On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, <itconstitutional@aol.com> wrote:
YOU ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK. . WHAT THE KEY WORDS YOU KEEP USING NATURALIZATION ACT. . WHO HAS TO BE NATURALIZATION THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE OR THE PEOPLE WHO COME HERE FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES?WHO IS THE FREE WHITE PERSON YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT . THE ONCS WHO LIVE HERE OR THE ONCS WHO COME HERE FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES?WHY ARE THEY STATING THAT IT HAS TO BE A FREE WHITE PERSON . WHAT OTHER KIND OF WHITE PERSON IS THIER .WELL HOW ABOUT ALL THE CONVICT THAT ENGLAND , FRANCE AND THE NATIONS WAS SHIPPING OTHER NATION . DO YOU THINK THIS IS WHY THE WORD " FREE WHITE PERSON" WAS USED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT CONVICTS. a white person who is convicted is not free/Establishment of the first British colony
A proposal that Britain found a colony of banished convicts in the South Sea or in Terra Australis to enable the mother country to exploit the riches of those regions had been put forward in 1766 by John Callander in Terra Australia Cognita. Following the loss of the American Colonies after the American Revolutionary War 1775-1783, Great Britain needed to find alternative land for a new British colony. Australia was chosen for settlement, and colonisation began in 1788. Rather than resorting to the use of slavery to build the infrastructure for the new colony, convict labour was used as a cheap and economically viable alternative.It is commonly reported that the colonisation of Australia was driven by the need to address overcrowding in the British prison system; however, it was simply not economically viable to transport prisoners half way around the world for this reason alone.[1] Many convicts were either skilled tradesmen or farmers who had been convicted for trivial crimes and were sentenced to seven years, the time required to set up the infrastructure for the new colony. Convicts were often given pardons prior to or on completion of their sentences and were allocated parcels of land to farm.Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site.[2] Banks accepted an offer of assistance made by the American Loyalist James Matra in July 1783. Matra had visited Botany Bay with Banks in 1770 as a junior officer on the Endeavour commanded by James Cook. Under Banks's guidance, he rapidly produced "A Proposal for Establishing a Settlement in New South Wales" (23 August 1783), with a fully developed set of reasons for a colony composed of American Loyalists, Chinese and South Sea Islanders (but not convicts).[3]Following an interview with Secretary of State Lord Sydney in March 1784, Matra amended his proposal to include convicts as settlers.[4] Matra's plan can be seen to have "provided the original blueprint for settlement in New South Wales".[5] A cabinet memorandum December 1784 shows the Government had Matra's plan in mind when considering the erection of a settlement in New South Wales.[6] The London Chronicle of 12 October 1786 said: "Mr. Matra, an Officer of the Treasury, who, sailing with Capt. Cook, had an opportunity of visiting Botany Bay, is the Gentleman who suggested the plan to Government of transporting convicts to that island". The Government also incorporated into the colonization plan the project for settling Norfolk Island, with its attractions of timber and flax, proposed by Banks's Royal Society colleagues, Sir John Call and Sir George Young.[7]In 1787, the First Fleet of 11 ships and about 1530 people (736 convicts, 17 convicts' children, 211 marines, 27 marines' wives, 14 marines' children and about 300 officers and others) under the command of Captain Arthur Phillip set sail for Botany Bay.[8] The Fleet of 11 vessels consisted of over a thousand settlers, including 778 convicts (192 women and 586 men).[9] A few days after arrival at Botany Bay the fleet moved to the more suitable Port Jackson where a settlement was established at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788.[10] This date later became Australia's national day, Australia Day. The colony was formally proclaimed by Governor Phillip on 7 February 1788 at Sydney. Sydney Cove offered a fresh water supply and a safe harbour, which Philip famously described as:[11
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Fyffe <dixie-1776@sbcglobal.net>
To: Rod Class <itconstitutional@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 5, 2011 2:52 pm
Subject: Documentation for Your Call on Tues
Rod,
So that we can be on the same page on your call Tues, I thought it might be important that you be up to speed on where we are coming from on the 1790, 1795 and 1802 Naturalization Acts of Congress. If you will read the docs I have provided for you in this order you will understand the issue more precisely.
1. Definition of "Status" in Bouvier's Dict of the Law 1914
2. Wikipedia's dealing on the U.S.C.A. of Title 8 and Title 42; neither being passed into positive Law
3. The 1790, 1795 & 1802 Naturalization Acts; the WHO is a "citizen of the United States; not the HOW they became a citizen.
4. Van Valkenburg v. Brown case
5. Read Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 about how this Nation was created in perpetuity which meant so was the original Laws in perpetuity
6. Then, read my Declaration which I created in conjunction with all the above.
I have also provided the decision by Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott case to further buttress the argument plus some other very important definitions and such.
The point of all this is that in order to make corrections in our governmental process one MUST have status and standing to do so. As you know white folks had the original status and standing at the founding of this Nation and then the 14th amendment was allegedly established to give those not of the sovereignty (white race of peoples) some semblence of status and standing. But a maxim of Law says, "The first in time will prevail" meaning in this case that white folks held the big stick, and since the Nation was established in perpetuity would always hold that position forever. That is not to say however that the 14th citizen does not have a way to live peaceably or have freedom from tyranny. They have a way to do this that is not the same way as white folks. I know how they can be free and live a good life. It is another type process though. The key is though as you said on last program that both the white AND the tawny races of people are under the same similar attack currently, but if white people do not pick up their BIG SWORD of the Law and go assert it, none will ever be able to again be free. The tawny races will benefit greatly from the white asserting and claiming his and her inheritance!!!!! Remember the I.R.S. taxes all races in this country! When the white comes back and claims his birthright the I.R.S. is history!!!!!!!!! Thanks for your cooperation and time and I am in anticipation of speaking to this issue on your show Tues.
