No products in the cart.

News

U.S. Passports On Verge Of Elimination?

passport

This article comes from WND.com.

by Jerome Corsi

NEW YORK – A Soros-funded group arguing to replace the U.S. passport with a North American passport appears ready to take up the mantle of championing the concept of a European Union-style regional government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico and Canada, fulfilling the dream of the late American University professor Robert Pastor.

The future of the U.S. lies in North America, not in the United States as a sovereign nation, contends the New America Foundation, a Washington-based leftist think-tank with ties to Jonathan Soros, son of famed leftist billionaire George Soros.

Appropriately named “New America,” the foundation believes the U.S. passport should soon become obsolete and replaced with a European Union-style passport issued for all citizens of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Citizens would be redefined by their regional identity as “North Americans,” echoing President Obama’s claim in Spanish in his Dec. 17, 2014, announcement of his executive actions to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, “Todos Somos Americanos,” or, “We are all Americans.

“The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny. How we move forward together is key to our success,” wrote André Martinez, an editor with New America and a professor at the Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University; and Daniel Kurtz-Phelan, a fellow at New America and a former adviser on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s policy planning staff, in an article titled “Why we need a North American Passport,” published by CNN.com.

“In recognition of our shared destiny, the three countries should create a North American passport that would, over time, allow their citizens to travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America. Work, tourist and student visas are necessities in the modern world to regulate the flow of people between sovereign states,” Martinez and Kurtz-Phelan declared.

“In the North American context, much like within the European Union, our economies and societies are far more integrated than our immigration system recognizes – and a North American passport, much like the EU passport, would align our laws with reality.”

Read more here.

0

Shorty Dawkins

Hurricane Florence Relief

10 comments

  1. “The future of the U.S. lies in North America, not in the United States as a sovereign nation, contends the New America Foundation”

    Can you say “T R E A S O N? *Treason. If you are not absolutely positive what treason is, who it is against, you really need to read this from Dr. Edwin Vieira

    http://www.shastadefense.com/Dare-Call-It-Treason-21.pdf

    Remember Terrorism?:

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Like SMART meters, etc LE’s will be used to enforce this next treasonous, felonious action also upon the American people. Where do YOU (as an LE) draw the line? Because the end result is that they take all property, commit democide on about 3/4ths the population using YOU, and you also will lose your property, be allowed to own nothing. Some LE’s will object when it comes to their property, etc and then the others will be ordered to take the “objector” out.

    Read history. Real history.

    Isn’t it time we stop them in the courts, do some Grand Jury investigations (real ones, not government controlled ones)?

    Stay safe, and God Bless All!!

    1. Man, they are not even trying to hide it now. I am all game for the Grand Jury investigations, where do we start?

      1. @ Lee

        I am new to the Grand Jury as it is supposed to be done constitutionally. I am ashamed to admit I thought the government controlled Grand Jury was legitimate and there were a lot of dumb jurors.

        Then I discovered this;

        “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

        “Thus, CITIZENS HAVE THE UNBRIDLED RIGHT TO EMPANEL THEIR OWN GRAND JURIES AND PRESENT “TRUE BILLS” OF INDICTMENT TO A COURT, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Where it applies to judges it is referring to the “Good Behaviour” doctrine within the US Constitution)

        “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

        “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

        “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

        “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

        “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

        And then I started researching. “We the People” determine a Grand Jury investigation, the courts LAWFULLY do not have any jurisdiction to say to say how a Grand Jury is run, if it is right or wrong, etc. The Grand jury must be constitutional in nature though in the way we run it. The investigation can be of a crime, or can to make sure there was no crime committed to our satisfaction. It is NOT in their branch (judicial) under their auspices.

        This is, once again, the framers making sure that “We the People” could stop those who serve within our governments from destroying our nation from within.

        When we remove a judge for not using “Good Behaviour” we use the Grand Jury for that also.

        US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

        James Madison, Federalist 39, 250—53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

        Judges are in for life ONLY if they use good behavior within the courtrooms. Good behavior is doing the duty assigned to them by the US Constitution (and state Constitution’s where it applies) and KEEPING the Oaths they are required to take.

        Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 on the Oaths, and how the duties assigned to the judicial branch must be carried out: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

        This is backed up historically by a debate John Adams had with William Brattle about the ‘tenure of judges’. At the end of the debate both men agreed that if a judge was appointed during good behavior, then he could also be removed by using “bad behavior”. But this removal was only after receiving a “hearing and trial, and an opportunity to defend himself before a fuller board, knowing his accuser and accusation”.

        The 1790 Crimes Act which provided that a judge convicted of taking a bribe would, by virtue of the conviction, be “forever . . . disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States.” That conviction would deprive the judge of life tenure of the office being occupied. This falls under the “Good Behaviour” tenure.

        Papers of John Adams:

        “The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. The Judges therefore should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependant upon any man or body of men. To these ends they should hold estates for life in their offices, or in other words their commissions should be during good behaviour, and their salaries ascertained and established by law. For misbehaviour the grand inquest of the Colony, the House of Representatives, should impeach them before the Governor and Council, where they should have time and opportunity to make their defence, but if convicted should be removed from their offices, and subjected to such other punishment as shall be thought proper.”

        An example of the judicial branch duty to rein in the other two branches or the states which our modern judges have not been applying is here when Judge Wythe (John Marshall’s law teacher) in his opinion in “Caton” where he indicated that it is a judge’s responsibility to check overreaching by the political branches by these words:
        “If the whole legislature, an event to be deprecated, should attempt to overleap the bounds, prescribed to them by the people, I, in administering the public justice of the country, will meet the united powers, at my seat in this tribunal; and, pointing to the constitution, will say, to them, here is the limit of your authority; and, hither, shall you go, but no further.”

        Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

        It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

        “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

        This is something I am studying intently and will get back to you on this.

  2. And they call them “think tanks”? North American Union/NWO right on que. Leave it NAZI collaborator Zionist to fund that. . . Dr. Evil.

  3. The minute that this happens we all become one Canada Mexico and the U.S.a.
    wE CAN NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN

  4. Between the Soros’, Bill Gates and Russia… All pushing for control and a one world type gov’t and one global currency, this would just be another step closer. Scary. Glad I read the Bible.

Comments are closed.