U.S. of A. v U.S. HKW Publishing

Political Union or Political Chaos?
by Ed Wahler

I would like to have conversation with my fellow Americans on the current political state of affairs as it relates to the people of the fifty States known as the United States of America -- contrasted with the federal corporation, its agencies, entities and instrumentalities known as the United States (meaning the territory over which the jurisdiction extends).

Talk to virtually any person on the street about the political, economic, legal or court situation within the United States and you may get an earful about "what is wrong with America." The speaker may even speculate about when the train went off the tracks, so to speak. But if one actually demonstrates by Supreme Court rulings, Acts of Congress and indisputable facts why things are the way they are, oddly enough that same critic will most likely come to the aid of their country and start defending it as the most free, most prosperous, greatest country on planet Earth.

Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these beliefs into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore.

What if the "admired celebrity" is one's beloved country? What if it was the Congress of the United States that had engaged in deplorable behavior such as fraud and purposeful deception? What would the "man on the street" do to reduce the psychological discomfort caused by being shown a glimpse of American history that is contrary to what has been taught and is believed as true by the vast majority of Americans, past and present?

With that as the backdrop, let us take a look at a few facts that may not be what you had previously believed them to be. First is the issue of your being a citizen of the United States. Most everyone would seemingly agree that they are a "proud American" and therefore equally proud to be called a citizen of the United States. But how do the law and the Supreme Court define a United States citizen, and most importantly, the rights, privileges and immunities associated with being one?

"There is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, "There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship. "
256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro vs. Jordan

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,"
US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226

Does the above comport with your pre-established notion that being a United States citizen is the best of all worlds regarding your rights, freedom and liberty? Did you even know there is such a thing as a state Citizen and that it is different from being a U.S. citizen? Are you possibly shocked to know that as a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, one does not have the protection of the Bill of Rights? In fact, 14th Amendment U.S. Citizenship protects very few rights! Did the government employees teaching in the public schools ever teach you this?

As the Kelo case on Eminent Domain decided by the Supreme Court in 2005 clearly demonstrates, U.S. citizens do not have private property rights or protection from bizarre eminent domain takings. If you can fight off the psychological effects of cognitive dissonance for just a few more minutes, you might be wondering; "How did I get to be a U.S. citizen? Could it possibly be true that my political status as a U.S. citizen deprives me of the rights, privileges and immunities that are inherent to being a free American?"

The short answer is, you volunteered. That's right, you volunteered to be a U.S. citizen -- devoid of Constitutionally protected rights, devoid of even God-given, unalienable rights. "Exactly how did I volunteer?" you might ask. Well, when you decided that you needed a Social Security number, you also agreed to become a U.S. citizen and accept what the legal experts call compelled benefits. Herein lies the "real beauty" of the system developed to make you into something you never though possible: a person living in voluntary servitude. Okay, that cognitive dissonance thing just kicked in again. Let's take this one step at a time.

By signing the SS5 form (Social Security Application) you voluntarily assented to transform by agreement your political status. Let's examine 5 USC 552A (a)(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)." (emphasis added)

By agreeing to accept those measly Social Security payments 40 or 50 years out, you agreed to live your entire life as a "federal personnel." For those of you who, like me, spent some time in the military, you will know what I mean when I say that being a "federal personnel" is like being a Humvee or a tank or a cooking utensil in the mess tent; you are just a piece of property. But there it is, in black and white: legislation passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President, legislation that says if you volunteer to get a Social Security number, you become government chattel property. Why do I keep saying that you volunteered to get the Social Security number, you ask? For the simple reason that to this day there is no law requiring you to get a Social Security number, no law within the 50 titles of the United States Code that makes the possession or use of a Social Security Account mandatory.

You see, back in the 1930s, a very devious man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt was working diligently to turn this once great Republic into a legislative democracy where socialistic concepts could reign. As it turns out, Roosevelt had this little problem with the Supreme Court. The nine justices on the Supreme Court were ruling against some of the foundational planks of Roosevelt's diabolical scheme. The risk was that the centerpiece of his "New Deal", Social Security, might be found unconstitutional. So Roosevelt made his famous threat to "pack the Court" with lots of justices until he could make the Court safe for democracy and socialism.

To make a long story short, a story that is more fully described in the book U.S. Of A. v U.S., The Loss of Legal Memory of the American State, the Court took Roosevelt's threat seriously and made a "switch in time that saved nine." Essentially, the Court threw out over one hundred years of protecting the people from power grabs by the federal government. The Court gave Roosevelt his way, thus paving the way for the "democracy" and all the evils that the Founding Fathers rightly associated with a democracy. However, the Supreme Court included specific language that allowed the People to "opt out" if they didn't want to fall into the servitude trap. They ruled that Social Security must be voluntary. The 13th Amendment states:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The 13th amendment provides for the possibility of voluntary servitude!

Now if you have ever tried to open a bank account, fill out a job application or even rent a video, you might not think that having a Social Security number is voluntary, but that is the genius of the plan. The law says that making application to receive benefits under the Social Security Act is completely voluntary and, in fact, goes so far as to state in every one of the 50 Titles of the United States Code that mentions the Social Security number, that you cannot be denied any right or privilege if you do not provide a Social Security number (with the obvious exception of dealing with the Social Security Administration). The way they got the scheme to work was to make the employers, banks, state and local agencies and everyone else treat you and make their computer systems operate as if having a Social Security card was mandatory.

Now if your mind is off pondering the magnitude of this great deception, let me ask you to come back to the discussion for a few more moments. There are two other very important points that you have to understand about the execution of the plan.

Once you are "in the system" of accepting the benefits there under, you are legally barred from complaining about it or raising the issue that it might be un-Constitutional. Justice Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice during the 1930s developed what are today referred to as the Brandeis Rules. Rule number six is the one that gets you. Take a look:

The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

Read that again. If you volunteer to be a Social Security "beneficiary" you instantly become ineligible to go to the Courts and challenge the constitutionality of the very same laws. And since you also decided to become a 14th Amendment citizen at the same time you also now fall under Article 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

Yes indeed, they just got you again! If, as a U.S. citizen, you think the government ought to live within its means and not be five or ten trillion dollars in debt, you cannot question the debt. Do you think you are done getting suckered in this deal? No, it gets worse.

There are literally thousands of people across the land that are variously known as "tax protestors", members of the "tax honesty movement" and other names, good and bad, depending on which side of the fence you sit with respect to the income tax. Once upon a time, some people threw a bunch of tea into a harbor over a tax amounting to 1% or less. Today, we give up 20 to 30% of our income, plus pay a tax of 50 cents per gallon on gasoline and pay taxes on everything we own including the roof over our heads. Now hear this, you fans of Truth, Justice and the American way!

Given the above disclosures about the joys and benefits of being a U.S. citizen, would it surprise you that you also volunteer to pay the income tax? That's right, you raise your hand and ask the "tax man" to ravage your paycheck. Now you may be proud to pay your taxes and this author will not disparage your patriotism in the least -- but don't you wish, just a little, that the U.S. government would be honest about the source of authority for imposing the income tax on your earnings?

This author's considered and studied opinion is that the source of authority for the income tax can be found at Title 8 of the Social Security Act of 1935, which states:

Remember, you volunteered into Social Security, so any taxes, especially the above referenced income tax, are self imposed by your own voluntary action. Welcome to being a U.S. citizen.

To wrap up our conversation, you are probably wondering, is there really a difference between the United States and the United States of America? Could there really be a subtle but distinct difference that affects the rights you enjoy, the taxes you pay and even whether or not you have rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Once again we can look to the U.S. government's own documents to show that not only do they recognize a distinction between the United States and the United States of America, they allow you to choose the one to which one you are legally bound.

In Title 28 of the United States Code (28 USC) we find at section 1746 the following:

Please look at numbers (1) and (2) above. You can make unsworn declarations into the United States or into the United States of America. Take further notice that the United States of America seemingly even has its own laws that are different from those in the United States. The presumption (a legal term) is that if you do not specifically state that you want to declare in the United States of America and under the laws thereof, you automatically fall under the umbrella of the United States, which at Title 28 Section 3002, subsection (15) is defined as "United States" means—(A) a Federal corporation"

That's right Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore!

The Senate has a publication called Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation. This particular document is 2710 pages in length. It is the Senate's official version of it's understanding of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. In that lengthy document, on page 53, the astute reader will find when the Supreme Court is referring to the Constitution of the United States of America it states:

The question begs to be asked, "If the Constitution of the United States of America is made for and binding only in the United States of America, then what is made for and binding only in the United States? Since the answer is not a simple one line statement, you might want to pick up a copy of the book U.S. of A. v U.S., The Loss of Legal Memory of the American State by visiting www.USofAvUS.com or by calling the publisher at 828-398-4358. The authors provide a painstakingly researched, legally sound disclosure of what the true state of affairs is today. To be a "good American" is to be ever vigilant to the threat of tyranny, from without and within. If you are just now being introduced to the fact that you do not have the rights you thought you had, being a U.S. citizen is not all its cracked up to be, and the folks in Washington, D.C. might not be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, get a copy of the book U.S. of A. v U.S., The Loss of Legal Memory of the American State, which also includes an MP3 CD with 10 hours of audio lectures on this same material as found in the book. The book also contains an access code to allow you to join the educational web site for the first year.

God bless the United States of America, let freedom ring.

© HKW Publishing, 2006, Permission is given by the Publisher to distribute this document in any form as long as the document is kept intact and is not for gain or profit.