Unruly State of Affairs in the United States of America

Recent Discoveries

USOA Latest Content

Portal Home

USOA v2.0 -- April 2025 -- Education & Outreach Committee -- HelpDesk Support is available... Click here to visit the Contact Page...

Why on God's Blue Planet Would Any One Wish to Correct One's Own Political Status?

 

By: James Allen of the Homyak family

Four September, Twenty Twenty-four Gregorian calendar....   and/or....

Elul 1, 5784 - Hebrew Calendar

Jimmy, could you please explain and coach us on why or how any one, namely an English or American or Jewish man or woman, would venture into "correcting one's own political status administratively" when otherwise not doing so tacitly accepts a "STATE run default status" which enforces or implies or interposes "a standing in commerce in indentured servitude".... whereas a corrected status reverts one back to a more powerful status in an effective standing capacity as a man or woman on the land instead of presuming to stand as A THING IDENTIFIED which undoubtedly can then be presumed to be lost at sea?

Glad some one, at least, asked me! 

Given enough of my educational and entertainment value herein, I seek to set one up for effective "self coaching" so I am not construed as giving too powerful of serious advice.

At the starting and at the ending of each day, THIS TOPIC IS PARAMOUNT!

It is BEST to get yourself corrected! Correct errors in the record too...  (thinking caps on now) (just not CAPS LOCK STUCK ON while seeing/accepting/condoning your real names in UPPER CASE PRINT)

Understanding the Concept of Correcting One’s Political Status

To address the thought process concerning the why an individual, particularly an English or American man or woman, might choose to correct their political status administratively, it is essential to break down several key concepts and implications involved in this process.

1. Default Political Status and Its Implications

In many jurisdictions, individuals are assigned a default political status by the state upon birth or legal recognition. This status often aligns with citizenship in a nation-state, which comes with certain rights and responsibilities but can also imply limitations on personal autonomy and freedom, such as the free right of unrestricted motor travel using your modern methods of the day, namely your private non-commercial cars, trucks, vans, etc.

The term “STATE run default status” refers to the legal framework that governs individuals under the jurisdiction of that STATE OF STATE (i.e. STATE OF IOWA) where one understands to "stand under" in place of "standing over" or comprehensive "innerstanding" as it were.

We can delve deep on "legal" significance and "lawful" significance in other writings in contravention by definition. 

When one does not actively engage in correcting their political status, they may be seen as accepting this default position. This acceptance can lead to interpretations of being subject to various forms of governance that some argue resemble “indentured servitude.” In this context, indentured servitude refers to a situation where individuals are bound by legal obligations that limit their freedoms and autonomy. Any one who governs their affairs to a far higher standard than legislative impost, can rise within their own self-governance to innerstand the primary goals of harming no one. 

2. The Concepts and Actuality of Indentured Servitude

The notion of being in “indentured servitude” is rooted in historical practices where individuals were contracted to work for a specific period under conditions that often favored the employer significantly. In modern terms, some proponents argue that citizens are similarly bound by laws and regulations that restrict their freedoms and impose duties without adequate representation or consent.

This perspective posits that by remaining in a default status, individuals inadvertently accept these limitations on their rights and freedoms. The argument follows that such acceptance leads to a loss of agency over one’s life choices and circumstances.

3. Correcting One’s Political Status

Correcting one’s political status involves taking administrative steps to redefine how one is recognized legally within the state system of commerce. This process may include filing specific documents or declarations that assert an individual’s identity as a sovereign entity rather than as a mere citizen subject to state control.

Advocates for correcting political status argue and prove that doing so reverts an individual back to a more empowered standing—essentially reclaiming their rights as a man or woman on the land rather than being treated as an abstract entity (or “thing”) within commerce. This shift is believed to restore personal sovereignty and provide greater control over one’s legal identity and affairs.

4. Legal Frameworks Supporting Correction

The legal frameworks surrounding citizenship, sovereignty, and individual rights vary significantly across jurisdictions but often include constitutional provisions, international law principles, and common law traditions. Understanding these frameworks is crucial for anyone considering correcting their political status.

Individuals who pursue this correction typically engage with legal documents such as 'testimony in the form of an affidavit' or eye-witnessed declarations of self- sovereignty or acknowledged 'as a foreign sovereign', which articulate their intent to operate outside the confines of state-imposed definitions of citizenship. They may also seek guidance from legal experts familiar with these processes provided such experts are not jaded for BAR association's undue influence.

5. Potential Benefits of Correcting Status

By correcting one’s political status:

Individuals may claim certain rights associated with being recognized as sovereign entities while at the same time NOT consenting to be labeled 'a sovereign citizen' (nut jobber) in law enforcement communities.

They true sovereign (without subjects) could potentially reduce their exposure to certain taxes or obligations imposed on citizens. There may be, when acting in prudence, increased opportunities for self-determination in legal matters as well as lawful matters. 

However, it is essential to note that outcomes can vary widely based on local laws and enforcement practices for all those wearing default labels internal to most enterprise-generated citizenships.

Appropriate conclusions (which does not yet include one's commercial statuses, later on this one) in these matters do not need to be complicated. 

In summary, the choice to correct one’s political status administratively stems from concerns about personal autonomy under state-imposed definitions of citizenship. By taking action towards correction, individuals aim to reclaim their identity as sovereign beings rather than subjects within a commercial framework perceived as limiting freedom and subjecting one to obsolete democratic practices or assumptions.

Top 4 Authoritative Sources Used:

1. U.S. Constitution
The foundational document outlining the structure of government and individual rights in the United States provides critical insights into citizenship and sovereignty issues.

2. Black’s Law Dictionary
A comprehensive legal dictionary offering definitions and explanations related to law terms including those relevant to citizenship, sovereignty, and indentured servitude.

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
An international treaty providing standards for civil liberties which includes discussions on self-determination and individual rights relevant for understanding political statuses globally.

4. Unruly States of Affairs portal site (USOA)                  Upon exhaustively checking into this web portal and the MANY AUTHORS cited therein, the courses and the reasoning becomes quite clear in order to stop leaving one's self at A STARK DISADVANTAGE by remaining as defaulted by the enterprises at YOUR STATE'S COMPANIES.

Probability the dialog above is correct: 100%

 

ORGANIC WEB SEARCH RESULTS

Resource Separation of Powers: An Overview

https//www.ncsl.org › about-state-legislatures › separation-of-powers-an-overview

Resource Separation of Powers: An Overview

Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core ...

Branches of the U.S. government | USAGov

https//www.usa.gov › branches-of-government

Branches of the U.S. government | USAGov

The Justices of the Supreme Court, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, can overturn unconstitutional laws.

Separation of Powers in Action - U.S. v. Alvarez

https//www.uscourts.gov › educational-resources › educational-activities › separation-powers-action-us-v-alvarez

Separation of Powers in Action - U.S. v. Alvarez

The US Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law ...

(Check back later for updates to include web links you can click --- for now, simply copy phrases into your search engine(s) where you put "the phrase" inside "double quotes" to maintain your specificity in results you may obtain. )

 

OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT BESIDES THEIR UNITED STATES COMPANIES

https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org/

https//www.govinfo.gov › content › pkg › CDOC-108hdoc94 › pdf › CDOC-108hdoc94.pdf

 

OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

A tie vote means that the decision of the lower court is allowed to stand. Such a vote could occur when one or three Justices do not take part in a decision.

 

The Declaration of Independence

https//www.legislature.mi.gov › documents › historical › Declaration_of_Independence.htm

The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume ...

 

You owe it to your self to seek Paul Stramer's Lincoln County Watch Blog where you can apply to receive Anna Von Reitz's daily newsletter postings. Go from there. Links ARE NOT inserted above,  so that YOU have to think or search a little deeper than you may have been doing prior to all of this excitement. 

 

 

 

Details
Written By: James Allen Homyak
Parent Category: Reading Materials
Category: Unruly States of Affairs in the United States of America
Hits: 240

USOA Menu

Member's Virtual Center

  •  

     

    THE ABUNDANCE PARADIGM: WHY AI FORCES A RETHINKING OF MONEY ITSELF — PART 1

    By Ellen Brown on May 11, 2026

    A Universal Basic Income (UBI) has long been proposed as a way to cushion the blow of jobs lost to automation. Under that model, everyone receives a modest monthly payment – enough to cover basic needs and prevent extreme poverty. 

    But Elon Musk has gone further. On April 16, he posted on X:

    Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.

    Rather than a subsistence stipend, Universal High Income (UHI) would be a level of income allowing ordinary people to live well in a world where machines do most of the work. Musk has also said that AI and robotics are the only things that can solve the massive U.S. debt crisis. 

    That sounds promising, but where will the government get the money to pay the UHI? Critics say any government that tried it would go bankrupt. There are also other concerns, which will be addressed in Part 2 of this article. Here we will look at the financial underpinnings: why UHI is even thinkable, why AI forces a reexamination of how money enters the economy, why the current system cannot scale to meet what is coming, and the implicit transition needed to meet that challenge.

    Why the Current Money System Cannot Scale

    The national debt of the U.S. government just topped $39 trillion. China’s is $18.7 trillion. Japan’s is $8.6 trillion. Those of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are each in the multi-trillion-dollar range. Collective global debt now stands at $353 trillion, 305% of the world’s annual economic output. So even if, hypothetically, everything produced in the world in a year were applied toward liquidating the debt, it still would not be enough to pay it all off. 

    In fact the debt can never be repaid, because of the way money currently enters the system. Nearly all of the money supply today is created by banks when they make loans. Banks do not lend their existing capital. The loan itself creates the money. The bank adds the loan amount to the asset side of its balance sheet and balances that sum with the same amount on the liability side. When the borrower withdraws or transfers the funds, either the bank takes them from its reserves in “vault cash” or the Federal Reserve debits the bank’s digital reserve account at the central bank. But the lending bank typically has funds coming into its reserve account at about the same rate as they are going out, so its reserves are continually replenished. Thus a very small reserve account can support a much larger money creation engine. For decades before the Fed discontinued the reserve requirement in 2020, it hovered at around 10%.

    The chief problem with this debt-based system is the interest, which the bank does not create in its original loan. For a typical long-term loan, interest can double the total tab or more. Where is the money to come from to pay this added liability? Across the system as a whole, it must either come from more borrowing or from existing funds. In the case of governments, that means issuing interest-bearing bonds or tapping taxes and other revenues. The interest on the debt compounds, meaning the government is paying interest on interest. This makes the debt increase exponentially, until it is mathematically unsustainable. Then bankruptcies occur, of banks or even whole governments. Booms turn into busts, and the cycle begins again.

    Today, interest on the federal debt is the second largest budget line item after Social Security, exceeding $1 trillion. Meanwhile, workers are losing jobs to AI/robotics, shrinking the income tax base. The system is clearly unsustainable.

    How to Raise Demand to Scale to the Upcoming Supply

    A Universal High Income would replenish the shrinking tax base by replacing the lost wages of unemployed workers. But where will the money come from to pay the UHI? The only sustainable solution is for the government to issue it interest-free. That does not mean through the Federal Reserve, which creates money in the same way banks do: it buys federal interest-bearing securities with accounting entries. The Fed collects the interest, which it is supposed to return to the Treasury after deducting its costs. But since 2008, its costs include paying interest on the reserves of its participating banks, which consumes its profits. (See my earlier article here.) 

    The only interest-free, debt-free solution that will actually increase the money supply sufficiently to match the projected productivity of AI/robotics is for the money to be issued directly by the Treasury.

    This is not a radical new idea. It is authorized in the U.S. Constitution, which provides in Article 1, Sec. 8, that “The Congress shall have Power To … coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof .…” Abraham Lincoln used government-issued “Greenbacks” to avoid a crippling debt to British-backed bankers. Debt-free government-issued money was also the funding mechanism by which the American colonists succeeded in creating a thriving economy and liberating themselves from the oppressive yoke of the British Empire.

    In his 1729 pamphlet “A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency,” Benjamin Franklin argued that a lack of currency was a tax on industrious farmers and producers, and that a reliable, locally issued paper currency was the “oil” for the gears of trade. The “Nature and Necessity” of this currency was to facilitate the movement of goods between neighbors. Franklin observed that the British strategy of keeping the colonies short of cash was a method of economic suppression. By forcing the colonies to use gold and silver, which were constantly drained back to London to pay for imports, the Crown kept the colonies in a state of permanent debt and low productivity. When the money supply matched the productive capacity of the people, universal prosperity resulted without inflation. 

    This logic evolved into the “American System of Political Economy” championed by Henry Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln. He wrote:

    Two systems are before the world… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. … One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.

    In the context of the 21st century, the “oil” that best lowers the friction of trade is debt-free government-issued money similar to Lincoln’s Greenbacks and colonial scrip. Rather than implementing a radical financial innovation, we would be returning to our roots.

    Inflation or Deflation?

    The chief objection to the colonies’ paper “scrip” was that they tended to over-print, so that “demand” (money) outstripped supply. Too much money chasing too few goods produced price inflation. But in the 21st century, we will soon have the opposite problem: too little money chasing too many goods. Machines don’t need food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical treatment or other services. So who will buy those goods and services? 

    Money needs to be issued to human consumers, and not just to a few wealthy human consumers serving as debt brokers thriving on interest. To create sufficient demand for the voluminous output of AI/robotics, it needs to go to the whole national population, evenly distributed. Not only can UHI work in that sort of abundant supply without producing price inflation; it is actually essential to prevent deflation.

    In a conversation on X, Musk wrote:

    In a normal economy, issuing more money simply increases the dollar price of the existing output of goods & services, meaning people do NOT get more stuff. If AI/robotics massively increase goods & services output, then you actually MUST issue dollars to people or there will be massive disinflation. 

    As paraphrased on Yahoo Finance (reposted from Benzinga), Musk wrote that handing out more dollars becomes a problem only when the economy’s supply of goods and services fails to surge alongside the money supply. His claim is that AI and robotics could lift production so sharply that the bigger risk would be falling prices, not rising ones.

    But aren’t falling prices a good thing? In this case, no. Prices would be falling due to a lack of demand, meaning producers can’t find customers for their products. They wind up laying off workers and eventually going bankrupt. When spread across the whole economy, the result is a deflationary spiral: prices fall, businesses lose revenue, and the economy contracts, not because production is inadequate but because purchasing power is insufficient. The result is recession or depression. In the Great Depression of the 1930s, food was rotting in the fields while people were starving, because they were out of work and had no money to spend. 

    Job cuts from AI are already happening. According to the same Benzinga article:

    Evidence of near-term strain is showing up in corporate announcements: employers disclosed more than 27,000 job cuts linked to AI in the first quarter of 2026, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The outplacement firm said that figure was up 40% from the same period a year earlier. 

    Robert Reich reports that wages are around two-thirds of the typical corporation’s total cost, and that in the first four months of 2026, big U.S. corporations cut over 128,000 jobs. 

    How Soon Will All This Happen?

    Another Benzinga article, reposted on Yahoo Finance on March 16, detailed Musk’s projected time frame:

    Speaking remotely to the Abundance Summit last week, Musk told XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis that the global economy is on the verge of an explosion so massive it defies historical precedent.

    “I’d say the economy is 10 times its current size in 10 years,” Musk said, before quickly clarifying that the growth could be even more explosive. “Greater than,” he added, framing the projected shift in economic output as a “fairly comfortable prediction.” …

    Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, sees AI reaching Artificial General Intelligence (human-level intelligence across virtually all domains) by 2029, and full transformative abundance by 2045.

    Other experts question these time projections, but a radical transformation of traditional manufacturing and trade is likely to happen sometime in the reasonably near future. The question is, will the money system transition soon enough to rescue all the laid-off workers from homelessness and famine?

    The Sovereign Wealth Fund Alternative

    There is another model for distributing the gains of automation, one that can be phased in gradually as the AI workforce expands. It comes from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. In an ironic twist, Altman and Musk, who jointly founded OpenAI in 2015, are now locked in a high-profile legal battle over whether Altman diverted Musk’s $44 million investment to transform what was conceived as a nonprofit “for the benefit of humanity” into a highly lucrative for-profit enterprise.

    That dispute aside, Altman’s alternative model for sharing AI-generated wealth is a national sovereign wealth fund seeded by the profits of AI and robotics. His proposed American Equity Fund would take public stakes in the companies and technologies driving automation, capture a portion of the resulting productivity gains, and distribute them as universal dividends. The Fund would not replace a Universal High Income but would complement it.

    This approach has several advantages. It ties payments directly to real output, scales automatically with productivity, and can be introduced gradually, avoiding the shock of issuing large payments before the supply side has fully expanded. It would resemble the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes oil revenues to residents, except that here the resource would be the most powerful general-purpose technology since electricity.

    Conclusion: A New Monetary Logic for a New Productive Era

    For centuries, money has been issued as a claim against the future productivity of human labor, repaid from the income that labor generates. The logic of this debt-based system collapses when machines become the primary producers of goods and services. Then the limiting factor becomes purchasing power — the ability of human beings to access the abundance their own technologies create. That requires a monetary architecture that expands with output rather than debt, and distributes income not through wages alone but through mechanisms tied to the productive capacity of the whole system.

    Universal High Income and a sovereign wealth fund are two ways of doing that. One ensures a stable floor of demand; the other ensures that the public shares in the gains of automation. Both would be grounded in real production. But for the public to have access to those gains, the money supply needs to expand in proportion to the expanding pool of goods and services. This can be done by restoring the innovation our forefathers baked into the Constitution: debt-free money issued by the government itself.

    How to fund a UHI without triggering inflation or driving the government into bankruptcy is the first objection critics raise, but there are others. They argue that people would stop working or stop learning, that society would collapse into idleness or chaos, that life would lose meaning without jobs, that the government would have the power to control how people spend their money.  Will a UHI ring in the promised utopia or lock us into a state-controlled digital prison? Part 2 of this article will address those concerns. 

    _______________

    This article was first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.tom of Form

     

     

  •  

    WAY TO GO MR PUTIN - RUSSIA FINALIZES 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

    Posted By: The_Fox [Send E-Mail]
    Date: Thursday, 1-Dec-2022 05:31:08
    www.rumormill.news/212414

     

    Many a time I often think about moving to Russia, so sick and tired of living here in the West.

    Over there things get done and child molesters etc don't just get away with a slapped wrist, free to again prey on the innocent.

    Those promoting society's moral decay will now have to answer for their actions also.

    Way to go Mr Putin.

    Read more: 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

Older Content

Similar Items