your Constitution is not redundant.
They mean different things.
Recommended reading on the topic of the 14th
Amendment: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d
Another topic. The
phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first
sentence of the 14th amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the
first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The
persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in
the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in
some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct
and immediate allegiance."
Do you owe direct and immediate allegiance to your
Another Topic. The term "citizen" as used
in government laws
In Powe v. U.S., 109 F.2d 147, 149 (1940)
the court determined what the term `citizen' means in federal
statutes. Notice that the
term `citizen', when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens:
construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law
unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout.
In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of
the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a
citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these
governments will be different from those he has under the other."
In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks, 7 SCt
656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States
the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political
sense... It is so used in
section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution..."
The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 S.Ct 617, 626:
Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used
in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident',
`inhabitant', or `person' ..."
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122:
the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term
`subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the
change in government."
(Read that again.
Pay attention. CITIZENS
IN THE US ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don't you understand?)
resident and citizen are not synonymous” Shaffer v. Carter, 252 US 37,
at pages 78-79.
classification citizen of the United States is distinguished from a
Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special
class of citizen created by Congress” US v. Anthony, 24 Fed 829 (1873).
125 Fed 322, 325:
thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the
The US Supreme Court in Twining v. New
Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908):
eight Amendments are restrictive only of National action, and, while the
Fourteenth Amendment restrained and limited state action, it did not take
up and protect citizens of the States from action by the States as to all
matters enumerated in the first eight Amendments.”
The US Supreme Court in Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496,
the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from
state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the
That's right! the
US Supreme Court says that fourteenth amendment citizens are not protected
by the Bill of Rights.
State Citizens have their same rights in all the
states because your Federal Constitution in Article 4, section 2
guarantees that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."
The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404,
429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in
contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a
citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the
Colgate v. Harvey then concluded that the right to
trial by jury and the right to bear arms are not guaranteed to 14th
Merely reciting which kind of citizen you are, is
admissible by anyone taking you to federal court. Be careful about
checking a box on a form claiming US citizenship.
Example: The US
Supreme Court in Urtetiqui v. D'Arcy, 34 US 692:
plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the
district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an
affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that
he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of
the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant's behalf."
Your Constitution Article 4, section 2 guarantees
"privileges and immunities" to Citizens of each state.
K Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme
Court in 278 US 123:
is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S.
Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of
the Citizen of the State"
If you claim to be a US citizen, you are claiming that you are not
entitled to the privileges and immunities of a State Citizen (a right
guaranteed by Article 4, section 2).
You are not protected by your Constitution.
You have no rights. Like
Esau, you sold your birthright.
Hebrews 12:16: See to it that no one is profane, like
Esau, who flippantly sold his birthright.
If you are a citizen, it is because you have
voluntarily submitted to the dominion of your political community.
Whether you like it or not. No
matter how evil.
US Supreme Court in the 1875 case U.S. v. Cruikshank,
92 US 542:
are the members of the political community to which they belong.
They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their
associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the
dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and
the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights....
The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself
to such a form of government."
A Christian, however, would not consent to be
governed. He already has a
King. He already has a
citizenship. Philippians 3:20
(NIV): "But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly
await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,"
We ARE a nation, according to 1st
United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873):
rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in
the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth
amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
Notice the terminology "enter into society"
in the 1798 U.S. Supreme Court case Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386:
people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of
government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to
secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property
from violence. The purposes
for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of
the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative
power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and
ends of the legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our
free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what
the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws
And notice the same terminology in Andrew Jackson's
second inauguration speech March 4, 1833:
bearing in mind that entering into society individuals must give up a
share of liberty...”
Again notice that citizens have given up a share of
liberty, whereas non-citizens keep their rights.
Have you entered into a society that uses a vote to
determine the morality of abortion, sodomy, divorce, usury, pornography,
and property seizure? You
paid your fair share for these abominations.
Jesus told us not to have dominion over others.
depart from iniquity (2nd Tim 2:19) and
come out from among them and be ye separate (2nd
Cor 6:17), and
be not partakers (Rev 18:4) and
seek citizenship in heaven (Phil 3:20, Eph 2:19, Heb 11:16,
agree with adversaries quickly (Matt 5:25
"And be not conformed to this world..." Romans
rather be wronged 1st Cor 6:7, and
judge not, and love their enemy.
None of these are possible for someone who is trying,
with a vote (or a gun*), to force perverted values on others, or to
exercise dominion, or to force others to provide for them.
*(Aside: Ballot and bullet and bully are
etymologically the same word. They
all refer to rock throwing. Examples:
President Lincoln 8/26/1863 said "Among free men there can be
no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet."
Another example: The apostle Paul, admits that before he was
converted he stoned to death the saints.
He confesses in Acts 26:10 "When they were put to death, I
cast my vote against them.")
State governments were originally founded on Biblical
principles. Here in these
United States, or any other Republic, the citizens are the higher power of
Romans 13:1. The civil servants who daily blaspheme God are not the higher
powers ordained of God. They
are a terror to good works. Romans 13:1 (KJV): “Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God." Romans 13:3 (KJV) "For
rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." The same principles that require you to obey lawful
government require you to punish tyrants.
Here are Citizenship issues for the advance student
who wants to do some research:
I’ve found coincidences that seem related to the 14th
First, The 14th amendment
says that all persons born or naturalized in the US are
citizens of the US, and Social Security Act section 205(c)(2)(b)(i) lists indigent children and immigrants
as the only ones who can qualify for Social Security Numbers.
Note that the words “including children” may be construed to
exclude all non-children. For
the advanced student: try to find proof that the word “children” in
this section of the Social Security Act refers only to government wards.
Second, there are ASSIGNED Social Security Numbers
and ISSUED Social Security Numbers. Compare
SS Act section 205(c)(2) with 20 CFR 422.103 through .104, and 26 CFR
31.6011(b) and (c).
Are always called
Are never called Account
Are not for children (in
neither SS Act nor SS regulations)
Are for children (SS Act
Are not for children
Internal Revenue Code section 6109(d), (I’ve added
the emphasis): “The SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER ISSUED to an
individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as otherwise be specified under regulations of
the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for
purposes of this title.”
Search as much as you want, but you won’t find an
issued account number. Yet,
this is what your tax law wants. Every
April 15th, you swear a perjury oath to the federal god that
you have a number that does not exist.
There is one last topic to consider.
The word “enumerated” as used in the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration has stated on their web
process of issuing Social Security numbers is called “enumeration,”
and over the years it has been one of the most interesting topics
involving Social Security.”
Now, here is the legal definition of ENUMERATED:
The term is often used in law as equivalent to
“mentioned specifically,” “designated” or “expressly named or
granted”; as in speaking of enumerated government powers, ITEMS OF
PROPERTY, or articles in a tariff schedule...