Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:02:43 — 112.3MB) | Embed
The live broadcast is moved to Thursdays. TSA whistleblower statement about codes and policies that leaders don’t follow is compared to subscribing an oath of office. Supreme Court justices tells regarding the special condition of federal citizenship where driving can be prohibited by the states without a reason are played back. The lack of interest and knowledge about diversity of citizenship by attorneys is discussed with first hand accounts from Corey and Todd. The purported missing 13th Amendment concerning esquires, citizenship and office holding is explored. Corey cites Luis’ description of averring one’s Article IV citizenship, engaging the CHP and the courts, as “Chess, Not Checkers.” The public announcement message at a California courthouse is played and deconstructed as more evidence of how injured politically federal citizens are as they are told they have “constitutional rights”. And, the globalists’ agenda to erode nation states and their sovereignty is shown with think tank speak including how anti-authoritarian politics are endemic.
“Missing 13th Amendment” Would Have Precluded Attorneys From Being Elected Officials & Made Attorneys Residents Not State Citizens
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
Iowa Judges’ Oaths of Office Requirements
Lisa Anderson – American University of Cairo: Anti-Authoritarian Politics is Endemic
Think Tanker Lisa Anderson Espouses End of Nation States
ANTIAUTHORITARIAN, ANTIESTABLISHMENT POLITICS IS ENDEMIC. SO YOU SAW THE INTERCEPTION AREA LOCAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT VERY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIME WITH DYNAMIC THAT WERE GLOBAL DYNAMICS OF HOW PROTESTS HAVE BEEN AND WHAT KIND OF MODALITIES THERE ARE TWO PROTESTS. SO SOME OF THIS, THE GLOBAL LEVEL BEFORE SOUTH, ALTHOUGH PROBABLY NOT HOW QUITE TANTALIZING AND TERRIFYING IT WOULD BE PEERED POLICYMAKERS AND ANALYSTS TO ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE A MAJOR SHIFT IN HOW THE GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY WOULD TAKE SHAPE, BUT NOT EXACTLY HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN. I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF A PASSAGE THAT I OFTEN USE AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW CLEVER WE ALL ARE, AT LEAST SOME OF US, AND YET HOW PUZZLING THE IMPLICATIONS OF WATER INSIDE MAY BE. ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS WROTE, AND I QUOTE FROM THE NATIONS STATES WILL NOT DISAPPEAR, BUT THEY WILL SHARE POWER WITH A LARGER NUMBER OF POWERFUL NON-SOVEREIGN ACTORS NEVER BEFORE COME INCLUDING CORPORATIONS, NGOs, TERRORIST, DRUG CARTELS, REGIONAL GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS, BANKS AND PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS. SOVEREIGNTY WILL FOLLOW THE END TO THE POWERFUL AND ACCELERATING PEOPLE, IDEAS, GREENHOUSE GASES, E-MAILS AND WEAPONS WITHIN CROSS BORDERS. THE WORLD 35 YEARS FROM NOW WILL BE SEMI-SOVEREIGN. IT WILL REFLECT THE NEED TO ADAPT LEGAL AND POLITICAL PRINCIPLES TO A WORLD IN WHICH THE MOST SERIOUS CHALLENGES TO ORDER COME FROM A GLOBAL FORCE IS A GLOBAL FORCES DO A GLOBAL FORCE IS DUE TO STAY FROM WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO TO THEIR CITIZEN RATHER THAN FROM WHAT STATE DO TO EACH OTHER. 10 YEARS THEN, THAT SOUNDS PRETTY RIGHT ACTUALLY, AT LEAST IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST. AND YET WE HAVEN’T BEEN THAT DESCRIPTION REALLY THOUGHT VERY MUCH ABOUT HOW EXACTLY TRANSPIRED. I THINK WE SEE MUCH ABOUT PLAYING OUT IN THE REGION. BUT EVEN IF WE HALF EXPECTED THIS REVOLUTION AT THE GLOBAL SCALE AND WE UNDERSTOOD THE REVOLUTION ON A DOMESTIC SCALE OF THE UPRISING AGAINST REGIMES, WE ARE STILL WORKING ON ITS IMPLICATION AND FOR OUR PURPOSES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THE DUAL REVOLUTIONS OF GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION CONVERGE IN WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS A THIRD REVOLUTION BETWEEN THE SCALES, WHICH IS REGIONAL. BETWEEN THE LOCAL IN THE GLOBAL, A RACIAL REVOLUTION OR PERHAPS TO HIS TAKING PLACE BEFORE OUR VERY EYES
Richard Haass – CFR: Rethinking Sovereignty
For 350 years, sovereignty – the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states – has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.
The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organizations (NGO’s), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.
I would also be interested in Cory’s insight into former territories, like Washington or even off the wall Alaska or Hawaii. I know Corey is working and fighting litigation, but I would be interested if he and Todd could find a few more example states and say: “This is likely when state x crossed over into an administrative state.” The common themes identified would help build up the underlying theory.
I’m doing some research on Oregon and they’ve only had one constitution following their admission as a state since before the civil war. However, they have an easy amendment system. I would love some insight as to what to look for to see when the government crossed over into a federal division territory. The only red flag I found is an amendment after the Civil war that allowed only US Citizens to vote.
Keep fighting the good fight, Corey and Todd.
I too wonder about Amendment 4 Nevada citizenship.
Is this available under the “Nevada Territory of 1864” as it existed prior to the constitution of 1864?
Could you address this in your weekly broadcast?
In pursuit of ‘State’ citizenship:
Cory, In our last communication I was looking for clarificaton in creating a common law I.D., you advised I research the Enabling Act for Nevada. Now I have further questions regarding its feasibility and State citizenship.
gives the gist of Nevada’s creation.
As you can see, there was no constitution prior to it being written expressly for inclusion into the Union.
So now I ask, do you have any further advice? Is Nevada citizenship, outside the administrative district, possible?
Do your states have constitutional borders?
If not, go back and see which constitution lists them.
Nebraska 1866 clearly has borders, for example, which is what we used to become a state. 1867 constitution does not have borders listed. But according to the Nebraska Legislative Archives office, 1866 was never repealed, nullified, or made void by any legislation or by the ratification of 1875 after the constitutional convention.
Oregon for example states that the boundaries are according to 1859. That’s cheating.
Original constitution of Oregon:
In order that the boundaries of the State may be known and established, it is herby ordained and declared that the State of Oregon, shall be founded as follows, to wit: Beginning one marine league at sea, due west from the point where the fourty second parallel of north latitude intersects the same; thence northerly at the same distance of the coast, lying west and opposite the State including all islands within the jurisdiction of the United States to a point due west, and opposite the middle of the north–? channel of the Columbia River: thence Easterly to and up the middle channel of said River; and when it is divided by islands, up the middle of the widest channel therof, and in the like manner up the middle of the main channel of snake River, to the north of the Ouyhee River; thence due South to the parallel of Latitude fourty two degrees north: thence west, along said parallel to the place of beginning, including — wisdiction in civil and criminal cases upon the Columbia River, and Snake River, concurrently with States and territories of which those Rivers form a boundary in common with this State.
But the congress of the United States, in providing for the admission of the State into the Union may make the said northern boundary conform to the act creating the Territory of Washington.
Current Constitution of Oregon:
Section 1. State boundaries. The State of Oregon shall be bounded as provided by section 1 of the Act of Congress of February 1859, admitting the State of Oregon into the Union of the United States, until:
(1) Such boundaries are modified by appropriate interstate compact or compacts heretofore or hereafter approved by the Congress of the United States; or
(2) The Legislative Assembly by law extends the boundaries or jurisdiction of this state an additional distance seaward under authority of a law heretofore or hereafter enacted by the Congress of the United States.
[Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 4, 1957, and adopted by the people Nov. 4, 1958; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 24, 1967, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 1968]
How is the amended constitution cheating? Oregon has only had one constitution? (See above or below.) Forgive the typo’s the cursive was brutal to type out.
I mistyped 1867…. Should be 1875 Nebraska constitution that does not list borders.
Nevada’s constitution lays out geographic borders. That constitution appears to be the original for Nevada; it was created in order to become a state in the union. There was no prior constitution.
Interesting item: the US Constitution states: “New States may be admitted by the Congress…” But Congress was in recess and Lincoln did the job.