Thread: Ron Paul Tonight

Originally Posted by MW

USPatriot wrote:

Aw come on MW it will be fun.

Yeah, but will you respect me in the morning?

Sure and maybe you would see the wisdom of voting for Dr. Paul.

(I changed my post as it did not sound respectful)

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by AuntB

I know how it distresses you Paul fans when anything is posted about his RECORD, but this is an anti- illegal immigration web site/organization.

Paul has some questionable votes in this area (3 times voted for amnesty for visa over stayers, etc), but let's look at just a couple of recent ones and you decide WHY he would vote against these measures.



H.Res. 800- a resolution stating that that States should not issue driver's licenses or other government-issued photo identification to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.
Paul voted NO http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/ROLL_100.asp


H.R. 4160- legislation withholding highway funds from those states which issue a driver's license or identification card to illegal aliens.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4160/show Paul did not co sponsor- no final vote yet.

AuntB you posted this same nonsense on another Paul thread and Pinestraw answered your post which shot your above complaints down. So why are you posting here too ? I am beginning to think you really are just being disrespectful to RP fans not bringing any new info just trying to agitate folks. I am surprised you would do this.......

I'm not...

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Ron Paul needs to solidify his position on the Glen Beck Prime time show. There are still way to many Americans with questions that need to be addressed.

If he can pull all of this together the GOP will be living in Topsy Turvey land for many, many years... trying to figure out what they did wrong

That would be taking the American citizen for granted while lifting up the Illegal Alien Invasion as if it was a rock star...

To all of the crazy politicians (Republican / Democrat) in Washington as well as the state capitals. If you pushed amnesty, the North American Union... it doesnt matter what your reasoning is.... we want your job

Work on your resume and look for a new line of work ...

The American People are coming back with a vengence. Just be thankful if you do not get pulled into Treason Hearings

Ya, and we are not going to be distracted by the control freaks.

Originally Posted by AuntB

I know how it distresses you Paul fans when anything is posted about his RECORD, but this is an anti- illegal immigration web site/organization.

Paul has some questionable votes in this area (3 times voted for amnesty for visa over stayers, etc), but let's look at just a couple of recent ones and you decide WHY he would vote against these measures.



H.Res. 800- a resolution stating that that States should not issue driver's licenses or other government-issued photo identification to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.
Paul voted NO http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/ROLL_100.asp


H.R. 4160- legislation withholding highway funds from those states which issue a driver's license or identification card to illegal aliens.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4160/show Paul did not co sponsor- no final vote yet.

Auntb, Now really why would you double post this from another thread?? I am waiting for you to triple post this somewhere else.

Bottom line:

Both bills listed are State's rights issues.

If the federal government didn't do its job protecting our borders as required in 2 different sections of the Constitution then inhabitants in the 50 States fall under State jurisdiction.

Only those residing in Federal-only controlled areas fall under federal control.

Under strict construction the federal government only has jurisdiction where it exercises "sole legislative authority" which includes *none* of the territory of the 50 sovereign States unless that territory was voluntarily ceded to the federal government by the State.

Dr. Paul's reasoning was correct on these two bills and consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Originally Posted by Papillon

Bottom line:

Both bills listed are State's rights issues.

If the federal government didn't do its job protecting our borders as required in 2 different sections of the Constitution then inhabitants in the 50 States fall under State jurisdiction.

Only those residing in Federal-only controlled areas fall under federal control.

Under strict construction the federal government only has jurisdiction where it exercises "sole legislative authority" which includes *none* of the territory of the 50 sovereign States unless that territory was voluntarily ceded to the federal government by the State.

Dr. Paul's reasoning was correct on these two bills and consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you for the clarification. Thumbs up to Ron Paul. :P

Originally Posted by Papillon

Bottom line:

Both bills listed are State's rights issues.

If the federal government didn't do its job protecting our borders as required in 2 different sections of the Constitution then inhabitants in the 50 States fall under State jurisdiction.

Only those residing in Federal-only controlled areas fall under federal control.

Under strict construction the federal government only has jurisdiction where it exercises "sole legislative authority" which includes *none* of the territory of the 50 sovereign States unless that territory was voluntarily ceded to the federal government by the State.

Dr. Paul's reasoning was correct on these two bills and consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Welcome to Alipac Papillon

Your post is very interesting and I am wondering if each state could stop giving Citizenship to Anchor Babies using State Authority rights ? The 14th Amendment did not intend for those NOT "Under The Jurisdiction of the United States" (IA's) to be eligible for citizenship.

Ron Paul looked good. The only downside was when Glenn Beck mentioned the death threats he had received from "Ron Paul supporters". Gee, just because the death threat writers said they were "Ron Paul Supporters" we're supposed to believe them and Ron Paul is supposed to answer for them? Aside from that it was good, Ron Paul was given plenty of time to answer questions.

This is going to be a lo-o-o-ong reply but well worth the read.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Papillon

Bottom line:

Both bills listed are State's rights issues.

If the federal government didn't do its job protecting our borders as required in 2 different sections of the Constitution then inhabitants in the 50 States fall under State jurisdiction.

Only those residing in Federal-only controlled areas fall under federal control.

Under strict construction the federal government only has jurisdiction where it exercises "sole legislative authority" which includes *none* of the territory of the 50 sovereign States unless that territory was voluntarily ceded to the federal government by the State.

Dr. Paul's reasoning was correct on these two bills and consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Welcome to Alipac Papillon

Your post is very interesting and I am wondering if each state could stop giving Citizenship to Anchor Babies using State Authority rights ? The 14th Amendment did not intend for those NOT "Under The Jurisdiction of the United States" (IA's) to be eligible for citizenship.

I believe, and scholars have stated, that the practice of giving "birthright citizenship" to "anchor babies" is done by a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, section 1:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis added)

In all things constitutional you must go back to the writings and find the original intent.

You've already heard the arguments regarding Art. 4 sec.4 and Art. 1 sec. 8 cl. 15 mandating that the feds protect the States against invasion. These are also part of the logic behind "federal-only" jurisdiction on deportation.

The purpose of the 14th was to guarantee freed slaves the same rights as any other "freeman."

There are several misapplications of the 14th Amendment.

First:
The amnesty crowd uses the "equal protection" clause to fight against any state or local enforcement provisions because they claim it denies a person their rights to freely travel (liberty) and own property.

Illegals are criminals that don't have rights here but exercise rights that really don't exist because they have not been found guilty through "due process of law."

Second:
Illegal aliens have not made themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by refusing to report themselves to the federal government upon entry into the country.

Third:
This is absolutely the hardest one for most people to grasp.

There are 3 different definitions for "United States" according to the law. Each one has its place and the law applies the definition based on which one makes sense under the law as written without defining which definition is intended.

1) The "federal zone" which includes ONLY D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other federally controlled land such as military installations, federal parks, or other lands ceded to the federal government by the States in which the federal government exercises "sole legislative authority."

This does not include ANY of the 50 sovereign States.

2) The Union of the 50 sovereign States.

This does NOT include anything included in the "federal zone."

3) The United States as a nation among the community of nations.

This includes the "federal zone," the 50 States, and all territorial waters recognized by international law.

Illegal aliens do not make themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to ANY of these 3 "United States" jurisdictions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreign embassy personnel are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and their children born here are NOT "U.S. citizens" even if born in a hospital off embassy grounds because they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Here's the real mind-blower:
Prior to the 14th Amendment the federal government had NO authority over sovereign American Citizens (note the capital "C") living and working in the 50 States. Federal authority was limited to the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution, NONE of which placed restrictions on the rights of the individual.

After the 14th ALL persons "born or naturalized" were native born Citizens of the united States of America (definition 3) as well as sovereign Citizens of the State in which they reside but also had a "skin" placed over them designating them United States (federal) citizens (lower case "c") putting them under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

From Hennessy v Richardson Drug Co. 189 US 25, 23 S Ct 532, 47 L Ed 697:

"b. The term "citizen" as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law."

Just as a "subject" is the property of the British Crown, a "U.S. citizen" is a "subject" and therefore property of the federal government through the skin laid on you at birth through the 14th Amendment.

This skin can be shed by filing the proper letters with the proper "authorities" thereby reverting to your natural rights as a sovereign native born American Citizen of the united States of America and bring yourself out from under the thumb of the federal government.

You would then only be subject to the 18 limited powers granted under the Constitution. No law prosecuted in a "United States District Court" (territorial court) would apply to you.

From the United States Supreme Court, Balzac v Porto Rico, October term, 1921, page 312:

"The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."

Article IV sec. 3 clause 2 says "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" (emphasis added)

"Territorial courts" were disbanded when a territory became a State of the Union. They were no longer federal territory. Today's "territorial courts" don't have any jurisdiction outside the land they sit on but DO have jurisdiction over any "nonresident" (to the federal zone) "U.S. citizen."

The big "gotcha" is when a person claims to be a "U.S. citizen" on ANY legal document or verbally in a legal proceeding they have placed themselves as a subject of the "federal zone" United States.

During the debates and congressional passage of the 14th prior to sending it to the States, a congressman (I don't recall the name) recognized the implications of the language and stated something to the effect,

"I fear we have just enslaved the whole of the people,"

when the intended goal was to guarantee the rights of those recently freed.

Bottom line:

Illegal aliens have more rights than you because they are NOT "U.S. citizens" and subject to the same restrictions you are under the federal government.

To my knowledge there is NO such thing as an "anchor baby" based on standing U.S.S.C. case law pertaining to foreign nationals as embassy staff. Any cases to the contrary would be in direct conflict with that case law based on the "subject to" in the 14th. Even children of IA's born in the "federal zone" don't fit into the "subject to" category.

The Fed WANTS anchor babies so they can hammer them for taxes to continue to pay the interest on the debt.

Fed law enforcement has NO jurisdiction in the 50 States unless the local County Sheriff allows it. HE is the supreme law enforcement officer in his county as he is elected and empowered directly by "the People."

It gets deeper...
I could go on...

Hammer away.
You'll waste your typing time.
I won't reply to this.
It's up to you to do the research for your freedom.
The resources are now much easier to find.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

USPatriot wrote:

AuntB you posted this same nonsense on another Paul thread and Pinestraw answered your post which shot your above complaints down. So why are you posting here too ? I am beginning to think you really are just being disrespectful to RP fans not bringing any new info just trying to agitate folks. I am surprised you would do this.......

Is the information inaccurate? Honestly, I've seen a lot of the same information posted on different threads. With that said, it would be nice if it was at least somewhat related to the thread topic.