Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 8400 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinion only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Why Civil Rights Are the Key to National Solidarity

By Anna Von Reitz

Civil rights are not--- strictly speaking--- rights, but are instead privileges conferred on
Territorial and Municipal citizens by the US Congress.
Citizens by definition serve the government, whereas Nationals are served by the government.

Therein lies the rub.A citizen lays down a greater or lesser portion of their natural sovereignty when they become a citizen. This is a natural consequence of their duty to serve the government.
In the wake of the so-called American Civil War black Americans were re-enslaved, not by
private slave owners, but by the Territorial Government of the United States which arbitrarily conscripted them as citizens---public servants.They went directly from being chattel owned by individual private owners to being
considered public chattel owned via citizenship obligations to the federal government. Thus, they acquired civil rights--- basically, whatever rights the Congress wanted to give them---and lost their claim to the free exercise of all their natural and unalienable rights.
The excuse for this was the pretension that as black Americans were never specifically included as state nationals by the separate states, they were "stateless" and could be claimed by any government that wanted them.
Similar arguments were recently made by the same feckless Territorial United States government with regard to all the rest of us. They have claimed that we are "stateless" because we weren't (so they said) operating our own states of the Union or any association of states, such as the United States of America.
To quote Gomer Pyle: "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!".
There have always been civil rights exercised by members of the civil service and elected public officials and public employees who are all citizens of one sort or another, and since 1968, those civil rights have been defined as "equal"----but few people ever say "equal to what?"
The answer is: equal to the natural and unalienable rights enjoyed by American state nationals and American State Citizens (American State Citizens are the elected officials and public employees of the actual land jurisdiction state government--they owe their duty as citizens to the state government.)
What happens when and if there are no longer any American state nationals or American State Citizens exercising their natural and unalienable rights?
Well, then, the standard for equal civil rights disappears, because there is no longer anything for them to be "equal to".
The Congress would finally be enabled to rule as absolute despots, not only over the actual Territorial and Municipal citizens, but over the entire population. Instead of a Republican form of government which we are owed, or even a foreign democracy such as the Territorial United States has been, we would be facing a Totalitarian Oligarchy similar to the old Soviet Union.
Nobody would have any actual rights. Everyone would instead have civil rights, but those civil rights would be entirely at the whim of the US Congress.
The rats would simply sit there smug on Capitol Hill and literally dictate whatever they pleased and everyone else would suffer the results of absolute despotism----- citizens and non-citizens alike.
And therein lies the key.
Once the federal Territorial and Municipal employees and all the other people (people of color, new immigrants, political asylum seekers, federal dependents) who are defined as citizens whether they like it or not--- realize that their own equal civil rights are endangered by the continued liberal political jihad against those of us who are claiming our natural rights--- the worm will turn.
Without us claiming our natural rights, they have no guaranteed civil rights at all.
If the American Republic goes down, so do they and their spiffy little democracy.
If we lose our claim to our natural and unalienable rights, they can kiss their "equal civil rights" good-bye.
And that is why civil rights are the key to national solidarity.
All those who enjoy equal civil rights have a very urgent reason to defend us and our old fashioned claims.
Every federal and federated state official, every public employee in America has their future on the line---whether they realize it or not--- because their rights are utterly dependent on our rights.
If we have no natural and unalienable rights, no constitutional guarantees---guess what?

Then they have no equal civil rights to depend on, either.

See this article and over 500 others on Anna's website
 To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 


  1. You have a right to trial by jury unless you fall under the National defense authorization act.wait a minute has a ammendment passed erasing it ? No the government just does it.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Thank you so much Judge Anna for answering my questions! Much appreciated and long overdue. I understand completely now.

    1. DelawareBabe, please check out:

  4. Judge Ana I Love you. it's taken me a while to understand these thing You share, but I keep reading, and praying for understanding as it's so opposite anything I've known. I get it now but after yrs of conditioning and being poisoned, it takes me longer to grasp things, but I read all your stuff and others like you. I continue to learn, and am holding on to my convictions right up til the very end. I don't much care if I do stand Alone, truth is truth and living in a Republic is better than any counterfeit gov on this earth. But in all I'm ready to meet my maker while I Stand, and be not moved from my convictions. Thanks for All you've done.

  5. You do...!!! How can you when the definition of a "right" has never been properly defined to this day, because their are no rights without accountability or resposibility to God, his son Jesus, and to all your brothers and sisters on this planet. We always talk about "RIGHTS", but never talk about the other accounting ledger, the negative one , that balances the "Right" account and balances the account to zero in front of god. The only thing judge Anna explained is the difference between "unalienable rights"(that we were born with because of our creator) and "civil rights"(privaliges) which can be suspended at any time and should be when rights are taken to the level of obserity. How can anyine have "rights" with no accountabilty, no consequencies, answering to no one in their selfish desire to please only themselves, f#!k, everyone else. Well, thats the world we live in now. Before anyone had "rights" there was only the law of God. And even Adam and Eve werent even capable of only "one rule"...dont eat from the tree of "life and death". One stupid rule from the creator himself, and they still broke it. I submit to you that even without the bankers, the wars, and all the fraud, man would still be guilty in front of God, just by his own thoughts alone and nothing else. Because man can never be taught to LOVE "UNCONDITIONALLY". The Banking elites simply took advantage of that fact, and replaced it easily with just a monitary incentive which they could easily manipulate. "Conditional LOVE was much easier to control and has become the norm, because just like "the snake" in the "Garden" the elites quickly realized mans true nature is "TO SIN". Of course the Roman Catholic Church gained control working from the other end of mans inherent flaw, and successfully controled man by "FEARS" of eternal damnation if they didnt submit and repent. The entire reason we find ourselves in this situation is because it is clearly a secular world now....god a distant memory, or something interesting to study from time to time, and argue about. Have any of you ever asked a question to a 20 something(or younger or older) the significance of the number "666". Try it sometime and then your really know what we are up against. But ask them anything about the digital world and they can tell you everything. The truth of this matter is that RIGHTS have to be earned first ....its not an entitlement..!!! Why did our forefathers create a contract like the "constitution" explaining our rights but not one page explaning what an "injury" meant..!! And then on top of it, to hire a third party(our govt. military industrial complex) to insure those rights, instead of us. They sure made it easy for the 99%%ers to simply be as lazy as they could be, falsely believeing that our "servicing agency" was actually going to do that, especially without any accountability. I would have rather seen a constitution spelling out all the possible "injuries" to another person, than our rights, even if it took 200 pages to do it. Because an "injury" is totally subjective if it isnt murder. What about psycological injury to another person. There are no physical wounds, but the injury is still there, sometimes for years. People have the right to own a pet(which can be reasonable...but not in my house), than take that right to extremes by having 10 dogs, 3 cats, Parrots, and you name it ive seen it because i had a carpet cleaning business for 20 years. Its dispicable what i have seen. And these people havent the faintest clue that they are injuring their neighbors, which in California lives only a few feet away from them....

  6. The designers of the constutution had absolutly no intension of giving us rights. There whole focus was a "Corporate One", from the start. No wonder there was so much fighting between the "federalist" and non-fereralist when the "constitution was beening formed. They did understand the actual intent back then. But judge Anna, you didnt even go far enough when you said that the shere idea of contracts is an illusion, because no one can guarantee anything in this world. We might be dead tommorrow. But even Treaties between Nations is just another illusion, because its just an abstract of a normal "contract", which can never be guaranteed. If people keep their word(the only true bond in life) we wouldnt need insurance. In this millinial world as it stands "RIGHTS" are interpreted to mean "NO LIABILITY AT ALL TO ANYONE". There isnt even any room for "limited liability", let alone "full unlumited liability"....thats a joke, especially to the courts. Affidavids are soon going to be abolist, because when a judge reads that the affiant stands on his full unlimited liability, he already knows that affiant is LIEING. After seeing what he sees on any givin day, why should he take the word of one person who claims to come into court with full unlimited liability. Hell, his neighbor hasnt even returned the pliers he borrowed from him 2 weeks ago, when he promised to return them immediately....!!! Sometimes we have to step back and see the whole picture, from their side. Some of these judges will tell you honestly, that the entire system is corrupt(when in private conversations). But how did that happen....only through our consent and lazy use of the laws we should have been using as oversite of this system whenever they overstepped their authority. But we have a natiin of people who just want to say , someone will take care of it. But im watching the Dodgers right now...I want a "constitution" that only deals with "injuries" not Rights. One for our "public servants" and one for "American Nationals". That should automatically give us rights. You will probably find out that that system will be worse than the one we have now, because everyone has a "beef" about something. There is no end to complaints.

  7. The most simplistic way I've heard it explained regarding the Constitution is that when it is talking about "people" it is referring to property-rights and when it is talking about "citizens" it is referring to political-rights. Rights of the private individual vs. rights of the incorporated political subject is how I see it.
    All rights have correlating duties, regarding government it is allegiance for protection in it's simplest form, as citizens it is total obedience to the state and subject to it's every demand, in this status "equal rights" means whatever they determine it is short of inciting total anarchy, zero rights for all would still qualify as being equal rights.
    I heard it said about one judge he would start every session with "everyone who is a member of the body politic go the clerk and pay your fine", he wasn't playing the game and putting on a show and let everyone know simply do what your told because you have no voice as a subject. The courts are quasi-judicial administrative hearings under the executive powers if you are a "citizen". Even Eric Holder stated you have a right to Due-process under the Constitution NOT a right to Judicial-process, Due-process is whatever the hell they decide it is there ultimately is no Justice only the Judicial theatre they perform for the public.

  8. I take it that james pansini has never read The Bill of RIGHTS which are the very first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, which states right in the Preamble that is never printed that these Amendments were being passed to restrict the power of the Federal gov't over the People, not over other corporations. If "Rights" don't mean "rights" then I guess his definition is correct, but last time I checked, the Bill of RIGHTS was still stated in the US Constitution and Webster's dictionary still states "rights" means "rights"!!! Must be Common Core statements at work as I have not found any definition that "rights" mean: no responsibility, regardless of whether someone/something (corporations) honors those rights or not, does not negate the meaning of the word or the responsibility to secure and enforce our rights. And if they are not honored, why not!? And to find the blame for this morass, one would need to look in a mirror.

    1. Huh- sounds exactly what I've been saying- gotta give this one a 10...

    2. Huh- sounds exactly what I've been saying- gotta give this one a 10...

  9. One thing when drafted bill of rights known not to be air tight .you can't make a contract air tight. Slick lawyers find loopholes . Main reason The best orator of his day Patrick Henry oppose the Constitution that and no oversite impeachment is lame even in England you could haul a monarch in front of a court of law not simply repermaned.
    Don't sign the contract gentleman your states fought for liberty don't throw it all away for a promise .


Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.