Sovereign Citizens, Nationalists, American State Nationalists, and American Assemblies

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

On 2022-07-01 06:23, We The People wrote:

Hey this We The People I usually watch your constitution classes on Tuesday my name in the YouTube chat is We The People I found this website you might be interested in. It's called American Assembly it shows you how to become a Nationalist americas-assemby.com/we-are-not-us-citizens-united-states-citizens this might go really good with one your lessons. See if what they are talking about makes sense. Do you think this is legit? I think we had a conversation about this in your live chat That the government is a corporation and it went bankrupt when Donald Trump got in office. Also they have a zoom chat every Tuesday you can ask them questions here americas-assembly.com I am gonna attend one of those to ask some questions about this. Anyways I thought you might think this was interesting.

 

 Thanks and God Bless 🙏 🇺🇲🇺🇸

 

Jxxxxxxx 

 

News for The People by The People

We empower people with Technology The World is Waking Up.

 Jxxxxxxx,

Unfortunately, the information you provided is false information.  The folks behind the movement you are referring to have attributed the definition of "subject" to that of "citizen".  U.S. Citizenship is mentioned in Article II, Section 2, Article I, Section 2, and Article I, Section III.  Citizen is the highest political office in a republic.  While subjects serve their government, in a republic the government is supposed to serve its citizens.  A problem exists not because there is a flaw in the system, but because tyrants have altered the original version of the system into something it was not intended to be.  If we get rid of the concept of a U.S. Citizen then it opens the door for globalism to further compromise U.S. Sovereignty.  I believe the attack on the word "citizen" is a PsyOp.  If we decide we are not U.S. Citizens, our sovereignty crumbles and the globalists win.

The term "nationalist" is also a problem.  Its original meaning is that of a subject under a national government; a national government being one that controls everything without any limitations to its authorities unlike the original federal government under our Constitution.  I believe the use of "nationalist" is also a PsyOp.  If we get rid of citizens, and make everyone a nationalist, that means we have no freedom, and we are subject to a centralized system that can give away our sovereignty to any international polity.

In short, the poisoning of the word "citizen" and the adoption of the word "nationalist" of the state assembly movement is actually in complete opposition of what they claim to be about.

As for the corporation theory, it is completely false.  The United States is not a "corporation".  Granted, the leadership often treats it like it is, but the theory that we became a corporation and are operating under ownership of foreign entities such as London, or perhaps The Vatican, is completely false.  The Verona Treaty is not a legitimate treaty, it was created by a newspaper hoping to sell more papers pushing a conspiracy.  As for the 1871 Act, first of all the Congress has no legislative authority to change a city, or the United States, into a corporation, so even if they tried it would be a false entity.  The 1871 Act uses the term "municipal corporation" not because it made Washington DC or the United States a business type of corporation, but to incorporate Washington DC (area around district) as a city so that it could have its own local government.  Without being incorporated as a city the area would continue to be subject to congressional regulations, only and would continue to technically not be allowed to have a population of residents.  The all CAPS of the name of our country does not mean it is a corporation, they all capped it for emphasis, as a presentation that the United States of America has become an important member of the community of countries at the time.  There are not two different constitutions, the one we are operating under today is exactly the same as the original one, save for amendments added.  The "second constitution" people like myself normally discuss is not literally a second constitution, but one that the courts operate under that is basically an annotated version of the Constitution based on Case Law and Precedent - a very unconstitutional way of operating.  As for the claim the USA is listed in Dun and Bradstreet, the USA, Inc. listed is a telecommunications company, not our country.

Finally, despite some arguments to the contrary, the 14th Amendment did not create a new citizenship, it simply clarified the terms of what a citizen is in order to ensure the newly emancipated slaves and their children were recognized as being members of the United States citizenry.  And, if you read the congressional debates regarding the 14th Amendment citizenship clause (they are called the "Congressional Globe"), you will discover that it, like pretty much the rest of the constitution, has been misinterpreted by the courts.  For example, if we were to use the Citizenship Clause in a manner consistent with the testimony of Senator Howard on May 30, 1866 (he was one of the authors of the clause) we would discover that anchor babies are not citizens, and in order to become citizens they, like any other immigrant, need to simply go through the immigration process so that they may enjoy the privilege of residency.

While the people of the founding era did see themselves as citizens of their States, once the Union was established they also recognized themselves as members of the union, or more specifically, Citizens of the United States of America.

Hope this helps.

---

Blessings,
 
Douglas V. Gibbs
Fellow, American Freedom Alliance
Sentinel, Heritage Foundation
President, Constitution Association
Radio Host, KMET AM1490 Beaumont
Radio Host, KPRZ K-Praise AM1210/FM106.1 San Diego
Author
www.douglasvgibbs.com   
www.politicalpistachio.com   
www.constitutionassociation.com