| « (17.4) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (19.1) » |
A Birthright Sold For Pottage
By Christopher Holloman Hansen
There is a well known story in the Bible concerning two brothers, Esau and Jacob, the twin sons of Isaac. Esau was the eldest son and had the birthright from his father. He came in from a field and was faint with hunger. His brother, Jacob had cooked red pottage of lentiles but would not give any to Esau saying, “Sell me this day thy birthright.” And Esau said he was at the point of death so what good was the birthright at that moment. Then Jacob did something that was, very interesting he said, “Swear to me this day.” And Esau did swear and sold his birthright to Jacob. (See Gen. Chapter 5.)
There is another loss of a birthright in the Bible. It makes the sale of Esau’s birthright pale in comparison for this was the loss of the birthright of an entire nation. It is documented in First Samuel Chapter 8. Here we find the People of Israel rejecting liberty and demanding slavery. They rejected responsibility and requested subjection. They rejected their God and demanded an earthly master. They rejected their birthright to obtain a little temporary security. They became servants to another instead of masters of themselves. They “Voluntarily” gave up their liberty, their property and the liberty of their children so they could have the “benefits” of being like other nations and so the king could go out before them, and fight their battles.
Could there be anything more foolish than what the Israelites had done?
Our Founding Father’s did just the opposite of the ancient Israelites. Instead of selling their posterity into bondage they took upon themselves personal responsibilities and pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the establishment of liberty not only for themselves but their posterity. The concern for their posterity was made evident in two major documents of times:
In 1775 the Continental Congress wrote: “Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.”
And from the preamble of the Constitution we find: “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.”
These honorable ideas of the Founders have been abandoned today in favor of the faulty wisdom of the apostate Israelites. We, as a nation, have become more concerned about our own needs and temporary securities, like, Esau than the far reaching sacrifices of George Washington and Samuel Adams. The World War II generation not only did not mind “the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them” but call “hereditary bondage” a sacred trust. This hereditary bondage is said to be the most popular program of the federal government. It is called Social Security.
All of the blame, however, can not be placed upon a single generation. While our nation, like Israel, sold its birthright for the so-called “benefits” of Social Security; Social Security is also a personal sale of an American’s birthright. It is interesting to note that, like Esau’s sale of his birthright to Jacob was sealed by an oath, the voluntary application for a Social Security number also requires an oath. You sign your application “swearing” that the information you gave is true. Most Americans do not know if the information is true or even what it means to them personally.
Most Americans do not realize that there is no law requiring them to obtain a Social Security number. It is an application. You or your parents must apply. Foreigners must have a number in order to work but that requirement is not placed upon Union State Citizens in the Social Security act.
There are however requirements for Social Security numbers if you want to be given a benefit from the federal government. Not even unalienable rights secured by the Bill of Rights are protected if you receive a benefit because you “voluntarily” requested the benefit and so you gave up your rights, the government did not take it from you. This was made clear in BOWEN v. ROY, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"The question presented is whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment compels the Government to accommodate a religiously based objection to the statutory requirements that a Social Security number be provided by an applicant seeking to receive certain welfare benefits and that the States use these numbers in administering the benefit programs.
“The importance of the Social Security number to these matching techniques is illustrated by the facts of this case... Appellees may not use the Free Exercise Clause to demand Government benefits, but only on their own terms, particularly where that insistence works a demonstrable disadvantage to the Government in the administration of the programs.”
The “Appellees” sold their birthright for a government benefit.
- How has all this happened?
- Why do Americans believe that Social Security numbers are required?
- What do you become when you apply for Social Security number?
The answer to the first question is: By a long train of deceptions and misrepresentations by the very government officials that had sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Research has shown that treaties created Social Security system with other nations in an attempt to bypass the restriction in the Constitution.
The answer to question two is: American’s have been lied to by their government servants that have believed the lies told to them by people above them in the chain of command. (They are “deceiving, and being deceived,” See II Tim Chapter 3) Americans, instead of reading the law themselves, have listened to oral traditions created by tyrants that seek to usurp authority and steal your birthright and unalienable rights. Thomas Jefferson warned us of this when he said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”
The answer to question three is two fold. The first part is easy. It is found in the United States Code Title 5 in Chapter 552a:
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
Did you get that? If you are an individual entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under ANY retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits) you are “Federal personnel.” Of course in order to be “entitled” you must have a Social Security number. Even a one-day-old child with a Social Security number (applied for by its parents as trustees of their child’s birthright) is “entitled” to “survivor benefits” and is therefore “Federal personnel.” Federal personnel are not necessarily protected by the Bill of Rights. A member of the Unites States military, for instance, does not have the right to remain silent. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not authorized statutorily to investigate State Citizens but they are authorized to investigate “Federal personnel.”
The answer to the second half of question three arises from a situation not foreseen within the framework of the Constitution. Oddly enough it is concerning something that does not really exist “a citizen of the United States.” The truth of this is well described in a California court case from 1855:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.” Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300
Now that you know what you are and are not, the question is why do you sign documents under oath that say you are a United States or U. S. citizen when “technically and abstractly there is no such thing”? This is very important because everyone that lives in areas under the jurisdiction of the United States and not within one of the union states are now called citizens of the United States by default as their existence was not foreseen or authorized in the Constitution. Such land that would not become States nor sold to the federal government by the States but “owned by congress” was not spoken of directly in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson even questioned the legitimacy of the Louisiana purchase but decided that it was within the treaty powers given to the United States Senate as they were the direct representatives of the States before the anti-constitutional 17th Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson understood that this land could only be held by the federal government as territory until it could be adopted into the union of States.
Then came men (servants of Satan) with a plan that found a chink in the armor of the Constitution they could abuse. Unlimited Treaty Powers combined with Section. 3 Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
You see the restrictions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not mandated within Territories and other Property belonging to the United States.
Then came the Spanish American War and its conclusion on December 10, 1898 with the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain. This treaty ceded the islands of the Philippines, Guam, Porto Rico and others. (An interesting note is that research has shown that the modern Internal Revenue Service grew out of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Porto Rico. The United States Code’s only definition for Revenue agent is a revenue agent of Puerto Rico.) In Article IX of the treaty we read what RIGHTS these new U.S. citizens were entitled to:
The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.
The only right secured by the treaty was found in Article X:
The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.
Congress could now decide if the native inhabitants had the right to remain silent, could keep and bear arms, had the right to free speech or assembly and were not restricted by the constitutional clause:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
When you combine this with the famous BRUSHABER case in 1916 that said the 16th amendment gave Congress no new taxing authority you start to see the full picture. If Congress could simply turn Union State Citizens into U.S. territorial citizens then they would no longer be restricted by the Constitution as U.S. citizens’ rights are to “be determined by the Congress.”
The following Maxim of law is very enlightening:
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Invito beneficium non datur. (This is from an 1856 law dictionary. It was well known to those that would buy your birthright for a benefit.)
When you or your parents swore that you were a U. S. citizen on any government form or document and you also became Federal personnel, you “assented” to this “U. S. congressional subject status” and by not correcting it with the truth, you sold your birthright of a sovereign without subjects which was your inheritance secured by the Founding Fathers by contracts known as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. With this in mind consider also the following Maxims:
Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights. Currit tempus contra desides et sui juris contemptores.
An error not resisted is approved. Error qui non resistitur, approbatur.
To be able to know is the same as to know. This maxim is applied to the duty of every one to know the law. Idem est scire aut scire debet aut potuisse.
In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must when established, by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation. In judicio non creditur nisi juratis. (Have you ever wondered why you have to sign IRS and SSA forms under oath but the government servants almost never do?)
The following quotes are taken from the very enlightening United States Supreme Court case of DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). The author highly recommends that the reader studies this long and diverse case.
It is sufficient to observe in relation to these three fundamental instruments, that it can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude “within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,” is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union.
Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.” Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place “subject to their jurisdiction.”
As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution and upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.
The power to make needful rules and regulations would certainly not authorize anything inconsistent with the Constitution if it applied to the territories. Certainly no such court could be created within a state, except under the restrictions of the judicial clause. We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution...
Alaska contained an express provision excluding from citizenship the uncivilized native tribes, and it has been nowhere contended that this condition of exclusion was inoperative because of the want of power under the Constitution in the treaty-making authority to so provide, which must be the case if the limitation on the treaty- making power, which is here asserted, be well founded. The treaty concerning Alaska, therefore, adds cogency to the conception established by every act of the government from the foundation, that the condition of a treaty, when expressly or implied ratified by Congress, becomes the measure by which the rights arising from the treaty are to be adjusted.
In conclusion: When you abandon your union State Citizenship by inaction or oath and become a U.S. or United States citizen you sell your birthright of personal sovereignty for the benefits of Federal citizenship. You reject the security of God for Social Security. You become a subject of the U.S. congress, subject to their whims and no longer have Constitutionally secured rights that restrict congress. You lose the right to Article III court and are subjected to territorial courts that need not follow the Constitution. You are no longer a part of We the People that established and maintain the God given Constitution but a native inhabitant restricted by treaty. You reject the God of this nation, Jesus Christ, and place as your master your former servant, the federal government. In the words of George Washington, “Government... Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Is your current master not fearful? Do you not fear the IRS? Is it not time to reject this fraud and theft of State Citizenship and regain your sovereignty under Christ?
You have the right and duty to yourself and posterity to reestablish this birthright of individual responsibility and liberty under Christ and to reclaim with sacrifice and assertion your unalienable rights given by God which are not subject to any earthly government or treaty. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid you tamely to surrender that freedom which you received from your gallant ancestors, and which your innocent posterity have a right to receive from you. Or can you endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if you basely entail hereditary bondage upon them?
To those of you that can endure the infamy and guilt through your support of or participation in Social Security and socialism or even your inaction I leave you with the words of Samuel Adams. “If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
| « (17.4) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (19.1) » |