The Truth About Your Birth Certificate…

42 Comments on "The Truth About Your Birth Certificate…"

  1. I lost the Truthiness of this video somewhere between the mention of spirits and the preacher ranting about taxes.

    • So you have nothing to say about the content other than a vague jab at the inclusion of a preacher?  Can you comment about the content and not your subjective biases?

  2. The Baffler | Aug 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm |

    Meet your strawman indeed, Camron.

  3. To the observer in the know, this video introduces a number of concepts employed by the “Sovereign Citizens” movement.

    A lot of people like to heap scorn on the “Sovereign Citizens” movement, and some of the criticisms do have some validity. Generally, those criticisms seem to overlie a sentiment that Sovereign Citizens and their “legal tricks” are a dangerous threat because these people are on the verge of shaving their heads, joining a Right-Wing militia and taking up arms against the government.

    Indeed, I’ve seen where Federal Officials have referred to some of their goings-on as “paper terrorism”.

    My feelings are that the people who are critical of this legalistic Sovereign Citizens movement should instead embrace it as a good thing.

    It means that these people (the Sovereign Citizens) still have some hope and are trying to work within the system. Since these legal questions are likely to remain unresolved for some time, it also delays a sort of “Day of Reckoning” when the people have to finally face the fact that they are truely fucked and actually do take up arms.

    In fact, the govt might do well to toss them the occasional legal victory in order to keep them hopeful.

    • Thank you again Zenc for your level headed analysis.  Legalese and the legal system period seems more and more to me nothing more than an elaborate magical ritual.  One which violates it’s own precepts along with the sovereign rights of the  suckers forced through threat of violence to comply in the charade.   

      • Check out the Fully Informed Jury Association or FIJA for more evidence supporting my claims.   Did you know any Jury can vote their conscience regardless of the supposed paramaters of the law?  Meaning an informed Jury can shoot down any number of malicious laws and preserve liberty in any proceeding.

        http://fija.org/document-library/videos/outreach-videos/

        • There are still people who like to deny that “Jury Nullification” is real.

          Mainly I think, because they just can’t imagine that the source of our political authority should and does come from each and every individual instead of some autocrat.

          In any case, New Hampshire recently passed a State level Jury Nullification law.

          http://www.activistpost.com/2012/07/new-hampshire-adopts-jury-nullification.html

        • Simiantongue | Aug 5, 2012 at 11:53 pm |

           Next time you’re up for jury duty make an innocent inquiry to the judge about that. I made sure the judge knew that I had been reading such material at many websites and was fully prepared for any eventuality.

          People talk about what a hassle jury duty can be but I found it to be no trouble at all. They were even nice enough to supply me with an escort to make sure I could find the quickest way out of the building. So as to cut down on any further inconvenience to me by taking up any more of my valuable time I’m guessing. Very considerate of them.

    • > In fact,
      the govt might do well to toss them the occasional legal victory in order to keep them hopeful.

      IRS vs Kuglin would be one such example

      but I have noticed a trend
      back in the day you could challenge Uncle Homeland
      when UH actions were questionable or unlawful
      I “won” all of my few skirmishes with Uncle Homey using their laws

      however, I recently had a skirmish where it was clear
      they are no longer playing by the rules and don’t care

      there have also been incidents like Anwar al-Aulaqi
      that clearly indicate that the Bill of Rights is now
      merely a protection for only certain citizens

      • Glad to hear that you have prevailed thus far. They have so many tentacles that everybody gets tangled up with them at some point.

        It is good to keep a sharp hatchet and the phone number for a good lawyer close to hand.

        That “targeted killing” shit is simply wrong.

        I’m a big believer in reciprocity.

        So, I don’t want to hear them whining when someone does it to them.

        • > They have so many tentacles that
          everybody gets tangled up with them at some point.

          it seems to me that this is the point of their efforts
          to keep people entangled
          it reminds people that there is a government
          and keeps them somewhat compliant
          also keeps money cuming into the gov
          through various businesses like
          the court & prison businesses

          so entanglement is definitely at tactic in the plan of rule

    • Jin The Ninja | Aug 6, 2012 at 12:14 am |

      i actually agree with you on your main point- in that i, personally, see nothing wrong with a sovereign citizen’s movement- in so far as it exists as a counter to state power. there are several ideological aspects that i have strong divergence with, but if they stay committed to anti-imperialist, anti-coercive tendencies- i can absolutely respect that.

  4. It’s nothing more than the old, “Taxes are Theft” theme. See, as Zenc notes, these people believe they should be sovereign, by which they mean they owe nothing to anyone, being a king in their own right.

    Oh, they say they’ll let you be king, too, but you should consider how that plays out when they’re ripping you off or taking your property at gunpoint.

    After all: They’re sovereign. If they point a gun at you and say, “Hand it over, bub,” well, that’s nothing more than their sovereign right!  If you dare to point a gun at them, though, watch them create a fiction explaining why they’re “more sovereign than you are.”

    • I’m sorry you obviously misunderstand entirely the purpose of declaring oneself a sovereign and have constructed your own strawman to avoid the real import of the conversation.

      Declaring one’s Sovereignty means you are on par with all other Sovereigns and respect their rights to their property, the opposite of what you are inferring.

      Check this out for more information.

      Michael Badnarik’s Constitution Course.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s

      • The fact that sovereignty proponents think this would work in a world peopled with humans just shows how unrealistic the belief system is.  99% of all these “sovereigns” would take their sovereignty as nothing more than a license to commit Ponzi schemes, land theft, fraud, strong-arm robbery, murder for profit, and etc.

        • This is your speculation isn’t it.

          • The Baffler | Aug 6, 2012 at 5:43 am |

            It’s not speculation, its fact.

            You Rand worshipers are out of touch. Libertarian thought  is nothing more than the weak man’s excuse for why he is not strong.

          • ?  What fact are you referring to?  Sorry I don’t worship Rand or any ideology.  I do agree with the ideals of liberty and freedom and believe the magical fictions of strawman creation and fractional reserve lending are antithetical to freedom entirely.  Would you argue otherwise?  If so, feel free to explain logically your contention.

          • The Baffler | Aug 6, 2012 at 5:47 am |

            You are so far gone that you cannot be saved.

            I weep for you.

          • Weep away and thanks for upping the comment count, too bad you are incapable of contributing to the conversation nor defending your rants intellectually whatsoever Babbler

          • The Baffler | Aug 6, 2012 at 5:50 am |

            Troll away cultist of Rand.

            I am right and you are wrong, and no tantrum will disprove it.

      • The Baffler | Aug 6, 2012 at 3:04 am |

        The usual Libertarian clap trap.

  5. The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to, is still an impure one.
    To be legitimate, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed.
    It can have no pure right over my person or property but what I concede to it.
    The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy,
    is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.
    Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?
    Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?
    There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State acts in recognition of the fact that
    the individual is a higher and independent power from which all its own power and authority are derived.
    I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and
    to treat the individual with all due respect; allowing people to choose to opt-in or opt-out of its government,
     as the individual sees fit. Sorta like Amazon dot com with an open Kindle.

    A State which bore this kind of fruit, and allowed it to drop off as fast as it ripened,
    would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined,
    but not yet anywhere seen.

    Henry David Thoreau

  6. Anarchy Pony | Aug 5, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
  7. TapMeYouFascists | Aug 6, 2012 at 12:23 am |

    I’m all for questioning the authority of the government, but do you have to sound so schizoid while yall do it? I guess the only people crazy enough to challenge the government using law, well, they’re crazy enough to think that might work. That’s pretty far gone.

    The documents the government uses are bars in the prison which no one sees, but you have seen the guards and if you have any sense, you won’t provoke them unless necessary and useful. So the documents the government uses against us are arbitrary tools of oppression. So what. They have thugs with guns. They make the rules. Get in their way, meet the thugs. Not too complicated, really.

    These people remind me of those new age Zeitgeist people. They make a couple of valid points about Christianity being plagiarized and the Federal Reserve being a cartel. All of a sudden robots make all society’s economic decisions. Sorry, the world doesn’t work that way.

    • The Baffler | Aug 6, 2012 at 3:03 am |

      I don’t like the term “thug”.

      I’m so much more. Call me Commissar.

    • Nephilim | Aug 6, 2012 at 4:30 am |

       To summarize four films as one and boil it down to two points is irresponsible and misleading.  It also shows that you have not spent the prerequisite time on the subject to know what you are talking about.  Also, I do not recall robots being mentioned at all, and definitely not in connection to the Federal Reserve Bank.

      If you had taken the time to understand the underlying fraud of No Reserve banking as practiced by the Federal Reserve, and Fractional Reserve banking as practiced by ALL other banks, you would not be making offhand, sweeping generalizations about people who have overcome the liability of our own public education system to understand the need to warn people about the ONLY possible end to the continued use of these two systems.  Indeed, we are seeing evidence of this inevitable end as we sit here typing.  This is an inevitability that we have been warned about since Jefferson, and then again under Jackson.  Yet we continue to fail heeding these warnings, even now when the damage is evident for all to see. 

      What is not clear for all to see is the cause behind the damage we are living through, and this is what the Zeitgeist films is trying to explain to us.  The thing you do not mention, and I fear you are not aware of, is that the final film, Moving Forward actually offers some solutions.

      If you were bashing a fear monger like Alex Jones I would be on your side, but to attack a group which is trying to produce some positive help is simply ignorant.

      One of the Gamble children (Proctor-Gamble) made another positive film named Ethos which is streaming on Netflix right now, as is the first Zeitgeist.  Perhaps you would like to pick on it or him as well.

      • TapMeYouFascists | Aug 7, 2012 at 1:24 am |

        Looks like someone is emotionally invested. I wrote “valid points”. The gibberish that follows those points doesn’t get a pass though. I haven’t seen the newest video. I have seen the future cities they intent on building in some other videos. Something about them reminds me of that special Mormon underwear.

        I stand ready to receive the Mormon true believers.

  8. rus Archer | Aug 6, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

    because we weren’t slaves before birth certs?

  9. Felt it got a bit corny near the end with the rousing hans zimmer-esque thing going on, but definately something I’d share around. I had the good fortune to rent a room out to an economist one time who disabused me of alot of illusions about money. It made me wonder how easy it might be to create alternative personalities with a forged birth certificate, seems like it would only need to be passable enough to look good photocopied.

  10. That is such a crap. Freeman of the land bullshit. But it still got me thinking, so thanks anyway.

  11. Jack07171973 | Sep 18, 2012 at 9:46 pm |

    Bullshit. Easily proven Bullshit. The Reference that is given is Black’s Law Dictionary. So look up the first word : Understand.

    For you lazy fucks :UNDERSTAND. To know; to apprehend themeaning; to appreciate; as, to understand thenature and effect of an act. Western IndemnityCo. v. MacKechnie, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W. 456, 460;Internationalgreat Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210. To have a full andclear knowledge of ; to comprehend. Fox v.Schaeffer, 131 Conn. 439, 41 A.2d 46, 49.Thus, to invalidate a deed on the ground that the grantor did not understand the nature of the act, the grantormust be incapable of comprehending that the effect of theact would divest him of the title to the land set forth inthe deed. Miller v. Folsom, 49 Okl. 74, 149 P. 1185, 1188.As used in connection with the execution of wills andother instruments, the term includes the realization of thepractical effects and consequences of the proposed act.Tillman v. Ogren, 99 Misc. 539, 166 N.Y.S. 39, 40.UNDERSTANDING. In the law of contracts. A

Comments are closed.