Thread: Is the ACLU good for America?

The key to understanding the ACLU is understanding that definition provided for "civil rights" in the first post.

We are now indoctrinated to believe that we are all "citizens" of the "United States." Any given person reading this may or may not hold that status, but the fact is that it is not the status intended for We the People by the founders of this nation. "Citizens" accruing "civil liberties" are not freemen, as were our ancestor and founders of the nation. They are subjects of the federal legislative democracy, a status alien to this nation prior to Amendment XIV. "Citizenship" is antithetical to sovereignty, and the federal entity is foreign to the original states. The federal entity is lorded over by the federal government without the benefit of the protections afforded to the original states and their sovereigns. Claiming or accepting citizenship in that federal legislative democracy provides a handful of paltry benefits, but is inimical to sovereignty and liberty. That being the case, "civil liberties" are contradistinct from the natural rights that are the birthright of freemen. Civil liberties arise under Roman Civil Law, not under our natural Common Law, and are not grants of the Creator to all freemen, but rather are privileges extended by the state to its subjects. I'm not going to even bother defining the difference between a subject and freeman, because anyone who does not understand that distinction is beyond help.

Thank you Crocket, I couldn't have put anymore plain than that. If anyone needs a definition, look at Black's Law Dictionary to what is referred to as a "subject". It also covers what a Citizen-Subject is. (Also known as a U.S. Citizen). Since the Several States are supposed to be seperate sovereign entities, and are not Federal Enclaves of any sort. So who really is a U.S. Citizen?

Yes, Crocket is correct, after the Several States lost the Civil War, and the passing of the Amendment XIV, (which is still debated as being passed under duress by the former Confederate States, where Federal Troops were in the State Houses), our status changed from Common Law Freemen, to Subjects of the Federal Government. Not too different from our former "Mother Country" that the Freemen of the Revolution of 1776 broke all ties with, for a better future.

The best way to puit it, A Free man, has Rights from his Creator, surrenderable to no institution of man. A Subject receives "priveliges" from a Government based on laws, but laws can change, can't they.

I thought a subject was one under the ruler of a king or queen who made the laws themselves with out a parliment or congress and the people had to follow their rules in other words a dictator.

We are definitly not freemen which I was intended when we fought the revolutionary war.

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

I thought a subject was one under the ruler of a king or queen who made the laws themselves with out a parliment or congress and the people had to follow their rules in other words a dictator.

We are definitly not freemen which I was intended when we fought the revolutionary war.

From lectlaw.com:

SUBJECTION - The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others.

Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is understood the subjection to the authority of public persons.

Subjection does not require the existence of a monarch, but merely any ruling authority. Do you know how many people have legal or quasilegal authority over you at the federal level? How many of them did you vote for? How many were elected by anyone? The total number of federal employees was about 3.5 million before this administration went hire-happy and created several new departments following 9/11. That's not a representative government. It's an occupying army.