THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO INFORM OUR PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES OF THE LIMITS TO THEIR PROPERLY DELEGATED DUTIES.
Use this excellent presentation by Ayn Rand as a tool to do just that!
It brings me no joy to challenge such a highly-respected, well-positioned and intelligent man like Newt Gingrich; however his incorrectly calling President Donald J. Trump “The De Facto President” is of such consequence to the American People’s Understanding of the MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC that has been given to us, that I feel compelled to do so.
President Trump is the De Jure President-Elect. That is because he was duly elected to the De Jure Office of the Presidency on November 5, 2024.
Usurper Joe was, is and will always be the De Facto President. That is because he was illegally installed into the Office of the Presidency, not elected.
As a consequence of there being so much irrefutable evidence that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen, the State election tallies should never have been certified by Congress on January 6, 2021.
In fact, that certification should be reversed even still to this day (fraud vitiates everything which, in legal terms means that fraud voids out or cancels everything and there is no statue of limitation on fraud) See Section 11 of US v Throckmorton 98 US 61. 25 L. Ed. 93, 98 US 61 (October Term, 1878).
My sincerest prayer is that Newt Gingrich will read the article entitled Why Should We Care About Norton v Shelby County where he will find a link to the lynch pin case Norton v Shelby County, TN 118 US 425 (1886) so that he himself can read how a unanimous (9-0) Supreme Court decision of 1886 is so critical to our understanding the terms of our Republic including De Jure and De Facto.
Under the "stare decisis" 9-0 unanimous US Supreme court decision made in Norton vs Shelby County, TN 118 US 425 (1886), the Presidential election of 2020 should never have been certified.
This is because the entire election process, from illegitimate start to illegitimate finish, was a sham under the rules of the De Jure American (Magnificent) Republic.
In retrospect, temporarily-seated State Legislatures in so-called “Battleground States” committed multiple acts of usurpation when they changed how their State elections were to be conducted and/or challenged.
These legislative actions were invalid from their enactment (ie, using third party voting machines to cast and count ballots; the relinquishment of safeguards previously in place, such as removing signature verification protocols; and the absolutely fraudulent manipulation of various States Voter Databases).
Then to make these Acts of Usurpation worse, we saw a complete lack of transparency under any and all hearings at the State Legislative level, along with totally cowardly and compromised Judicial decisions made throughout our Magnificent Republic.
This is no small matter.
Moving forward and looking back, We the People need to examine these Acts of Usurpation and force a return to the limited delegated authorities (better defined as DUTIES) that We the People have granted to our subservient governmental Departments/Agencies.
That said, President Donald J. Trump has accomplished an historic phenomenon.
He was, is and will be the President of our Magnificent Republic for three terms.
Team Republic salutes his extraordinary place in the history of our MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC.
Join us in this opportunity to educate ourselves and our progeny by becoming a Member of the Magnificent Republic.
Janice Daniels
November 07, 2024
In Isaiah 27:1 the Leviathan is used as a symbol for the wicked kings of the earth who withstand God’s people. The great power that wicked nations wield can be terrifying, but God assures His children that evil, no matter how monstrous, will be defeated: “In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword—his fierce, great and powerful sword—Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.”
"The Behemoth is a large animal mentioned in Job 40:15–24 as God addresses Job. God’s description of this animal focuses on its great size and strength in comparison to Job’s smallness and human frailty. Modern language has picked up on the biblical description and uses the word behemoth to mean “anything of monstrous size or power.”
Romans 3:23-24 KJV “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”
*****
In an attempt to find the beginning of the string of this tangled Ball of Yarn we call “Government” let us start with a series of events that took place during the time of the founding of our MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC.
NOTE: With all due respect to God’s great Nations, I humbly analogize France and Great Britain as The Leviathan and the American Government as The Behemoth for study purposes only (AKA The Federal Ball of Yarn).
The Benjamin Franklin Historical Society offers details of the rather well-known facts that in 1775 the world had two Western civilization super powers; France and Great Britain, and the new Americas were a sought-after prized possession of both.
The article states that “In November 1775 the Continental Congress created the Committee of Secret Correspondence to communicate with sympathetic Europeans and seek their support. Agents had the authority to conduct international diplomacy which in this case included aid for the independence cause. In April 1777 Congress renamed it Committee of Foreign Affairs.”
What came out of these “secret correspondences” were The Treaty of Alliance and Treaty of Amity and Commerce that were then signed between representatives of the friendly union of the American colonies and France’s King Louis XVI.
This Benjamin Franklin Historical Society article then states that “The Treaty of Alliance called for mutual defense in case France or the Union was attacked by the British. One of the clauses in the treaty specified that neither country could seek a separate peace agreement with Britain.”
The American Declaration of Independence was ratified in 1776.
The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1777.
The American Revolution was fought from 1775 to 1783.
The American Revolution ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that superseded the Treaty of Alliance.
In a form of usurpation, the US Constitution was drafted, signed and ratified in September of 1787 to replace the Articles of Confederation that were agreed to 10 years earlier.
After President George Washington nominated and the Senate confirmed the appointment of John Jay as the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, Chief Justice Jay went on to “negotiate a treaty with Great Britain” in 1794 which became known as the Jay Treaty (formally known as The Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation), between "His Britannick Majesty; and The United States of America, by Their President, with the advice and consent of Their Senate."
Did this “treaty” supersede and replace the Treaty of Amity and Commerce (thereby breaking their promises with France)? I have yet to untangle this particular section of the Federal L and B Ball of Yarn.
More pertinent to this study are the questions: “Why was the Chief Justice of the Judicial Department “negotiating a treaty” with any foreign country when just 7 years earlier Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution specifically gave the authority to make treaties to the Executive Department not the Judicial Department?” and “Why would our first President George Washington ignore the very concept of the separation of powers that became part of the foundation of our entire governmental system?”
According to an article posted to George Washington's Mount Vernon website, “Thomas Jefferson wrote privately to James Madison, his close confidant, ‘the President, tho’ an honest man himself, may be circumvented by snares and artifices, and is in fact surrounded by men who wish to clothe the Executive with more than constitutional power’.”
In fact, as this article continues, the opposition press of the day seemed to stir up public unrest because “the President was overstepping his authority in negotiating the Jay Treaty.”
This very interesting article goes on to say that Thomas Paine turned on his friend George Washington by stating that “Monopolies of every kind marked your administration almost in the moment of its commencement. The lands obtained by the revolution were lavished upon partisans; the interests of the disbanded soldier was sold to the speculator; injustice was acted under the pretence of faith; and the chief of the army became the patron of the fraud.”
WoW, harsh words that were never taught in any “public” school I ever attended!
Then on September 11, 1795 an anonymous writer, using the pseudonym Belisarius, listed the various grievances that he accused President Washington of committing (This writer called them “the progressive steps which have led to the way to the present public evils”).
The last grievance listed was “GW’s “unconstitutional appointment of the Chief Justice … as Envoy Extraordinary to G. Britain,” an “unconstitutional negociation” in which GW acted without “the privity and participation of the Senate,” and an “unconstitutional treaty.””
So, when the third department of government (The Congress) noticed that the other two departments of government (The Executive and the Judiciary) were usurping authority never granted to them by The People, what did they do?
Let’s take a look at the beginning of the Federal L & B Ball of Yarn String called Congress, shall we?
In the first century or so of the American experiment in self-government (1620-1754), many of the individual colonies had Governors appointed by the King of England and Provincial Assemblies (also referred to as Provincial Congresses) that represented the governing bodies of the colonists.
Encyclopedia dot com gives a good Overview of early American-style representative government in the colonies while we were still under “British” rule. As the article indicates, things started to fall apart for various reasons in or around 1754. That was when “Benjamin Franklin called for a union of the colonies.”
This Overview mentions Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu and his essay entitled The Spirit of The Law (which is too voluminous to read in its entirety before the publication of this commentary on the Federal L & B Ball of Yarn, but it is no doubt worthy of a reading – another thing we never did in the public schools I attended).
In Book II Chap. I. entitled "Of the Nature of Three Different Governments" Montesquieu makes the following observations:
“THERE are three species of government; republican, monarchical, and despotic. In order to discover their nature, it is sufficient to recollect the common notion, which supposes three definitions, or rather three facts: “That a republican government is that in which the body or only a part of the people is possessed of the supreme power: monarchy, that in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws: a despotic government, that in which a single person directs every thing by his own will and caprice.””
And
“The misfortune of a republic is, when intrigues are at an end; which happens when the people are gained by bribery and corruption: in this case they grow indifferent to public affairs, and avarice becomes their predominant passion. Unconcerned about the government and every thing belonging to it, they quietly wait for their hire.”
NOTE: Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Law was published in the French language in 1748 and translated into English in 1752.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton are all identified as “careful readers” of Montesquieu on this Liberty Fund website.
When “things started to fall apart,” these men saw that of the three species of government identified by Montesquieu, the “republican form of government” was the obvious choice de jour, but it wasn’t until 1774 when the First Continental Congress was formed.
This was when the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress “established the course of the Congress.”
It included the following Resolution #10. “It is indispensably necessary to good Government, and rendered essential by the English Constitution, that the constituent branches of the Legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of Legislative power in several Colonies, by a Council appointed, during pleasure, by the Crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive to the freedom of American Legislation.”
This document was considered by Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center to be the precursor to not only the Declaration of Independence but also the Bill of Rights.
And yet, the earliest Federal Congress behaved, even then, like a “Council appointed, during pleasure, by (themselves)" even though they were warned that such consolidated control is “unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive to the freedom of American Legislation.”
So, how did the Article III strict delegated authority for Congress to “from time to time ... ordain and establish ... inferior courts" become a mandate to enact the cumbersome and overblown Judiciary Acts of 1789 that has set the stage for an unimaginable string of legal cases and statutes and regulations and judicial “opinions” ad nauseam ...
... to the point that today we are faced with the same “snares and artifices” of the current “administration” that has been installed as the Executive Department when it informs us that “President Biden will deliver bold action and immediate relief for American families as the country grapples with converging crises. This will include actions to control the COVID-19 pandemic, provide economic relief, tackle climate change, and advance racial equity and civil rights, as well as immediate actions to reform our immigration system and restore America’s standing in the world.”
Under what authority does our Federal L & B Ball of Yarn government “control pandemics, provide economic relief, tackle climate change, advance racial equity and civil rights, reform our immigration system or restore anything?”
ALL THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IS TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION AND LAWS MADE PURSUANT TO IT and thereby protect the American Citizens against enemies both foreign and domestic.
The US Supreme Court of 1886 saw this coming when they decided Norton v Shelby County, TN 118 US 425. They watched the usurpation of commission; they saw the abdication of delegated authority; they warned us of the “revolutionization” of our MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC into a democracy (which they called “repugnant” in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph v The State of Oregon 223 US 118 in 1921) and most recently when, just this year, the brave and honorable Judge Aileen Cannon detailed at length in her decision that the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel was in violation of The Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution in US v Trump Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division on July 14, 2024.
We have a long way to go to completely untangle the Federal Leviathan and Behemoth Ball of Yarn that We the People have allowed to get tangled up in the first place, but I truly believe that education is the key to success.
Join the MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC. Bring your scissors and your reading glasses.
We Have a Big Ball of Yarn to Untangle.
Janice Daniels
DISCLAIMER: Congress Shall Make NO LAW Infringing on The Right To Free Speech PERIOD
Here we go again, faced with a candidate running for the U.S. Presidency who is NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. I repeat – Kamala Harris is ineligible to become the President of the United States, even if she wins the election (by hook or by crook) because, although Kamala Harris might be A CITIZEN of the United States, "SHE NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN." Update: Kamala Harris probably isn't even a Citizen of the United States because no proof exists that her parents were ever Naturalized and nothing can be found to suggest that Kamala Harris has completed her pathway to citizenship after turning age 21 and then by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Send us proof to the contrary, please.
French statesman Frederic Bastiat warned us of the dangers of perverting the law in his imitable pamphlet called The Law first published in 1850. It begins as follows: “The law perverted! The law — and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation — the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law become the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow citizens.”
In an effort to clarify the issue of the Natural-Born Citizen, Team Republic studied a relevant US Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett 88 US 162 (1874).
Here’s an overview of some of the commentary written by the Justices in this unanimously decided US Supreme Court decision called Minor v Happersett.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens.
Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person” (the nomenclature of the time) might be admitted as a Citizen of the United States.
The children of such persons so Naturalized should be considered Citizens of the United States, with requirements as follows, that they:
Dwell in the United States
Are under 21 years of age at the time of such Naturalization.
Children of Citizens of the United States should be considered Natural-Born Citizens even under the following circumstances:
Born beyond the sea
In 1855, however the last provision was somewhat extended to say that all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also.
Notice that in the first bullet point, the Justices used the word PARENTS when defining Natural-Born Citizens; whereas in the last bullet point, they used the word FATHER and at this point in the case, only called them “CITIZENS.” (It might also be noted that in bullet points 1, 3 and 4 the Justices refer to the “CHILDREN” and in bullet point number 5 they referred to them as “PERSONS”).
How can we understand clear concepts today, when even back in the day our elected and appointed public functionaries could not be relied upon to be clear?
We look for clarity in history.
According to Common Law and the Coverture Doctrine, the meaning of the words PARENTS and FATHER were synonymous back in the day. There was no clarification in the use of the words children or persons, but we can all agree that children are persons, so it is a minor distraction that we will just chalk up to the fallibility of persons (who are people).
What is the Coverture Doctrine, you ask?
The Doctrine of COVERTURE is a “legal doctrine in English common law originating from the French word couverture that means ‘covering,’ - in which a married woman’s legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband."
This was “common knowledge” or “accepted nomenclature” in 1788/1789 at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution.
Is that because “they” don’t want The People of 2024 to understand The Law any better than the people of France understood the validity of Frederic Bastiat’s warnings back in 1850?
Article II Section I Clause 5 of the US Constitution
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”
In an effort to achieve some clarity, let’s turn to a well-known and respected Constitutional Law Scholar named Joanna Martin (AKA Publius Huldah), where we review the following:
A presentation by Joanna Martin (AKA Publius Huldah) in which she discusses the issue of the Natural Born Citizen and a commentary by Joanna Martin in which she discussed the Doctrine of Coverture.
Joanna Martin’s above-mentioned work included reference to a book written in 1758 called The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. The Founders of the American Republic read and were influenced by the work of Vattel. Is that common knowledge today? It should be, and Team Republic are dedicated to making it common knowledge.
In Section 212 of The Law of Nations, Mr. Vattel states that
“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Again, we see that Vattel used the terms PARENTS and FATHER and he also used the term “HIS CHILDREN,” but remember, back in the day, the wife was HIS wife (actually, she still is), the father and mother were ONE entity (actually they still are – even though women do now have their own legal existence) and the children are HIS children (even though modern terminology and sensibilities would rather say “their” children).
Joanna Martin also referenced David Ramsey’s work called A dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring The Character & Privileges of a Citizen of the United States which was printed in 1789 (with a modernized and corrected version completed by Adrien Nash Feb/Aug. 2014 in which he stated that “The dissertation by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found which provides another piece of direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents just as Vattel writes."
Following are court cases that Nash included in his commentary to support the “time-honored definition” of NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens);
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniel concurred but took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively);
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;”
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations”, are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States);
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);
United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett);
Nash goes on to say “Then the defining speech that lays out the most important aspect of the requirement and that is allegiance:” and "Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
******** This is the end of commentary by Adrien Nash
We definitely have persons who are citizens of foreign countries, who hold allegiances to those foreign countries who are in the highest reaches of our governments (potentially at all levels, in all departments). This is an issue of critical important that We the People of this Magnificent Republic need to address, sooner rather than later, because the health, safety and well-being of our country is at stake.
There is a Pro Se Complaint posted to the US Natural-Born Citizen website. It is unclear whether it was ever filed or adjudicated but certainly, as this case points out, if Kamala Harris and the communist infiltrators surrounding her cannot define what a woman is, they surely aren’t going to be able to differentiate subtle word distinctions or confusing judicial opinions of yesteryear.
Nonetheless, we could use that Pro Se Complaint as a template for future actions and/or additional complaints.
A couple of important considerations need to be reiterated:
In bygone generations, when a “father” was referenced, it included the marriage team and represented one entity.
All children are persons (even though all persons are not children).
No one except a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN can be President of the United States.
Kamala Harris is NOT a natural-born citizen.
Guess what. They continue to try to pervert The Law instead of following the Constitution.
See the recent (2018/2024) manipulation of historical legal doctrine included in 8 FAM 301.5 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878 where they state that "As originally enacted, Section 1993 provided for transmission of citizenship only through fathers (without any mention of the Doctrine of Coverture).
It is interesting to note that the “Office of Origin” of this 2018 misinterpretation of The Law (as it relates to citizenship) is called CA/PPT/S/A which, according to an online search refers to the “Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) Passport Services (PPT) Office of Program Management and Operational Support (S) and its Administrative (A) branch.
Is CA/PPT/S/A constitutionally sound? That is a discussion for a different day, but Team Republic would conjecture that it is not based upon constitutionally granted authority and therefore it does not exist de jure. Look to Norton v Shelby County TN 118 US 425, 1886, for a discussion on the important concept "de jure."
Also see: HR 1177 (introduced on February 18, 2021) called the “US Citizenship Act” which was “referred” to twelve separate Committees and one Subcommittee on that same day. The next day (February 19, 2021) this House Resolution was “referred” to the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations. Two months later (on April 28, 2021) it was “referred” to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship where it seems to have withered and died on the vine, thank God.
What was the purpose of HR 1177, you might ask? According to the Title assigned to it by it’s sponsor it was “To provide an earned path to citizenship, to address the root causes of migration and responsibly manage the southern border, and to reform the immigrant visa system, and for other purposes.” There’s always “other purposes” ya know.
Doncha think maybe it’s time We the People start holding these temporarily-seated public functionaries accountable for their suspect allegiances, their usurpation of limited delegated authority granted to them by We the People, the Oaths that they have all sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and their silent compliance in advancing another person who is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to the Executive Department of our MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC?
Join us in our journey to educate ourselves on The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God by attending our Wednesday night Zoom meetings from 7 pm to 9 pm EST.
DISCLAIMERS;
All bolding, italicizing, underlining, CAPITALIZATION, and (parenthetical commentary) are mine.
AND
Congress Shall Make No Law Abridging The Right of Free Speech PERIOD.
