Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:About"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 268: Line 268:
  
 
Not to be a bean counter, but we now have 600 million page views.  I don't know if anyone wants to update that on this page or not--I suppose it's not all that important, but it still might be worth mentioning. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 21:38, 4 March 2017 (EST)
 
Not to be a bean counter, but we now have 600 million page views.  I don't know if anyone wants to update that on this page or not--I suppose it's not all that important, but it still might be worth mentioning. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 21:38, 4 March 2017 (EST)
 +
 +
== Freedom movement, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN ==
 +
 +
Freedom movement, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN
 +
The “freedom movement” is when people believe based on law and tradition that they are free individuals. Some also call themselves “citizens” of a state, providence or a nation, but none are a citizen of government (state, nation or other). Also known as “freemen”, “sovereigns”, “state nationals” and “common law citizens”, they are unorganized and typically act alone and are part of the freedom movement. They are independent thinkers that act pro se (Latin for “for himself”) with sui juris (Latin for “of his own right”) authority and use several different sources for information. They typically declare themselves sovereigns by making documents with references to current laws and court cases and many send their documents to government public servants and carry them in their vehicles to give to police.[1][2] Most are not antigovernment (as are anarchists) as the media and government claim, but rather support and defend their constitution, Common Law and Natural Law. In the U.S.A., sovereigns support and defend the “Constitution for the United States of America”[3], Declaration of Independence, Common Law and Natural Law.[4] They oppose the de facto (Latin for “in fact”, as in currently in effect) governments and support the original de jure (Latin for “by right”) governments “of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed”[5] as created by the founders of the original 13 states who created the nation of and government of the United States of America. They oppose only the illegal (unconstitutional) acts, administrative laws, agreements, bylaws, codes, court case “law” (precedent), covenants, doctrines, executive orders, laws, mandates, martial law, merchant/commercial law, ordinances, policies, public policies/law, regulations, restrictions, rules, signing statements, statutes and taxes.[6] They support the America where ”… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[7]
 +
“LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.”[8]
 +
“The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible.”[9] Common law is mostly not in writing. It is abstract legal concepts derived from principles rather than rules.[9] Common Law uses malum in se (= wrong or evil in itself), as opposed to malum prohibitum (= wrong or evil just because it is prohibited), which statute law is based on. An act is a crime only if there is victim and harm, injury or damage done to the victim.[10] It cannot lawfully be modified, limited nor abrogated by legislature or other government department.[9]
 +
Many legal “experts” believe that Common Law is the same as or similar to “Case Law”. “Case Law” (also known as “precedent”) is not actually law, but rather court cases usually decided by the U.S.A. Supreme Court, inferior courts and appellate courts. Courts are within the Judicial branch of government and therefore cannot make law. Only the Legislative branch is constitutionally allowed to make law.[11] “Judicial activism” and ”legislating from the bench” are unconstitutional.[12][13]
 +
The U.S.A. Constitution is based on Common Law and the term is stated in Amendment VII of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the constitution).
 +
“A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state.”[14]
 +
“What is de jure government? The term that applies to the legally constituted government that has been placed in power in accordance with the laws of the land.”[15]
 +
Sovereigns believe that the current U.S.A. federal government (de facto government) is at least 50% unconstitutional based on the following: 1) Federal means “having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.”[16] The de facto government controls the states and the people with unconstitutional “laws” and taxes.[17] 2) The U.S.A. Constitution grants certain powers, many of which are listed in article I, section 8. 3) “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land …”[18] In 1787+-, United States meant the states that are united, not the federal government. 4) “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[19] 5) “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.”[20] 6) “It [federal government] must always savour of weakness – sometimes border on anarchy.”[21] 7) “No matter how long one searches, it is impossible to find in the Constitution any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today.” [22] 
 +
Not all national laws are “in Pursuance” (enforcement) of the U.S.A. Constitution. “Laws” that violate a human right(s) or a constitution are color of law. ”Color of law = The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law”.”[23]
 +
The reasons for the federal politicians ignoring the constitution is/are: 1) usurpation/mission creep. Politicians do not like to be legally restrained.[24] 2) through favors, brides, donations and intimidation, many politicians have been “bought” by unions, organizations and corporations.[25] and 3) “the seat of the federal Government of the United States” (article I, section 8), Washington D.C., operates as a “corporation of Washington”, D. C.. [26] 
 +
“The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, Page 324 U.S. 672 or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”[27]
 +
It is the second “sense” that sovereigns “get out of” using one or more of the following methods to get out of the system:
 +
1) Expatriation – Sovereigns expatriate from the de facto system using the Expatriation Act of 1868.[28] Then they repatriate into the de jure, constitutional, original, organic system where public servants work for the people. They do not leave their place of residence to expatriate, rather it is a political move. They each are now called a “state national” and refer to themselves by the name of the state they repatriated to using one of the following names.[29] “Nationalities, etc. 5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality. 5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the following forms will be used. Alabamian Alaskan Arizonan Arkansan Californian Coloradan Connecticuter Delawarean Floridian Georgian Hawaiian Idahoan Illinoisan Indianian Iowan Kansan Kentuckian Louisianian Mainer Marylander Massachusettsan Michiganian Minnesotan Mississippian Missourian Montanan Nebraskan Nevadan New Hampshirite New Jerseyan New Mexican New Yorker North Carolinian North Dakotan Ohioan Oklahoman Oregonian Pennsylvanian Rhode Islander South Carolinian South Dakotan Tennessean Texan Utahn Vermonter Virginian Washingtonian West Virginian Wisconsinite Wyomingite“[30]
 +
“Definitions - The term “national” means a person [singular of people] owing permanent allegiance to a state.”[31] State = “a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government, the fifty states b States plural,  The United States of America, the territory of a state.”[32] 
 +
State nationals are not nationals of the “United States” because “The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”[33] Recall the second sense of the meaning in the Hooven case.[27] Sovereigns reject the common belief that Americans are citizens of the “United States” because ““United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.”[34] Sovereigns are not of or part of any of these.
 +
They do not refer to themselves as “persons” (and seldom as “citizens”) because “person” may include a corporation, company, association, trust, estate, business entity (such as a partnership, corporation or limited liability company) and government (in some definitions). National examples: “The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”[35]
 +
State examples of the definition of “Person”: “"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency or instrumentality, public corporation or any other legal or commercial entity.”[36] “"Person" means an individual person, a corporation, a business trust, an estate, a trust, a partnership, an association, a joint venture, a government in its private or public capacity, a governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal entity.[37] 
 +
Expatriation is explained in detail in the book The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork
 +
2) The second method commonly used by sovereigns to get out of the de facto system is to make documents they get from websites, classes, books and/or other sources to make documents with references to past laws such as The Magna Carta (which refers to “free man” several times), Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America (U.S.A. Constitution), Federalist Papers, state Bill of Rights and/or other legal documents and writings.[38]
 +
3) Some file a Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Financial Statement form 1 and related documents.[39]
 +
4) Some use a document called “Act of State”, “archetype” and “apostille” and get an apostille number from their state Secretary of State.[40]
 +
Sovereigns use this term because people used to be called sovereigns hundreds of years ago. Sovereign is “a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty  b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere  c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter”[41] People are referred to as sovereign in current law. Here are some of the many examples:
 +
“The fundamental principle, on which it rests, that the empire [U.S.A. nation] is a community of sovereigns; that the Diet [legislature] is a representation of sovereigns; and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns; …”[42]
 +
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”[43] 
 +
“In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution.”[44]
 +
“The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.”[45] 
 +
“Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”[46] 
 +
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”[47] 
 +
“… Government to undermine the sovereignty of the People, the States and the Union itself …” – Articles of Freedom, article I.[48]
 +
“The genius of Republican liberty, seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people; but, that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, …”[49] 
 +
“All people are by nature free and independent…”[50] 
 +
“All political power is inherent in the people.”[51]
 +
“All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”[52] 
 +
Sovereigns ignore unconstitutional “laws” because they want to be as free as people were hundreds of years ago. The Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War to be free and independent fought against “tyranny” from their own nation, Great Britain, under the domination of king George the III. Sovereigns (then and now) “have Petitioned for Redress”[7], sent documents and letters to politicians and used other peaceful means “to throw off such Government”[7], but such government has “answered only by repeated injury”[7]. “That when any form of Government becomes destructive of these [“certain unalienable Rights”] ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”[7]. Sovereigns have chosen to politically leave the illegal de facto system of government and continue life as it was 240+- years ago rather than fight. What they are doing is not new, but rather very old. Sovereigns use many sources to obtain and defend their regained freedom: quotes from the “founding fathers”, old and new laws, court cases, recent and old books, websites, videos and classes on the Internet and in person. Some more examples of legally ignoring unconstitutional “laws” follow:
 +
“If the Judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the Legislature they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and void.”[53] 
 +
“An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become the law of the land.”[54]
 +
"No legislative act therefore contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."[55] 
 +
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”[56] 
 +
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."[57] 
 +
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words, [Page 199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded."[58] 
 +
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”[59] 
 +
The federal government is conspiring against the people in violation of U.S.C. title 18, sections 241 (“Conspiracy against rights”) and 242 (“Deprivation of rights under color of law”).
 +
Politicians and the general public believe that sovereigns must prove their claims because they believe the freedom movement is new and baseless. This is one reason why sovereigns send so many documents to governments. However, sovereigns are not required to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The claimant is one who makes a claim, a statement said to be fact. The claimant is the government when it claims to have legitimate constitutional authority over the people’s right to travel, gamble, prostitute, marry, use drugs, engage in commerce, etc.. “The proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.”[60] “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.”[61]  So when any government claims to have authority or jurisdiction over a human, they are legally required to reveal such a law, and such law must be provided for (allowed) by the applicable constitution(s) that they took an oath to obey, otherwise it is color of law. Most federal and state public servants take an oath of office similar to: “I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”[62]
 +
The reason sovereigns do not use lawyers and attorneys and the reason why lawyers and attorneys do not defend clients by using the “sovereignty defense” or any of the methods above is because “His first duty is to the courts and to the public, not to the client.”[63] 
 +
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is supposed to protect sovereigns when sovereigns ignore color of law, but they do not, contrary to their own website. “That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law.”[64] Instead, the FBI has made baseless claims about sovereigns.[65] 
 +
Left-wingers, collectivists, liberals and progressives also exaggerate and lie about sovereigns by claiming that sovereigns are hateful, antigovernment, antitax, violent, wrong, extremists and far-right.[66] The Southern Poverty Law Center further claims that sovereigns are “paper terrorists”.[67] 
 +
The claims by the S.P.L.C., Department of Homeland Security and F.B.I. are based mostly on emotions and their love of government. Of course, there are rare exceptions to the typical peace-loving sovereign who wants to be left alone that collectivists and government exploit and claim these examples are the rule rather than the exceptions. Some of the alleged criminals are not sovereigns, but are blamed by their opponents.[68]
 +
But reading about or listening to actual sovereigns reveals that the S.P.L.C., F.B.I. and other antifreedom groups are lying and spreading hatred of all people on the political right. Opponents say that sovereigns are wrong because left-wing media and government says they are. They say sovereigns loose in court and give examples, but ignore the cases they win. They believe that the exceptions are the rules.[69] A search of the Internet of sovereigns winning on the streets, in government offices and in courts are easy to find.
 +
SOURCES:
 +
“America: Freedom to Fascism” documentary at www. Freedomtofascism.com, Netflix, etc..
 +
ww.famguardian.org , ww.patriotnetwork.info/ , www .livefreenow.org,  www .1215.org , www .barefootsworld.net , ww.pacinlaw.us/home/ ,  “Redemption Manual” http ://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/the-redemption-manual/ ,
 +
Sovereign videos: https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGpv5quGmqQ&list=PL95DD88D4A7D6A37F ,        https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yum5yvWbsqQ
 +
REFERENCES:
 +
1. ww.famguardian.org
 +
2. www .barefootsworld.net
 +
3. Preamble to the U.S.A. Constitution
 +
4. ww.patriotnetwork.info/
 +
5. The American’s Creed
 +
6. The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork, mostly on page 4-9
 +
7. Declaration of Independence 1776
 +
8. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856
 +
9. https ://dictionary.law.com
 +
10. https ://definitions.uslegal.com/m/malum-in-se/
 +
11. https ://www.jstor.org/stable/1109251?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 +
12. Federalist Papers 78, 81, 82, 83
 +
13. http ://www.constitutiondecoded.com/us-constitution-article-iii.html
 +
14. https: //definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-jure-government-and-de-facto-government/
 +
15. Black’s Law Dictionary at https ://thelawdictionary.org/de-jure-government/
 +
16. The Oxford Dictionaries 
 +
17. http s://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/laws-rules-regulations-serve-to-control-people/
 +
18. Article VI of the U.S.A. Constitution.
 +
19. Amendment 10 of the U.S.A. Constitution.
 +
20. James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45.
 +
21. Alexander. Hamilton, Federalist Paper 22.
 +
22. Stephen Moore https ://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/our-unconstitutional-congress/
 +
23. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
 +
24. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp
 +
25. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobbyist
 +
26. Statute at Large 2/21/1871. Also United States Code title 28, section 3002 (15).
 +
27. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) https ://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/652/case.html
 +
28. Statutes at Large, July 27, 1868.
 +
29. The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork
 +
30. From the U.S.A. government Style Manual, chapters 5.22 and 5.23
 +
31. U.S.C. title 8, section 1101 (a)(21).
 +
32. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state
 +
33. U.S.C. title 8, section 1101(a)(22).
 +
34. U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (15).
 +
35. U.S.C. title 26, section 7701 (a)(1). Also U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (10); Administrative Procedures, title 14, Chapter 1, sec. 1001, 10; and many other places that have the same or similar definitions.
 +
36. Arizona Revised Statutes 14-10103 11.
 +
37. Colorado Revised Statutes 13-1.5-102 and elsewhere.
 +
38. ww.famguardian.org , ww.patriotnetwork.info/ , ww.livefreenow.org,  www .1215.org , and www .barefootsworld.net
 +
39. Cracking the Code by Peter Eric Hendrickson, The UCC Connection: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny by David E. Robinsonand, and others.
 +
40. https ://www.scribd.com/document/82236209/Act-of-State-Generic and else where
 +
41. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign 
 +
42. James Madison in Federalist Paper 19
 +
43. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356.  https ://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356
 +
44. Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow vs. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405.             
 +
45. Colorado Constitution, article II, section 2
 +
46. North Carolina State Constitution, article I, section 2 - https ://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html
 +
47. California Government Code, sections 100, 11120 and 54950
 +
48. https ://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/Articles%20of%20Freedom.pdf
 +
49. James Madison in Federalist Paper 37
 +
50. California Constitution (1879), article I, section 1
 +
51. California Constitution (1879), article II, section 1
 +
52. Colorado Constitution, article II, section 1.
 +
53. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 16.
 +
54. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 1 Cond. Rep. 267
 +
55. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78
 +
56. 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178    http ://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
 +
57. 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
 +
58. Mr. Justice Brewer, U.S. Supreme Court, [South Carolina vs. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
 +
59. Miller vs. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105  (1943)
 +
60. Law maxim and The Federal Register – https ://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/556.html. 
 +
61. http ://legaldictionary.lawin.org/actori-incumbit-probatio/) and U.S.C. title 5, section 556 (d)
 +
62. Statute at Large I, chapter I, section 1, June 1, 1789. Oaths are also stated in state constitutions. For example, article XX, section 3 of the Constitution of California.
 +
63. Corpus Juris Secundum, Section 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7
 +
64. https ://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights 
 +
65. https ://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310/domestic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement .   
 +
66. https ://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/15/sovereign-citizens-rightwing-terrorism-hate-us-government  and  https ://sputniknews.com/us/201502201018550505/ 
 +
67. https ://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement
 +
68. https ://ru-clip.com/video/a1mFJE0A35U/why-liberals-blame-conservatives-falseness-of-liberals-pt-5.html  and  https ://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/liberals-blame-conservatives-for-leftist-violence/
 +
69. www. splcenter.org and others

Revision as of 23:28, October 5, 2018

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

Finally!

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have his voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?Mrreaper

I can understand the frustrations of Mrreaper; he just got more criticism for responding profoundly to sin than abortionists get for dismembering a healthy preborn child, or NEA public school teachers get for raping the minds of children, or public ALA librarians get for providing a special teen section including erotica, or even pedophiles get for damaging the physical and psychological lives and health of children and teens. Such are the tenets of the NEA and ALA. (Thank heavens not all doctors, teachers, and librarians believe that way! - on Wikipedia it might be only the pseudo-doctors, teachers, and librarians who do not believe that way!!) We are constantly bombarded with the opinion that homosexuality is "normal" and not a matter of choice; and because even homosexuals themselves tend to feel guilty, it seems urgent to some that everyone agree that it is normal. It is very frustrating for a person to deal with feelings of guilt, and even a word or look can cause those concerns to well up. I know it is difficult to get past the anger because there is good reason to be angry; but only our Heavenly Father can handle it; and giving it over to Him, and forgiving "RT Kendall-style" is at the heart of the Gospel. It may help to realize that so many people today involved in every form of perversion have been sexually abused, seduced, and/or lied to since infancy; and too many have been tenderly "protected" from the Gospel of the Bible. MourningWarbler


This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose Italic textnameItalic text you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the Italic textnameItalic text of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjames (talk)

I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. Philip J. Rayment 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow Everyone to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord. Caznoob --Caznoob 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia does not allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

The above opinion by "the white christian male" is all based on hate and fear and not based on facts and science and should be removed. It also is inciting hate and violence and should be removed. I am also a Christian. He foes not speak for all Christians.

What kind?

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --WhatWouldJesusEdit? 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years! I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors? Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient? Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? MountainDew 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source now but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -Additioner 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--Materialist 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? Philip J. Rayment 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

WHAT?

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site. Good luck!

I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. Homosexuality, are locked. O2mcgovem 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? Mralph72 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See here for an example of his vandalism.) Philip J. Rayment 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Bias

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be. --Erik 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. O2mcgovem 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -Additioner 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --Theseus 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and Bias in Wikipedia contains ample illustrations.--Aschlafly 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

This says it all.

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

Liberal Theologians

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --Ymmotrojam 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --Ymmotrojam 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --JollyCharacter 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

Worry Not

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

Reliability

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Bias?

An example of such, this page is. Liπus the Yoda(contact me) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal bias of Wikipedia

It is very misleading to refer to this specious mathematical whimsy as "our study". This is the kind of claim that kills the respect that Conservapedia could have. It is a legitimate poll result combined with an irrelevant reference to obscure Wikipedian categorization (by the way, the count today is 81-76 Liberal-Conservative, so the evidence for this "study" isn't valid anymore). I understand that it is a flagship statement, but it is wrong, and is deleterious to Conservapedia's mission. -- RWest 9:38, 27 July 2007

I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
  • Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.
Wikipedia is stuffed with Liberal bias. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --Ed Poor 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).

User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --Ed Poor 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eljawa (talk)

Edit request: copyright link

As there is a link to Conservapedia:About displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to Conservapedia:Copyright to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see Conservapedia:Copyright.

Thanks. --Scott 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldoligarch (talk)

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldoligarch (talk)

Well, I'm pleased.

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. SierraTangoCharlie

The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. Karajou 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Moderapedia?

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PandaBear (talk)

Who gives the facts? God?

You can NOT be serious when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--DogChapman 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman

Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. Karajou 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --Afi 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Criticism

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gwforlife (talk)

FBI investigation

Could we please have an update on this? People are curious as to the status of the investigation. Are you allowed to talk about it at this time?--Philaretes 12:51, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

And which people are curious about it at this time? Karajou 13:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Investigations are not launched on a newspaper front page. They are, by their nature, clandestine, unless a point is reached when an indictment will be served. I hope this was edifying. Learn together 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
No harm in asking a simple question. In response to Karajou, these people here [1],and here [2], and here [3], and here [4]would like to know. BTW, Learn together, how do you know there will be an indictment? The FBI may well determine this is not worth their time or trouble. Andy made it public that he reported username stevecarson to the FBI, so what is the harm in asking? --Philaretes 15:12, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
You are concerned about trolls (or a troll) asking questions? Interesting. Hopefully you will take this opportunity to quickly learn FBI protocol. If they had started an investigation, they would hardly copy Andy with what they are doing. They will choose to act based upon their timetables and workload. Andy has informed them of a law being broken. That is the proper procedure to follow. In the event that law is broken again, they would be more likely to expedite the case. Andy has already set that foundation. We won't know, nor do we necessarily care, what is being done at this moment. We'll leave that to you. Learn together 18:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

As has been previously established, the clandestine nature of investigation means we simply don't know. DanH 15:14, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

DanH, that is true, assuming that the FBI is conducting an investigation. However, why did Conservapedia ban the editors who asked the questions about the investigation? I understand the one who titled his "embarrasing question" as he was a troll, but the others I think, were not.--Philaretes 15:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Does anyone know how long "internet harrassment" investigations usually take?Conservative 18:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
OMG Conservative's asking about the FBI *BAN HIM* sorry :)

Date

Could someone dewiki the date? This is the last holdout in 2006 JazzMan 23:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ymm.. eh, Mr. Y! JazzMan 00:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ?

While looking at the Global Warming article and its controversial nature (frozen), I got an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because there could be DOZENS of changes that might be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

NAME CHANGE ?

I love what you are doing, but with your passionate commitment to truth (unlike Wikipedia and the left-wing blogosphere) the name "conservapedia" tends to paint you as too narrow. You deserve to be widely used and cited, by all who want to learn useful and truthful information.

You're missing a trick

Hello. I've created a new user really just to comment on this page. I'm a Wikipedia editor (different username) who's getting more and more fed up with their anti-christian bias, especially regarding the use of BCE/CE. However, I'm also not happy with Wikipedia's pro-American (yes, that's right) bias. This manifests itself in the way many articles are written and edited by contributors who don't seem to realise there's a whole world out there. Many topics are covered purely from the American point-of-view. Today I found out about Conservapedia (it was used as an example of "where to go" by an admin who was admonishing a user for making a perfectly valid BCE --> BC change) but was disappointed to note the Wikipedia description of Conservapedia, which states that it attempts to counteract the perceived anti-American bias of Wikipedia.

Perhaps you should make Conservapedia more global; get rid of the logo, for example, and if you do put an American slant on things, then maybe you shouldn't. I will look more at Conservapedia (I found out about it only 15 minutes ago!) to see if this really is the case. I hope it isn't, because there's a global opportunity here to fight against the political correctness of Wikipedia. Good luck with the project. SilasStoat 16:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)

There was an intention months ago to replace the logo, and Conservapedia has eased back on its pro-American stance a bit (which, being an Aussie, I'm glad of). However, I think that you are comparing two slightly different matters.
  1. Wikipedia has a pro-American bias in that a large proportion of its editors are American, and therefore tend to write from an American perspective, being ignorant of the rest of the world. So there might be a lot written on George Washington, but relatively little on Winston Churchill (these are just hypothetical examples).
  2. However, Wikipedia tends to have an anti-American bias in the sense of denigrating America and its place in the world. Leftists/liberals in western society tend to run their own countries down (I see it here in Oz too), particularly if a conservative government is in power, and with a high proportion of such people in Wikipedia, they tend to denigrate western ideals, which tends to mean denigrating America, being in some ways the epitome of those ideals.
And it's number 2 that Conservapedia is opposed to, I believe, although in the process, it does strongly have problem number 1, unfortunately.
Philip J. Rayment 20:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Grammar

Could someone with greater editing powers edit the line "do you know what pretzels have their shape". BrianCo 11:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Got it. Thanks!--Aschlafly 12:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

David Barton is one of my heroes!!!!

Wikipedia is most certainly biased against freedom of thought - no possible explanation for our existence is allowed except evolution. Wikapedians I dealt with were bullies. Could I post my little ditty about David Barton here? Wikipedians would not allow me to make even changes to create an actual article, but preferred the random ramblings of those who hate David Barton; they banned me and told me to "cool off" when I kept reposting my additions; I left in all but the most redundant "pseudo-historian" drivel. Looking through the history, others had also tried to make an unbiased article, but they also had been expelled! MourningWarbler

Go ahead and write the article. Karajou 14:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

A page for PIPA, the Program on International Political Attitudes

I was hoping to find some indepth information on PIPA but can't find anything on Conservapedia. I really want to get some unbiased info rather than the slanted info I keep finding on Wiki.. Can someone add such a page?

Why not do so yourself? Bugler 11:07, 2 November 2008 (EST)

You Serious?

I would like to say I am shocked. But, after all this is Conservatism we are talking about. A belief system completely based in fantasy. What, you think the bible is to liberal?! I have got news for you, REALITY IS LIBERALLY BIAS. It doesn't mean to be, it just is. That weapons company sells weapons cheaper to 3rd world countries, not because it is the liberally bias thing to do. They do because it is called reality. Showing war as being horrible and evil is not liberally bias, it is because war IS horrible and evil. Exposing poverty as avoidable and unnecessary isn't liberally bias, it IS merely avoidable and unnecessary. Lets take the first post for example. Obviously an agent for some white supremacist group or something. Claiming that the white man is oppressed. Typical conservative view. HOWEVER, if you look at the REALITY (better known to you guys as LIBERAL BIAS) the white man is still on top and has been for a thousand years.

You all are merely the next link in the chain that is to be the Orwellian State that you are trying to create on earth. God even speaks of it in the bible. Revelations tells of a people mislead by a great evil. Surprise! you are those people. Funny thing is you think everyone BUT you are the mislead ones. Sorry, if you were more based in REALITY (liberal bias to you guys) you would see that is not the case.

Now go ahead and alter what I have said. It appears that when the truth is spoken, you choose to distort it to suit your perverted needs. The bible has been edited so much I guess it was inevitable that political extremists come along and put their twist on it. Has happened before, and probably won't be the last.

I can tell you're liberal just by your high word-to-substance ratio. If you really believed what you say, then you'd be protesting Obama's position about Afghanistan. Nope, I bet you support Obama 100%. You're not anti-war, you're a liberal who uses anti-war arguments only when they suit you. That's why people are liberal, so they can cling to double standards as they like.--Andy Schlafly 10:31, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
I can tell your a conservative by your 'I know you are but what am I argument'. If you really believed anything you say you would be protesting Bush's war for profit in Iraq. Double standards like Mark Foley you mean? Or maybe Tom Delay... He was found innocent because his bribe was in the form of a check. The ultimate in double standards. Conservatives cling to the illusion that they some how represent morality. What is moral about adultery, war, and exploitation? But, I see you are rewriting the bible to give yourself that morality you so desperately crave.
Liberalism's version of bias has severe distortions of the truth; defense of adultery and any other kind of sexual perversion; defense of drug use and abuse. Liberalism has a history of attacking God, Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible, which is now proven once more by their attacks on the Conservative Bible Project within and without this website. Liberals have supported cold-blooded murderers (read William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn) and dictators (read Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez), as well as cold-blooded murder (read abortion). Liberals claim freedom of speech, the press, and the right to assemble, but continue to try shutting down conservative speech, press, and assembly via bills set before Congress or the mocking of events like the Tea Party movement. Truth and facts do not have a liberal bias; they have their own bias, and the fact is, liberals cannot take the truth when they are exposed for what they are. Karajou 11:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Writing

Leaving aside the political, ideological, religious, nationalistic etc. aspects of your project, I have to ask one question: Why is the quality of the writing here almost invariably abysmal? AngusF 22:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

"Angus", do us all a favor and go whine somewhere else. Your contributions are nothing to brag about, that's for sure.--Andy Schlafly 23:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia template

May I suggest that the Conservapedia template "{{Conservapedia}}" be added to the bottom portion of this article? I think it goes well with the message and can assist with other guidelines/rules/themes not mentioned here. DerekE 01:06, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Great suggestion, DerekE! Done. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:00, 21 December 2009 (EST)

600 million views

Not to be a bean counter, but we now have 600 million page views. I don't know if anyone wants to update that on this page or not--I suppose it's not all that important, but it still might be worth mentioning. --David B (TALK) 21:38, 4 March 2017 (EST)

Freedom movement, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN

Freedom movement, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN The “freedom movement” is when people believe based on law and tradition that they are free individuals. Some also call themselves “citizens” of a state, providence or a nation, but none are a citizen of government (state, nation or other). Also known as “freemen”, “sovereigns”, “state nationals” and “common law citizens”, they are unorganized and typically act alone and are part of the freedom movement. They are independent thinkers that act pro se (Latin for “for himself”) with sui juris (Latin for “of his own right”) authority and use several different sources for information. They typically declare themselves sovereigns by making documents with references to current laws and court cases and many send their documents to government public servants and carry them in their vehicles to give to police.[1][2] Most are not antigovernment (as are anarchists) as the media and government claim, but rather support and defend their constitution, Common Law and Natural Law. In the U.S.A., sovereigns support and defend the “Constitution for the United States of America”[3], Declaration of Independence, Common Law and Natural Law.[4] They oppose the de facto (Latin for “in fact”, as in currently in effect) governments and support the original de jure (Latin for “by right”) governments “of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed”[5] as created by the founders of the original 13 states who created the nation of and government of the United States of America. They oppose only the illegal (unconstitutional) acts, administrative laws, agreements, bylaws, codes, court case “law” (precedent), covenants, doctrines, executive orders, laws, mandates, martial law, merchant/commercial law, ordinances, policies, public policies/law, regulations, restrictions, rules, signing statements, statutes and taxes.[6] They support the America where ”… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[7] “LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.”[8] “The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible.”[9] Common law is mostly not in writing. It is abstract legal concepts derived from principles rather than rules.[9] Common Law uses malum in se (= wrong or evil in itself), as opposed to malum prohibitum (= wrong or evil just because it is prohibited), which statute law is based on. An act is a crime only if there is victim and harm, injury or damage done to the victim.[10] It cannot lawfully be modified, limited nor abrogated by legislature or other government department.[9] Many legal “experts” believe that Common Law is the same as or similar to “Case Law”. “Case Law” (also known as “precedent”) is not actually law, but rather court cases usually decided by the U.S.A. Supreme Court, inferior courts and appellate courts. Courts are within the Judicial branch of government and therefore cannot make law. Only the Legislative branch is constitutionally allowed to make law.[11] “Judicial activism” and ”legislating from the bench” are unconstitutional.[12][13] The U.S.A. Constitution is based on Common Law and the term is stated in Amendment VII of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the constitution). “A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state.”[14] “What is de jure government? The term that applies to the legally constituted government that has been placed in power in accordance with the laws of the land.”[15] Sovereigns believe that the current U.S.A. federal government (de facto government) is at least 50% unconstitutional based on the following: 1) Federal means “having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.”[16] The de facto government controls the states and the people with unconstitutional “laws” and taxes.[17] 2) The U.S.A. Constitution grants certain powers, many of which are listed in article I, section 8. 3) “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land …”[18] In 1787+-, United States meant the states that are united, not the federal government. 4) “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[19] 5) “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.”[20] 6) “It [federal government] must always savour of weakness – sometimes border on anarchy.”[21] 7) “No matter how long one searches, it is impossible to find in the Constitution any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today.” [22] Not all national laws are “in Pursuance” (enforcement) of the U.S.A. Constitution. “Laws” that violate a human right(s) or a constitution are color of law. ”Color of law = The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law”.”[23] The reasons for the federal politicians ignoring the constitution is/are: 1) usurpation/mission creep. Politicians do not like to be legally restrained.[24] 2) through favors, brides, donations and intimidation, many politicians have been “bought” by unions, organizations and corporations.[25] and 3) “the seat of the federal Government of the United States” (article I, section 8), Washington D.C., operates as a “corporation of Washington”, D. C.. [26] “The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, Page 324 U.S. 672 or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”[27] It is the second “sense” that sovereigns “get out of” using one or more of the following methods to get out of the system: 1) Expatriation – Sovereigns expatriate from the de facto system using the Expatriation Act of 1868.[28] Then they repatriate into the de jure, constitutional, original, organic system where public servants work for the people. They do not leave their place of residence to expatriate, rather it is a political move. They each are now called a “state national” and refer to themselves by the name of the state they repatriated to using one of the following names.[29] “Nationalities, etc. 5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality. 5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the following forms will be used. Alabamian Alaskan Arizonan Arkansan Californian Coloradan Connecticuter Delawarean Floridian Georgian Hawaiian Idahoan Illinoisan Indianian Iowan Kansan Kentuckian Louisianian Mainer Marylander Massachusettsan Michiganian Minnesotan Mississippian Missourian Montanan Nebraskan Nevadan New Hampshirite New Jerseyan New Mexican New Yorker North Carolinian North Dakotan Ohioan Oklahoman Oregonian Pennsylvanian Rhode Islander South Carolinian South Dakotan Tennessean Texan Utahn Vermonter Virginian Washingtonian West Virginian Wisconsinite Wyomingite“[30] “Definitions - The term “national” means a person [singular of people] owing permanent allegiance to a state.”[31] State = “a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government, the fifty states b States plural, The United States of America, the territory of a state.”[32] State nationals are not nationals of the “United States” because “The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”[33] Recall the second sense of the meaning in the Hooven case.[27] Sovereigns reject the common belief that Americans are citizens of the “United States” because ““United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.”[34] Sovereigns are not of or part of any of these. They do not refer to themselves as “persons” (and seldom as “citizens”) because “person” may include a corporation, company, association, trust, estate, business entity (such as a partnership, corporation or limited liability company) and government (in some definitions). National examples: “The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”[35] State examples of the definition of “Person”: “"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency or instrumentality, public corporation or any other legal or commercial entity.”[36] “"Person" means an individual person, a corporation, a business trust, an estate, a trust, a partnership, an association, a joint venture, a government in its private or public capacity, a governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal entity.[37] Expatriation is explained in detail in the book The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork 2) The second method commonly used by sovereigns to get out of the de facto system is to make documents they get from websites, classes, books and/or other sources to make documents with references to past laws such as The Magna Carta (which refers to “free man” several times), Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America (U.S.A. Constitution), Federalist Papers, state Bill of Rights and/or other legal documents and writings.[38] 3) Some file a Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Financial Statement form 1 and related documents.[39] 4) Some use a document called “Act of State”, “archetype” and “apostille” and get an apostille number from their state Secretary of State.[40] Sovereigns use this term because people used to be called sovereigns hundreds of years ago. Sovereign is “a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter”[41] People are referred to as sovereign in current law. Here are some of the many examples: “The fundamental principle, on which it rests, that the empire [U.S.A. nation] is a community of sovereigns; that the Diet [legislature] is a representation of sovereigns; and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns; …”[42] “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”[43] “In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution.”[44] “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.”[45] “Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”[46] “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”[47] “… Government to undermine the sovereignty of the People, the States and the Union itself …” – Articles of Freedom, article I.[48] “The genius of Republican liberty, seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people; but, that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, …”[49] “All people are by nature free and independent…”[50] “All political power is inherent in the people.”[51] “All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”[52] Sovereigns ignore unconstitutional “laws” because they want to be as free as people were hundreds of years ago. The Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War to be free and independent fought against “tyranny” from their own nation, Great Britain, under the domination of king George the III. Sovereigns (then and now) “have Petitioned for Redress”[7], sent documents and letters to politicians and used other peaceful means “to throw off such Government”[7], but such government has “answered only by repeated injury”[7]. “That when any form of Government becomes destructive of these [“certain unalienable Rights”] ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”[7]. Sovereigns have chosen to politically leave the illegal de facto system of government and continue life as it was 240+- years ago rather than fight. What they are doing is not new, but rather very old. Sovereigns use many sources to obtain and defend their regained freedom: quotes from the “founding fathers”, old and new laws, court cases, recent and old books, websites, videos and classes on the Internet and in person. Some more examples of legally ignoring unconstitutional “laws” follow: “If the Judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the Legislature they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and void.”[53] “An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become the law of the land.”[54] "No legislative act therefore contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."[55] “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”[56] "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."[57] "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words, [Page 199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded."[58] "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”[59] The federal government is conspiring against the people in violation of U.S.C. title 18, sections 241 (“Conspiracy against rights”) and 242 (“Deprivation of rights under color of law”). Politicians and the general public believe that sovereigns must prove their claims because they believe the freedom movement is new and baseless. This is one reason why sovereigns send so many documents to governments. However, sovereigns are not required to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The claimant is one who makes a claim, a statement said to be fact. The claimant is the government when it claims to have legitimate constitutional authority over the people’s right to travel, gamble, prostitute, marry, use drugs, engage in commerce, etc.. “The proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.”[60] “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.”[61] So when any government claims to have authority or jurisdiction over a human, they are legally required to reveal such a law, and such law must be provided for (allowed) by the applicable constitution(s) that they took an oath to obey, otherwise it is color of law. Most federal and state public servants take an oath of office similar to: “I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”[62] The reason sovereigns do not use lawyers and attorneys and the reason why lawyers and attorneys do not defend clients by using the “sovereignty defense” or any of the methods above is because “His first duty is to the courts and to the public, not to the client.”[63] The Federal Bureau of Investigation is supposed to protect sovereigns when sovereigns ignore color of law, but they do not, contrary to their own website. “That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law.”[64] Instead, the FBI has made baseless claims about sovereigns.[65] Left-wingers, collectivists, liberals and progressives also exaggerate and lie about sovereigns by claiming that sovereigns are hateful, antigovernment, antitax, violent, wrong, extremists and far-right.[66] The Southern Poverty Law Center further claims that sovereigns are “paper terrorists”.[67] The claims by the S.P.L.C., Department of Homeland Security and F.B.I. are based mostly on emotions and their love of government. Of course, there are rare exceptions to the typical peace-loving sovereign who wants to be left alone that collectivists and government exploit and claim these examples are the rule rather than the exceptions. Some of the alleged criminals are not sovereigns, but are blamed by their opponents.[68] But reading about or listening to actual sovereigns reveals that the S.P.L.C., F.B.I. and other antifreedom groups are lying and spreading hatred of all people on the political right. Opponents say that sovereigns are wrong because left-wing media and government says they are. They say sovereigns loose in court and give examples, but ignore the cases they win. They believe that the exceptions are the rules.[69] A search of the Internet of sovereigns winning on the streets, in government offices and in courts are easy to find. SOURCES: “America: Freedom to Fascism” documentary at www. Freedomtofascism.com, Netflix, etc.. ww.famguardian.org , ww.patriotnetwork.info/ , www .livefreenow.org, www .1215.org , www .barefootsworld.net , ww.pacinlaw.us/home/ , “Redemption Manual” http ://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/the-redemption-manual/ , Sovereign videos: https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGpv5quGmqQ&list=PL95DD88D4A7D6A37F , https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yum5yvWbsqQ REFERENCES: 1. ww.famguardian.org 2. www .barefootsworld.net 3. Preamble to the U.S.A. Constitution 4. ww.patriotnetwork.info/ 5. The American’s Creed 6. The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork, mostly on page 4-9 7. Declaration of Independence 1776 8. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 9. https ://dictionary.law.com 10. https ://definitions.uslegal.com/m/malum-in-se/ 11. https ://www.jstor.org/stable/1109251?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 12. Federalist Papers 78, 81, 82, 83 13. http ://www.constitutiondecoded.com/us-constitution-article-iii.html 14. https: //definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-jure-government-and-de-facto-government/ 15. Black’s Law Dictionary at https ://thelawdictionary.org/de-jure-government/ 16. The Oxford Dictionaries 17. http s://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/laws-rules-regulations-serve-to-control-people/ 18. Article VI of the U.S.A. Constitution. 19. Amendment 10 of the U.S.A. Constitution. 20. James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45. 21. Alexander. Hamilton, Federalist Paper 22. 22. Stephen Moore https ://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/our-unconstitutional-congress/ 23. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241. 24. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp 25. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobbyist 26. Statute at Large 2/21/1871. Also United States Code title 28, section 3002 (15). 27. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) https ://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/652/case.html 28. Statutes at Large, July 27, 1868. 29. The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork 30. From the U.S.A. government Style Manual, chapters 5.22 and 5.23 31. U.S.C. title 8, section 1101 (a)(21). 32. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state 33. U.S.C. title 8, section 1101(a)(22). 34. U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (15). 35. U.S.C. title 26, section 7701 (a)(1). Also U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (10); Administrative Procedures, title 14, Chapter 1, sec. 1001, 10; and many other places that have the same or similar definitions. 36. Arizona Revised Statutes 14-10103 11. 37. Colorado Revised Statutes 13-1.5-102 and elsewhere. 38. ww.famguardian.org , ww.patriotnetwork.info/ , ww.livefreenow.org, www .1215.org , and www .barefootsworld.net 39. Cracking the Code by Peter Eric Hendrickson, The UCC Connection: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny by David E. Robinsonand, and others. 40. https ://www.scribd.com/document/82236209/Act-of-State-Generic and else where 41. https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign 42. James Madison in Federalist Paper 19 43. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356. https ://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356 44. Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow vs. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405. 45. Colorado Constitution, article II, section 2 46. North Carolina State Constitution, article I, section 2 - https ://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html 47. California Government Code, sections 100, 11120 and 54950 48. https ://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/Articles%20of%20Freedom.pdf 49. James Madison in Federalist Paper 37 50. California Constitution (1879), article I, section 1 51. California Constitution (1879), article II, section 1 52. Colorado Constitution, article II, section 1. 53. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 16. 54. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 1 Cond. Rep. 267 55. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 56. 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178 http ://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm 57. 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177 58. Mr. Justice Brewer, U.S. Supreme Court, [South Carolina vs. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) 59. Miller vs. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105 (1943) 60. Law maxim and The Federal Register – https ://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/556.html. 61. http ://legaldictionary.lawin.org/actori-incumbit-probatio/) and U.S.C. title 5, section 556 (d) 62. Statute at Large I, chapter I, section 1, June 1, 1789. Oaths are also stated in state constitutions. For example, article XX, section 3 of the Constitution of California. 63. Corpus Juris Secundum, Section 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 64. https ://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights 65. https ://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310/domestic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement . 66. https ://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/15/sovereign-citizens-rightwing-terrorism-hate-us-government and https ://sputniknews.com/us/201502201018550505/ 67. https ://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement 68. https ://ru-clip.com/video/a1mFJE0A35U/why-liberals-blame-conservatives-falseness-of-liberals-pt-5.html and https ://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/liberals-blame-conservatives-for-leftist-violence/ 69. www. splcenter.org and others

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:About&oldid=1458479"