Summary of Random Truths

NEW PATRIOT PATOIS

by Jeff Ganaposki

To many newcomers to the New Patriot movement, there is a wry observation that much infighting and bickering is afoot. There is a reason for the controversy. The umbrella term: New Patriot Movement, is often misapplied to militia, white supremacists, white separatists, neo-nazis, and even supporters of gun ownership rights. But despite the deliberate disinformation campaign to discredit New Patriots, there is an actual schism. The root of the confusion must be understood before considering the merits of any arguments proposed and solutions presented.

The New Patriot Movement is comprised of several categories or sections based upon mutually exclusive premises.

The three major sections, in order by size, largest first, are:

1. Politically active U.S. citizen / residents
2. State Citizens in rebellion to the federal usurpation
3. People who are sovereign

[1] Active U.S. citizens / residents are those who cooperate with government agents, and are actively opposing that which they disagree with. They advocate participation in political campaigning, promoting partisan groups, and keeping informed of issues. Their major objects of attack are: income taxation (and most taxation outside of the explicit taxes listed in the constitution), intrusive government regulations, and deprivation of rights under color of law.

[2] The next most populous group is the State Citizenry. This group generally objects to and rejects much that was done after the ratification of the 14^th amendment (U.S. citizenship). They often are splintered into subgroups:
a) based upon asserting that "free white Citizens" are superior in status to other citizens & people, and
b) no racial bias to State Citizenship.
In either case, they assert that the U.S. citizenship (Federal) is inferior, and that State Citizens are still in possession of inalienable rights that are superior to the legislated "civil rights" offered to the U.S. citizen. They often act from the belief that the U.S. constitution needs to be restored. There is a shared belief that the state of belligerency known as the Civil War was never properly ended, and that martial law is still in effect with regard to the instrumentality of government.

[3] The least populous group is comprised of people who assert that their unalienable rights are best protected by remaining sovereign or restoring sovereignty. They consider that the legal definition of citizen or Citizen refers to one who has created or submitted to the government. One who submits cannot be a sovereign. Therefore, the various legal declarations that affirm that "people" are sovereigns, including supreme court cites, and the amendments to the U.S. constitution that specifically identify that people have rights and powers, illustrate the correctness of the belief. They are characterized by asserting nationality, not citizenship, asserting that they are inhabitants, not residents, that they have a domicile, not a residence, and that they are people, not persons (where statutorily defined persons include artificial entities and other privileged fictions of law). They are not party to the U.S. Constitution, and derive no specific rights from it. They only assert that they can demand specific performance to that Constitution by those people who have sworn an oath to that Constitution.

Not necessarily New Patriots -

The other categories that are lumped together, such as militiamen, racially exclusive partisans, and promoters of firearm rights, often hold differing beliefs that can make it hard to imagine them working together to accomplish a task and meet a goal. In fact, one can be a supporter of militia and not even be concerned with New Patriot issues. The same is true for racially exclusive partisans. A white separatist need not aspire to be a sovereign, a State Citizen, or even an active U.S. citizen. A person who desires to bear arms in protection of his person and property need not join a militia, nor hold racially exclusive views, nor seek to align himself with any faction of the New Patriots.

Parallel Goals of New Patriots

Though there are many schisms and flavors of thought, there are certain issues that the new patriots can agree are the targets for attention.

Issues that inflame most new patriots:

• 1) Deprivation of rights without explicit constitutional delegation of authority,
• 2) Attack on the person and property of American people by agents of government, and
• 3) Promotion of foreign interests at the expense of American interests.

As one can see, these three issues are fairly clear to understand and meet the approval of most readers. But when it comes to specifics, the partisan and divisive nature of the factions will make it hard to find a consensus.

For example, one can examine the issue of "driving licenses" and "motor vehicle" registration. To the average person, the argument that the "State" owns the roads, and you need their license to drive upon it, and that you need to register "your" automobile with the State seems reasonable. But if ever faced with the daunting task of retaining one's liberty in the face of the mountains of regulations, experience tells us that something is amiss. If the government can effectively erase your liberty, on the grounds that you failed to pay a library card fine, or child support, it would soon appear that one's liberty is at the mercy of the State.

The first group, activists, would petition, lobby, and promote candidates that would repeal laws or enact laws to end the abuse of liberty. The second group, State Citizens, would object to the laws, and assert that they were traveling, exercising a right of locomotion, and a liberty that has been protected since before the U.S. Constitution was ratified. In the event of traffic citation or arrest, they would raise objections to the jurisdiction of the court, and make a host of related arguments that show that "traffic" refers to commerce, and that "motor vehicles" are defined in such a way to limit the term to commercial common carriers, engaged in hauling cargo and passengers for hire. The last group, sovereigns, would agree with most of the premises of #2, except that when the State Citizens assert that their rights are exclusive to their status as State Citizens, the sovereigns would add that pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, free inhabitants are accorded all the privileges and immunities of the free citizens, thus holding the superior status at law - having no obligations or duties, while afforded all the legal protections that government extends to its own citizenry.

In one sense, the sovereign would argue that the State doesn't own the roads, for with what did the State use to "buy" the lands and roadways, if not with monies from the people (not just citizens). And if that's the case, then the roads belong to the people, and only the privilege of using public property for private gain (commerce) would be a within the lawful purview of the authority of the servant government. Hence traffic laws should only pertain to those who are hauling cargo or passengers for hire upon the public highways.

Another argument, is the fact that rights of way of public roads were often upon private property. Thus the easement of the private owners was reciprocated to all other owners of private property. After the national bankruptcy in 1933, the private property rights of the people were surrendered to the creditor on behalf of the bankrupted government via the Federal Insurance Contribution Act of 1935. With no reciprocal rights of way, the numbered masses of voluntary paupers had no "right" to travel upon the private property of another without permission (license). And that the legal action of most traffic cases is a trespass, and not a tort nor common law injury to person or property.

Another argument would rebut the presumption that all automobiles are motor vehicles subject to registration. And that private property is not the same as personal property, nor real property. Since the constitution forbids taking private property for public use without just compensation, it would appear that confiscating unregistered private automobiles is not within the constitutional authority of the government body in question.

In regard to hierarchy of power, the various groups would categorize it as follows:

[1] Government => U.S. citizen / residents

[2] State Citizens => Government => U.S. citizen / residents

[3] People => State Citizens => Government => U.S. citizen / residents

Controversies between #2 & #3

There are several court cases where the term "sovereign people" was defined as synonymous with citizenry in regard to the constitution. But this would appear to contradict the fundamental definition of the term: citizen. It is true that the originators of the government had to have sovereign status, but after establishing the government body, they must submit to it, leaving their former sovereign status. Herein lies the core of the controversy, since the government publications only refer to their citizenry, and rarely, if ever speak of the people who are sovereign, and not citizens.

Whatever you believe is the correct concept, the definition of the republican form of government, or republican government (not to be confused with the partisan Republican party), does stipulate that the sovereign power is in the people, and wielded by them directly. This is contrasted with the definition of a democracy, where the sovereign power resides in the whole body of free citizens, wielded indirectly, through a system of representation.

If the term, citizen, is synonymous with people, then we have a host of contradictory definitions, not only from the basic form of American government, but to the philosophical basis for all law.

"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent."

Exercising the franchise (voting), though incorrectly called the right to vote, is a privilege, one must first register for, and be accepted by the agents of government. There is no property right inherent in voting, but there is consent. Coincidentally, the term suffrage is synonymous with voting, and the term sufferance means to give passive consent. Hence a registered voter has given his consent, whether his vote is a winner or not. It is a matter of Georgia law that a registered voter can be compelled to sit for jury duty while others may volunteer. This supports the premise that citizens, State or Federal, are subjects to and objects of the rules and regulations pertaining to their status derived from exercising political liberty.

Using set theory, one can perhaps make sense of the status arguments.

The set of all living people on the Earth is the domain.

Within that domain, are smaller dominions, called nations. These nations have people within their boundaries, a subset of the domain of living people. Within these nations, the people who are native, have nationality. Within these nations, there are governments, who have a subset of people who are citizens. Within the subgroup of citizen, there are free citizens, denizens, and permanent residents.

Recapping:

All People => Nationals => Citizens, citizens, denizens, and residents

For example, a member of an Indian Tribal nation within the United States of America would not be a U.S. citizen while retaining his status as a tribal national.

Regarding civil rights derived from the 14^th amendment U.S. citizen, the government has granted corporations, associations, and other non-living entities the legal status of "persons" with regard to certain rights, privileges, and immunities.

Since artificial entities do not have unalienable rights from their Creator, as do living people, it can be confusing to deal with statutes and codes that jumble such distinct and different groups. Furthermore, since corporations have limited liability, there is an opportunity for much mischief without any recourse for the injured parties. Therefore, such corporate entities MUST have strict regulations upon their activities for the protection of the living people. But the current political system practices deception and tricks all people into obeying rules and regulations that should only apply to those activities that can do much wickedness without consequence.

Another aspect of New Patriot concern is the "voluntary pauperization" that comes with participation in Social Security. After much research, it would appear that all throughout the history of America, there was an explicit exclusion of those with impaired status. In essence, the government was excused of all limitations of the constitution when dealing with these Status criminals. Specific excluded classes included paupers (parasites on the body politic), vagabonds (property less wanderers), and fugitives from justice. Since 1935, the majority of Americans have been reduced in status to the lowest of the low, suffering indignities that are more an attribute of a totalitarian police state than a government dedicated to the principles of securing the unalienable rights of the people.

Thanks to the deliberate deception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who publically stated that "Relief was not charity," the suffering American people were led to enroll in Social Security to get their "entitlements." Congress has declared that there are no property rights inherent in entitlements, and that they are synonymous with gifts. And gifts are synonymous with charity. Thus charity from the public treasury makes the recipient into a pauper, the excluded class feared by most Americans since this nation began. No law requires participation in Social Security, nor is there a law punishing one for not participating. Thus it is 100% voluntary pauperization, and voluntary servitude.

And along with the political usurpation of power that goes with exclusion, there is another side of the reduced status.

Usury, charging a fee, in money, for the loan of money, has been outlawed in many scriptures, including the Christian Bible. Unfortunately, it has not been obeyed, and usurers have been active for millennia, craftily undermining the prosperity of the people, fomenting demand for their usury, and even instigating wars, which they underwrite at a handsome profit.

It's no coincidence that without a Social Security number, no Federal Reserve bank will allow you to engage in usury, i.e., open an interest bearing account. The same is true for Stocks and Bonds. Usury is not protected by the constitution nor laws of any civilized nation. It requires an international contract that binds the parties outside of the protections of the law of the land. It's no wonder that the first Social Security Act of 1933 was ruled unconstitutional. It took an international treaty, and a totalization agreement to make the framework to hang the fraud upon it. After that, the Social Security Act of 1935 passed into our lives, altering our status from free people with property rights, into subjects without even the ownership of our children nor our labor.

In conclusion, the three major categories of the New Patriot movement must address the fundamental reasons why government can act outside the rules, and how to correct it. If it is a matter of status that we have asserted by our misguided actions, then our task is merely education and individual action. If the laws have been legitimately enacted upon all the people, then perhaps, it is a matter of political advocacy that will help us become free people. If fraud is the root of all our troubles, then truth must be uncovered, and proclaimed from the rooftops.

Whether this nation, and its people will recover from the depths that fraud and deceit have propelled us, it remains to be seen.

God help us if we fail.