Held here entire — 749 passages across 22 chapters, set down from the first word to the last. The colour shifts with the film’s own mood as each chapter plays.
- 0:00quiet, reflectiveIntroduction to the 14th AmendmentThe hosts introduce the topic of the controversial 14th Amendment and the Nationalist Party's approach to restoring nationalism.
- 18:52weathered, resignedUnderstanding Historical ContextThe discussion delves into the historical context of the 14th Amendment and its impact on American citizenship.
- 22:27measured, soberThe Nationalist Party's MissionCorey King introduces the Nationalist Party and its goal to educate and raise awareness about the 14th Amendment.
- 29:02calm, distantPeaceful Solutions and IntellectualismThe hosts emphasize advocating for peaceful protesting and intellectual engagement rather than radical action.
- 38:27cool, analyticalChallenging the Current SystemJessica explains the Nationalist Party's strategy of operating outside the current government system.
- 40:35disillusioned14th Amendment's True MeaningA detailed explanation of LB Bork's research on the 14th Amendment and its impact on political status.
- 48:24guarded, evenThe People's Awareness CoalitionCorey discusses the history and work of the People's Awareness Coalition in educating people about the law.
- 52:05raw, woundedFraudulent Nature of 14th AmendmentThe argument is made that the 14th Amendment was constructed in fraud and its implications for citizenship.
- 55:36heated, combativeDebate on 14th Amendment's LegalityRyan Dawson challenges the claims of the 14th Amendment being a fraud and its historical context.
- 1:05:14grim, scorchedSecession vs. RebellionThe speakers engage in a heated debate about the legal definition of rebellion and secession during the Civil War.
- 1:46:15hard, unyieldingDefining 'Rebel' in LawThe discussion focuses on the legal definition of 'rebel' and its application to Confederate soldiers and politicians.
- 1:53:23grave, foreboding14th Amendment and New GovernmentCorey argues that the 14th Amendment created a new, unconstitutional government system.
- 2:11:52detached, weighingPresumption and Tacit AgreementCorey explains the legal concepts of presumption and tacit agreement in relation to 14th Amendment citizenship.
- 2:21:43urgent, incendiaryDual Citizenship and RemedyThe concept of dual citizenship and the Nationalist Party's proposed remedy for political status correction are discussed.
- 2:30:30dimmed, waryThe Red Amendment and LawCorey highlights LB's book 'The Red Amendment' as a detailed thesis on the 14th Amendment and Reconstruction.
- 2:37:50charged, alertNationalist Party's Political MovementCorey outlines the Nationalist Party's strategy to force recognition of their legal claims at the highest levels.
- 2:50:00eerie, electricThe Lawful Solution to TyrannyThe discussion emphasizes the importance of lawful remedies and positioning oneself correctly against tyrannical government.
- 2:59:35warm, expansiveConsent and Property RightsJessica explains how the government obtains consent and the implications for property rights and voluntary servitude.
- 3:00:35warm, expansiveNationalist Party's Vision & StrategyCorey King details the Nationalist Party's mission to restore state sovereignty and correct political status through lawful means.
- 3:10:04conflicted, dividedLawful Revolution vs. Bloody WarThe discussion explores the difference between a lawful revolution and a violent uprising, advocating for legal remedies.
- 3:17:28bleak, drainedCritique of Legal NuancesA speaker questions the efficacy of debating legal nuances when the government consistently disregards its own laws.
- 3:27:04dry, matter-of-factConsent, Law, and ExpatriationA speaker clarifies how the government operates by consent and how expatriation can remove individuals from 14th Amendment jurisdiction.
The Transcript
A voice is named only when we can verify it — by voiceprint, an @handle present in the room, or the Space’s own title. Anyone we can’t confirm stays “Speaker,” on purpose.
Ian MalcolmSo, JoAnn, I got to ask, can you name that tune and that artist?
Speaker 1What?
@joann_marieI can't! I've never heard this song before. Really? No! I know! I'm so sorry, but it's such a great song, Ian, and your little song at the end was awesome. I don't know. What is it? I was expecting you to say, Yes, I do!
Speaker 2Yes, I do! I don't know!
Ian MalcolmPhiladelphia Freedom. Talking about flying the flag, shining a light, right? Caring about your country. Sung by the one and only Mr. Elton John. And lovely, lovely, lovely patriotic song. I'm surprised. All right, so JoAnn.
@joann_marieI know. Ian, you always throw curveballs. Super curveballs.
Ian MalcolmWell, no, it was good because the little jingle that they have there, the... That was JoAnn sliding back. She had like three in a row. She's back down. Oh, no. It'll be like the Mario game.
@joann_marieI have the little one, the one from yesterday, or two.
Ian MalcolmYeah, I think you're at two yesterday, but after this one, it's like Mario when he gets hit by something.
Speaker 3He goes, bleep, boop, boop, boop, boop. I'm so sorry.
Ian MalcolmSo, all right, no, but this is good. Now we'll go back and we'll try to work our way back up. I thought Elton John might be in your wheelhouse.
@joann_marieI only know about three Elton John songs.
Ian MalcolmAll right, so what Elton John songs do you know, JoAnn?
@joann_marieStarman, is that an Elton John song? And also- Starman, okay. You can tell everybody- Oh, yeah, yeah, your song.
Speaker 4Beautiful song.
@joann_marieDon't go breaking my heart. Don't go breaking my heart. I love that one. Those are the three that I know, I think.
Ian MalcolmAll right, so JoAnn knows some Elton John. We're going to have to work on the repertoire of Elton John. And if you haven't seen it, the movie with, I think it's Tiger Egerton or something. He's got a strange first name.
@joann_marieSo good. That movie's so good.
Ian MalcolmVery good.
@joann_marieIt's so sad, though.
Ian MalcolmWell, he lived a very, you know what's crazy? Elton John, Phil Collins, all these guys, lots of drugs, lots of lovers, lots of problems, Freddie Mercury included. And so, yeah, well, where do we even begin? The cultural decline, I suppose, of some of these individuals. I think Phil Collins has been married and remarried so many times that he got remarried to a woman that he married before, if that makes sense.
Ian MalcolmSo these guys all over the place. But we are very excited to shine a light, shine a light, and to wave the flag with the, essentially, an approach, right? I don't wanna say the approach, but an approach to restoring nationalism in the United States This has been brought to my attention, and I always like to open our audiences not just to the individuals that I'm familiar with and that I might have some kind of reverence for.
Ian MalcolmAnd I was incredibly grateful yesterday that we got to speak with the one and only Kevin McDonald for about three hours. That entire conversation solely on the shoulders of Miss JoAnn, who reached out. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Ian MalcolmWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment?
Ian MalcolmWith that being said, JoAnn, any kind of other commentary that you might have before we introduce Corey and also the Nationalist Party handle that we have up here?
@joann_marieNo, thank you so much for hosting, Ian, and yeah, yesterday was amazing. It's crazy, all of the glitches and all of the... Subscribe for more!
@joann_marieYeah, no, we have like an entire month scheduled. So I'm really happy for that. And yeah, no, guys, please repost this space. And if you guys go to it, I will also repost it and bookmark it. It seriously helps so much with the algorithm. And I love this topic. So thank you so much for having me. And yeah, that's about it.
Ian MalcolmNo, absolutely. And so yesterday, talking about a essentially... The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Ian MalcolmWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmAnd so I say it because in these spaces, we're going to continue to try and to understand the history of the past, how we got to the present, how we make that better future, right? So if we think of the space that we did with Kevin, obviously on the present, on the psychological aspects, the space tomorrow on the oil barons, well, going into the past.
Ian MalcolmSo let's talk about the future, right? What is it that we can be building towards? How can we help build towards that? How can we help avoid the pitfalls of the false heroes that might be people like Donald Trump or Joe Biden or, frankly, almost any of the politicians, right? And how instead could we suggest some kind of effort to bring about the glory?
Ian MalcolmWith that being said, why don't we open the floor to both the Nationalist Party and to Corey? I know that there might be some other speakers that you guys might want to bring up. Certainly feel free to just have them request. We'll bring up anybody and everybody. And what we'll probably do for the next 30, 45, maybe even 60 minutes is get this overview on what you guys are trying to build, trying to work towards.
Ian MalcolmHow you think it might be a solution to some of these problems? And then we can, of course, open up the floor. So anybody that wants to come up and do a Q&A with either Corey or The Nationalist, feel free to raise your hand. We'll bring everybody up. And with that being said, why don't we go to Corey for a quick little introduction?
@coreyking88Hello there. Can you hear me? We sure can. Fantastic. So my name is Corey King. I am the co-founder of The Nationalist Party, and I am also involved in the People's Awareness Coalition. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88Exceptionally educated and knowledgeable lawmen that anybody could ever meet in this life. I say that with an extreme level of confidence. His account here is the jurist, if you can't find it, by L.B. Bork. L.B. has been practicing, basically, well, let's just say L.B. has been expatriated from The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
@coreyking88To bring an education and awareness and a political action all at one time to as many people as we can possibly reach, that's a difficult thing for certain when you're as censored as we are. I've been going on your spaces quite a bit lately, Ian. I remember one of them, you said, don't talk about how censored you are. We're all pretty much censored at this point.
@coreyking88But it gets to a point where you can't help but kind of comment on it to get people motivated to help you in your outreach to understand what it is that the forces that we're up against are capable of doing. And at this point, they won't even host LB on the ADL website. It's to the point where you become so dangerous that they won't even identify you.
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88I'm very excited to talk about what we have to bring today. And with that, I also want to say that for the folks that are listening to this or are going to listen to it later, we are probably going to identify problems and solutions that are the most important problems and solutions to be paying attention to in the world today.
@coreyking88And the solutions we have are narrow And they're exceptional because there's only so many things that you can access at a time like this. If we're not looking to have blood in the street revolutions, if there's any way outside of that that we can access a resolution to the problems we are all facing, we're going to talk about that today.
@coreyking88We're going to share what that looks like today.
Ian MalcolmYep, and absolutely never advocating for any kind of kinetic anything other than peaceful protesting. And we certainly do advocate for individuals to get out into their local communities and to do that, which they lawfully and legally can to bring awareness to these issues, to build coalitions, right, to build bonds across individuals of all shapes, sizes, forms, races, creeds, colors, heights, weights, and hair colors.
Ian MalcolmAnd so, Corey, I love that you set that up that way. Obviously, our detractors would love if we sounded radical, but certainly not trying to. We are the Care Bear Stare solution to this problem. For anybody that might remember, we're going to pour out love and some really uncomfortable intellectualism. And I say that because at times we need to be blunt, we need to be bold, and we need to be willing to just call
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Ian MalcolmWith �
Ian MalcolmAnd then despite being the father of the vaccine in some sense, and I say that because he's one of the early guys behind the technology, but he had some adverse events, obviously spoke out against it. Isn't it curious that the guy who was given all the limelight during COVID as the hero of the day for those seeking the truth, he goes to the Middle East and he comes back and he goes, all I have to ask is how is it that Israel can exist with all these people who want to do them harm?
Ian MalcolmAnd he said it, he goes, when their neighbors want to do them harm. And so I responded with just that poll where 65% of the Israelis who were polled said that they wanted to genocide literally all the Palestinians. And I said, yes, Robert, how can the Palestinians live by this group who wants to mass genocide them? That's a good question, right?
Ian MalcolmAnd I say this because, you know, we're seeing that with our kind of intellectual punches, Right, that we can poke holes in this narrative that are far more dangerous to those people in charge than any kind of radical calls to action, hate, animosity, etc. We just got to be honest, right? We got to call the world like we see it and be willing to basically intellectually punch back at this machine that just gaslights, it lies, it obfuscates, and it hides from conversation, right?
Ian MalcolmIt was so funny, the ADL, so speaking of that little post, they got the post up. A couple people were able to throw in some little jabs at their lunacy. The last time I checked, there were 17 comments and 16 of the 17 had been hidden by the ADL because they only got one positive comment. This is pretty wild to think how unpopular this group has become because of precisely what we're doing.
Ian MalcolmSo, Corey, I think that was a wonderful little intro. And I'm looking for... I think you said it was LB. I had not seen anybody yet requesting. I was looking for them, but very excited to kind of understand, right? You know, I look at this problem, I look at Jewish supremacy, and I say the most important thing is that we advocate awareness to this issue, that we moralize our people to recognize how evil it and all of the things downstream from it are, and then the willingness
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment?
Ian MalcolmAspect of controlled opposition. I'm kind of curious for your thoughts on where you think things are going. Is that idea of a third party remotely reasonable? Or when you say the nationalist effort, right, restoring nationalism, are you thinking that there needs to be a complete kind of detour altogether from the current political structure?
@coreyking88Okay, so that's a really difficult question to ask without giving background. But before I answer that, I would like to have Jessica give it a go. If Jessica will... Hi, hi.
@tnpusaHi, Ian. Hi, JoAnn. Hi, Jessica. Nice to meet you. Hi, nice to meet you, too. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having all of us. Okay. So, why don't you ask me that again? I'm pretty sure that you wanted to know if, basically, it seems to me that, well, let me just try and distill the question as I heard it. Basically, you want to know if we're proposing to do something within the current system or if we're proposing to do something completely different outside of the current system.
@tnpusaBy system, I mean the government system. And the answer would definitely be We are doing something outside of the current government system.
Ian MalcolmUnderstood. So let's, let's maybe, uh, and, and perhaps, uh, because there's the we there and I feel like Corey did a really nice job of kind of giving a little bit of an intro on himself. Maybe Jessica, we could get a introduction kind of on this effort, how you guys came to be as obviously a passion project that has become something more.
Ian MalcolmUm, and then we can talk about what some of those aims might be just so everybody has that background.
@tnpusaOkay, so first of all, L.B. Bork did a lot of research back in the, I guess, the 20th century. That sounds so odd to say. And he found some interesting stuff in our statutory law. He read the 14th Amendment. He studied Reconstruction period and what happened with the war between the states, which people know as the Civil War.
@tnpusaAnd he deciphered the 14th Amendment and he discovered what it really says. So to give a little background on that, you've got to understand the original structure of the states and why it's called the United States. So I don't know. I'm just going to give a little history lesson here, I guess. The reason that the United States is called the United States is because it's a union of states.
@tnpusaAnd prior to the 14th Amendment and the war between the states, only white people could be Americans, and there was no such thing as American citizen. That's defined in law in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Prior to that political status, Which was created allegedly to give civil rights and political rights to the freed slaves, Americans held the political status of citizen and national of their respective state.
@tnpusaSo this is why secession was legal and it had to be put down, so to speak, with a war. A violent, bloody war. And the 14th Amendment was installed to sort of validate what they did with that war, which was completely illegal and unlawful. And basically to also put whites on the same political footing as these freed slaves.
@tnpusaSo this is really not good for us. I mean, anybody can look around and go, okay, so we're all equal with these foreigners, and this is really just a bad deal for whites and whites everywhere. So there's a lot more to it historically than that, but that's basically what happened and the period of time in which that happened was the Reconstruction period.
@tnpusaSo that's the sort of abridged background that I can give about what we do. And the short explanation of what our solution is, really, really short explanation, is political status correction for white Americans. That political status that existed prior to the 14th Amendment Still exists for us, not for anyone else, and we can reclaim it via expatriation from the 14th Amendment and repatriation to our lawful states, which are the organic lawful states of the American Union.
@tnpusaThis will regain our political power, and it will solve all of our problems, basically. And it's really, you know, you were saying earlier, one of the solutions, it really is the only solution. There is no solution to be found inside the current reconstructed governmental system for whites at all. It is designed from the ground up.
@tnpusaReconstruction, which it didn't really reconstruct anything, by the way. It constructed a whole new system. This whole system post-14th Amendment is designed to destroy us. So it really is the only solution.
@coreyking88Allow me to add to that as well really quick.
Ian MalcolmJust really quickly, I wanted to give a big shout out and a warm welcome to Mr. Ryan Dawson. And we'd be curious to kind of bounce some of these ideas off him if he wants to listen in a little bit, kind of get oriented and maybe share a thought or two. So go for it, Corey.
@coreyking88Yeah, so the history of, like the modern history of what LB has created and what he's done is he created an organization called the People's Awareness Coalition. And through this organization, he has educated thousands upon thousands of people. He's corrected the political status of many, many, many people over the years.
@coreyking88And through this education, through this process, the continual affirmations of the solution have been there. To support the claims that we're making. So this isn't something that's coming out of the blue. It's not just intellectual. It has been an action. It has been an effect. And there has been this movement for almost 30 years showing the validity of these things that we're saying.
@coreyking88And so what we're coming at this with is we don't exercise law theory. We don't practice theory of law. That is, we don't look for idealistic things in the code. We don't try to make things up to suit our bias. Rather, we go to the code, we go to the language of the law, and we study that, and then we determine what the truth is from there.
@coreyking88Not only that, but also government systems and history. And so, what we're talking about here, we have an open challenge to anybody, anywhere, that would like to The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment was constructed in fraud because of the fraud of the 14th Amendment and because of the remedy that was actually built into the 14th Amendment and into the laws before that and after that.
@coreyking88There is the ability today for every person who was able to be a citizen in 1790 or 1802 or 1850. Everybody who could have been a citizen or a national of a state at that point, they can still be a national or a citizen today. So there is the ability in law, and this is expressed in international law, that tells the right to choose your own nation.
@coreyking88You can't be forced into a nationality. To the actual expression of the 14th Amendment, of what it allows and how it was put forth, and then also to the Expatriation Act, and to the very, very, very many attempts that people have made from the wrong political status to effect change on these things. These aren't, the facts of the matter of the 14th Amendment fraud aren't really in question.
@coreyking88This is pretty common knowledge that it was built in fraud. But the remedy to it, the actual solution to it, That's where probably the challenges will come from. That's where most of the challenges often do come from because people exercise their position from what is currently law in the common law jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment.
@coreyking88So this is where that might break. So the bullet points are that this thing happened, that the 14th was created in fraud. And then everything after that has been basically controlled condition built around that by a rump Congress that has no legitimate force on the nationals of the states, but only on 14th Amendment citizens, and that we have the only solution that the law actually prescribes to that problem.
Ian MalcolmOkay, and for those, and I'll be curious if Ryan has any thoughts on this so far. I'm going to be curious about it. Oh, I do. I'm just waiting. All right.
Speaker 5I don't see what you're talking about with the 14th Amendment as a fraud. I also need to interject that northern states did not allow black suffrage after the Civil War until the 15th Amendment. You had Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Nevada, Oregon, and California, all Yankees by the way, did not allow black voting until the 15th Amendment.
Speaker 5And in some states where they did allow it, it was conditional where you had to own property and pay $500, and it was basically impossible, like Wisconsin and stuff. So they never allowed it until the 15th Amendment said that you can't deny natural-born citizens voting. And they worded the 14th Amendment the way they did, like, oh, you got to be born there.
Speaker 5So the Chinese slaves they imported to California, for example, were not born there. So they could not... So, can I address that?
@coreyking88Hang on. Before you do, Jessica, can we invite LB to introduce himself real quick? Because I see him now in the speakers.
@tnpusaYeah, there he is. LB, you need to request to be a speaker, I think. No, he's already on there. LB, go for it.
Speaker 5Oh, and the 15th did not apply to Asians or Native Americans. So that wasn't even what it said it was either.
@joann_marieLB is the jurist?
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@tnpusaWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@tnpusaHere it is in this day and age. The issue is that the 14th Amendment put the newly freed slaves on equal political footing as whites who had previously held the political status of citizen and national of their respective state. There was no such thing as a citizen of the United States prior to the 14th Amendment. And for evidence of that, you can see the Dred Scott decision.
@tnpusaDred Scott could not be a citizen of the United States because no such thing existed. And he could not be a citizen of any one of the states because each state had its own rules regarding who could be a citizen of the United States. I understand.
Speaker 5Prior to the Civil War, the United States are, not the United States is. But it wasn't equal footing because they took voting rights away from Confederate veterans. So even though The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5They were still three-fifths of a person. I mean, they weren't equal. They weren't considered equal. And the Civil War did nothing to change that. It wasn't until the 15th Amendment that they did that.
@tnpusaThey were given citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Speaker 5It's not really citizenship if you can't vote. I mean, that's one of the rights granted by citizens is the right to vote.
@tnpusaSo the 14th Amendment is literally Statutory law. It's literally codified law. So if it says they're citizens, then they are citizens. The issue of voting had to be hashed out in each individual state with the federal law coming in and working that all out, and now they can all vote. So...
Speaker 5But do you understand what I'm saying? If citizenship is not coupled to voting rights, then you're not on equal footing even though you're given citizenship because it doesn't have the same rights as others.
@tnpusaThey were given citizenship and it was worked out later in each one of the states. It's not like you can snap your fingers and instantly erase all of these state laws in each one of the states.
Speaker 5The federal government gave the states the potential to allow voting rights if they chose, whereas before there was none. And they chose not to in the North. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Ian MalcolmWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@tnpusaMoral value, you know, oh, let's free the slaves because we're such great people. No, that's not the issue at all. The issue is that the lawful bodies politic of the United States constitutionally are the people that are the citizens and nationals of the state, not citizens of the United States of America. And
@tnpusaThe Controversial 14th Amendment was inflicted in order to put white people on equal political footing with Blacks. In order to destroy the Southern states and to destroy our white homelands, our white nations. Now, you can read...
Speaker 5It was to get a Republican monopoly in all the Senate for the new states too, because they guaranteed that if you won't let one group vote, And you will let the other. Then, you know, that group's going to build its own interest.
@tnpusaThere's a lot of things. Okay, so without getting too far into the weeds, there's some things that people can read. There's a book called America, Free, White, and Christian by Charles Weissman, which you can get at the Internet Archives for free, which will show the state of the Union prior to the 14th Amendment and the war.
@tnpusaThere's a book by James G. Blaine called 20 Years in Congress where he literally states that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to predetermine everyone's citizenship status and that it was for white men also. Let's see. Oh, and there's an article that you can find online. If you're curious about how the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments got installed, specifically the 14th Amendment, and it's in the Alabama Law Review.
@tnpusaAnd it's, uh, I forget the name of the author, he's a lawyer. It's called Unorthodox and Paradox, and it details the installation of the 14th Amendment and how it was unlawful. And all of the shenanigans point by point that they used to get it installed after the fact to justify their war. Now, there was a lot going on there.
@tnpusaThe southern states were under military occupation. They weren't allowed to have lawful governments. The North basically sent their own people down there to take over the governments, take over the Senate seats and Congress because they knew that they would vote the way they wanted to get the 14th Amendment installed. And it was absolutely not lawfully ratified.
@tnpusaNow, here's something. That's probably going to kind of throw people for a loop. The 14th Amendment never needed to be lawfully ratified because it's not actually technically a real amendment. What it is is a clause that attaches to the federal constitution that allows individuals to contract with this entity, Washington, D.C., that calls itself the United States of America.
@tnpusaTo be citizens. It's a private law contract between this entity, the United States of America, that operates in Washington, D.C., and the individual, because in American law, government is by individual consent only. No one can govern you without your consent. This is in the 13th Amendment. You can read the 13th Amendment, no slavery, no involuntary servitude.
@tnpusaVoluntary servitude is perfectly legal, however, and in the United States you are free to choose any stupid communist nonsense government to govern you that you want to. And now it's been 150 years later, everyone's gone to government school, we've all heard about the glorious savior Lincoln and the Union was restored and the 14th Amendment and we're all American citizens.
@tnpusaBut that's not the constitutional political status of Americans. It's just a choice that people make, and they contract with this corporate entity called the United States of America. Prior to the 14th Amendment, individuals were not, they didn't have anything really to do with the federal constitution. Each state had its own constitution.
@tnpusaSo, the individual's political allegiance was given to their state, which was their nation of the Union. So, for example, John Brown, who staged the attack on Harpers Ferry, was Convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was not convicted of treason against the United States of America. And Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was charged with treason against the United States of America, and the charges were dropped.
@tnpusaNow, or the case was dismissed. Now, the excuse they gave was ex post facto clause. But that doesn't really make much sense because every charge is ex post facto because people do crimes and then they get charged with the crime after they do the crime. They could not convict Jefferson Davis of treason because he had not committed treason against the United States of America.
@tnpusaHis political allegiance was given to his country, which was Mississippi. He was fighting for his country. Now, this is also the same thing that, well, it's that Mel Gibson movie, Braveheart. William Wallace, back in the 14th century, was put on trial. Of course, things were considerably different under King Edward I. But that's what he said to King Edward I, is, how could I betray you?
@tnpusaYou were never my king. Okay, so these are just, Incidental things that demonstrate the political status of people prior to the 14th Amendment. The Federal Constitution is basically a private law compact between the states. The states formed the United States and they wanted some things done. Uniformity of coinage, uniformity of naturalization, mutual defense.
@tnpusaAnd they created a committee. They created a corporate entity. They gave it the little 10 square miles-ish of Washington, D.C. and said, here, you put your offices here, you operate here, and you're called the United States of America. Right? And this is the federal constitution. And it does not house citizens. It's basically for the governance of this little committee.
@tnpusaWhen the 14th Amendment was The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@tnpusaWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@tnpusaThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@tnpusaYou know, but see, they operate under a maxim of law that says basically the contract makes the law. So it's whatever the people in the contract say it is. You know, so if we all agree that this entity that operates out of Washington, D.C. is a country, it's something not necessarily a country, but it's some sort of entity that can house citizens, then the contract makes the law because we all agree.
@tnpusaMoney works the same way. Paper money works the same way. That little piece of paper, it's got a bunch of zeros on it. It's not worth, you know, this much groceries or that much groceries based on its own whatever it's got inside it. It's just a little piece of paper with some zeros on it. Our agreement that it's worth, you know, this much groceries or that much groceries is what gives it its power.
@tnpusaSo that's the same concept. The contract makes the law. It works the same way if you go to poker night and you all sit down and you don't have a, you know, you want to play poker. You want to play poker with a bag of split peas, I don't know, a bag of popcorn, whatever. And you say each one of these kernels is worth a dollar.
@tnpusaWell, then it's worth a dollar. And that's because the contract makes the law and you all agree. So that's the premise. But again, no one can force you to be a 14th Amendment citizen. Now, that being said, Here's the really interesting and even more mind-blowing part, which the concept of private law contracts between corporate entities and individuals might be a little mind-blowing for some people to grasp, and maybe not so much for some other people, depending on how much you know about this sort of thing.
@tnpusaBut here's something that's really quite mind-blowing, is Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which says, That you are not represented in the new reconstructed government system unless you participate in the rebellion. And I want you all to think about that for a minute. The rebellion is that war of 1861. Now, this is, yeah, when you start to think about it, it's really kind of a lot to grasp.
@tnpusaBut that war was never formally ended. There was a cease of hostilities, there was a gentleman's agreement, but there is no peace treaty that ends that war. You can search the Library of Congress until the cows come home, you will never find a peace treaty that ends the war between the states. It was not a civil war, it was an international war because, as I've already stated, the states themselves
@tnpusawere nations in their own right with the clipped sovereignty that was given to Washington, D.C., the 10 square miles and its little committee called the United States of America, to do those tasks for it. But the secession that the southern states were doing was perfectly legal and constitutional. There was nothing wrong with what they were doing, they just wanted to
@tnpusaThey formed the union. They wanted to leave the union. So, if you look at Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, you will see that it has two sentences. One sentence, the first sentence, has I think 22 words in it.
@tnpusaAnd the second sentence has 110 words in it. So sentence one, and this is a total of 132 words, two sentences, 110 words in the second sentence. Now, if you Google, like I did, how many words are in each sentence of section two of the 14th Amendment, you will get an AI overview and the sentence breakdown. This is what AI has given me.
@tnpusaSentence 1, 22 words, focuses on apportioning representatives based on the whole number of persons in each state, excluding untaxed Indians. Now, one might ask why that was needed, because this was already in the federal constitution already, so it's kind of redundant. Now, sentence 2, 110 words. This is where it gets interesting.
@tnpusaoutlines the reduction of representation if the right to vote is denied to adult male citizens with exceptions for participation in rebellion or crime. The reduction of representation if the right to vote is denied except for participation in rebellion. Now, If we go over to, let's see, LB. Now, LB wrote a couple of treatises, and I'm wondering if we can have links, because if we can have links for people, that would be really great.
@tnpusaI would love LB to put up links to his essay, Treason by Design, his other essay, Historical Error, and a link to His little one-page explanation about the 14th Amendment, Section 2. So let's go over this sentence in Section 2. And I'll take the 110 words and I'll just replace the irrelevant words that could be replaced with anything.
@tnpusaPeanut butter, chocolate chips, whatever you want. And I'll say, blah, blah, blah. So I'm going to start now. And the second... A sentence says, blah, blah, the right to vote, blah, blah, blah, and it goes on to say, at any election for the choice of elect blah, blah, blah, representatives, blah, blah, blah, and the members of the legislature, blah, blah, blah, is denied, blah, blah, blah, to the blah, blah, blah of blah, blah, blah, being blah, blah, old enough and citizens of the United States.
@tnpusaOr in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation shall be reduced blah blah blah proportions blah blah blah. So what you have there is a sentence that says the right to vote is denied except for participation in rebellion. So right there, you can see that you are not represented
@tnpusaIn the reconstruction government, unless you participate in this rebellion against the organic United States of America, every single one of you people who is a 14th Amendment federal citizen is in rebellion against the organic constitutional United States. So if you are wondering why you get treated like a criminal, it's because legally,
@tnpusaYou are a criminal. And now before you want to, you know, push back at me because I know that's really hard to believe, you can look up, again, I don't know if we can post links for people, but you can find, and I don't know if we can post links on our X account, but I do know that we have these links to these essays in our Telegram account and our Facebook group.
@tnpusaYou can find the essay, Historical Error, and I think it's something like, LB knows, I think it's something like 12 or 14 pages, I don't remember. But the last page has a breakdown of this sentence that I don't know if you guys are old enough to remember. I'm old enough to remember when we were taught how to diagram sentences in school.
@tnpusaIt's got a diagram of this sentence. It absolutely says that. So, this is why The remedy to the problems that we face in the United States for our people, for white people, is to expatriate from that 14th Amendment and repatriate to our organic state under our feet, which is our lawful nation of the North American Union.
@tnpusaNow, the reason that this works is because when you remove yourself from the 14th Amendment and declare your political allegiance via expatriation, which, by the way, is well established, the right to expatriation is well established in American law, and even if it wasn't, you would still have the right to expatriate because no one can hold a gun to your head and force you to give them your political allegiance.
@tnpusaYour political allegiance is yours to give. And this is basic principles of contract law or, you know, any kind of law, which is contractual by nature. And you can't, you know, be forced into contracts. You can't be coerced into contracts. You can't be tricked into contracts, okay? So if any of these things happen, you can leave a contract.
@tnpusaSo expatriation back to your state is the remedy. This regains our political power and creates, we have to create a whole new, we have to start over, create a whole new political system for ourselves and leave the 14th Amendment to the foreigners, which that's what it's there for. So I'm going to take a breather now and I'm going to let LB come on.
@tnpusaAnd expound on this. Okay? Thanks.
Ian MalcolmAnd real quick, before we do, just to kind of, I suppose, throw up any counterpoints, I'm kind of curious, Ryan, anything that you heard there that you think kind of... The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5They had Yankee Carpet Beggars come down and take over their government to expand the power of the Republican Party. That's what really happened.
@lb_borkNot really.
Speaker 5It did happen. They took the rights away.
@lb_borkThat's why the Klan was formed. Those are narratives. They're not the law. It's not the law.
Speaker 5The Rebellion was absolutely the Civil War. They're called the rebels. They had the rebel flag. That is who they were.
@lb_borkIt was shot down by the Supreme Court that they weren't rebels.
Speaker 6Really, really quick, really quick. LB, can you just continue?
Speaker 5They took their votes away.
Speaker 6They did it.
Speaker 5They took the voting rights away from Confederates. That's absolutely who they addressed. But you're right, you can't ratify the 14th Amendment legally when you've got states that are under Reconstruction who have a massive voting base that aren't allowed to participate. That makes it invalid right there, but for a different reason.
Ian MalcolmAnd out of curiosity, Ryan, is this a kind of an intellectual frame that you're familiar with and you've seen other people take, or is this kind of a first time on this subject?
Speaker 5I wrote a book about Reconstruction, I know what I'm talking about. Like, this is... This is not like, oh, you're a citizen of a corporation and all this is kook stuff. Like, they wanted to punish the states that rebelled so they could gain political power. And the whole reason for the war was to maintain the tax base.
Speaker 5Yeah, the southern states were paying 80% of all the taxes. There was no income tax until Lincoln. Didn't exist.
@tnpusaThe southern states did not rebel. No, they didn't.
Speaker 5Well, I would say they didn't rebel. They fought a war because the North invaded. I mean, Lincoln put... Well, I agree. They got attacked. They seceded. They considered secession rebellion because you left the United States. You left their tax farm. That's what they consider rebellion. And they'll blame it on, well, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter.
Speaker 5Like, no, the... Lincoln sent the USS Harriet Lane and other revenue cutters down there and fired on the Nashville before Fort Sumter. You started the war. You put a blockade in North Carolina and Virginia, who had not seceded yet, until after you put a blockade on your own states, because by definition, they're not seceding and they're still part of the Union, you just said, so you're blockading your own state.
Speaker 5That forced them out. They seceded. And that was half of the Confederacy was Virginia, North Carolina. They're the most populous states in the CSA. It was Lincoln's war. But after the war in the 14th Amendment, the people they're punishing, who they're saying, oh, you can't have your rights to vote of abridge unless you were part of the rebellion.
Speaker 5The rebellion was definitely talking about people who seceded. Anybody that participated in the Confederate government, anybody that was a veteran.
@tnpusaNo, no, no. So let's talk about definitions here. And for our definitions, we can use online for free, you can look up the Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary. And this is a dictionary that's particular to the Constitution, and this is why we use it. To be considered a rebel and to be by definition a rebel are two different things.
@tnpusaThe southern states and the people of the southern states were never rebels by definition. They were secessionists. A secessionist is not the same as a rebel. And if you want to go look up these definitions in Bouvier's 1856, you can, or you can just take my word for it.
Speaker 5It's not based on what's in the dictionary, it's based on what happened. Law is whatever power says it is. They didn't take the voting rights away from Yankees. They're in the Union, too. They only took it away from Southerners because they labeled them as rebels. Even if they weren't, they won the war. They get to do what they want.
Speaker 5They said, you're a rebel and we're taking your vote away, and they did.
@tnpusaIt doesn't make you a Martian because a Martian is a thing that has a definition.
Speaker 5I don't think it was right or lawful. But it was done. And that's who it was done to. They won the war, and they get to say, if they want to call you a rebel, then you are.
@tnpusaNo, they did not win the war because the war never ended. The war is continued perpetually, and it's codified into law in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.
Speaker 5That's just technical babble. The Southern Army surrendered, the Navy surrendered, the war was over, the North won the war, and they got to implement their will.
@tnpusaStatutory law. It is statutory law. Statutory law, okay, so first of all, technical babble is a contradiction in terms. You have the statutory law, which is the law. That's why it's called the law, the letter of the law, and that is... It says what it says. And it's not babble. It is technical. There is no peace treaty.
@tnpusaThat is, it doesn't exist. Okay? This war is perpetual and it is going on right now. And when you accept 14th Amendment citizenship, which is 100% voluntary, by the way, You have to agree to participate in rebellion. The right to vote is denied except for participation in rebellion.
Speaker 5Now, let me point out again- Well, you could see from the union- And then you rejoin the union, and then you have lost the war of secession because you have now rejoined the United States. You lost.
@tnpusaDo I have to open a dictionary for you and read you- Do I really have to vote?
Speaker 5Do you need to open reality to you? It doesn't matter what the- This is- I'm talking about what happened on the ground. The loss of the war. They were reincorporated in the Union. They were not allowed to secede. They are all part of the United States now. There is no Confederacy anymore. The war is over.
@coreyking88Hey, Ryan, it seems like what you're coming at this from is that kind of might makes right for the conqueror. We understand that perspective. We understand what that means. We even understand that under the law. The difference of what we're talking about here is That everything that's happened can be understood through the law.
@coreyking88You don't actually have to disuse of it and say they just enforced their will upon people because they could. Simplify it. Yeah, but even though they were forced to do so- You can observe the law and see how- Right, legally, in the law, they are not seceding. They have rejoined the United States, right? Oh my god.
Speaker 5All southern states were reincorporated into the United States and into the Union. They're no longer under secession. There is no more Confederacy. Legally.
@tnpusaAnd all of the people who are in those southern states are now 14th Amendment citizens. Prior to the 14th Amendment in 1868, all of those people were citizens and nationals of their respective states. There was no such thing as a citizen of the United States of America. A nation is its people. It's not a patch of dirt.
@tnpusaA state is its people. It's not a patch of dirt.
Speaker 5I don't have any disagreement there. There was no U.S. citizen before the Civil War. All that's part. I'm talking about when in the writing, when they're talking about those who rebelled, that absolutely is aimed at the Southern secessionists who, in practice, had their voting rights taken away. So you don't have to guess at it.
Speaker 5That's who they're talking about because that's who it affected. That's what actually happened.
@tnpusaOK, so let me ask you this. Why? Is it in the 14th Amendment, which is permanently attached to the federal constitution, why would it need to be attached permanently when all of those people would shortly be dead? That makes absolutely no sense. The 14th Amendment was attached for perpetuity. So that to this day, the 14th Amendment defines
@tnpusaAmerican Citizenship. And this is so that the federal government can control all of the people of the United States. So why don't you explain to me why something that didn't need to be installed permanently, because all these people would be dead, was installed permanently?
Speaker 5Because the Republican Party wanted a monopoly on power as a power grab, and it's not going to wait for all those people to die. They did not want Confederates holding government. They did not want the people who just, you know, if I don't get to talk, it doesn't matter.
@lb_borkThis is blather. I got the reference from Amgier. Here it is. Rebels, a term loosely but incorrectly applied to the Confederate forces engaged in the Civil War. 30 Amgier
@lb_borkRevised Edition, Insurrection, Section 2.
@lb_borkAnd? You're talking political blather. That agrees with what I said.
Speaker 5That's not law. They were labeled rebels and they had their rights taken away.
@tnpusaDid you not hear what he just said? Can you say that again, please?
Speaker 5Yeah, it says what I said.
@lb_borkNo, you didn't. You're saying...
Speaker 5Answer this. Did Confederate veterans and people who are in the Confederate government have their rights taken away, their voting rights taken away after the war?
Speaker 5Yes, they did. That's who they're talking about. As rebels.
@lb_borkBut they're not rebels. They weren't rebels.
Speaker 5Yeah, I agree. They shouldn't have been labeled that, but they were.
@tnpusaLet me just state again, I can put... The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5And that's what they did.
Speaker 3Really quick, Jessica.
@coreyking88One second. So for much of the history that you can look back to any country, you'll notice that the law is in a language that is not the common language of the people. There's a reason for this, and there's a reason why we have law dictionaries versus layman's dictionaries. If you pick up a law dictionary and you go into a court, if it's the right one, it's the right dictionary for the right time,
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@joann_marieWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5So you don't have to guess at who they're talking about. When they talk about those who rebelled, they're talking about the Southerners.
@lb_borkNo, the 14th Amendment took them away in the North.
Speaker 5It did not remove voting rights away in the North.
@lb_borkYes, it did. You can't vote unless you're a U.S. citizen, Einstein.
Speaker 5It automatically made anybody that lived in any of the states a U.S. citizen, and they could vote before and they could vote after, but you could not do that in the South. Even though you're also technically part a U.S. citizen because you're born in a state that belongs to the Union. But your voting rights taken away because they made one exception.
Speaker 5They can't take your voting right away unless you rebelled. But yet nobody in the North is categorized as rebelling. Only people in the South are categorized as rebelling because that language was aimed at the Confederates.
@lb_borkListen, all the language in the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Southern states. Just like Jessica tried to explain to you.
Speaker 5It has absolutely nothing to do with the Southern states. It's just a huge coincidence that only people in the Southern states who rebelled had their rights taken away.
@lb_borkIt's in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with it.
Speaker 5But only Confederate veterans and people that participated in the Confederate government had their right to vote taken away. Nobody in the North had their right to vote taken away.
@lb_borkYou're not listening.
Speaker 5You're not listening.
@lb_borkNo, you're not listening. I've been doing this 30 years. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@joann_marieWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkHe's Mr. Know-It-All, you know?
@coreyking88LB, please respond. Please respond to the question. With the insults.
Speaker 5Like, I've asked the same question like 50 times.
@coreyking88And you just dance around it. I'm trying to help get us to an answer here. If Ryan, if you won't interject, and LB, if you'd please just come and answer the question.
@lb_borkHe doesn't know grammar. He can't read the 14th Amendment properly. I don't even know why we have to talk about this any further.
Speaker 5If you don't want to talk about it, I'd like to go, just to address the audience, because I don't think you're going to listen, but I can tell everyone else.
@lb_borkYou're parroting the wrong information out there. There's tons of it.
Speaker 5When they added the clause, except for those in rebellion, that was definitely directed at the Confederacy, and you know that, because that's who had their rights taken away after the fact.
@tnpusaDo you need me to read you? I'm going to read you the definition here in Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary of rebel. A citizen or subject who unjustly and unlawfully takes up arms against the constituted authorities of the nation to deprive them of the supreme power either by resisting their lawful and constitutional orders in some particular matter or to impose
@tnpusaOn them conditions. In another sense, it signifies a refusal to obey a superior or the commands of a court. Now, were the northern states illegally making war on the southern states? Because it was the northern states who, according to this law dictionary, were rebels. Not the southern states. So it doesn't matter what label you want to take
@tnpusaWith your masking tape and your sharpie and slap on anybody's forehead because your labels with your sharpie and your masking tape are not the statutory law. The only thing that matters here is the definition— The Yankees that wrote that applied it to the Confederacy.
Speaker 5It's also in the Emancipation Proclamation during the middle of the war that only applied to slaves— Not, it only applied to slaves in the rebelling states, because they considered them rebels, and not in the places where they're not rebellion, which was the North.
@tnpusaThey could call them rebels, but they were not rebels, and they were not rebels as a matter of law. They never called them rebels in law, because in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it says that you, as a 14th Amendment citizen, have to participate in the rebellion. They, the North, knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that they were acting illegally and they had to legalize the war after the fact.
@tnpusaAnd how they did that was in the 14th Amendment by making everyone into a rebel and making them have to participate in the rebellion in order to vote. The contract makes the law.
Speaker 5The contract- The clause about rebellion, like, your votes won't be- you won't lose your right to vote unless you're in rebellion. Now, if it was everyone rebelling, like states' rights versus federal government, everyone would have lost their right to vote. But they didn't. They only took it away from Southerners. Because rebellion absolutely meant- You interrupt every time I get to this point.
Speaker 5The rebellion, as Lincoln had said, the rebelling states, he put it in his Emancipation Proclamation too, they considered secession rebellion- They were rebels, and you don't have to wonder what they meant, because you can look at who lost their right to vote under that clause, and it was the people they labeled as rebels, which were the Confederates.
@lb_borkLet me speak for a second, Jessica. Let me say something here. Okay. Who lost their right to vote after the 14th Amendment was put in place? Confederates. No, the North. They can't vote unless they're... A dual citizenship. The word shall is used in the 14th Amendment I think at least two times in the sections. That's future usage.
@lb_borkLike I said a few minutes ago, the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Confederate forces or what happened in the Civil War. It's all based on future.
@tnpusaSection 1. Shell, shell, shell.
Speaker 5They're voting as U.S. citizens instead of citizens of New York or whatever like that. They still get to vote. The people in the South lost their right to vote, period. Even if they considered themselves U.S. citizens, if they participated in the rebellion, which was secession, they were not allowed to vote. And that is what rebellion means.
Speaker 7To them, the ones that wrote it, that's who they applied it to.
@coreyking88That's who lost their right to vote. Hey, Ryan, let me respond to you real quick. So... When you have a right to vote, which right to vote is kind of not the correct terms anyway for the original constitution. But when you have the right to vote, it means you're a citizen and that you inherently have this right, even if it's not enumerated.
@coreyking88You just have this thing, and it's because it's your country. But when the 14th Amendment was contracted into existence, which means that it was never ratified, it's a fraud, it created a whole new government. That government is not your government. That is a government that you have to engage with now, but it is not your government.
@coreyking88That government has presumed you to be part of its people, but that doesn't make you- I agree with all of that. Please wait. Please wait, Ryan. Let me give the whole thought out. So this new government that is this 14th Amendment federal system government, which is not constitutional, original constitutional government.
@coreyking88It's a new thing altogether. When you are presumed to be this thing, you don't have an option at that point if you don't have knowledge of the facts of the matter, what's happening. And you go and you vote for the president of this 14th Amendment government, which is not the constitutional government that you had voting rights to.
@coreyking88Now you're voting for a person to be a political person in a different government entirely. You're voting for a president of a different government. Now that act of voting for a president of a different government makes you a rebel. This is the action that distinguishes a person from being presumed to being overtly part of a new government, which is the 14th Amendment government.
@coreyking88If you're not voting for a president or a county commissioner or whatever in the du jour original constitutional government, the Republican government, then you're voting for a 14th Amendment. Now, by the act of voting, you're in rebellion. By the act of reaping benefits from this new government, you're in rebellion. You're in a real definition, by the definitions in 56 Bouviers, you are in rebellion.
@coreyking88And by the obvious nature of what you can experience in the day-to-day, you're in rebellion, because everybody knows that if I were to go and vote for the Prime Minister of England, Well, how am I going to do that unless I'm a citizen of England? So you know that I am participating in another government. I'm in rebellion against my own government because I'm participating in their political system.
@coreyking88That's what we have going on in this distinction that was created by the contracting into existence of this new government. It was not ratified. It is not legal in any way. You admitted to that earlier. You said you agree with that. So we have this 14th Amendment system, and we have our constitutional government. Two completely different systems.
@coreyking88Now, if you say, The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88It doesn't change the fact that you're in rebellion against your constitutional government, which was never dissolved in law, which still exists to this day, although it's not active. It's an empty shell. It doesn't do anything today because everybody's converted themselves through ignorance and through generational warfare against us, intellectual warfare, schooling, and everything else.
@coreyking88Everybody believes that there's this thing called the US citizen, the American, but the American The Controversial 14th Amendment of today has nothing to do with this country or this union of nations that existed pre-14th Amendment, a pre-Civil War. Now, the Civil War itself was an act of fraud. It was an act outside of the law that ought to have been obeyed.
@coreyking88It was not what we think it is today, and I think we agree on that as well. So everything that occurred, earlier you were saying the difference between the 14th and 15th, it's all reconstruction. So everything that happened from the Civil War onward has been in fraud. The 14th Amendment just codified that fraud. It made it real for everybody.
@coreyking88And then out of ignorance, the vast majority of the population has become rebels to their organic constitutional Republican government that guaranteed Republican governments throughout all the states. And then you have All of the benefits and all of the cool things that this government gives us, the mommy-daddy communist state.
@coreyking88And everybody's attached to these things, like attached at the teats. You know, you get your EBT, you get your voting rights because you get to vote for this president. But since when does any president get voted in by the popular vote? Since when does any president get voted in and actually serves the will of the people?
@coreyking88So you're fighting for a cause. That doesn't make sense to begin with. None of us want Trump to continue to do what he's doing. None of us want Obama. None of us want any of these people because they don't serve our interests. So bottom line is, do you want to continue to be a 14th Amendment citizen or do you want to explore the option that we're talking about here that says there is a remedy at law that we can exercise because these people wrote it in their own law?
@coreyking88There is a remedy that prevents us from having blood in the street While we are able to solve the problem that the 14th Amendment created, the reconstruction, the Civil War, the whole scene created, if you don't want to just rely on the 14th Amendment, the whole thing that happened right there, the changeover, the coup of our organic Constitution and our Republican governments, if you want to talk about a solution, well, we have one.
@coreyking88We don't have to argue so deeply into these semantics because the whole thing, the whole timeframe that we're talking about here, Yeah, by the way,
Speaker 5Can I redress this yet?
@lb_borkThat authority that you just mentioned in generalities, Corey, is this government or this state in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is created under Article 4, Section 3, which basically negates Article 4, Section 4. And the people are living in that state or that jurisdiction. And that's the government that they're voting for.
@lb_borkAnd like I've been telling people for years, what part of taking the right of a state, their political powers away from them, and having them vote for this other system is not treason.
@lb_borkBeing part of this foreign government that's installed this system. It's treason and it's rebellion. And it says so right in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. The right to vote is denied except for participation in rebellion. And basically Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is just a complex formula that disenfranchises all the American citizens and all the states
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 8With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@tnpusaNo, only white people could be Americans. After the 14th Amendment, anyone could be an American.
@lb_borkIt's based on the Naturalization Acts that were never repealed, and they're still in full enforcement effect. And if you go back and read what Lincoln did and what they did with these new Immigration Acts, it's policy. And here's another thing that's off the Department of State, Trump took it down. But it says a stateless person is someone who, under national laws, does not enjoy citizenship.
@lb_borkThe legal bond between a government and an individual in any country, which would be any state in our case. While some people are a du jour, like I am, or legally stateless persons, meaning they are not recognized as citizens, Under the laws of any state, which would be the de facto states I just told you about, many people are de facto, everyone, except for me and Corey and some other people, or effectively stateless persons, which our states were taken away from us, under Article IV, Section 3.
@lb_borkPersons, meaning they are not recognized as citizens of any state, even if they have claimed a citizenship under the laws of one or more states. They told you right there what they did.
Speaker 8So your citizenship is degraded into a permanent residency, essentially?
@lb_borkNo, I'm not a resident.
@coreyking88I'm an alien, according to the U.S. No, LB, he's saying the 14th Amendment citizens.
@lb_borkYeah, well, that's a Republican form of government. You don't have to participate.
Speaker 5You don't have to pay income tax?
@lb_borkNo, I haven't paid income tax in 30 years. I haven't filled out any government forms, and I'm not a resident.
Speaker 5So I'd like to speak after listening for a long time. First of all, nonwhites could not become, other than blacks born in the U.S., still could not become U.S. citizens. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5Like, the word rebel means, well, if you vote, then you're a rebel because you're voting... Stop pretending! It's English! It's grammar! It's grammar! You lose your voting rights if you rebel, and voting is rebellion. That's circular. Like, well, if by voting I'm a rebel, and I lose my vote by being a rebel, then I can't vote.
Speaker 5That's not what happened. Rebel 100%. Y'all talk forever and I don't get to go. Rebel definitely meant those who engaged in insurrection, which was the Confederacy, who lost their rights to vote, period. Not, oh, well, now you have to vote for this new faction, the federal government, rather than Virginia or South Carolina, whatever.
Speaker 5Everybody, Yankees and Southerners, The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@joann_marieAre you an operative? Are you an operative? Are you an operative?
Speaker 5It doesn't matter. Rebel absolutely meant the Confederates. And you know that because that's who lost their right to vote.
Speaker 3Okay.
@tnpusaDo you know... Do you know what... You're trying to... You talk about semantics.
Speaker 5You're like, well, the Northerners lost their right to vote because now they have to vote under this new auspice of, oh, we have U.S. citizenship. Like, they still got to vote. They had representation. They got to participate and write their own laws. They got to do all that. Southern white people couldn't do that. Because Southern white people were considered rebels.
Speaker 5And that's the exemption in the 14th Amendment. That's who it was aimed at. It was aimed at white Christian Southerners who lost their right to vote.
@coreyking88Ryan, can I ask you a question? Or maybe a series? Sure. So do you agree or disagree or what that the 14th Amendment created a new government?
Speaker 5It created a new power of an existing government. What it created was federal citizenship. Which I totally disagree with, shouldn't have happened, but that's what it did. Okay, you don't think that it created a whole new government, uh, by- a standalone- No, the federal government was already there, they still had the same legislative body, the same president, the same court system, all of that was still in place as it was before it was created.
@coreyking88Okay, so this is- this is what I see as being the- the- the crux of the- the- the dispute, I guess, uh, is that if you don't st- If you don't see how a new government was formed by that thing that was done, you're not going to be able to get anywhere with what we're talking about, and we're not going to be able to follow the path that you're taking, the logical path that you're taking.
Speaker 5Well, likewise, if you don't see that the people who actually lost their vote by the exemption were the ones labeled as rebels, which were the Confederacy, and that's why they wrote it, Then there's nothing to say, but that is a fact. The only people who lost their ability to vote and participate in government were the Confederate veterans.
Speaker 5That is exactly what the word rebel was aiming at.
@coreyking88Right. You keep saying this, and we obviously have a dispute here over these terms and how they were used and everything, but let me just get to some root questions. I want to see exactly where this might go. The 14th Amendment. Was it properly ratified by our government? And is there a continuity between the pre-14th Amendment government and the post-14th Amendment government?
@coreyking88Is it the same government and the 14th was ratified properly constitutionally?
Speaker 5I don't think, in my opinion, it's not ratified constitutionally because Southern states were under Reconstruction. And so you can't really claim Okay, so if it's the same government, but the 14th wasn't ratified, then how would we abide by the 14th Amendment
@coreyking88Because every law that's placed in fraud is null and void on its face. So would your argument be that they're just enforcing this because they have the guns?
@markofmelb1974Yep.
Speaker 5They enforce it because they have the guns, but what happens is all southern states did rejoin the Union. There was enough of them doing that, and they lost the war. Saying the war is still going on, no it isn't. It's not. They agreed to rejoin the union and they're going to have to abide by that government's rules. And they agreed to it because they lost a war.
Speaker 5So it was enforced by guns. They had to come down and invade. They had to come down and invade and force people back into the union. It's not voluntary if they're just going to kill a million of you until you give up and say, okay, we'll go back in the union. That's not voluntary to be part of a union, obviously. So in that way, whatever happens after that isn't...
Speaker 5The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 7With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88We understand. There's different terms being used.
@lb_borkIt's law and political blather is what it boils down to.
Speaker 5The only thing we disagree about is what the word rebel is pointing to, and I'm saying it's pointing to the Confederates.
@tnpusaCan I say something real quick? I'm going to quote Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase here from July 1867, where he said, and I quote, If you bring these Confederate leaders to trial, it will condemn the North. For by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion. There you go. I think that Chief Justice Chase knew what he was talking about.
@tnpusaAnd I think that he probably used a law dictionary, because words— That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1It's all political blather.
Speaker 5The reason he has to pipe up and say that is because the 14th Amendment says that they are in rebellion.
@lb_borkWho says that? This guy's delusional, man. Okay, hang on, hang on, hang on. It's not delusional.
Speaker 5They did lose their right to vote. Okay, the only, hold on, hold on, hold on. The only exemption that takes your voting right away is those in rebellion. The ones who had their voting right taken away were the Confederates.
@tnpusaThey were considered in rebellion.
@coreyking88So hang on, Jessica. Hang on, Jessica. Let me continue with what I was doing a second ago. Because I believe we're getting somewhere. So, Ryan, I hope that you'll appreciate that both of these people, Jessica and LB, have been doing this for a very long time. And so, you know, hearing arguments 10,000 times over again and then having these conversations, it can...
@coreyking88It can be tiring to say the least, but I want to ask you some more questions if you don't mind and see if we can get to something where we find the root of this and see if we can change my mind or change your mind or however this might go. So the 14th Amendment did not create a new government is what you're saying, but if a law is null and void on its face, if it's unconstitutional and if it's null and void on its face because of that,
@coreyking88Then we shouldn't have to obey that law. We are lawfully allowed to just disobey them. And it's not even phrasing it correctly because there's nothing to obey. You know, it's like Marbury v. Madison. You don't have to obey it if it's unconstitutional. But we have this extraordinarily unconstitutional 14th Amendment. I mean, not ratified, not even proposed under a quorum.
@coreyking88And then they force the southern states Out of the chambers, they didn't even allow them in to vote, even though they let them vote on the 13th, so they obviously were disenfranchising the South. You know, everything about it. Everything about it being fraud. And we know that it's a fraud, and we have 158 years of people challenging the 14th Amendment in these 14th Amendment courts, saying all the things that we're saying.
@coreyking88So this isn't like something that people don't know about. This is obvious stuff that's accepted, but for one interpretation of law, And that interpretation of law comes down to the phrase... It comes down to having a sunset clause. It's the perpetual union, right? So all of the history before the 14th Amendment, everybody knew that the perpetual union phrasing in the Constitution did not mean that this union was going to go on forever and you couldn't secede.
@coreyking88They knew that it was... A perpetual union with no sunset clause, meaning there's not a time in which we're defining the end date of the union. But with the 14th Amendment, they changed the interpretation of the language and they say, no, actually, you can't secede because of this perpetual union that's written into the Constitution.
@coreyking88So that's the basis for their whole argument. It's like, you can't leave us because it says this thing. They've reinterpreted it. So, by these reinterpretations, these obvious frauds that are recognized, but they're never allowed to be affirmed in these courts, these 14th Amendment courts, would your solution be, because they're enforcing this by just having the most guns and everybody just abiding by that out of fear or whatever, or ignorance,
@coreyking88Is the only solution through this to have a bloody revolution? Or do you think that there's a way in which we could actually bring this problem of the fraud to these courts and get a win out of it? Do you see, personally, a way through that quagmire, knowing that they know that the whole thing was a fraud?
Speaker 5Realistically, I don't see us getting a win either way by an attempted rebellion or the courts. And you could say the same thing about the 16th Amendment and other things that weren't ratified. My issue is with the word in the 14th Amendment of rebellion and you applying that to everybody because there's a new federal citizenship.
Speaker 5Rather, it was definitely towards the Confederacy because that's who got their votes taken away.
@coreyking88Wait, were their votes taken away? Yes.
Speaker 7Is that the clause? What? Hold on. According to their own rule, the only thing that exempts you from being able to vote is participating in rebellion. Fine.
Speaker 1Well, okay. The Civil War is over.
Speaker 5A certain swath of people have their votes taken away.
Speaker 5Okay, great. What's the, uh, okay? Okay. You can go fuck yourself too, bud.
Speaker 3The amendment they wrote made an exemption.
Speaker 5Like, you can't have your vote taken away unless you participate in the rebellion. And they didn't take the voting right away from anybody except the people that they considered were part of a rebellion. You can say secession was legal, and I agree. You can say what ought to be all day. But it is whatever the people who write it and enforce it ask.
Speaker 5It's just semantics.
@joann_marieIt's kind of like how they call the resistance in Palestine terrorists, and they're not terrorists, they're resisting. So it's just semantics.
Speaker 5I agree.
@joann_marieYeah.
Speaker 5Yeah, but if they made a rule that took terrorist votes away and Palestinians lost their votes, it doesn't mean they're terrorists, but it means they were labeled as such and they lost their voting rights and that clearly that was aimed at them.
@joann_marieYeah, I'm 100% with you, Ryan. I just don't understand why everyone...
Speaker 5Exactly, so if they label Southerners or people who have participated in what they consider an insurrection as rebels and take their votes away, then that's what they meant by that word, because that's who they took the votes away from.
@coreyking88No, you really need to stop talking. That's not how law works. Ryan, who is the they that you're identifying? Who's the they that wrote the 14th Amendment? And all the amendments after that or whatever, who's the they?
Speaker 5Mainly the Republican Party, Thaddeus Stevens, and the rest of those Yankees. They came down and said, we're going to take the rights away from white Southerners so we can guarantee our party's victory and dominance over these states and the new states being formed in the West.
@coreyking88Okay, so the fundamental disagreement that we're having here is that if no new government was formed, Point one. That's point one. If no new government was formed, then we have a continuity of government that basically just exercised powers more than it was granted by the Constitution and then fulfilled those extra powers that it granted to itself to basically oppress its own people to greater and greater degrees for the narrow purpose originally of Republicans disenfranchising Southerners because they had a gripe with the Southerners.
@coreyking88Now, the second point to this is that if the 14th Amendment was not ratified constitutionally, then things like Marbury v. Madison and everything else that says that a constitution or an act or a law or anything that's in violation of the Constitution is null and void becomes null and void in and of itself. Which means that what we're in right now, from what your argument is if I see it, is that right now we're in a state of overt tyranny
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5The law is as the law does. It's just a bunch of words. But the only thing I'm arguing, I'm not saying like, yeah, I agree. All these amendments should, you know, they were ratified illegally. Secession should have been legal. They weren't actually in rebellion. I'm not saying this was the right thing to do or it was like correct or moral or anything like that.
Speaker 5All I'm saying is when they wrote rebel in the 14th Amendment that absolutely was directed at Southerners so they could strip their power away and take over their governments.
@lb_borkYou're absolutely wrong.
@coreyking88I totally agree.
@joann_marieOkay, so who was it then? If you don't agree with Ryan, who was the rebels?
@coreyking88Okay, so first of all, why agree?
@lb_borkLet me ask you this simple question. What part of turning the political power of your country, which would be each state in the Union, over to a foreign government is not part of being a rebel or in treason?
Speaker 7Well, which Yankee lost their right to vote for being rebelling? It's not a rocket science.
@tnpusaIt's about the right to vote.
Speaker 7What are you talking about?
@tnpusaAt the time.
@lb_borkI'm saying that's what the 14th Amendment does.
@tnpusaI'm going to read you. Let me read you this again. This is a quote by Chief Justice Solomon P. Chase from July 1867. He was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And I quote, If you bring these Confederate leaders to trial, it will condemn them all. For by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right.
@tnpusaHis capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. Because the North wants that we're in rebellion. Newsflash for all of you. This may come as a huge surprise, but what politicians say and what politicians do are quite often not the same thing. In other words, politicians lie. So, for example, there was a recent ruling on the 14th Amendment in the Supreme Court where they said that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies to everyone, and the reason
@tnpusaThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@tnpusaWe're proponents of the 14th Amendment at the time and who wrote the 14th Amendment and they are politicians and they're saying things like, well, obviously it's not going to apply to, you know, these foreigners, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, guess what, everyone? They lied because that's what politicians do. So when you are saying, you know, that they were labeled rebels, again,
@tnpusaWhat you call someone on the street or in the news or from a podium is not the same thing as what makes it into the statutory law. In statutory law, definitions are everything. Because you can't just have people, you know, I could sue someone over something and over a contract. And the things in the contract would have to be strictly defined.
@tnpusaRight? And this is why contracts come with definitions. If you hire a contractor to remodel your bathroom, it should, you know, say exactly what kind of tile and what kind of fixtures and what brand and how much they're going to cost. Because later on, if you have to take him to court, you don't get to just make up, you know, what a sink is.
@tnpusaBecause it's already defined, and this is what dictionaries are for. So when we're talking about statutory laws and constitutional laws, any kind of written public law, there's going to be definitions. If you ever tried to get a permit from your city to put a sandwich board outside of your business, There are put some tables out on the street in front of your cafe.
@tnpusaThey're going to tell you exactly how big those tables can be and how many chairs they can have and what the dimensions of that sandwich board are going to be and probably what colors you can use. Because these are things that are not up for debate. So when we talk about the word rebel and rebellion, this is why we refer to a dictionary and this is also why
@tnpusaThey're not supposed to be. Just like you can say...
Speaker 5We put sanctions on terrorist states, and then we can just say, Iran is a terrorist state. And then you can go to the dictionary and go, but they haven't engaged in terrorist acts. They haven't done X, Y, and Z that constitutes terrorism. Doesn't matter. We call them a terrorist state, and the sanctions go in place anyway.
Speaker 5And you can say the Southerners shouldn't be considered... Just a second. They shouldn't be considered it. You have a Chief Justice say that. You got all this legal framework saying, actually, secession was legal. You had the attempt of the Northeast doing it before. You had Texas doing it before. You didn't have any legal problems with it then.
Speaker 5South Carolina had a secession in the 1830s. You didn't have a legal problem with it then. Suddenly in the 1860s, it's illegal to do it. And then after the fact... You know, in the 14th Amendment, they say, well, now you can't secede. Like, we're putting that in there. You can't secede. You could before, now you can't.
Speaker 5You can say all that.
@tnpusaNo, you still can't. You still can't secede.
Speaker 5The fact is, the label matters. Even if you're like... This shouldn't be the case because by definition they're not actually a rebellion. They seceded and you invaded them. Oh, I know. I agree. But they did lose their right to vote. And they lost it because they were considered rebels by the people in power.
Speaker 9Hold on. Hold on. Listen. Listen. Listen. Before the Civil War... The three branches of government, and anybody that was federal, raised their hand and swore no to the Constitution. When they went in rebellion at that point, because they went in rebellion against their sworn, they raised their hand, they swore, then they went into rebellion.
Speaker 9They themselves were the ones that weren't able to come back and vote. All of the South, anybody that was in the South could still vote. It was just the ones that were sworn What? The three branches of government, executive, judicial, legislative, they swore their positions and then they rebelled. They rebelled against their oath.
Speaker 9So then from that point forward, they were excluded, but not the whole South.
@lb_borkThat's true, but still they didn't rebel against the United States because the governors of the states approved it. And I read the authority on that.
Speaker 9The governor takes an oath to the state.
Speaker 7I'm not arguing about whether they were actually rebels or not.
@lb_borkThe point is they can secede. Legally, I agree.
Speaker 5They should have been able to secede. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when they use the language of rebel, they are directing it to who they think were rebels. And you know who that is because that's who actually did lose their rights to vote. Otherwise, who is the rebels they're talking about?
Speaker 9They're talking about...
Speaker 9And then they rebelled against that oath. That's who they're talking about. Not the entire South.
Speaker 10Everyone is a rebel.
Speaker 9No, ma'am. Only the ones that, the judges, the three branches that raised their hand and sworn in, and then they succeeded. They rebelled against that oath. They were excluded. It wasn't the entire South. You're wrong.
@coreyking88So one point to consider as well, and this is for Ryan mostly, I think, by what he was saying, is that what you're talking about is sort of contextual or how people considered it in the day. And what Jessica just read was the legal or lawful or the official perception being that the Southerners were not rebels. So whether you want to consider it to be that by definitions don't matter, it's the will of those who have the might that make the rules, that was the lawful position.
@coreyking88That was the official position that the Southerners were not rebels. So let's even say that that's not the total official. Let's say there was a disagreement. Let's say that there was a difference between the legislature and the judicial. It doesn't really matter because ultimately the way our system works is that if the legislature decides to do something unconstitutional, who makes the decision on whether or not it's constitutional or not?
@coreyking88And so when we look at the official position of whether or not the Southerners were rebels, what Jessica just read actually defies what your claim is. It's that contextually and lawfully, It was that the Southerners were not rebels. They could not charge them as rebels. And so when you're saying, who are the rebels? We've mentioned this several times.
@coreyking88I don't know if it's that what we're saying is not clear enough yet, or we haven't fully been able to express it yet, maybe. And it goes back to some of those more fundamental disagreements that we have. I know you're bringing it back to rebel, but I think... I think that it's more about whether or not the law actually has any place, how it's written, in what actually occurs.
@coreyking88But if you look at the way that they went about this creation of this new system, whether it was in the continuity of the Republican government or whether it was a new government, however you want to look at it. When you look at the way that it happened and what's happened after the fact of its existence, being brought into existence, everything that's occurred has been following the law as it was written.
@coreyking88And so, you know, it's like an overlaid map. The original map is our organic Republican system, our constitutional system. And then post-14th Amendment, Post-Civil War, post-Reconstruction, all of that era, you could say. Post that, everything is following a different set of laws that they abide by. They don't go outside of the law.
@coreyking88They write the new law and then they abide by it. Everything really is written into law. Our law system is based not on an oral tradition, it's based on a written tradition. When we talk about the law, we're talking about things that were written down, that were made official by
@coreyking88As far as the law prescribed, they just did it in this clever way where they didn't actually create the 14th Amendment in law. They had to create a new system that had new laws that everybody would have to abide by. And so fundamentally, who are those that are rebels, are those that are presumed by this 14th Amendment government, which looks like it has a continuity with the old government, but in actuality it behaves totally differently.
@coreyking88And by its behavior, you can make an assessment of what it actually is and when that occurred and how it all happened. And so the 14th Amendment comes into existence, and then they presume that all of the people, including the former slaves, the blacks, including everybody, everybody, including the whites that were citizens of the states that were now disenfranchised,
@coreyking88In the way and in the government that they had before, and this is also part of the disagreement we're having, it's like, were the people who were citizens actually disenfranchised at any point along this path? Well, it's more nuanced than they could vote or not vote. It's where could they vote? In what jurisdiction could they vote?
@coreyking88In what nation could they vote? In what way can they vote? What effect those votes had? What voting itself The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88As Jessica was identifying the definition of that before in Bouvier's 1856, which by the way, the Bouvier's 1856 dictionary is still used in the Supreme Court today. It is still recognized today. And it was most certainly recognized during the period of the Civil War. That is the definition, or the lawful, proper jurisdictional definitions that were used at the time in which the 14th Amendment was written.
@coreyking88All the reconstruction occurred during the period in which the Civil War was occurring. That was the book and it's still used in the Supreme Court. So when we look at it with a little bit of nuance, not just can they vote, can they not vote, and how those events, how these events today are still affecting people, we can open up a door to viewing a little bit more of the spectrum of possibilities of how this thing came about.
@coreyking88So right now, if you vote for a president, For the United States federal system, which did not exist as it exists today, it was changed by an unconstitutional action, then everything ought to be unlawful, illegal, unjust, and outside of the jurisdiction of the constitutional organic government. I don't think that we disagree there.
@coreyking88But then the disagreement comes around that, well, because they have the guns and they just enforce the laws, it actually gives it validity. Under the law, but it doesn't because the law is a written tradition. And if something exists that was contrary to the constitutional government, to the constitutional states, to the constitutional nations that existed, then all those things are null and void, as has been repeated time and again, prior 14th Amendment, post-14th Amendment.
@coreyking88If it's unconstitutional, it's null and void on its face. If they're going to use guns against us because we are, or if they're going to use a monopoly of violence, let's say, against us because we tell the truth, does it mean that the truth is less true?
Speaker 5They have a clause that disenfranchises people from voting. The ones that got disenfranchised from voting were Southerners. It wasn't the entire South. It was the people, it was the gentleman before you who was speaking. It was like those who they say broke their oath against the Constitution, they can no longer participate in future government, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 5It did actually apply to Confederate veterans, but it was very easy to reverse. All they had to do was take an oath and say they uphold the Union, and then they have their rights back. But it was only in force on the Southerners. No Yankee lost their right to vote or anything like that. You say, well, now they're voting for a different type of government.
Speaker 5Well, yeah, everybody was. But that's not what the rebellion was against. The rebellion was definitely aimed at those that they considered I'm not sure that we're going to reach a point where we can...
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88Well, it's not a confusion, right? It's a disagreement of... I think fundamentally it's a disagreement of how the law works and the function of terms within the law, but...
@joann_marieI don't think he even agrees with it. He's just saying that this is who it affected. He doesn't say that it's okay or anything.
Speaker 7I'm not saying it was right.
Speaker 5I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying when they wrote that, that was directed... When they wrote Rebel, when the Republicans... Put that in the 14th Amendment. That was aimed at stripping rights away from former Confederate politicians so that none of them could participate and the Yankees would take over the governments of the South with ease.
@joann_marieBut he's not saying that it was okay. Like, you all agree on this. No, we totally agree. You're just disagreeing with the meaning of one word.
Speaker 5We totally agree.
@joann_marieAnd I'm with Ryan.
Speaker 5He knows that we all agree that it wasn't okay. Like, it was obvious that it was wrong.
@coreyking88Right, the problem we're having is not that we disagree on the morality or the justness of the act. It's whether or not there's basically a remedy that's produced from this. We are saying that there is a remedy, and we have this remedy, we've exercised it, we have the proofs of it. If we don't have a remedy to the legal problem here, if we don't have a remedy to the political status issue, if we don't have a remedy to what this is saying, then I could concede the points that might makes right in this circumstance 100%, right?
@coreyking88If there wasn't written into the law, if there wasn't actually a remedy that was produced in this... But also, I mean, I do disagree simply with the...
Speaker 5You don't think they had the intent to strip political power away from the South by labeling them rebels and saying, ah, you're exempt because we wrote this in the 14th Amendment and you rebelled so you don't have power. You don't think they had any intention of doing that?
@coreyking88Well, I think it was just bigger. I think that the purpose was bigger than that. I don't think that it was limited to this notion that one of the... The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 9With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 9If you did that prior to the war and then you were part of the South after the war was over, you had no political party. You had no political power. You lost it. You didn't uphold your oath. Those congressmen couldn't come back in to Congress or the judges and continue on. They broke their oath.
Speaker 5I'd argue they didn't break their oath. They are upholding the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say you can't secede. It's a voluntary union.
Speaker 9Right, exactly. They were kept from the voting booth. It was only those that swore an oath to the Constitution, and then they broke it when the South succeeded. They didn't uphold their oath to the Constitution. Period. That's it. This is not difficult.
@coreyking88You're also correct, F-ing Charlie. You're also correct in that these people swore oaths, and by swearing oaths, when they violated their oaths, they were in treason. Of course that's correct. And even today, all of our politicians- And they weren't allowed back after the war.
Speaker 9After it was ratified, they were not allowed back. Those ones that came back, if the states voted those people back, they weren't allowed.
@coreyking88Right, well, even today- They broke it.
Speaker 7How is it unconstitutional to secede?
Speaker 9All of our politicians today are- Because you raised your hand and swore an oath. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 9With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 9All the ones that seceded and turned their back on the Constitution after the war was over, they weren't allowed back.
Speaker 5It's not turning your back on the Constitution, it's turning your back on Lincoln and the Pacific tax system and the tariffs and things.
@coreyking88Let's talk about some actions of law that are fundamental to what we're proposing.
Speaker 5Hold on, you've got to understand that from their perspective, they're not going against the Constitution. They think they have the right to secede. Because they did.
Speaker 9This is basic history. I mean, I've been out of school for over 30 years and I remember this.
@coreyking88Well, school is an indoctrination program.
Speaker 5That's the argument of whether they had the right to secede or not. There were prior secession movements where they never brought it up as, oh, this is unconstitutional.
Speaker 9It is unconstitutional. For the ones that raised their hand, for the everyday, so even the ones that were so... As a citizen of the United States, when you're born, you don't raise your hand and swear an oath to the Constitution. It's only if you take office, hold office, a judge, a politician, a police officer, something like that.
Speaker 9I get that, but their argument would be the Constitution does not forbid secession. Did the states enter the union voluntarily?
Speaker 5If you have, like, a referendum and they vote to secede by majority, then they leave the Union, legally.
Speaker 9But the Union soldiers that joined, I mean, I'm sorry, the Confederate soldiers that joined and fought for the Confederacy didn't raise their hand to the Constitution. They raised their hand to the Confederate Constitution, whatever that was.
@tnpusaActually, those people were citizens and nationals of their respective states.
Speaker 5Their states invaded. They're defending their homestead.
Speaker 9Well, we're talking federal now. We're not talking state.
@tnpusaEvery American today who immigrates to the United States swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. All 14th Amendment citizens have sworn tacit oaths just by virtue of their citizenship. To follow all the laws.
@coreyking88This is what I want to talk about. This is what I want to talk about.
Speaker 5The Federican Constitution was a clone of the U.S. Constitution, except they had term limits.
Speaker 9Prior to that, I'd never done that.
Speaker 5Their argument would be that the session does not break an oath of the Constitution.
@coreyking88Charlie, there's two actions of law that kind of flow into each other that affected this conversation. There's presumption and then there's tacit agreement. Presumption is when, in this conversation, what we're talking about, is when the government makes a claim that you are a certain political status. You are a certain thing under the law.
@coreyking88And it defines, when they define that political status, when they define that thing that they are claiming you to be, This presumption effectively makes you what they say you are unless you have superior evidence. So the way that the court system works is that there's evidence and then there's admissible evidence. Not only that, but the preponderance of evidence— Hold on, hold on.
@coreyking88When was the 14th Amendment ratified? Yeah, please let me finish this. Never.
Speaker 9There's this presumption— No, when was it ratified? What year? Never. It was not ratified.
@coreyking88Is when the government determines your political status as per this conversation. Yes, it was. It was 1868.
Speaker 9The war was over. The Union was preserved.
@tnpusaIt was installed.
@coreyking88Okay. So, the presumption of this 14th Amendment government that you are within the jurisdiction before you do anything, right? That is the action of the 14th Amendment. It presumes you to be part of it. It presumes that it is right. It presumes you to be a certain kind of person under the law. Now, when that presumption occurs, it means that you are that thing unless you have a preponderance of admissible evidence to prove a contrary position.
@coreyking88So right now, every single person in this room, every single person listening to this, every single person in the United States is a 14th Amendment citizen unless they have accurately and properly conducted a rebuttal of that presumption. Now this flows into something called tacit agreement. Tacit agreement or tacit consent, also defined in Bouvier's 1856, is when, without you doing anything, you are giving consent to a certain contract or a certain amendment or a certain action, whatever that might be.
@coreyking88Tacitly, everybody has given their agreement because they have not rebutted the presumption. This is clearly defined in law. This is not something that is in law theory. This is in the law, and it is used in the law to presume people of all sorts of different things. When you go to court, you're presumed a certain way from the outset.
@coreyking88In this particular conversation, we're presumed to be 14th Amendment citizens, citizens of the United States.
Speaker 9Now, the United States, being this federal 14th Amendment government— Here's a quick analogy. Listen, one second. Let me offer this analogy. Say you lived in the South. In Georgia, and the war broke out, and you weren't for that war, you didn't agree with it, you didn't become a part of the Confederacy, but after the war is over, so you're saying that you're guilty of something?
Speaker 9No. It was only those that raised their hand and swore an oath.
@coreyking88It doesn't matter, and actually, Jessica, if you want to come in here to expand upon what I just said, that's fine at any time if you want to jump in. But the presumption...
@tnpusaThe presumption of jurisdiction? Yeah. Okay, so yeah, it's the year 2026.
Speaker 9There had to be Southerners who did not agree with the war. Of course there were Southerners who did not agree with the war. So are they guilty of living in Georgia? Or in the South?
@tnpusaSo, at the time of the war between the states...
Speaker 9I think y'all are confusing this. The whole thing was for those... Raise their hand and took a note to the Constitution, and then after the war, they were trying to come back, and that's when the- No, it was not because- Everybody else was good.
@tnpusaThe Southerners were not in rebellion, legally speaking. Secession is not rebellion in constitutional law.
Speaker 9Firing on a federal, you know, Fort Sumter, that's pretty treasonous. I mean, the second they did that, you know...
@tnpusaIt's not treasonous because no settler... It's not treason.
Speaker 5They succeeded. They weren't part of the United States. And the Yankees went down and fired on them first. The SS Harriet Lane fired on the Nashville before Fort Sumter.
Speaker 9Firing on Fort Sumter was 100% treason.
Speaker 5So the North firing into Charleston Harbor before Fort Sumter was not an act of aggression against the state? They started the war.
Speaker 3The war did not start at Fort Sumter.
@tnpusaBecause being a citizen of the United States is in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. That's a political status. That means if you are a 14th Amendment The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@tnpusaWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@tnpusaI also get a quote that literally says that the United States of America that operates out of Washington, D.C. is a corporate entity. But that's kind of beside the point. Any time there's two individuals... None of that is my issue.
Speaker 5My issue is y'all denying that the word rebel was directed towards Southerners who they took their voting rights away from. Officers in the military, politicians, they wiped them all out from political participation.
@tnpusaLet's address that then again. Is she breaking up?
@joann_marieYeah, she is breaking up. Jessica, I don't know what is either wrong with your microphone or your connection, but you sound sometimes like a broken record that's in... Can I ask Corey a question, please?
@markofmelb1974Can I ask Corey a question, please?
@joann_marieYeah, sure, go for it. I'm going to recycle you again.
@markofmelb1974Okay, Corey, you're talking about the remedy, and would a remedy in your mind include applying for state national status? Somehow. Would that be, including a passport and so forth, would that be part of your remedy?
@coreyking88No, you cannot be a 14th Amendment citizen. Basically, to answer that, you have to consider that if what we're saying is correct and we are firmly in the contention that it is, Right now, everybody is dual citizens. The organic constitutional government was never dissolved, and they overlaid this 14th Amendment system and then contracted everybody into it through tacit agreement and presumption.
@coreyking88Now, if that is correct, if you were to go get a passport from your government, what is your government? The 14th Amendment state. If you go get a passport, you are affirming that you are a citizen of that state. At any point, you know, there's people, okay, also, there's a lot of nonsense out there in this realm. And automatically it makes people go to this idea of like, oh, these are just more sovereign citizen stuff, whatever, and they turn off.
@coreyking88We are, we combat that so often and so vigorously, and we have been able to basically shut down many, many, many people who are using these terms incorrectly. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
@coreyking88And they say that you can get this by sending in some paperwork to the 14th Amendment government. It's nonsense. You cannot do it. Because if you're receiving something as far as a license, a passport, or any other kind of contracted device for identification purposes or for some sort of benefit as they see it, Then you are reaffirming the position, your political status, to be that which they presume it to be, which is the 14th Amendment citizen.
@markofmelb1974So there's no way— Can I just make a quick point? Can I just make a quick point, Corey? In particular, Title 22 of the U.S. Code, 212, says, No passport shall be granted or issued or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States. So you're exactly right.
@coreyking88That's exactly right. You're hitting it on the head, right? So if you are not a person who has given your allegiance, whether tacitly, meaning you haven't rebutted their presumption, or overtly by going and filing for the thing, for the passport in this case, if you have done these things, you have affirmed that you are giving your allegiance to that state.
@coreyking88If you don't do it, That doesn't necessarily mean that you're not a U.S. citizen. It just means that you haven't taken that action. You haven't allowed the presumption of your status to exist through that pathway. But there's many, many pathways in which they can continue to presume you to be a U.S. citizen. It's basically the same contract.
Speaker 11Could I ask a question?
@joann_marieSure, go for it.
Speaker 11Alright, looking for either Dawson or Corey on this one. Were there White males in the Confederate States of America who did not support the rebellion, did not support military action, yet were denied the right to vote in elections. What's the constitutionality of that?
Speaker 5The Yankee Army's largest divisions near the end of the war were People from North Carolina. Tennessee and North Carolina were kind of divided southern states, so it's a good question because almost half of the people in those states, the ones in the western part, like West Virginia broke away from Virginia, period. They still had slaves, by the way.
Speaker 5People not on the Mississippi River and people not on the coast weren't really greatly affected by the tariff and didn't want to secede, and they remained loyal to the Union. Some of them even fought for the Union. Their rights were not taken away. It's only those who were in the Confederate Army who were considered rebels.
Speaker 5And it's just officers and things and politicians. They lost their political power. The everyday rank-and-file soldier could quickly regain all rights just by taking an oath and saying, yeah, I'll uphold the Union. That was that. But when you wipe out all the government participants, that's enough. It was temporary, too.
Speaker 5I mean, they all regained their rights eventually. But Southerners that disagreed with secession, And did nothing or even fought for the union, which many did. They did not lose any rights, officers or otherwise.
Speaker 9Understood. Thank you, sir. You would have had to move north of the Mason-Dixon line to be considered not treasonous. I mean, under that definition. The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 9The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88Those who lost their ability to vote didn't lose the actual ability to go to the ballot box and cast a vote. That was actually expanded because now you had the blacks voting. And also, it's kind of a tangential response to something Ryan said earlier that flows into this, is that, as we've said before, the 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction in general was meant for
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
@coreyking88It's not that our argument is right or wrong based on the fact of whether it was instituted immediately, and then it's not like they had to bring the National Guard out and force people to vote or not vote. It's not about that. It's about the fact that once this reconstruction occurred, it created the basis for everything that followed, and that's why shall is used in the
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88They were voting within that jurisdiction, that is the 14th Amendment, and now all the votes that were being cast were for presidents, or congressmen, or local politicians, all within the new jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment, and no longer applied to a vote cast for a constitutional politician of whatever, wherever you're voting.
@coreyking88So no longer was the president a constitutional president. Now it was a 14th Amendment president. This is our argument.
Speaker 11I also think there's a major issue here with saying the Constitution is transitional. That's an issue.
@coreyking88Can you say that again?
Speaker 11I also believe there's an issue with the statement the Constitutional Amendment was transitional. Like that vernacular should never be uttered. It should be sacred and like stamped in stone.
@coreyking88I don't think I'm hearing him right. I don't know if...
Speaker 514th Amendment did not grant Blacks the right to vote, except for in the South. Black suffrage would come about later, state by state in the North, and eventually all by the 15th Amendment.
@coreyking88Well, that's what we're arguing, Ryan.
@coreyking88That's not right either.
Speaker 7Yes, it is.
@lb_borkIt's very close. No, it's not. Read the thing. It said, shall not be denied. It's very close. It doesn't say the Blacks got the right to vote. In the 15th Amendment, it says it shall not be denied. So it was already there via the 14th Amendment. Like I said, you don't know. No, it wasn't.
Speaker 5It was already there in the South. It was not applied in all the Yankee states. There were many states that listed a whole bunch of them that did not allow Black men or women to vote. That's why they need another one. You can't deny the right to vote. And if you do, you're going to lose representation in Congress.
@coreyking88Well, you're still talking about—see, I still think that we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing. It's just in the nuance. So there's—the action of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment—the action of the Reconstruction was not immediate everywhere in effect, but it was immediate everywhere in law. And so the difference is that as the states were basically succumbing to this
@coreyking88New system. They were falling like dominoes, one after another, to accept the new terms. And as they accepted the new terms, they became in rebellion to the original Constitutional Republic. So whether or not it was implemented with immediacy doesn't matter because it's written for the future. So it really doesn't matter whether it took a year or whether it took 20 years.
@coreyking88It doesn't matter if it took 100 years. It was written in the future for the future so that this new overlaid legal system would become dominant over time. It didn't matter if it was an immediate thing. It mattered that the way they wrote it was for its ultimate replacement of the old system everywhere. And it also goes to argue for our point too when we talk about this because
@coreyking88The states were their own nations. They were sovereign. They had their own rights to determine their laws. So when they fell to this new system, when they succumbed to it, when they accepted the new terms, they were acting in whatever case. You could say that they were acting willfully, or you could say they were pressured into it by coercion, or you could say whatever you want about it.
@coreyking88But one way or another, they did fall to it. Now we have 50 states that are all participants in this system.
Speaker 5I don't want to be like the actually guy, but I'm just pointing out that in the North, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Nevada, Oregon, and California did not allow black suffrage until the 15th Amendment in 1870. While you had federal reconstruction laws in the South force it on there in 1867, you had a lot of Northern...
Speaker 5The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@lb_borkWith 𝕊𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkIt just says there's an enforcement of it and it's enforcing the principles of the 14th Amendment is all it's doing. The 19th Amendment does the same thing.
Speaker 5The reality was they could not vote in all those states I just listed until the 15th Amendment. They didn't let them. So it was denied.
Speaker 10Well, so how that works is, suppose you were a Black person and you were denied the right to vote, you could conceivably have gone to court. Because of our system of court, you can appeal these things, and then later on it would have been found that you had been denied the right to vote. Of course, we don't have any record of that happening, but that's how things work.
Speaker 10The law is in place, and then these state laws would deny The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
Speaker 5With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 5Some states in the North and South, they would add, okay, you get to vote, but you have to be a property owner, which didn't apply to whites since 1851. But suddenly, like, oh, you have to do this where there is a registry fee, the $50 or something they knew they would never be able to pay. Like, they really didn't have a right to vote, realistically.
Speaker 10All of those laws could have been appealed. That's how our system works.
@coreyking88And they would have won. Simply because the states decided to fight back in various ways against the 14th Amendment or Reconstruction in general, let's say, just because some states decided that they were going to exercise their sovereignty despite the fact that they'd already succumbed by that point, most of them, if not all of them.
@coreyking88I mean, really, it again comes down to presumption, so they had surrendered already. But just because they decided to take actions doesn't mean that those actions were going to last. You know, it's like... Also, what happened with the...
Speaker 5I'm talking about states that were not under Reconstruction. Every state I've talked about is in the North and fought for the Union. From Ohio to California, you've got like nine different states that did not allow Black suffrage.
@coreyking88All states were under Reconstruction. Right, it didn't just affect the Southern states. Reconstruction made new law for all the states.
@lb_borkYeah, that's what I'm saying. This is apples and oranges. The Reconstruction Acts and Reconstruction Amendments are two different things. You can't mix them up. Hey, JoAnn. This is not rocket science.
@coreyking88JoAnn, do you think we could get the other people that have their hands up?
@joann_marieYeah, I don't see any hands. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5It's not rocket science. This Reconstruction Act was passed March 1867. And again, in 1868, it was placed southern states under military rule, not the north. It was applied to one area, not the other, the one that lost.
Speaker 9It wasn't southern states. It was only those who swore an oath to the Constitution. And in 1870, there were two-thirds vote of Congress, which gave amnesty to all those that were barred
Speaker 9All the officers and everybody that was in the South that were barred were given amnesty in 1870 by two-thirds vote of Congress. And then it was over. Everybody was equal.
Speaker 3Hold on one second.
@coreyking88I do see Donna. Donna's waving and she does have her hand up. I don't know if we want to let her join in at some point here as well.
@donnaleistGo for it, Donna. Okay, I've been trying to jump in to tell you that you're both right. Because in the end of 1860, the southern states did secede. But when you fast forward to when Lincoln got in, Congress tried to put through a bill that they would pardon everybody but the officers and hire people that might have held office in those states that seceded.
@donnaleistBut instead of, what he, he pocketed it, okay? He said, if I treat them as rebels, I can pardon them. If I treat it as a secession, I can't pardon them. So, that's, that's where you're both right, and that's where, like, the Congress was the one that was trying to enforce that, you know, the officers... And like any statesman in the states that seceded, they didn't want them at all to have any rights.
@donnaleistBut Lincoln pocketed that because he said he'd rather pardon them because if he treated them as secessionists, he couldn't pardon them. And you have to remember that the South was colluding with England. So I'm just going to shut up. That's what I wanted to say.
Speaker 5Okay, Lincoln was dead before the Civil War ended. Johnson was president. In the in-between, because this is the other part of what I said, the whole purpose, even if it's temporary, of getting rid of their political class and officer class and participation in government, not just voting, like you can't be voted for either, was so the Republican Party could do a power grab.
Speaker 5Afterward, they don't care.
Speaker 10That power grab was the 14th Amendment.
Speaker 5Yeah. And Rebel was directed at the South. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 9No. But it ended in 1870. They were all given amnesty.
Speaker 5Correct. It ended in 1870, but all the Republicans are in office by then, so they don't care.
Speaker 10By 1870, they had all voted and become, which confirms their 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment made everyone a rebel So that the rebellion could be legalized because the North knew that the North was in rebellion and they needed to make it legal after the fact. It wasn't lawful, but it's legal. Do you understand the difference between lawful and legal?
Speaker 10Because legal means that the contract makes the law. If everyone is in rebellion and agrees that rebellion is the thing to do, Then rebellion is legal. It's not lawful, but it's legal. And that's why they had to install the 14th Amendment.
Speaker 5The North did not secede from the South. It was the other way around.
Speaker 10Secession is not rebellion. Secession was legal.
Speaker 5I agree, but they didn't. They say it is rebellion. You took up arms against the federal government, and you're going to lose your rights.
Speaker 10No, the North took up arms against the South. The North was in rebellion. The North broke the law. The South did not break the law. Oh, I agree with all that.
Speaker 7But that's not what the North would say. And that's who wrote the amendment.
Speaker 10Do you think that the North is going to admit? They aren't going to admit that they broke the law. That's why they let Jefferson Davis go. They had to legalize the rebellion after the fact. Now they won't admit it to this day. They won't admit to anything. When you expatriate back to your state, you point out that this rebellion is on them.
Speaker 10It's on every 14th Amendment citizen. They aren't going to admit to it. They're gonna zip their lip and they're gonna leave you alone and they're gonna hope to hell that they never see you again because you have the political power to charge them with treason now.
Speaker 5It's just a coincidence that you wiped out all those Democrats and replaced them with Republicans because they weren't allowed to be in office anymore.
@lb_borkHere we go with Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 10That's got nothing to do with anything, okay? The Civil War doesn't even... That's irrelevant, okay? The 14th Amendment is in effect to this day. If it was just to apply to those few people, it wouldn't have been attached to the federal constitution, and that ought to serve as your first clue. It was— You ignore that the spouse colluded with England.
Speaker 10It doesn't matter who the South colluded with.
Speaker 7The South did not collude with England.
@lb_borkI guarantee you this guy hasn't read any law on how they figure out representation pursuant to Section 2 of 14. He's got a fucking history degree, you retard. I don't care. Intelligence has to do with it. You know, the idiots in, uh... A history degree is not a law degree.
Speaker 5Go plug it in and AI whatever you want and say, who were they targeting in the language when they said rebel in the 14th Amendment? And it's definitely the rebel that's out. You can go whatever you want. Like, go look at who actually got disenfranchised by being categorized as rebels and it's the southern officers in the southern political class who had their rights taken away.
Speaker 5That is who they are directing that clause to.
@coreyking88So I actually debated ChatGPP on this topic, and the result of it was the same result that you would get in a debate in a modern courtroom. And what that is, is that it can never actually admit, but it always navigates its arguments through post-14th Amendment law. So what this means is that if the 14th Amendment is invalid inherently because it was never ratified, it was never even proposed constitutionally, there was no quorum, then everything that comes after it, again, should be Nolan Voight on its face.
@lb_borkBut the AI— They don't even have three quarters of the states that ratified it to this day.
@coreyking88One second. So the AI— Cannot admit to this. I found this out over the course of hours of debate. It cannot admit to the very simple fact that the 14th Amendment was not ratified. No matter all of the evidence that I was able to pour into it, it cannot admit it because it has to abide by the current interpretation of law.
@coreyking88What that means is that just like the politicians aren't going to say, yes, we're in treason, the AI cannot admit That yes, the politicians are in treason. It won't do it. So the win came when it subtly affirmed the truth in what I was saying, but it was not able to output an answer that said, yes, you are correct. But it came to a point where it just kept repeating the same thing again and again and again, which was laws post 14th Amendment.
@coreyking88Let me ask a question.
Speaker 5What gave them the right to take the rights away from Southern politicians and officers?
@coreyking88Nothing gave them the right. They didn't have a right to do so.
Speaker 5Well, they did it. Like, what gave them the power to do that? What granted them the ability to take and disenfranchise those particular people? Was it because they were considered rebels? The power was given to themselves through fraud.
@coreyking88It was not something that they exercised the law to achieve. They twisted the law to achieve their ends.
Speaker 5But they would argue that these people broke an oath, therefore they're in rebellion, and the 14th Amendment gives us the right to disenfranchise them because rebellion refers to them.
@coreyking88Right. Well, this is something I was going to say earlier as well, which is that all of our laws, post-14th Amendment particularly, but Plenty of things that happened before that, too, are based on Talmudic law systems. The way that system works, it was sort of injected into our legal system. It was injected. So, whereas our system was based on basically Christianity, Protestantism, it was based on the idea that a law is the law, that's final.
@coreyking88There is no interpreting it into some other way or an opinion versus another opinion. This is Talmudic law. It's private law. Right. Our law system was totally different than that. But today, what do you see today?
@joann_marieCan I just say something really quick? Jessica, every time you stop speaking, please mute your mic because there's a lot of noise coming and I've literally muted you like 50 times and I'm losing my mind.
Speaker 6Thank you. Is that what it was? I kept hearing myself. Yes. I'll reword it a different way.
Speaker 5What did they believe granted them the power to take those rights away from Southerners?
@coreyking88Sorry, say that one more time.
Speaker 5What granted them the belief that they were allowed to take those rights away from Southerners who they said broke their oath and said, that's rebellion?
Speaker 5What was it that gave them that power to do?
@coreyking88It wasn't a grant of any sort. It was people willfully acting in treason. So it wasn't like some religious or legal claim to it. It was that they intentionally twisted the law for their aims, willfully committed treason, willfully committed fraud upon the population.
@coreyking88Right.
Speaker 5By wrongfully labeling them rebels and then writing a clause in saying we can disenfranchise rebels. Same way they do today by saying you're a terrorist and now we can sanction you.
Speaker 10Did you just say that they wrongfully labeled them rebels? Because yes, they absolutely wrongfully labeled them because they were lying.
@markofmelb1974I'm glad you all agree now.
Speaker 10He's been saying that for literally like an hour.
@markofmelb1974Yeah, I've been saying this the whole time.
@joann_marieYeah, the entire time, 100% of the time he's been saying that.
@markofmelb1974Can I ask Corey one more question, please? I've just been waiting a little while.
@joann_marieYes, go for it, Mark.
@markofmelb1974Is he there, Corey? Okay, Corey, so back to the remedy, right? Because this is where it's at. So if the remedy is not claiming non-citizen status, because as you were saying, There are many nexuses that tie us back or tie you guys back to being US citizens, including oaths, allegiances, social security numbers, all that.
@markofmelb1974What is the remedy then? Because I heard the lady say to become state nationals, to become, you know, state citizens. So how does one achieve a remedy if one is a US citizen in law?
@coreyking88Wonderful, yes. Okay, so as I said before, there's a dual citizenship right now in existence, and this is the same thing for every single person who is a proper citizen of the organic constitution and the constitutions of the states. So each of these people that has the right to be or is a national of a state The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@markofmelb1974The Constitution wasn't legally ratified either, right? So, you can't base that on the Constitution itself. I mean, it's fraud, if you like, all the way through, in one sense. However, like you said, the contract makes the law, and if the individual has agreed to be a US citizen, doesn't he relinquish his allegiance to the state?
@markofmelb1974How does one... You know, in your mind, it's a dual citizen, but in law, legally, The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@joann_marieThank you so much for coming out, Ryan. And I have no idea about this topic at all, so it was awesome that you stepped up, so thank you.
Speaker 5Ryan, it was great chatting with you. Here, I'll give you an ad. I got an eyesight problem, so could you say your name? There's a Corey.
@coreyking88Yeah, Corey King. And I would love it if you would come on. We're gonna start hosting spaces every week so that we can keep this conversation going on Saturdays.
Speaker 5I gave you a follow. Who's the lady that's been talking to me? JoAnn, Jessie, I'm behind her.
@joann_marieJessica, it's the National Party.
Speaker 5I got macular degeneration. I can't see these freaking names.
@joann_marieIt's the Nationalist Party. Yeah, it's in the title.
Speaker 5Say, hey, add me, add you back. Oh, it's in the title. All right, thanks, y'all.
@joann_marieAll right, thank you, Ryan. See you soon. Ryan.
@markofmelb1974Sorry, Corey was going to answer my question.
@coreyking88Right, right. So, okay, I'm going to try to answer this directly, and I'm hoping that LB, if you catch me saying something incorrectly, please just interrupt. There is, right now, a dual citizenship because the organic constitutional republic was never dissolved in law. And just like wrapping up your company, just like wrapping up any kind of organization, you have to have an accounting and a closure.
@coreyking88There was no closure. There was nothing that happened except a coup. The existence of the state still is there. So right now, everybody that is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment has been... Coerced into being so. They've been presumed, it was conducted under fraud, and the rebellion that they are in now for participating in the fraud can be overcome by declaring that there was an ignorance and a presumption, basically declaring the facts of the matter and then reclaiming your proper political status.
@coreyking88Your rebellion does not have to last in perpetuity. Because it was not done properly under the law. It's not like you expatriated or it's not like you moved to Mexico from the United States or moved to Australia from the United States or moved to England from the United States. It's not like that. It's that this thing actually came about through coercion, through presumption, through fraud.
@coreyking88And as such, you aren't bound to it in the same way as if you willfully moved to England and gave your allegiance to England. And because of this lesser distinction, the ability for you to expatriate from one and already be the other makes it unique. You're not a dual citizen of England and the United States. You're a dual citizen of a fraudulent system and the organic constitutional republic.
@coreyking88So when you expatriate from their legal jurisdiction, And you make a claim upon your, you just basically identify your repatriation or your claim to your birthright state. There is no rebellion that follows you.
@markofmelb1974Aren't you assured for the debt now because you've been acting in ignorance but acting nonetheless as a U.S. citizen and claiming the benefits thereof? The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@markofmelb1974With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkThe public debt shall not be questioned because it's part of the slavery committed for rebelling against the constitutional system. I'm the only one, I think, that's explained every section of the 14th Amendment and how it works. There's probably over a hundred things that are happening in those four sections, not to include the fifth, which
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With at TNPUSA. Speakers, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With at TNPUSA. Speakers, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With at TNPUSA. Speakers, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With at TNPUSA. Speakers, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@lb_borkWith at TNPUSA. Speakers, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With at TNPUSA. Speakers, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@lb_borkWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@lb_borkWith 𝕊𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkSpeakers, Eureka Q, 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
@lb_borkThere haven't been three quarters to ratify the 14th Amendment pursuant to the Constitution. So basically what everyone's doing is doing it, each individual's doing it, they ratify it by agreement. And like I've said for years, it's in my blog, that there's three consent factors, voting, taking doles, which you mentioned, sir, and
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment?
@markofmelb1974With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@lb_borkWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkAnd so that's all covered. And like I said a minute ago, there's probably 100 things. I haven't listed them all out, but there's 100 things going on in the 14th Amendment that people have no idea what's going on when they read it. And basically, I have to reiterate this again. There's cases where they reference Section 2 of the 14th Amendment
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial
@lb_borkThe Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@joann_marieWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@markofmelb1974With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@markofmelb1974Yeah, so we've been at this for decades. Ryan was still in his nappies when this guy was researching this stuff.
@lb_borkYep. It's like if you don't agree that it says you're acting in a rebellion under Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, you're basically saying that this The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@joann_marieWith 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@lb_borkAll right, well, we can all just agree to disagree. I don't care about Reconstruction Amendments. I care about what the 14th Amendment says, and you can't mix apples and oranges.
@joann_marieAll right, well, thank you so much, and it's been such an interesting space, and I've learned so much. So, yeah, no, do you want to add anything else?
@lb_borkI don't know, the gentleman... Where are you from? You have an English accent.
@markofmelb1974Yeah, I'm from Australia there, Dalby. Oh, Australia, okay. Yeah, I've been to visit Brother Gregory a couple of times there in America, and I believe that, I used to listen to you too, I think Brother Gregory has a pretty good idea on how things should be going, but yeah, your book helped me a lot also.
@lb_borkYeah, well, the old one's not as good as the new one. I just came out with another one, but it's not much different than the 2016. It's a 2024 edition. It's called the Congressional Addiction. I still wanted to get it served to Congress so they can't claim plausible deniability on all this. Basically, I got a notice up on my blog that I charge them with criminal, they're in criminal activity now.
@coreyking88Okay, so we've chatted a long time on the 14th Amendment and rebellion and all that. I want to take a few minutes to talk about what it is that we're actually doing with the Nationalist Party and how we're going about things right now. And before I do so, the book that is being referenced right now, the book that LB wrote,
@coreyking88Which is basically a very, very, very detailed thesis about the 14th Amendment and Reconstruction called the Red Amendment. And anybody can go to pacinlaw.us to look that up and get that book. P-A-C-I-N-L-A-W dot US. And there's nothing out there that goes into the details As well as this book. So it's very highly recommended for people who have the ability and the desire to learn more about this to do so.
@lb_borkAnd it's based on law, not political rhetoric and opinions. It's based in law.
@coreyking88Right. There's nothing in what we're saying that is law theory. So usually, you know, we are open for any challenges that exist. As long as you come at it with knowledge, you know, as long as you come at it proper. And I actually appreciated Ryan's commentary. I thought it was good, but I think that it was limited, personal.
@coreyking88That we can look at things a little bit too microscopically at times, and we have to broaden the perception. We have to kind of back out a little bit and see a bigger picture sometimes. I think that was the problem from my perspective. But in any case, so... We don't discuss law theory. If it doesn't exist on paper, if it doesn't exist in law, if it doesn't exist in a law dictionary, if it doesn't exist on paper, we're not going to care for it.
@coreyking88There's many opinions that people have made over all these years. There's so many opinions. Opinions really mean nothing. So let me talk about the Nationalist Party a little bit. So the Nationalist Party is Relatively new. We formed this to be the vehicle for a political movement to advance the cause that we are on, which is to expose this problem that the 14th Amendment created a dual system of law that 20 years after the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, they passed an amendment that converted our
@coreyking88Sovereign nations into a single United States country that was the first true communist state to exist on this planet. And the proofs for that are very many. I don't know if we want to go into all that, but we are here to expose this problem and to also conduct a remedy that Corrects political status for everybody rather than to focus on individuals.
@coreyking88And this is the primary goal of the Nationalist Party. It is to make the claim and to see it through that we have the ability, the right, and if we're sensible, the duty to bring about our state sovereignty again. And to fill the seats of our own true governments and to operate them again without the 14th Amendment dominance.
@coreyking88So we have PAC and LAW, the People's Awareness Coalition, which is educating people about how this all works. It's educating people on the law, on the history, and describing the ways through. Then we have the Nationalist Party, Which is the vehicle for which we are going to bring this to the highest levels in this country, in the United States, to force the hand of the United States to give recognition to these facts.
@coreyking88In the past, this has been attempted many times. This has been attempted many, many times. The problem was that the people who attempted to do this were still in the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment, which means that they had no rights, they had privileges. It means that when they went to a court, and they demanded that the court recognize their political status properly, that the court could ignore them, as it did recently, well, as it does all the time.
@coreyking88But you can see it in, you know, the modern big case that everybody was looking at, the Shiloh Hendricks case, where she had rights, but they totally ignored those rights to free speech, whatever they said. I forget what the claim was they had on her. It was a disturbance of some kind.
@coreyking88And so you can see that she was not granted rights. The court ignored all of her claims for her rights and just railroaded her into the position of what she actually is as her political status, a slave, a dead slave to this 14th Amendment system. You can see that in almost every single court case where they bring up rights.
@coreyking88In fact, in lower courts, they will refuse outright to consider political questions or questions of rights. There's a reason for that. It's because you don't have them. And so, by conducting our efforts, our political efforts through the Nationalist Party, we are going to bring this in the right way. And as du jour nationals of the states, as recorded on their paper, and we are going to force their hand to recognize in their own law the existence and the right of people to expatriate of the existence of these sovereign states in their correct political jurisdiction and status.
@coreyking88If we're successful in doing this, and I don't even like to say if because it's There's not really a way to lose in this case. I know that sounds like a braggadocio maybe or whatever, but there really is no way to lose this.
@lb_borkThey have statutes to challenge us. I've known about them for 25 years.
@coreyking88Right. Let's just say if. If we're successful, that means that at any point after this event, Anybody who is able to be a citizen in 1790 or 1802 or 1850, they can expatriate and be recognized in the law, in the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. This is our win. This cancels out the might is right position that our current government has.
@coreyking88And if we win in the way that we are aiming for, It means that entire states could just leave. They can leave the 14th Amendment system and all of the proper citizens, the nationals of these states can also leave with them.
@coreyking88We don't expect this is going to be something that's easy, but we have a lot of our own might behind us. And that is those people who are sick and tired, of facing down this enemy and being blackpilled with the idea that there is no political solution. That there is no way out of this. That the only way through is that we have to start hanging people from the telephone poles and fight a bloody war in the streets.
@coreyking88This is not the way. And an example of that as well is the American Revolution. The American Revolution followed the law. The colonists followed the law. And the law prescribes it as such. Ever since the 1600s with Locke, this became the standard law, the common law. That if you are in a state of oppression of some kind and you are appealing for remedy from your sovereign or from your government, and that government refuses every single lawful attempt to remedy your situation, then they are no longer your government proper.
@coreyking88And this also goes back to Protestant law. And the way that it was incorporated into the common law of this land. Which doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, by the way. There's only one place where we can exercise this remedy, and it's here in this land. Now, when the colonists rose up, they did it in defense. And they had exercised every appeal they possibly could.
@coreyking88And the Lockean law that was in place The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88The Appeal to Heaven says, if no other solution is available to you, then you may exercise any means at your disposal to correct for a false government. Now, if we want to get to that point, I know a lot of people out there are clamoring for revolution in the streets. It's stupid right now. It really is quite a stupid idea right now.
@coreyking88But if you exercise every remedy available to you in the law, then you have The lawful position. The international community will see you not as rebels, but as lawful people rising up against a tyrannical government. You have to position yourself correctly before you can take those kinds of actions. We don't call for that kind of action at all because we see the political remedy.
@coreyking88We see the lawful solution. And it's right here before all of us. We can exercise it today. But...
@donnaleistExcuse me. Do you know how many states are devoted to the foreign state that has taken over our central federal government? There's 30 of them, at least.
Speaker 1038 signed the BDS law. It doesn't matter. An American law government is by individual consent only.
Speaker 4That's right.
@donnaleistBut you still have local lawmakers in your state that become your leaders.
@lb_borkThey're in treason if they don't follow what we talk about.
@coreyking88This comes back to the same thing every single time. Every single time. It comes back to the same arguments, the same positions. And those arguments are either, oh, you guys are crazy and none of this exists, but usually that's from people who don't understand the law. And we're willing to accept challenges of that kind.
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88These arguments are quite basic. They are not well thought out. They don't consider all of the avenues of approach available to a people of any place at any time in history. There is always this methodology of gaining authority and reputation before taking any particular action. You look at our country, the United States, which actually is not my country, but you look at your country.
@coreyking88The United States of America, the 14th Amendment system, and you look at that today and you see how many people are actually ready, prepared, organized to conduct a revolution. We don't have militias anymore, we don't have people experienced, willful, knowledgeable, organized in any fashion to be able to conduct the kind of affairs that people are calling for.
@coreyking88So, it's better to look at the ways in which we can move forward Until the day comes in which we have no other choice. And people who think we have no choice today simply have not heard every potential way of moving forward. We're offering what we consider to be, after enormous amounts of research and experience, we are saying this is the final remedy because it was actually written into the law.
@coreyking88Because it was actually prescribed in law, on paper, in their own law, The Controversial 14th Amendment Law. That what we are doing is proper, legal, or lawful, and that we have a right to it. The affirmed right to choose nationality, going all the way back before Vattel. Vattel just reaffirmed this in the late 1700s in the Law of Nations.
@coreyking88It was affirmed, but this was known Throughout time that you have a choice to choose your nationality, nobody can bind you to a nationality against your will or coerce you into a nationality. You have the right to choose your nationality. So what nationality do you choose? And then from there, how do you choose it? What is your methodology of getting from point A to point B?
@coreyking88Well, if you try to do it as many people are trying today that would properly be termed sovereign citizens, or even people that know what we're talking about here, But they're not expatriated people. They have not corrected political status. Those attempts are going to fail. 100% they're going to fall on their face. Because there is nothing there for them to use.
@coreyking88They don't have the anchor in proper political status to get recognition in the courts. So we understand. We understand the argument. We understand the argument that might equals right for the conqueror. We get it. What we don't accept is that there is no political solution, that there is no remedy to this. And if you think the remedy exists in like voting for the next duopolistic guy or woman to take power and then to be your savior, it's never ever going to happen.
@coreyking88The entire system of the 14th Amendment is built to maintain this kind of state that controls the politically considered political status slaves That are the people of the nation. And that includes the blacks, it includes the whites, it includes everybody.
Speaker 10Corey, so regarding these elected officials within the 14th Amendment, the current government system, all the way from the president right down to your local police chief and supervisors, all of them have sworn an oath. The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
Speaker 10Remind them of their oaths. They swore an oath to uphold the law. The law says that they cannot govern us. They have to protect our rights. They have to protect our right to not be governed by them. So I hope that makes things clear regarding the issue of the elected officials. They are participating in a completely different government that's foreign to the people who are state nationals.
Speaker 10Our government is not the same as their government. So, I just wanted to clear that up, okay? Thanks.
@joann_marieThank you so much, Jessica. This has been such an interesting space. And also, guys, please repost this space. And if you guys go to it, I will also repost it and bookmark it. It helps so much with the algorithm. And if anyone wants to come up and say hi or give us your opinion, please do. And follow Ian and Forti and TNPUSA, Corey and the jurists.
@joann_marieSo, no, thank you so much for being here. Ian, what has been your thoughts so far?
Ian MalcolmWell, a lot of, let's say, The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Ian MalcolmIt is the crux of everything that follows, right? So I can understand and appreciate why we went back and forth. I want to give a lot of appreciation to Ryan Dawson for sharing his opinions on this. I'm really glad that he was in here because he was able to give the listeners kind of an alternative perspective that I certainly wouldn't have been able to.
Ian MalcolmBut why don't we go to Mr. Forti as his hand up, and then we'll go to a couple other opinions, just get people's thoughts and reception on the subject, and then we'll wind things down.
@coreyking88Yeah, thanks, Ian, and thanks for the space, JoAnn. Yeah, I mean, there was a lot said. I'm honestly not super knowledgeable on this topic. To me, personally, and I understand I'm going to get pushed back on this, and that's fine. It seems like we get a lot bogged down in nuances of things. Well, at the same time, people on both sides of this little back and forth here acknowledge that the people in power don't follow the fucking laws to begin with.
@coreyking88Like, well, they did this, well that was unconstitutional, and they did that, well that was unconstitutional. Well, clearly the Constitution, at the end of the day, to the people in power, unfortunately doesn't seem to matter. And to me personally, when we're in a state that we're in right now, where we have an occupied government, where it's not representing the people, where it's not doing any of the things it's really supposed to do, and it's kind of seeming like it was maybe designed that way,
@coreyking88When we get bogged down into the nuances of what a rebel was, well, I can appreciate the people who put their time and their effort into researching this and all of that. And obviously, you're way more intelligent on it than I am. So I will give you that all day long. But it just seems to me that it's, I don't know how else to put it, but like a little bit of a form of mental masturbation.
@coreyking88Like we're living in a government, we're living in a society that's occupied, first of all. And that has never followed its own laws. It changes them as it sees fit. And all it does repetitively is take away our rights from us. And to me, I just don't see that they're ever going to acknowledge that or they're ever going to change it through their own legal framework.
@coreyking88Like, I appreciate your efforts, and I'm not one who's going to sit here and say we need a bloody revolution. Like, I would love to see that avoided. And I appreciate that there are people like you who are going out there and trying to do such things. I just worry that it's futile because to think that you're going to beat them at their own game when in the process of playing that game you're acknowledging that they changed the rules of the game as you're playing it, I just don't see that that's going to lead to anything.
@coreyking88And so while I definitely do appreciate the conversation and the time and effort people put into gaining their perspectives, I just worry that it's going to all amount to nothing. So I just wanted to put that in there that when it comes to an occupied government, arguing the nuances of the laws of it just seems kind of futile to me.
@coreyking88Can I address that?
@markofmelb1974I'd like to comment on what you just said, actually. Well, the guy is right, because, sorry, lady, can you just unmute? So, the guy is right in a sense. In a sense, none of this matters, okay? And that's why there has to be a higher remedy, because, you know, yes, they've tricked people, okay? Usually it's because of the people, because they weren't responsible enough to read the law and they've agreed to things that they may have shouldn't have agreed to.
@markofmelb1974So a lot has transpired since the 14th Amendment. The Social Security Act, for example, where people basically applied for the social security number, that reduces their status even more and makes them literal The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@markofmelb1974With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@markofmelb1974The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist
@markofmelb1974To centralise power and all of the subsequent devices like the 14th Amendment and others I've mentioned are just continuous, like the host said, the co-host said, just continuous tricks to trick the people into the trap. Now, if a hunter hides a trap, And a rabbit falls into the trap or a fox falls into the trap. The fox can't say, oh, that's not fair.
@markofmelb1974You hid the trap and I went in the trap and now I'm trapped. You've got to let me go because it's not fair. Sorry. Unfortunately, the fox didn't look hard enough and the fox is in the trap. It's going to take more than, oh, you've got to let me go. Doesn't work that way, unfortunately. That's the nature of bondage. So there is salvation.
@markofmelb1974There is emancipation. I believe it comes from a higher power, from a higher source, God himself, through his son Jesus, and the way Jesus said to organize, which is a decentralized form of government that no state has power against. Even Rome had to relinquish its power over these people, and in fact had to try and co-opt the true church, and did in fact co-opt it.
@markofmelb1974The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88In the comments below. But to quickly respond to one point. If you consider that our opponent, our enemy, is too well-founded at this point. Their bastion is too secure to challenge.
@coreyking88That leaves us with very little action items that we can attempt. We can't charge the Citadel and force the gates open. So what do we do then? And so I don't want to get into a bunch of different ways that we might go about it, but I do want to say that whether or not You think that we will be successful in what we are doing, and we are doing it.
@coreyking88We're not just talking about it. We're actively doing this. So whether or not you think we're going to be successful, we don't require millions of people to be on board with what we're doing. We don't require a revolution by any sense of that word. We will be able to see results from what we are doing, probably with a few thousand people.
@coreyking88That's not even expatriated people. That's just a few thousand people supporting the idea, making sure that we aren't getting shot in the middle of the night. There's so many movements, so many projects, so many things out there that are attempting to do the same thing over and over and over again and achieving nothing out of it in the end except for jail time and more assassination, more jail time, more problems.
@coreyking88And the deficit is growing because our achievements aren't to scale to the problem we are facing. So whether or not you agree that we will be successful, if it doesn't harm you, if it doesn't create a deficit in your own life to come and explore this more, to see what we're doing, to learn deeper about our methodology and how we're moving forward, and to get involved in this, even if it's at a very small level,
@coreyking88Then there's no real reason not to because we aren't violating the law. Nobody that's in our movement or project is facing extraordinary problems, except for a few of us perhaps that are kind of leading the charge on this. Maybe we are sticking our neck out and we'll have to face those things. But for the rest of the people, it's not...
@coreyking88The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88The personal belief system of any individual, especially if they're not fully aware of how we're doing this or what the law is, if you choose to support us while we stick our necks out and confront this demon, then you're adding to the net positive of our efforts collectively to resolve the issue. If you're fully opposed to what we're doing, of course, we don't really want you involved and it's not going to get us anywhere.
@coreyking88You'll be trying to divert us. I just want to clarify that I do appreciate what you guys are trying to do. I certainly don't want to get in your way. I definitely applaud, especially the way you just phrased it. I think you phrased that very well, that you're trying what you believe is like the last bastion. The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@coreyking88With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
@coreyking88It doesn't sit necessarily where I believe the solution is, but I sincerely hope that your solution works so that mine doesn't have to be enacted.
Speaker 10Can I just address the issue of whether the quote-unquote they follow or don't follow the law? They absolutely do follow the law. And without giving us all a big, long lesson about how law works, which I do give those every Saturday at 3 o'clock Pacific Time in a space over at the Nationalist Party, and you can come to those and you can learn how law actually works so that you can understand that...
Speaker 10Why and how they actually do follow the law. But keep in mind, just what I'm going to say right now, is that they get your consent. Okay? They're not out there just forcing this on us. They have to get your consent. Without your consent, it doesn't work. Now, let me just say also that they don't break the law. They make the law.
Speaker 10And the contract makes the law. So as long as you're agreeing to let them make the law, then that's what you're agreeing to. Now, again, you can come to our spaces Saturdays at 3. I'll be talking about law and how it works every Saturday to learn more about that. Now, regarding what Mark said about the federal constitution, we are not attaching ourselves to the federal constitution.
Speaker 10When we expatriate, what we are doing is we are reading the federal constitution and all the laws that are attached to it to the government officials and elected officials who are all 14th Amendment citizens because they have sworn an oath to uphold that law and they have attached themselves to the federal constitution.
Speaker 10So we're reading them their own rules and holding their feet to the fire. To make them follow their own rules. What we're doing as far as what laws we have to follow is we're removing ourselves from all that and we're starting over from scratch. All the pre-14th Amendment organic constitutional law applies to the 14th Amendment citizens because it's all still there.
Speaker 10They're the ones who have to follow it. So they're the ones who have to honor our wish to not be attached to their laws. Does that make sense? I just wanted to clear those two points up.
@markofmelb1974It kind of does make sense, but there's still a question of property, you see. So, you know, the citizens, the federal citizens, the post-1933 SSN-carrying federal employees, which are the citizens of the United States, they are property of that state. There's a word there, property. That literally means something. Like, you just can't, or they can't even remove themselves from that agreement.
Speaker 10Yes, they can. Yes, they can. Read the 13th Amendment, okay? Slavery is illegal. Okay. Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal.
@markofmelb1974This is voluntary servitude. It's voluntary.
@coreyking88If you're incarcerated, then you can still be enslaved.
Speaker 10Well, if you're incarcerated, that's a different story. You're a criminal or whatever, you know, you did, and 99% of the time... Let's not get sidetracked.
@markofmelb1974What I'm talking about are voluntary servants. They have voluntarily applied to the state, okay, The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment?
@markofmelb1974With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖, Joey, Donna Leist The Controversial 14th Amendment? With 𝕊𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖𝕖�
Speaker 10Voluntary servitude means that they can remove themselves from the contract because the contract is fraudulent.
@markofmelb1974When you discover— Not if there's surety for the debt. There's surety for the debt now.
Speaker 10It's not their debt. The debt is fraud.
@markofmelb1974No, no, no.
Speaker 10The whole 14th Amendment is fraud because when you enter into the 14th Amendment, if you—
Speaker 10Read the contract and you realize that the requirement for being a 14th Amendment citizen is that you have to... Yeah, but you're complicit in the fraud because you're the one that took the benefits.
@markofmelb1974The benefits were real. That's why you...