Category Archives: Social Commentary

Happy "Co-Dependent's Day"!

Happy “Co-Dependent’s Day”!

Wave your star spangled tatter on a stick and contemplate the myriad laws, regulations, policies, and ordinances which control virtually every aspect of your life.

You are incapable of acting autonomously without first looking to your “Sovereign Enabler”, the government, in all its cancerous manifestations to first grant you permission and collect the requisite fee. Fill your pockets with papers and prepare to present upon demand.

Long ago, men spilled blood so you may live your life as you see fit; and unfortunately most, rather than some, fit into the shackles of voluntary servitude.

Today, I will live so freely that the government “ordained” to protect said freedoms may possibly kill me in that exercise because they choose to define “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” through the barrel of a gun and in contradiction to my conscience.

Happy Birthday, America; you old, weathered, tired, raped, beaten, emaciated, demented, and in-need of euthanasia, corporate whore and concubine to bankers.

If my words offend you, remember this; the men and actions you celebrate today make my diatribe appear as a a salubrious salutation since those men violently overthrew their government, killed countrymen, and denied a king. They were traitors, murderers, seditionists, rebels, and terrorists. If you can celebrate them, and defile all they worked for, then you can palate my acerbic dissent. If my passion and conscience finds no favor with your reason, then please un-friend me. If you find yourself in some agreement, look in the mirror and weep, for this old wretch is the dominatrix into whose care you entrust this country’s progeny.

I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves, by the generation of ’76. to acquire self government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. if they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves and of treason against the hopes of the world. – Thomas Jefferson – Monticello Apr. 22. 20

Tagged ,

Ruminations on Natural Law

I was reading some posts on the Internet involving natural law and natural rights.
I think “Natural Law” is that which is outside the authority or ability of any man to alter, create, or promulgate since it is beyond human intervention. It is law that provides for people to exist on this planet in an individual capacity; to have access to all that nature provides by way of food, resources…etc. Natural law can be interpreted to say that every man is an individual with no subservience or obligation to another. It can be interpreted to say that I have a right to eat, drink, and move my body without interference from another. I have a right to have a mate and have a family without interference from another, and to defend that which is mine.
Whatever mutual agreements may be forged after that fact between societies apply only to those societies. When those societies begin claiming dominion over tracts of land and exclude other societies not recognized from entering that land they become governments. That is not to say their claims of dominion are legitimate, it merely means there is a collective body of members willing to take up arms and use violence to “protect” that territory.
When there is mention of a “public agreement” or “social contract” I become suspicious because the only way the public or society can collectively agree on anything in particular is to be threatened with punishment for transgressing whatever edict. They don’t necessarily “agree” or “contract” with the body promulgating the edict, there is again a collective threat of punishment by way of force by those claiming to be endowed with the authority to promulgate such edicts. Likewise, their claims of authority lack any basis in fact, and are merely de facto.
To live under the rules of a nation or government means to sometimes violate one’s own conscience; and often times even worse, to adopt or support policies and laws that go against human nature itself. I see no justification for one to submit to such contrivances, and I disavow borders and flags while living by my own values with one caveat; to not transgress upon the like and equal rights of others. There is nothing which compels us to submit to arbitrary authority, aside from real or perceived fear of punishment or retaliation from those deeming to act on behalf of that authority.
I do not see government as a source for making rules under which we all must live, but rather as a protector of our natural rights. Should that system, or government, fail to protect those rights and itself become a violator of rights it must be dismantled or abolished. Different societies or cultures have their own ways of dealing with the world and their circumstances. They evolve over time and should be accepting and tolerant of others who wish to join or leave that culture, but at the same time allow individuals to operate within that society under their own free-will as long as they do not violate other people’s rights.‚ There is no “one size fits all” solution through government.
It comes down to this, each individual has the right to determine for themselves how best to live their life. Ideas evolve and are either adopted by others or left to the individual, but no collective body should prohibit any individual act based solely on that body’s inability to find value with that act. If we are allowed to first be individuals then we will naturally gravitate towards others and socialize for mutual peace and happiness. Once entities are allowed to exist with special needs or preference over the natural order we find corporations and government who exist to serve their supporters and benefactors, ofter to the detriment of the people.
Mark McCoy
Tagged ,



Spring is in the air, as are the promises of a better, safer life if you only vote for pandering politicians to control your life, and those around you. The cyclical cynicism caused by ads where one moral leper eschews the other in seducing your consent to their governance soon fades to our whining, submission, and hopes for an even more-moral leper next election year. Is this the best society has to offer, or what we have merely been groomed to accept?

I get it. People suck. They will steal, kill, lie, and defraud; so the logical approach is to turn to government where we choose polished thieves, killers, liars, and frauds to carve a niche’ for themselves from our consent to keep the stealing, killing, lying, and fraud palatable by labeling them taxation, war, legislation, and justice.

The thing is, I choose with whom from society to associate with. When I identify someone to be less than what I care to engage, I avoid them and prepare my defenses accordingly should they persist. I am not free to choose my government, or so it is believed. Why then, am I free to manage my own affairs in one respect, but must accept the societal rot that is government, especially when it has run so afoul as seen today?

Government has failed, and those courting your vote have designs on one thing; making a better life for themselves at your expense. Government is a society’s mental disorder. Heal thyself.

Tagged , ,

North Carolina Says No To The Free Exchange of Ideas for Nutrition Blogger

A man who has blogged about his success in overcoming diabetes is under fire from the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition for his allegedly giving “advice” to people regarding how to manage their diabetes. Steve Cooksey is not selling advice, drugs, or requesting any sort of compensation. He is recounting his experience, knowledge, and success in overcoming his previous diabetic condition. When the state refers to his needing a license to give advice, they are in essence saying they are the sole authority on what is viable or worthless information regarding medical issues. They would not take issue with Mr. Cooksey’s writings as long as he paid the State’s extortion fee for being able to freely communicate. Mr. Cooksey could be a complete quack and provide dangerous information, as long as he had a license from the State. Of course, getting a license probably means proving you have completed some sort of “approved” training or possess a degree in the field you are professing to be knowledgeable in, but that is still no bar to someone giving bad information.

There is a statement on that states:

I am not a doctor, dietitian nor nutritionist¦ in fact I have no medical training of any kind. If I can figure this out so should they¦ if it wasn’t for their ¦

A) Intellectual Laziness

B) Willful ignorance

C) Greed

D) All of the Above 🙂

Apparently Mr. Cooksey makes no attempt to profess himself to be any sort of license professional. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cooksey clearly takes exception to the current established medical industry. People who read Mr. Cooksey’s blog and see this information, and who are promoters of inferior western medicine, would not be inclined to follow Mr. Cooksey’s recommendations. Those who visit Mr. Cooksey’s blog and see his disclaimer but continue to read his blog are most likely distrusting and suspicious of failed western medicine and looking for an alternative.

Medical doctors give bad advice all the time. They dispense dangerous pharmaceuticals which cause sometimes unpredictable and life-threatening side effects. They subject people to unnecessary and dangerous tests and perform unnecessary surgery. Doctors possess licenses, as well as being indemnified to some degree for their incompetence or negligence. On the other hand, there are very good, competent doctors who are careful and compassionate with their patients. Being, or not being, in possession of a State license can empower the bad doctor to harm others or prevent the good doctor from helping others. The State is really in no position to say who may, and who may not, give advice. To say Mr. Cooksey is in no position to recommend to others a  non-pharmaceutical, non-surgical, non-medical alternative to the conventional “bad medical advice” is no business of the State of North Carolina.

The State attempts to keep people who give “advice” in the same box. You must conform to a set of approved and accepted standards before you can give advice. Yet, the State has the monopoly of approving and accepting based on their corporate lackeys and professional benefactors and their secured interest in money in giving advice. Someone who persevere in succeeding in alternative, non-accepted approaches are then encumbered with devoting time and money in jumping through brainwashing hoops in hopes of carrying favor with the State before they can give advice. The only advice the State wants others to give is that which funnels people into the same failed and hackneyed remedies which line the pockets of government agencies, ignorant or incompetent doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. The State is not to be trusted, because there is no “license” to run for office or be appointed. The biggest nincompoop can be elected or appointed to a position that then wields such influence as is being wielded against Mr. Cooksey. They have no training or expertise, yet, they are empowered with determining what may be published or licensed. Do you really want to put your access to information in the hands of such nincompoops? The State is incompetence incarnate.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the individual to vet the information they act upon. The saying, “caveat emptor” (buyer beware) holds true with any advice. Doctors are given a pass for their mistakes because there is a doctrine of “fully informed consent”. If a doctor prescribes a medicine, you will receive a pamphlet of information on the drugs side-effects, precautions, and intended uses. Much of it contains medical jargon that most do not understand. Nevertheless, you have been “informed” and have little or no recourse if you choose to take the drug and suffer negative or harmful effects.

I encourage Mr. Cooksey to  persist with his endeavor and not change a thing on his blog. I’ll even go so far as to offer space on my blog for Mr. Cooksey to post his information if the State of North Carolina shuts him down. I also encourage people to review Mr. Cooksey’s blog and follow his advice, since he has found a holistic way of combating diabetes. I am always trying to get people I know with diabetes to adopt a healthier lifestyle and essentially follow Mr. Cooksey’s approach, even though I had no awareness of Mr. Cooksey until recently. How serendipitous.  That said, you can get off of insulin, meds, and harmful health consequences from diabetes if you modify your diet and lifestyle. My “ADVICE” to diabetics is to follow Mr. Cooksey’s successful approaches to overcoming diabetes. There, all that said and I have no license either.

An article regarding the matter follows.

State Threatens to Shut Down Nutrition Blogger

Nutrition board says he needs a license to advocate dietary approaches

Apr. 23rd, 2012
CHARLOTTE “ The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is threatening to send a blogger to jail for recounting publicly his battle against diabetes and encouraging others to follow his lifestyle.

Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition without a license. According to the law, “practicing nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups and “providing nutrition counseling.

Steve Cooksey has learned that the definition, at least in the eyes of the state board, is expansive.

When he was hospitalized with diabetes in February 2009, he decided to avoid the fate of his grandmother, who eventually died of the disease. He embraced the low-carb, high-protein Paleo diet, also known as the “caveman or “hunter-gatherer diet. The diet, he said, made him drug- and insulin-free within 30 days. By May of that year, he had lost 45 pounds and decided to start a blog about his success.

But this past January the state diatetics and nutrition board decided Cooksey’s blog “ “ violated state law. The nutritional advice Cooksey provides on the site amounts to “practicing nutrition, the board’s director says, and in North Carolina that’s something you need a license to do.

Unless Cooksey completely rewrites his 3-year-old blog, he could be sued by the licensing board. If he loses the lawsuit and refuses to take down the blog, he could face up to 120 days in jail.

The board’s director says Cooksey has a First Amendment right to blog about his diet, but he can’t encourage others to adopt it unless the state has certified him as a dietitian or nutritionist.

The seminar

Jan. 12, Cooksey attended a nutrition seminar at a church in Charlotte. The speaker was the director of diabetes services for a local hospital.

“She was giving all the wrong information, just like everyone always does “ carbs are OK to eat, we must eat carbs to live, promoting low-fat, etc., Cooksey said. “So I spoke up.

After the meeting he handed out a couple of business cards pointing people to his website.

Three days later, he got a call from the director of the nutrition board.

“Basically, she told me I could not give out nutritional advice without a license, Cooksey said.

He said she also told him that his website was being investigated and gave him some suggestions about how to bring it into compliance.

If he does not go along, the board could file an injunction and “essentially shut the website down, Cooksey said.

The law

Charla Burill, the board’s director, told Carolina Journal she could not discuss the details of Cooksey’s case because his website is still under investigation, but agreed to talk about the law in the hypothetical.

It’s not necessarily against the law to give your sister or your friend nutritional advice, she said. And it’s not necessarily against the law to use a blog to tell people what they should eat.

Where it crosses the line, Burill said, is when a blogger “advertises himself as an expert and “takes information from someone such that he’s performing some sort of assessment and then giving it back with some sort of plan or diet.

Cooksey posted a link (6.3 MB PDF download) to the board’s review of his website. The document shows several Web pages the board took issue with, including a question-and-answer page, which the director had marked in red ink noting the places he was “assessing and counseling readers of his blog.

“If people are writing you with diabetic specific questions and you are responding, you are no longer just providing information “ you are counseling, she wrote. “You need a license to provide this service.”

The board also found fault with a page titled “My Meal Plan, where Cooksey details what he eats daily.

In red, Burril writes, “It is acceptable to provide just this information [his meal plan], but when you start recommending it directly to people you speak to or who write you, you are now providing diabetic counseling, which requires a license.

The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee.

Cooksey posts the following disclaimer at the bottom of every page on his website:

“I am not a doctor, dietitian, nor nutritionist ¦ in fact I have no medical training of any kind.

In fact, he brags about his lack of formal training throughout his blog.

“It’s so simple, he told CJ. “I cut carbs, I reduced my drugs and insulin until I didn’t need them at all. If I can figure that out, why in the hell can’t all these other people [in the medical field]?

Burill said the disclaimer may not protect a nutrition blogger from the law.

“If I’ve given you reason to not worry that I don’t have a license because I have all these other reasons I’m an expert, you could still harm the public, she said. “At least you’re not trying to mislead the public, but you’re trying to get the public to trust you.

It’s a fine line between what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to talking about nutrition.

“Anyone can talk about anything they want, Burill said. “That’s a First Amendment right, so to speak.

For example, a person could write a blog advocating vegetarianism, she said.

“Now if you advertised that you’d taken classes in nutrition, you’ve worked at [the federal government’s Food and Nutrition Service] for three years, and you say I believe everyone should be a vegetarian, and I’m here to help you if you want to change your diet’ [that could be crossing the line], Burill said.

“A vegetarian diet would be a little bit harder [to prosecute] because a vegetarian is not really like a medical diet.

Burill said if Cooksey refuses to come into compliance with the law, the board could file for an injunction.

Free speech

Declan McCullagh, a correspondent who writes about online free speech, says the board probably is violating Cooksey’s First Amendment rights.

“The First Amendment says state and federal governments shall make no law’ abridging freedom of speech, McCullagh said. “It doesn’t say except for what annoys the North Carolina Board of Dietetics and Nutrition.’

McCullagh pointed to a sentence in Cooksey’s blog the board didn’t approve of: “I do suggest that your friend eat as I do and exercise the best they can.

“If that language appeared in a book or a magazine article, do you think the board would complain? McCullagh asked. “How about if someone said that to a friend over dinner at a restaurant? Of course not. But because it’s on the Web, they seem to think that the First Amendment no longer applies.

McCullagh said the board may be on more solid ground in its complaint about the telephone support packages Cooksey offers. “But ¦ if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn’t require a license.

“In general, I think that as long as someone is very clear that they’re not a licensed dietician, state officials can probably find better uses of their time, he said.

Cooksey said the board both has violated his freedom of speech and done a disservice to the people of North Carolina. He said all he’s trying to do with his blog is provide an alternative to the nutritional advice pushed by mainstream sources on what they say people should be eating.

Cooksey said he’s seeking legal assistance in case the state decides to take further action against him.

Sara Burrows is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Sovereign Citizens – Walk Like a Citizen, Talk Like a Citizen, Guess What… You're Not Sovereign.

I’m seeing more-and-more about the phenomena called “Sovereign Citizens”. People subscribing to this theory assert that the government is not something that can compel one to follow its laws, pay its taxes, or otherwise claim legitimate authority over an individual. As a result, one would attempt to claim their rightful place in the hierarchy of authority, and call themselves sovereign citizens. Many of the followers employ a number of tactics to divest themselves of government control and act within their sovereign prerogatives. They will create their own ID’s, license plates, courts, and official documents. Many of the followers base their sovereignty on biblical principles. I believe sovereign citizens fail on a number of levels, but agree with the basic premise that in essence, people are the true authority over government. However, in many reports about sovereign citizens we see commentators and officials impugning the sovereign citizen movement because it fails to acknowledge or accept equal claims of sovereignty by government. We will examine this and determine just whose claim of sovereignty is legitimate.

The main questions we have to examine here are:

1.)  What is sovereignty?

2.) Who is sovereign?

3.) Is government superior to the individual?

4.) Do people have a right to deny government authority?

There are many definitions of sovereignty. The word itself has been used in a number of ways from the ancient Greeks to modern political theorists. I won’t touch on all of the ways sovereignty has been used, but I’ll look at the relationship between the individual and the State, and competing claims of sovereignty. Here are two examples of how sovereignty is defined:

1. The word “sovereign” is defined in the 6th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, “A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy.” Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war’s outcome changed all this:The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people – and he who before was a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.” – State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance… No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves… – Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas’ Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages 471, 472 (1793)

2.  The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

The power to do everything in a state without accountability, –to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is “sovereignty.” By “sovereignty” in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of “sovereignty” is will or volition as applied to political affairs.

We see constant references made to the “state”, and its ability to make and enforce laws. This brings two things to mind. From where ds the state originate, and where ds it get its authority? The state is not a thing that comes into existence by an act of nature. It has not existed since the beginning of time, and is not self-perpetuating. Many articles make reference to the state, as though it were an omnipotent and self-aware entity that could compel allegiance and dispense punishment. The state cannot exist without people. People are not, by nature, compelled to be a member of, or otherwise recognize, the state. People must first recognize it, desire to associate with it, and choose to observe and obey it. It can be said, that without people the state is just an abstraction, and in its fundamental sense, the state is nothing but people acting collectively in a political fashion, but possessing no inherent or natural authority over any other who ds not choose to likewise participate. For instance, the word sovereign/sovereignty is used in the Federalist Papers 93 times.

I will quote from one of the first Supreme Court cases in Illinois, which in my opinion is one of the most oppressive and corrupt states in the union, but from a time when the court recognized the source of political power as being that of the individual:

What is ment by the term constitution as applied to government? It is the form of government instituted by the people in their sovereign capacity, in which first principles and fundamental law are established. The constitution is the supreme, permanent and fixed will of the people in their original, unlimited and sovereign capacity, and in it are determined the condition, rights and duties of every individual of the community.”
“From the decrees of the constitution there can be no appeal, for it emanates from the highest source of power, the sovereign people. Whatever condition is assigned to any portion of the people by the constitution, is irrevocably fixed, however unjust in principle it may be. The constitution can establish no tribunal with power to abolish that which gave and continues such tribunal in existence. But a legislative act is the will of the legislature, in a derivative and subordinate capacity. The constitution is their commission, and they must act within the pale of their authority, and all their acts, contrary or in violation of the constitutional charter, are void.
An act of the legislature is different, and if it contravenes the constitution, no repetition of it can render it valid.” – Justice Samuel LockwoodPhbe. V. Jay1 Ill. 268, December 1828


[nggallery id=2]

Phbe v.Jay Images

Phbe v. Jay Google Books

It would appear that Justice Samuel Lockwood was espousing many of the same sovereign citizen rhetoric we see today. It is not so absurd to view people as sovereigns, since before there can be a state there must be people who draft a constitution which creates that state, and in order for the people to have that ability they must first be free of any duty, allegiance, or submission to another authority, thereby placing them in a position of sovereignty to create a state. It would also follow that should the state move against the people, in violation of the powers enumerated to it by the people through the constitution, the people have the power and right to alter the state or abolish it. In doing so, it is not necessary to take physical measures to rail against that which has become so big, oppressive, and violent; it is merely that the people refuse to further support, obey, or acknowledge the state. It can be said that the state exists only as long as people support, obey, and acknowledge it.

Now remember, as Justice Lockwood said, it is the “people in their sovereign capacity”, not the citizen. For one to be a citizen there must first be a state for which to apply that citizenship. Citizenship is a political condition, not a natural one. Once the state, an un-natural thing deriving its existence from natural people, is created the people then relate to it through their citizenship. People cannot interract with un-natural things. Citizehship is that condition by which people relate to the thing they created. Claiming to be a sovereign citizen is to mix two conditions, natural and un-natural, one beholding to nothing and the second beholding to a political body.

To quote from this article from, the writer aptly states:

Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution as the foundational document and framework of organization of the United States, stated categorically in Article II, Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. Nowhere in the Constitution is this retention of inherent sovereignty surrendered. The so-called sovereignty clause found in Article Six of the Constitution obviously gives precedence to the laws and treaties made by the Federal government it ds not however expressly say anywhere in the document that the States surrendered or forfeited their inherent sovereignty. If it had it never wouldve been ratified. As expressly stated in the 10th Amendment neither the States nor the people surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal Government, they delegated it. There is a difference between these two actions. To surrender is to give entirely and irrevocably to another while delegation is a temporary action based upon continued agreement between the parties involved.

Another strong argument can be made that since all governments are the products of a social contract between those who govern and those governed sovereignty ultimately resides in the people and governments are therefore merely agents of the peoples will.  According to this line of thought all governments wield delegated powers and can have no more power in and of themselves than the moon has light without the sun.

Amendment is the only legitimate process for change under the Constitution. If the design calls for a decentralized diffused sovereignty in an asymmetrical system how was change achieved from that to the current system of highly centralized power and control? Was it by amendment or practice? Is it possible for an illegitimate practice to become a legitimate tradition? Is it possible for an illegitimate tradition to set a legitimate precedent?

All of these historically based academic discussions aside and for all intents and purposes the argument about who is sovereign was forever settled by Abraham Lincoln.  When the South attempted to secede, an action not prohibited by the Constitution they were beat back into submission to the Federal Government. Debate over. Question answered. The Federal Government is supreme. However, though this is the reality of our circumstance since the Civil War this is a reality imposed through the use of military force not to be confounded with the original condition based upon the voluntary agreement between the people, the states and the national government in Constitution.

For years this question of who is sovereign has see-sawed back and forth. Today the Progressives and their two headed government party seek to make the exaltation of the central government permanent. If this stands unchallenged, America has devolved from the defused model established under the Constitution to a centralized version reminiscent of its original absolutist definition. If this new normal is enshrined as reality it will become increasingly obvious as States strive to assert their rights and people seek to preserve their freedom. For if the central government is now absolutely sovereign it will eventually crush all rivals. If the people are sovereign, in time theyll find their voice, reassert their power, re-establish the federal system, and return to the social contract as ratified in the Constitution.

As the writer points out, it was ultimately the use of force, in contravention of the Constitution which formed the United States Government, and which concordantly breathed life into the office of Mr. Lincoln’s presidency, that laid to rest the question of whether the States retained, or relinqished, their sovereignty when forming the union. It was this force, violent, destructive, blood-spilling force, wielded by Mr. Lincoln which subdued the rebellious south and “saved the union”.

Let’s now look at two recent mainstream stories regarding the sovereign citizen movement and how it is described. One is from ABC News and the other from Vegas News Review. The ABC News story was titled, “Sovereign Citizens: Radicals Exercising ‘God-Given Rights’ or Fueling Domestic Terrorism?“. The Vegas News Review story similarly was titled, “Sovereign Citizens – American citizens or domestic terrorists?” Notice how there is a recurring reference to “domestic terrorism”. This is the light being cast upon sovereign citizens. If someone wishes to remove themselves from the government, then that government implies they are engaging in domestic terrorism.

Quoting from the ABC News story:

Sovereign citizens are a loosely-organized collection of groups and individuals who believe they are both above the law and “true defenders of the Constitution.”

They follow their own set of rules and many refuse to pay taxes. The movement’s followers believe, in large part, that the existing government in the United States is illegitimate and needs to be “restored.” Many sovereigns refer to themselves as “patriots” or “constitutionalists.” Driver’s licenses, license plates, and insurance are not required, many sovereign believe, going as far as making their own identification badges and gun permits. Some members are known to turn violent against law enforcement and are notoriously hostile towards the media.

Federal government officials describe sovereign citizens as an “extremist anti-government group” and the FBI is concerned about members of the group becoming more violent, accusing them of “comprising a domestic terrorist movement.”

Quoting from the Vegas News Review story:

SCs are a growing group of radicals who claim no allegiance to the government and its rules, laws and representatives.  They have their own mishmash of gibberish they consider laws that they follow and enforce, sometimes with deadly results. In the United States, over 100,000 have dedicated themselves to the cause of Sovereign Citizenry with another 200,000 involved in one way or another.

Bear in mind, that the American political system is a bottom-up model,where monarchy was a top-down model. Kings and princes were placed on par with God on earth. They were accountable to no one, and their authority was without question. After the American Revolution, which resulted from people being tired of the abuses of monarchy, they felt it best to leave power with themselves and delegate only what they felt a government would need to secure their safety and happiness, never surrendering their sovereignty, but endowing the newly created State with power which rendered it as a sovereign power against all other powers that would lay a claim to govern or subjugate the people. It can be said that the Founding Fathers were, in a sense, sovereign citizens. They too, were radicals who claimed no allegiance to government or its rules, laws, and representatives. Both articles seem to be describing the very men who overthrew the shackles of monarchy and formed the United States of America.

 Truth be told, I claim no allegiance to the government nor follow its rules, yet, I am not a sovereign citizen. I do not consider myself to be a citizen of any political body. I fail to find one worthy of my allegiance or participation. The current system of government we have before us is violent, thieving, and oppressive. I am, in the words of Justice Lockwood, sovereign. I have unlimited power to do as I see fit with the self-imposed limitation that I do not transgress upon the like-rights and sovereignty of others. I am not extremist in any sense other than I regard myself as the only authority over my life. Government, on the other hand, could be viewed as extreme in that it believes it has power to pass and apply laws to anyone it wishes, tax their labor, and imprison or kill them for failing to obey. Who is the extremist?

Both stories fail because they rely upon the presupposition that the United States Government is legitimate, and has the legitimate authority to do the things it ds. Likewise, they fail to recognize the the source of governmental power, the people, and their right to “alter or abolish” the government. There is a very strong inference that the government, as now constituted, exists of its own volition and has plenary authority over everything. I won’t waste time here going tit-for-tat over everything the government says about sovereign citizens also applying to actions of government. However, for every negative aspect of sovereign citizens, there are equally and more heinous actions taken by government but it gives itself a pass because it is our master. Enough said.

So, if the people are sovereign and create a government which has limited power and uses that power in a way not intended or agreed upon by some citizens of that government, then when reclaiming their rightful place and exerting their sovereignty, why would they emulate or take on the characteristics of that government? If you are sovereign, why would you need to issue drivers licenses, license plates, and other official documents similar to those issued by government? If you are sovereign, then you need no license or plates on your vehicle. They cling to the notion of the “republic”, when the republic is a political body that required allegiance and surrendering some of your sovereignty.

Sovereign citizens exhibit many of the same tendencies people using such theories as the “Strawman“, or “Redemption Process” espouse.  Again, these are people claiming to be sovereign, yet resorting to an amalgamation of convoluted machinations found in government. If I am sovereign, I have no court, no official currency, and need for licensure. I cannot sue since civil procedure and remedies are a product of a government, and I renounce that government. It’s like canceling your membership to the YMCA, but claiming some divine right to go there and swim because no one has the right to confine hydrogen and oxygen in a pool and away from everyone else. In essence, sovereign citizens exhibit many of the same characteristics as government, but they do not agree with the government when it ds those very things. They rebel against government issued license plates and legal processes by creating their own license plates and legal processes.

The ABC News story makes reference to the sovereign citizens being “defenders of the Constitution”. Why would someone want to defend the Constitution when, as Lysander Spooner said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” People in the sovereign citizen movement, the patriot movement, and other movements hold the Constitution in almost ecclesiastical reverence. They don’t realize that every action taken by government, upon which they disagree, is justified by government as originating with the Constitution. As a matter-of-fact, it is not even their constitution to defend. The Supreme Court has even commented that people in the States, have no claim to the Constitution. The case is Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore – 32 U.S. 243 (1833), and the court said:

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.

So, you see, the Constitution has no connection with individuals in the States. It stands apart as a source of political power. The respective States have their own constitutions, written by the sovereign people belonging the the political body creating such, but each retains their sovereignty. A body of people cannot draft a constitution that then binds people who do not consent to be ruled the ensuing laws. It is not majority rule. If such were the case, we could dispense with constitutional formality and just have people voting to what to do to whomever. There is a fundamental issue of law which supersedes even government and constitutions. The sovereign citizens call this “God’s law”.

As with anything, when you limit or define rights as deriving from something, you run the risk of deciding who interprets those laws or rights. The majority of sovereign citizens are Christian, therefore, it can be implied that if someone is not Christian they do not acknowledge your rights if, even though similar, derive from a deity not of the Christian persuasion. Likewise, they refer to biblical principles in justifying or supporting their position. What if someone ds not find any legitimacy with the Bible, or worships in accordance with the Quran? As with government, religion can be just as tyrannical.

In my opinion, individuals are sovereign, for lack of a better word. We are born into this world with all the power, rights, and abilities we will ever possess. There may be enormous disparity in circumstances or opportunity by which to exercise such, but we possess them regardless. People are not created alike  with physical attributes, but no one has any right to determine how or by what means another may try to make the best life they can for themselves. Government, tasting the blood of the ignorant and apathetic, becomes more aggressive, until some point it takes on a life of its own, manned by armies of supporters, bureaucrats, agents, and subjects who twist and bend so-called laws for the conquest and subjugation of other people, many of whom do not consent nor agree with that government. Do people have a right to rebel? Of course they do. However, successfully executing that rebellion is another thing to be considered. Being right ds not make you successful.

Do I disagree with sovereign citizens? I find the term oxymoronic. I agree with people abandoning government and functioning in their own society without interference from anyone else. I find it pointless to emulate that which with you disagree. I fail to see how one can claim to be sovereign, and yet, be a citizen. If you are going to take the step to be sovereign, then do it and do it totally. I find the two stories referenced to be nothing but propaganda against a growing movement of people who have had it with this government, and who are at a loss for expressing their ultimate displeasure and no other recourse for asserting their sovereignty. Both stories presuppose the legitimacy of government and discount the source of its power. Government causes more harm under claimed sovereignty than citizens do, and government ds it offensively where the sovereign citizens do it defensively. The government acts as an aggressor causing people to scramble for a defensive position, and having been indoctrinated in government schools, are left with limited options.

If you are truly free and sovereign, then just act like it. The government is not a behemoth immune to being dismantled, but it must be done individual-by-individual. It must rot and crumble from within, because it prepares its defenses for assaults from without. It has no control over you, other than what you provide by surrendering your mind to it. As the support weakens, the more vulnerable it becomes to, not bullets, but ideas. I recommend reading this article I previously posted. It is a very good analysis of the nature of governmental power. You do not need to take up arms against the tyrant, you only need to resolve to serve no more. That is the nature of true sovereignty.




Tracking the Sovereign Citizen Buzz on the Net.



Piedmont man faces charges in Pickens County burglary possibly tied to domestic terrorism group


The sovereign citizen movement, in all its various forms, poses a clear threat to the safety of our community because its an attempt to disengage from the rules which govern everyone, said Pickens County Sheriff David Stone. A person who fervently believes that he is not subject to the law, and can essentially dictate his own law, is potentially very dangerous. In result, theres not much difference between that type of individual and a jihadist who follows a radical form of Islam. In both cases, their belief structures convince them that what they are doing is right, regardless of the effect on society as a whole.


I would differ that the current rules govern “everyone”. Government clearly sets special rules aside for itself, indemnifying or absolving its actions, even when those actions “affect society as a whole”. But you see, government sets the rules to preserve its order, and not that of society. The government fervently believes it is not subject to the law because they dictate their own law. Government is that threat to society because when society finds its own rules for peaceful intercourse government intervenes claiming some overriding necessity to keep us safe or level the playing field. Police kill with relative impunity provided the killing could be justified as an officer being in fear for his safety, but let an individual kill a police officer, even in self-defense, and badges come from miles around to support “their” fallen brethren, as if they stand apart from the rest of us. Sure, to me, sovereign citizens are either misguided, ignorant, or opportunistic bottom-feeders using the same rules as bottom-feeding government bureaucrats to use a system for intimidation and theft.




Schaeffer Cox takes stand to detail when deadly force is justified


The only time that the use of force is morally justified is to stop someone from hurting you, Cox said from the witness stand, prompted by a question from his attorney. The use of violence to protect your family is morally justified. The use of violence to promote your fancies is not…


I do not know much about Schaeffer Cox, but aside from his sovereign citizen position and common law courts, I admire his tact. I believe he falls short of the philosophical mark about the illegitimacy of government in-general, but we’ll see how the jury takes to his charm. All things considered… good luck Mr. Cox.




Excerpt: Knezovich joined SWAT team negotiators because self-proclaimed sovereigns typically recognize the sheriff as the highest law enforcement authority, he said.

Commentary: I posted the following response to the story:

I’m concerned more about the government extremist mentality posting comments on this story. As usual, delusional sycophants supporting government power chime in to justify some illusory authority superior to the individual rights or people.

Sovereign citizen arguments fail on many levels, but what fails worse is government’s claim they have any natural or a priori sovereign right over individuals, which is not true.

I wrote at length on Sovereign Citizens and the concept of individual sovereignty trumping government’s claims of sovereignty.

People are sovereign, citizens are not. That said, there is no obligation or duty for people to obey everything malignancy called “law”that flows from the legislative pens of thugs and usurpers. Of course, being violence incarnate, will resort to terrorism and violence in order to suppress any notion that people are superior to government and strike fear in the contemplative rebels.

This government has payback coming and it is moving now to further establish itself as the parens patriae for every human being who inhabits the soil within its fictitious boundaries.

People need to begin resisting and disobeying en masse, and overwhelm this corrupt system and shine the light on murderous police and despotic judges. Most people, who are by nature cowards and predisposed to following whatever edict passes the lips of their keepers, will blindly follow any man in in authority in placing the collective boot upon their neighbors necks.

This is just the beginning, and otherwise good men and women serving the Leviathan had better reconsider where their allegiance lies.

Marc MkKoy

Tagged , , , ,

Babies without Social Security Numbers & Without Birth Certifications


The document “Baby’s with no birth certificates nor social security numbers has been on this web
page ( for a considerable length of time, and in my view has not
gotten the attention it deserves. To provide some interest in its content and merit I have decided
to provide the following background information. Following the background information is the
original “Baby’s with no birth certificates nor social security numbers document. We often see
people whining about the actions taken by government with regards to their’ children, but these
same people will chose to ignore the information available when the opportunity presents itself.


Acting on false assumptions instead of on facts assures that our actions will lead us into
unintended obstacles. You cannot reach desired goals by taking the wrong paths. In no case is
this more apparent than in the matter of dates of birth. Make the wrong assumption, and you will
grovel in inescapable slavery. Act on facts, and you will set yourself free. Here are some facts
that are relevant to the subject of dates of birth:

Like many, many other words, “birth” and “date” have precise legal meanings which if not
fully comprehended will lead us into great trouble.

Through long training, habit and repetition we come to associate our date of birth with
that day, month and year on which we squeezed, kicking and screaming from our mother’s womb.
It’s been a bad habit with terrible consequences for most of us. That day of our entrance into this
world is not the birth date of the person named on the birth certificate! We have been suffering
under a false assumption. It’s high time we corrected the error.

BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY (1867) defines “birth” as “the act of being brought
wholly into the world.” In expanding on this succinct definition, Bouvier’s remarks restrict the
legal meaning to the subject of actual, physical childbirth.

It goes without saying that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since Bouvier
penned his authoritative definition of “birth”. The forms of government have been radically
altered, and in many instances words have been assigned different meanings. Sometimes the
differences are subtle; sometimes extreme.

Today, Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) defines “birth” to appear deceptively similar
to the definition given by Bouvier. Black’s defines “birth” as “The act of being born OR wholly
brought into separate existence.” The careless observer will discern no significant differences
between the definitions given by Bouvier and Black. But the differences are VERY

Bouvier does not provide a definition for “born”. But if he had, we can discern from his
definition of “birth” that he would define “born” as describing a human birth.

Black’s does provide its definition of “born” to mean:
“Act of being delivered or expelled from mother’s body.”
Black’s definition for “born” is essentially identical to Bouvier’s definition of “birth.” And like
Bouvier’s, Black’s first definition of “birth” describes a human birth.
But Black’s continues in his definitions of “birth”, providing a different, alternate
definition, “…OR (the act of being) wholly brought into separate existence.”

There is a subtle but significant difference between Bouvier’s “brought wholly” and Black’s
“wholly brought”.

In the case of Bouvier’s definition, “wholly” describes the total extent to which one comes
forth and separates from the womb; that not just parts of the new creature have exited and taken
on separate existence, but all of him. This refers only to a natural child/being.

Black’s uses “wholly” to describe the extent to which a generic entity, not a human being,
is deemed to have experienced “birth.” “Birth” by Black’s second definition requires that the
subject be completely and totally brought into existence. The difference between “wholly
brought” and “brought wholly” is something of a brain-teaser, but meditate on it and the
difference will come to you.

Bouvier refers to the child being brought into the WORLD, the connotation being that
something real and substantial, observable by the senses has arrived on the planet.

Black’s “brought into separate existence” can easily include a legal fiction or other artificial
entity, such as a name/person.

So far our inquiry has established that in modern legal jargon “birth” can mean the delivery
of a human child, OR the act of bringing into full and complete existence an artificial entity.

We find similar games played with the word, “DATE!

Bouvier defines “date” to mean, “The designation or indication in an instrument of writing
of the time AND PLACE when and WHERE it was made.” More: “Written instruments generally
take effect FROM THE DAY OF THEIR DATE, but the actual day of execution may be shown,
though different from that which the instrument bears.”

Black’s convenient definition of “date” does not include THE PLACE WHERE THE
INSTRUMENT IS EXECUTED: “The specification or mention, in a written instrument, of the
time (day, month and year) when it was made (EXECUTED).” (Parentheses in original)

Black’s defines “executed” as “COMPLETED: CARRIED INTO FULL EFFECT; already
done or performed; SIGNED; taking effect immediately; NOW IN EXISTENCE or in possession;
CONVEYING AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT OR POSSESSION. Act or course of conduct carried
to completion. Term imports idea that NOTHING REMAINS TO BE DONE.”

The PLACE at which a written instrument is executed is of extreme significance to its
effect. For example, a statute enacted by the California legislature may have great effect on the
lives of Californians…but none on Oregonians. By deleting “place” as an element of the definition
of “date”, Black’s, the ‘official’ lawyers dictionary, minimizes the importance of “place” while
diverting attention away from its significance.


The birth certificate ‘creates’ an artificial entity. In the beginning that entity is merely a
name, attached to which are other names of state-certified parents, doctors, informants and

The certificate is a written instrument created by a ‘registrar’ who is an employee/agent of
a ‘jurisdiction’ of the place in which the certificate is created. Neither the registrar nor his
principal created the human baby who is merely grist for the certifying process. The only things
bureaucrats can create are artificial entities and ‘legal’ fictions.

A birth certificate is EXECUTED by signing, filing and recording it, which constitutes the
act of wholly bringing the certificate (and the artificial entity it creates) into separate (distinct,
unique) being. The subject matter of the written instrument (certificate) is the live birth of an
infant. But it is not the live birth that is EXECUTED by signing, filing and recording the
certificate. That had already been accomplished, usually several days before the filing, by
conception and gestation, consummated by a child being born. Neither the state nor its registrar
had anything to do with ‘executing’ the live birth of the child.

The “DATE” (specification in the written instrument of the time when it was executed) is
the day, month and year on which the certificate was signed and filed; i.e., the time it executed;
when the ‘official name’/artificial entity/record, mentioned in the certificate was wholly brought
into separate existence. In other words, by Black’s SECOND DEFINITION…the DATE of
BIRTH of the record/entity.

Natural persons (real, live, flesh and blood people) have birthdays which commemorate

Only state-certified NAMES have BIRTHDATES or DATES OF BIRTH! There is
nothing about these DATES in the nature of commemoration or memorial; nothing happy, sad, or
otherwise emotional about them. Such DATES OF BIRTH are merely cold, dispassionate facts
which testify to the time and place of birth of the certificate.

Except when he is applying for a benefit that is made available only to artificial,
state-certified persons, an individual is free to go by any name that pleases him. He is under no
legal or moral compulsion to use the name attributed to him on a birth certificate. However, if he
uses that name, or a similar variation of it, he should be very careful in separating the two; the
natural and artificial creatures. He must remember: HE IS NOT THE NAME AND THE NAME

For example…when he is acting ‘as attorney’ for the artificial being, he should provide its
BIRTHDATE when required by business dealings. Alternatively, when he wishes to enjoy the
Rights inherent in natural individuals, he will want to distinguish between DATES and days…and
never state that his BIRTHDATE is the same as his birthday. The safest course is to avoid
situations (such as applying for or using benefits) where the giving of a BIRTHDATE may be
‘innocently’ construed as intent to obligate the natural person.

Not too many decades ago, birth certificates were generally perceived as innocuous and
harmless. Most people believe them to be beneficial in that they established reliable records for
genealogies, and assisted in expediting inheritances, probate matters, and the like. Few people
were ALARMED by sinister implications surrounding birth certificates…or the potential for abuse
inherent in them. It was this very absence of fear or concern that permitted them to eventually be
used against us. NOBODY WAS WATCHING! Nobody was warning their children about the
dangers of birth certificates. Nobody was educating the people on how they could be used as
‘government weapons against the people’ …or how the people could defend themselves from such

And today, most people still BELIEVE that birth certificates are harmless…and beneficial.

The danger with birth certificates is that, with just a little indoctrination by parents and
government schools, most people confuse the two entities involved (natural person and artificial
person). They do this primarily as a result of being trained from childhood to believe the DATE
OF BIRTH is synonymous with the day of birth. After a while most people cannot distinguish
between the name and their mortal being. They say, “I am John Smith” more frequently than they
will say “My name is ‘John Smith'”. It is this indoctrinated inability to distinguish between the two
that gets people in serious trouble.

They enter into adhesion contracts with ‘government’ agencies, that strip them of the
ability to exercise natural rights, and obligate them to all manner of demeaning servitude.

Black’s defines “ADHESION CONTRACT” as a:
“Standardized contract form offered to consumers of goods and SERVICES on essentially ‘take it
or leave it’ basis without affording consumer realistic opportunity to bargain and under such
conditions that consumer cannot obtain desired product or SERVICES except by acquiescing in
form contract. Distinctive feature of adhesion contract is that weaker party has no realistic choice
as to its terms.”

An intractable system of ‘governance’ has developed by which it is made difficult for the
natural person to exist, much less thrive, except by contract with ‘government’ agencies.
Adhesion contracts seem to be required of him to own and drive a car, own or rent property,
acquire food, gasoline…and most critically, to obtain the ‘government’ federal reserve notes
(“cash”) necessary to secure these ‘benefits’.

Every such ‘benefit’ is made available only to artificial, state-chartered persons. To prove
that one is eligible for the benefits, he must produce a BIRTHDATE and often even the certificate
(instrument) that certifies the DATE given is accurate.

Do you see what happens? The contractor provides, not the DATE OF BIRTH of the
certificate, but his BIRTHDAY. The bureaucrat never argues, even though the face of the
certificate proves the applicant is lying. (The consumer is always right)! The bureaucrat merely
pushes the adhesion contract across the counter for the applicant’s signature. The contract is
executed, and the natural person, who by association with the DATE OF BIRTH of an artificial
entity binds and obligates himself to whatever onerous specific performance will be required of
the contractor.

By submitting a BIRTHDATE, the contract ADHERES to the hapless individual.
Invariably, one condition of such contracts is that, should any controversies arise, the applicant
agrees to let the matter be arbitrated in the “company courts”. Neither natural rights nor
‘constitutional rights’ are issues, nor are they permitted expression in such courts.


End of Background

Original posting of “Baby’s with no birth certificates nor social security numbers begins below.

Babies without Social Security Numbers &
without Birth Certifications (Birth Certificates)
Making the Decision:

This essay is the result of an encouragement by my dad, who was, to some
degree, responsible for the status of my daughter, now over two years old. In
conversations with my father since the birth of my daughter, he thought it might be
beneficial to others to share my hospital experience with those who may be
wondering about such matters. Having been talked’ into sharing my experience, I
take up pen (now computer) to share those thoughts that led up to birthing a baby
girl who holds no Social Security number nor any county (government) issued Birth
Certification’ (Birth Certificate), and to share the events within the hospital in
refusing the allowance of these government identifications.

The decision to do this, although easy in the end, was somewhat of a
torturous path to travel. I have two children, a boy of several years and now a
daughter. Even before my son was born, my father had spoke with me about various
topics dealing with the devious nature of government. Although at that time I was in
my early twenties and believed, as I thought most American’s believed, that our
government was a champion of the under dog, the oppressed and those in need. I
did not feel that our government would intentionally take advantage of our fellow

When my father talked with me about the transgressions of government at
Ruby Ridge and at Waco, Texas, I could not help but think that he had taken a walk
off the map. Our government would not murder innocent people, especially children,
as he was saying took place at Waco. I did not think he was intentionally lying, dad
does not lie, but I did think that he was wholly mistaken. In my mind, I had
rationalized that our government had some justified reason to go after those
people’, even if that reason wasn’t readily apparent.

My father, despite my beliefs, kept the conversation alive from time to time,
sharing information and showing me things he had discovered about the actions and
coverup in which government agents & officials were involved. Apparently to
maintain the status quo’ within society.

Examining for myself the evidence that my dad presented to me for my
review caused a shift in my perception about our government. This was evidence,
not, not conjecture and not the opinion of my father. It was being collected and
presented by many rational people, some of them within the law enforcement

Whether or not it is intentional, the lack of education in our public school
system taught me well to believe in the goodness and humanity of our government.
The dilemma in which I was caught, was a knowledge that 1) my father would not
intentionally mislead me; 2) that my father is not a stupid man who is easily swayed,
either by self serving patriots nor by government; 3) that my father and my
government were in direct conflict on a number of critical matters and; 4) that if my
father was sufficiently concerned to keep bringing up government actions, it was
time for me to conduct my own independent investigation. Primarily to solidify in
my own mind which story to believe. The difference between what I wanted to
believe and the evidence being presented to me could not co-exist in my mind. In
determining the actual truth I could lay to rest the conflict occurring in my mind and
maybe make my dad eat crow.

And so I began doing some research of my own into some of the premises
dad had been putting forth. Premises that went far and beyond the events of Ruby
Ridge and Waco, Texas. I read books, surfed the Internet, investigated our
country’s founding documents, examined the interpretation of our founding
documents in court decisions, paying special attention to the burdens of citizenship
of both the State Citizen, and the United States Citizen. I must admit, that as I began
this trek, I was not even aware that there was a clear difference between citizens of
a State, and citizens of the United States. However, I was to learn that, as put forth
in the Slaughterhouse Cases (a supreme court decision), Americans do not
necessarily hold both citizenship classes, and there is considerable difference
between the burdens of each. I examined old history and law books and compared
them to current ones.

To my surprise, dad had been correct in each and every assertion he had
made. The commercial burdens’ of the United States citizens were the means by
which corporate government was taking the earnings and property from this class of
citizenship. Yet, it is not the purpose of this document to explain those matters in
detail, only to provide sufficient background that the reader will understand my
decision of citizenship for my daughter.

After engaging in considerable reading and research I had came to understand
that those of us holding a social security number, driver’s license, county issued
birth certificate, marriage license, or any other permit or license were being duped
by our government. Duped into entering into a contract which we no obligation to
enter. A contract which gives corporate government power and control over our
lives. We are being tricked into believing we are a free people when we are
anything but free. All of the above mentioned documents bind us to a jurisdiction
that has expanded beyond its constitutionally granted ten mile square allotment in
order to enslave the American people and hold us as surety for the national debt.

The research provided a realization that the county issued birth certificate and
federal social security number were a contractual means for the government to make
living souls into corporate entities (what we call a legal fiction) in order to gain
control of our lives and property. These contractual obligations make us subject to
the jurisdiction of the corporate United States and the Uniform Commercial Code,
of which almost all of our current law is based on. Taking note that there is a
difference between these united States (this refers to the sovereign States of the
republic that joined together to form a Union) and the United States ( a corporation
created by an act of Congress: 16 United States Statutes at Large 419; FORTY
FIRST CONGRESS, SESSION III; CHAPTER 62, 1871). This act created a
corporate UNITED STATES, a completely separate entity from the Republic of
these united States of America. In short, it forms a means by which the American
people may be tricked.

And believe me, I understand more than you know the reaction you may have
to such statements. I had them when my father was sharing this information with
me. As I have previously stated, I did not believe it possible for our grand’ and
great’ government to be capable of such devious actions. It was very hard for me to
fathom so many government officials, military personnel (to some extent), and
police officers (to some extent) were either being bought off through employment
and benefits, or intimidated (frightened) so badly they would sell out their own
people as well as their own children and families. I had believed in the checks and
balances put in place by our founding fathersand designed into our government
structure in a way that would never allow for such mass deceit of the people. Or so I

Although it was my father who was the catalyst for research, it was the
research itself that brought me to understanding and then to feel at least some
responsibility for the ignorance of others in my life. How could I, or for that
matter, how could anyone turn their backs from the truth of what is occurring
right now in our country? While in the beginning I thought that there was probably
only a 10% chance my father was correct, I had learned he was 100% correct, and
knowing this would not allow me to continue as I always had, believing that
government would do the honorable thing. I could no longer take that chance with
those I love. My father had apologized to me and my brother, stating that if he knew
as a young man what he knows now, neither of us would have had government
issued birth certificates nor social security numbers. Now, as a parent with
knowledge and understanding, it is my turn to step up to the plate.

Thus, the decision to birth my daughter without acquiring a government
issued birth certification or social security number was an easy one. Even when my
choice was based upon the partial and incomplete facts that were available to me at
the time I made this decision. In my heart and mind there just really wasn’t any
other choice because I wanted my daughter to enjoy the freedom that so many
Americans died to provide at the beginning of our county. To enjoy a freedom that
has been lost through ignorance by so many Americans. I did not want to sell my
daughter into slavery just to save a few dollars on my income taxes. I realize that
these statements may be inflammatory to some, but I feel confident that if you do
your homework and research in this matter, you will change your perspective and
agree that I have made the best possible decision on behalf of my daughter.

Unfortunately, I had not been as well informed when my son was born. Oh, I
had the opportunity to be informed, I chose not to be informed, not to believe. As I
once read:

“The mark of a stupid man is not that he does not know,
it is that he chooses not to know!

As such I will be changing my son’s status as soon as possible, given what I now
know. My husband and I will avoid asking the government for any kind of
assistance be it medical, income, retirement, or housing. These are the ways the
government traps individuals in the claws of its corporate jurisdiction, by getting
you to contract with them. Government engineers the crisis and then provides a
mediocre solution, if you will just contract with them, and give them jurisdiction
over your life. My children will learn to be responsible for themselves and if they
need help, to lean on those who truly care about them, rather than depend on the
government to take care of them. The government is not the parent nor part of my
family and should not be responsible for me or my children. It is not right for me or
my children to expect other hard working people, trying to raise their family, to
support mine. A lesson learned from my father.

Determining the consequences:

Now, that the decision had been made to avoid contracting with the
government on my daughter’s behalf, I needed to check into aspects of her life that
will be of immediate concern upon her birth. Both of my children would be taking
advantage of public education. I had to check with the school to find out if a social
security number was required for enrollment into school – it was not. I also checked
to see if the hospital birth certificate was adequate documentation to enroll a child
into school, and I found that the hospital issued birth certificate is adequate
documentation for the school.

The hospital and birth day (never allow the use of the term
“Birth Date):

After determining this, I was ready to proceed with my plans concerning my
daughter’s citizenship status. After having a baby it is standard policy for hospital
staff to bring in paperwork to be filled out and completed by the parents, to get the
newborn a social security number. I simply refused to fill it out or sign anything to
do with social security, being polite but firm. The person in charge of getting this
paperwork filled out and turned in, did attempt to pressure me by stating that when
grown my daughter will not be able to work or conduct any personal business
without that number. I politely responded that she was misinformed and that I was
certain that my daughter needed no permission from the government to carry out the
things she will do in her life. In one last attempt on the Social Security number I was
told that a social security card would be much more difficult to obtain later. I
informed her that didn’t matter to me and she went on to the next thing, the birth
certificate. Again I refused to sign or authorize anything to do with a government
birth record. This lady and I went through a similar discussion as with the social
security number. She told me that I would have difficulty proving my child’s identity
and enrolling her in school. I informed her that I had checked into that matter and
that neither a social security number or the county birth certificate is required to
enroll in school. If necessary, I could sign an affidavit as to my daughter’s identity
and status until she was old enough to sign one of her own.

With this, the lady folded and indicated that she didn’t want to argue with me.
The important thing to realize here is that both of these documents are contracts
which create a disability (a liability or obligation) upon your child. Not to put too
fine a point on it, but these contracts with government lack full disclosure and/or
equal consideration. (Necessary elements to a legally binding agreement.)
Additionally, they are accomplished under fraud and deception by virtue of the lack
of full disclosure. These contractual obligations, if entered into, give the
government control of your child, making the government the parent and you the
babysitter. In short, this is the legal process: 1) The Birth Certification is registered
with the bureau of vital statistics; 2) Whenever you “register (not record) anything
in any “public registry you have placed the object identified (in this case your
child) into international commerce and transferred “legal title to the government,
retaining only “equitable title to yourself. You may use’ the registered item, but
is not your property, you have transferred it to the government. Thus, when you
register your children, as is done with the issuance of a birth certification’, you
have given the government legal title, retaining equitable title to yourself. This is
why the government may now take the children and place them wherever they wish.
They are protecting their legal property. Check it out for yourself. Mary’s book is a
good place to begin. Available at

The benefits:

At the end of my hospital stay I walked out with a citizen of the Republic of
California, instead of a United States citizen. As an individual outside corporate
jurisdiction, she will have no taxable income, this benefit[???]’ being reserved for
those citizens inside corporate jurisdiction. She will not pay social security, another
benefit’ for those citizens inside a corporate jurisdiction. She will not have a drivers
license, nor vehicle registration for her car, both are requirements for those under
corporate [commercial] jurisdiction, as such they do not apply to her. She will be
completely and totally responsible for herself, the first requirement of freedom. No
social security, no disability compensation, no workman’s compensation, etc. It
does not mean that she can not have these benefits, it just means that she will have
to purchase them privately, but not from government.

As her parents, we cannot claim her on our income taxes. This is because
government has no responsibility for her, as such they can not claim a need for
collection or deduction on her behalf. As stated, she is outside the control and
jurisdiction of corporate government. It is important to note here that she is not
outside the law (of the Republic), but she has no connection (contractual nexus) to
corporate commercial law of the corporate United States. She is not in that

Obviously, there is much I will need to teach her in order to prepare her to
protect the freedom and status of citizenship she will enjoy. But after all, is that not
what parenting is all about? It will be a long road and I suspect it will require my
husband and I to keep up with the changes government may institute to trap the
ignorant and unwary. There is a quote from an author that I admire that is very
applicable here…

“Freedom is easily lost. All it takes is willful indifference. – Terry Goodkind

For myself, I have determined that I am not going to be one of the willfully
indifferent Americans that watches freedom slip away just because the changes
taking place do not seem to affect the everyday affairs of my life. I am wise enough
to understand that although it is not my ox that is gored today, if I allow my
neighbors ox to be gored, it is only a matter of time until it is mine. In a free society,
all we have to protect us, from the power of corrupt government, is each other. The
noose is tightening around our necks, and because of our own ignorance and our
own indifference, our rights have been usurped, because there is an entity out there
that is willing to wait the amount of time it takes for those who knew of the dangers
of a strong central government to forget, or give up or disappear through age and
death. I think, that there has been a general lack of concern by most Americans that
exists because of a general belief that those who founded America had finally put
something in place to protect those who would come after. Unfortunately, I think we
have become much too complacent, I know that I was… for a while. We have lost
our ability to see what absolute power is and what it looks like. It is a patient,
sneaky, devious, and evil foe, and it waits for the moment when there is no true
citizens of the Republic left for our Constitution to protect, at which time the
Constitution dies for lack of representation. My daughter is one of those who stands
in the way of that occurring, because she is a true citizen of the Republic of the
united States of America.

I have opened my private life and share this information with you for
whatever value it may have. For now, I wish to remain anonymous, simply because I
do not trust the government. Citizens, like my daughter, represent the greatest threat
to the total take over of our country and lives. And, remembering Waco, I do not
wish to place her (and us as a family) at undue risk.

Vox Populi, Methods of Manipulation

If you don’t think there’s something wrong with the world as we know it, you need to look a little deeper. If you don’t think there are powers who are not concerned with your safety and welfare, but rather with your resources and managing your physical and mental decline, you are a member of the deluded masses and should wake up.

Megan Verb’ Kargher are proud to present Vox Populi, Methods of Manipulation. It has become increasingly evident that large portions of the planet are descending with alarming speed into Orwellian police states. What is the New World Order and what are their plans for mankind? How can we stop the corruption now? Join me as I travel in search of what is really going on in the world in which we live. Featuring interviews with David Icke, Max Igan, Freeman, Jordan Maxwell, Dr. George Rhodes, Ben Stewart and Charlie Veitch.

Children's book 'Lilly' encourages students to murder police

Am I endorsing this book? No. However, this is a symptom of what is taking place all across the world with people becoming exasperated with the oppressive boot on their necks from the metastasizing police state. I do not condone violence in any form, but one must ask themselves, what is different from this book and the portrayal of atrocities committed by police? Of course, the media does not say that police have the right to kill people, but when police do, we see them “on administrative leave while an investigation is conducted”. Seldom are police tried or convicted for their crimes against the public. They are given much deference to their being “authority” and anyone who dares raise a voice in dissent “has it coming to them”.

Even though I do not agree with the resolution offered in the book, that is, the wholesale execution of police, I do agree that more discussion over just what role police serve in society is needed. Children likewise need to be spared the indoctrination involving police being de facto arbiters of justice.

It may serve police agencies to take note of the escalating din which promotes violence towards them in response to their violence towards society. Honestly, I believe it may be just what the police desire since it may tend to validate more oppressive measures and policy since we are deemed to be more violent. Police tend to create circumstances which justify their actions, which are merely reactions to contrived circumstances which they create.


The children’s book titled ‘Lilly’. Supplied


A character called Simon Overkill resembles Police Commissioner Simon Overland in the children’s book ‘Lilly’. Supplied

A TWISTED children’s book encouraging students to murder police is being shopped around Victorian schools.

The picture book, titled Lilly, tells the story of a little girl whose friends are racially vilified, tortured and shot by police, prompting her to murder a police officer resembling Police Commissioner Simon Overland.

Education Minister Martin Dixon said there was no chance the book would be added to the curriculum.

“This material is highly offensive and absolutely disgraceful,” he said. “It has no place in Victorian schools or the broader community.

“Victorian parents do not want their children exposed to obscene and violent material and I believe principals will not tolerate it being circulated in our schools.”

The authors – members of a heavy metal band – defended the book’s perverse content, saying it will “provoke discussion” among impressionable children.

“The basis of Lilly is the idea that the simplified stories we’re told as children can affect the way we later perceive the world as adults,” band spokeswoman Sarah Dobbs wrote in a letter to schools.

The book depicts police as violent monsters who:

BEAT a dark-skinned boy on the ground with batons.

ELECTROCUTE a little girl who is looking after a sick friend at a park.

SHOOT dead a boy named Tyler because he misses his dad.

Lilly, the “hero” of the book, saves the day by shooting “Simon Overkill” in the head, releasing a rainbow and doves from his skull.

Victoria Police declined to comment, but Police Association secretary Sen-Sgt Greg Davies dismissed the book as a bad joke.

“These twisted morons can sit around their marijuana-fuelled campfire telling each other their twisted tales, collecting the dole from the rest of us and leave our children to be reared by their parents,” he said.

The book states: “All depictions of police brutality are taken from real events, reported by the media.”

Ms Dobbs told the Herald Sun by email she expected schools to welcome the book into curriculums.

“We’ve already been in contact with many political studies, english, media and communications teachers keen to look at the issues raised in Lilly,” she wrote.

UPDATE 9.39am: THE group behind a children’s book that endorses killing police officers say several schools have expressed interest in it.

And Chief Commissioner Simon Overland says police can’t do anything to stop the twisted book being shopped around schools.

The authors – members of a heavy metal band – defended the book’s perverse content, saying it will “provoke discussion” among impressionable children.

Band spokeswoman Sarah Dobbs said 17 schools across four states had expressed interest in the book – even thought it has not yet been approved by the Classification Board.

Ms Dobbs said it was important to contradict the message given to children of “wildly unrealistic stereotypes of police-as-superheroes” and to encourage scepticism of law-and-order policies.

“We find it surprising and saddening that despite these reports (of police violence), there are still almost constant public calls for more police officers to be deployed, and for police to be granted ever-broader powers over their fellow Australians,” Ms Dobbs said.

“The basis of Lilly is the idea that the simplified stories we’re told as children can affect the way we later perceive the world as adults,” band spokeswoman Sarah Dobbs wrote in a letter to schools.

For more on the children’s book that is encouraging students to kill police go to the Herald Sun.

Critics: Obamas Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake Update: More Expert Opinion

Critics: Obama’s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake – Update: More Expert Opinion


Long-form pdf link.

Photoshop expert and author of more than 17 books on computer graphics Mara Z. sent this in:

This is so maddening to listen to the media on this recent revelation… it’s such an obvious fake.

(Click on image for larger view)

Look at the attached JPG… (which shows what you will see when opening the PDF in Illustrator and how to get there)… but to recap… if you open the PDF in Illustrator (instead of Photoshop) – Select the entire document and go to the Object menu and choose Clipping Mask > Release. Repeat as necessary until all clipping masks are released. Also open the Layer and turn off the visibility of each clipping group and you can see all the numerous places in which information was added (edited) into the form.

Lastly, look at the attached 1961 sample image found on the Internet of a legitimate 1961 Hawaii Birth Certificate (which someone posted to show what a real certificate would look like from that year in Hawaii)… look at the marks on this Internet version and you can see this was the template for Obama’s BC handiwork. The handwriting is exactly the same between posted Internet image and Obama’s fake version — the placement of boxes and marks are in the exact same position, dates are where the modified clipping masks occur to adjust dates to fit for Obama, but the handwriting of dates match (except for the clipping mask changes). Even the Cert. number is only off by the last two digits (which…you guessed it… happens to be a clipping mask layer).

Finally, also wanted to make the point that regardless of where Obama is born, he’s still not a Natural Born Citizen since both parents were not born on U.S. soil but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the media to educate the public on this fact.

More doubt… Another graphics designer reported it was a fake.

UPDATE: Another expert John G. sent in these comments and this image:

(Click to Enlarge)

I have been using Adobe Illustrator since the original version (Illustrator 88) came out in 1988.

I have attached a few Illustrator files that I believe will provide evidence that I am indeed an illustrator expert. I can send out the original files if you wish.

The comments made by Mara Z are very interesting. The first question is – what was the source of this pdf file? If the pdf file came from Obama’s people, the claims that this document was “doctored” may indeed be of merit. The first question is, why are there any layers on this document at all? It was clearly created in Photoshop, which is always used for image processing.

The second question is, if you look at the file I have sent as Obama Certificate Actions 01, you can see in the actions palette that there were 24 actions performed on this file before it was made into a pdf. Many of the actions are not Illustrator functions, but are Photoshop actions. Thus, this file was created in Photoshop, and exported as Photoshop 5 (why, that’s a very old version?) and it was next saved for the web (a Photoshop action) three times.

Again, first, we need to ascertain where this file came from.

DON’T you KNOW that ANONYMOUS experts have SUPPOSEDLY already “exposed” it as an ALLEGED “forgery”?

Obama Birth Certificate fraud

Critics: Obama’s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake

IMAGINE THAT???  A birth certificate that has been PURPORTEDLY “fabricated” over the past three years & in a few hours after it’s release it is SUPPOSEDLY “exposed” by ANONYMOUS “experts”?   One of WHOM is a SUPPOSED “Photoshop expert and author of more than 17 books on computer graphics” that CHOOSES to remain ANONYMOUS & goes by “Mara Z”.

HOLY SHADES of “Techdude”, Batman!!!  Is it a REPEAT or a REMAKE???

Techdude delivers a final report that exceeds my wildest expectations. It is irrefutable, empirical evidence – Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Why? Why a COLB (certificate of live birth) forgery? That is the question.

My deepest thanks and appreciation for Techdude’s unwavering commitment to the truth despite the threats and harassment, the slashed tires and the dead animal on his porch.

Insofar as “techdude’s” credentials, he is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association – the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then.

A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.

(Editor’s note: WND’s investigation into the certification of live birth did not include inspecting the actual document, but only asking experts to evaluate the online image. Those experts, therefore, could not “prove” the document’s authenticity. The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image’s authenticity.)

People can “believe” anything, IF they WANT to “believe” it enough.  It’s called SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF & ILLUSIONIST, MOVIE MAKERS, PROPAGANDISTS & users of MIND CONTROL use it all the time.

The principles of mind control, hypnotic suggestion and, mental programming are ancient (the term used doesn’t matter, the principles remain the same). The goal is to suspend the thought processes of the conscious mind to cause a state of mind that is just like “day dreaming.” Stop conscious thought and the mind is in its most suggestible state and is more receptive to programming than at any other time. Therefore, the first principle of mind control is distraction. Distraction focuses the attention of the conscious mind on one or more of the five senses (sight, sound, touch, smell and taste) in order to program the subconscious mind.

What the conscious mind believes, the subconscious acts on. It works like programming a computer. You feed information into a computer, and the computer acts on it. However, if the information you feed into the computer is wrong, it still acts on it! If you give yourself incorrect information or if others give you incorrect information, the memory banks of your subconscious mind do not correct the error but act on it!

Now remember the first principle behind mental programming. That principle is distraction. Distraction focuses the attention of the conscious mind on one or more of the five senses in order to program the subconscious mind. The same principle applies to all illusion, magic and propaganda. The second principle of mental programming is repetition. Distraction and repetition represent the learning process.

If you accept the information as true, it is programmed that way to your subconscious mind. If you reject the information as false, that is programmed to your subconscious mind. However, if you don’t know if the information is true or not, a curious thing happens. Your trust in the source of the information determines whether or not you accept the information. If you do not believe that a book could contain information that was false (unintentionally or intentionally), then you would accept its information as true even if you weren’t sure or didn’t understand it. This is especially true in school where there is pressure to accept what is presented as true because that is what is expected and that determines your grade and your future. Repetition of the information imbeds it in your subconscious mind so that your acceptance of its truth (accuracy) becomes a conditioned response. You accept this information as true without thinking whenever it is presented to you again.”

Mind Control in the United States, Steven Jacobson (1985)

BIRTHERS are already citing this article MOCKING them as ALLEGED “evidence” that Obama’s hospital certificate is SUPPOSEDLY a “fake”.

Will Release Of Obama’s Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New “Certer” Movement?

This morning’s White House release of President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate will, of course, do little to derail the “birther” movement, which will now analyze the document with the kind of verve previously directed toward those Texas Air National Guard memos faxed to CBS from that Kinko’s in Abilene.

So here’s a few nutty points about the birth certificate sure to be seized upon by the nonbelievers:

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”

Anyone want to bet HOW many AFTERBIRTHERS will be citing that video & article as “gospel” tomorrow?

Same story, different day.

“How did the citizenship rumor get started? Ironically, it began when the Obama campaign tried to debunk some other conspiracies. After Obama locked up the nomination in early June, low-level talk radio and blog chatter peddled rumors that Obama’s real middle name was Muhammad, that his father was not really Barack Obama, and that he was not really born in Hawaii. The campaign released a facsimile of Obama’s certificate of live birth. Requested from the state in 2007, the certificate reported that Obama was, indeed, born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.

The certificate was a bullet that didn’t put down the horse. Why, skeptics asked, release a new form from Hawaii instead of the original paper that Obama’s parents got in 1961—the one that Obama found in a box of his dad’s knickknacks in Dreams From My Father? They quickly came up with an explanation: The certificate was forged. Anonymous digital image experts with handles like Techdude and Polarik sprung from the woodwork to prove (shades of Rathergate!) that pixels, spacing, and indentation on the form indicated that the Obama campaign had created the certificate with Adobe Photoshop. The state of Hawaii’s official statement that the certificate was legitimate didn’t make a dent—after all, who is Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin Onaka to argue with Techdude?

This “forgery” became an article of faith in the Obama conspiracy community. When a Hillary Clinton supporter found a birth announcement for Obama from the Aug. 13, 1961, edition of the Honolulu Advertiser, the theorists were unbowed: After all, the Obama family could have phoned that in from Kenya. When Pennsylvania lawyer Philip J. Berg filed the first birth-related injunction against Obama this August, asking that Obama be ruled “ineligible to run for United States Office of the President,” he alleged that the certificate had been proved a forgery by the “extensive Forensic testing” of anonymous experts and claimed that Obama’s campaign had simply inserted his name over that of his half-sister, Maya. That would have been quite a trick, as Maya Soetoro-Ng was actually born in Indonesia.

None of that stopped Berg from stoking the conspiracy theorists. On Oct. 16, an Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae called Sarah Hussein Obama, the president-elect’s 86-year-old paternal step-grandmother, at her home in Kenya. Two translators were on the line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was “present” when the president-elect was born. One of the translators says “yes.” McRae contacted Berg and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a signed affidavit. He opted not to include the rest of the call, in which he asks the question more directly—”Was he born in Mombassa?”—and the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that the president-elect was born in Hawaii.

The Hawaiian documentation, the 1961 newspaper announcement, the phony evidence from Sarah Obama—all of that aside, the idea that Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu goes against everything we know about his rather well-documented life. Barack Obama Sr. came to America as part of a 1959 program for Kenyan students—he did not return home until 1965, years after he left his wife and son. Ann Dunham was three months pregnant when she married Obama Sr. and 18 years old when she gave birth. There is no record of Dunham ever traveling to Kenya, much less the year after the Mau Mau rebellion ended, when she was pregnant and when she had no disposable income to speak of. “Ann’s mother would have gone ballistic if her daughter had even mentioned traveling to Kenya in the final stages of pregnancy,” says David Mendell, author of the biography Obama: From Promise to Power.”

Oakland gardener questions need for permit to sell produce.

Novella Carpenter took over a vacant lot on a hardscrabble corner of West Oakland eight years ago and turned it into a working farm of vegetables, goats, rabbits and, sometimes, pigs.

Carpenter milked goats, made cheese and ate much of the produce. She also wrote a popular book, “Farm City,” about the experience and became an icon of the Bay Area’s urban farming movement.

But the future of her Ghost Town Farm is in question. This week, Oakland officials suggested it may need to close. The reason: She sells excess produce and needs a costly permit to do so.

“It seems ridiculous,” said Carpenter, 38. “I need a conditional use permit to sell chard?”

The news stunned the region’s urban farmers and their supporters, who questioned how a fundamental human task that goes back millennia could become illegal.

“It’s incredibly sad that people can’t grow food and sell it to folks,” said Barbara Finnin, executive director of City Slicker Farms, an Oakland nonprofit that runs produce markets and helps people start their own urban farms.

Profit, not personal use

The city planner who visited Carpenter’s 4,500-square-foot plot at 28th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way said he sympathized with Carpenter, but the rules are clear.

Carpenter “is raising these things for a profit,” said Chris Candell, a planner in the city’s building department. “If you’re doing this for your own home consumption, this would not be applied.”

Though his report is not final, Candell said Carpenter probably has three options: pay for a conditional use permit, shut down the farm, or not change anything and face sanctions from the city.

The permit would probably cost several thousand dollars, Candell said, and Carpenter also would have to pay penalties for operating without such a license as she is now. Carpenter works about 25 hours per week at the farm and takes in only about $2,500 a year, before expenses.

Candell said a complaint about rabbits on the property led to the city inquiry. Carpenter believes the critic was upset because she was making rabbit potpies available for an $8 donation.

Carpenter taught herself to grow food and raise livestock. She went Dumpster diving in Oakland’s Chinatown to feed her pigs and learned how to butcher from top chefs.

“I really like to feel connected to food and understand the stories of where my food came from,” she said. “When I started, I did it to feed myself. Then I realized that in Oakland, people are really hungry. So people in the neighborhood came and picked food.”

But she realized there were other benefits, too.

“A garden in the middle of a concrete jungle is a nice thing,” she said. “The garden has become a community space. It’s like a place of beauty as well as production. If you pick your lettuce, it just has more vitamins. … We’re told to go consume and just buy food, but I want to empower myself by growing it.”

Crops in the city

Oakland is considered the center of the urban farming movement, with numerous nonprofits and individual farmers devoted to the cause. Sunset Magazine featured Oakland last year as a “town of the future” because of citizens’ passion for the movement. Carpenter’s farm was featured in the article.

But zoning regulations haven’t quite caught up, planners and urban farmers say.

A conditional use permit might make sense for 40-acre farms, Finnin said, but not when the farm occupies one-tenth of an acre and beets sell for $2 a bunch.

Candell agreed that the zoning is outdated. But he said the rules nonetheless have to be followed.

“We’ve had (these rules) for 50 years or so, but we’re stuck with them until they’re changed,” he said.

In San Francisco, where similar conflicts have arisen, Supervisor David Chiu and Mayor Ed Lee introduced legislation this week to allow growing and selling of garden produce in all neighborhoods. In Oakland, zoning officials and nonprofits have been working on new rules, which are to be debated by the City Council this year.

Guerrilla gardener

Carpenter said it has all been a learning experience. After starting out as a “squat farmer,” she bought the plot for $30,000 in December. The previous owner sold it to her as a favor.

“It was so great squatting,” she said. “I didn’t have costs. I was a total renegade doing something totally illegal, but now that I’m a property owner, that’s when they actually come down on me.

“I can’t fly under the radar and be a punk anymore. I have to actually be an adult and deal with these things.”

Read more: