The word ‘citizen’ is used very often in the united states and throughout the world. In general terms, people seem to agree that the word describes an individual who resides in a particular country and who is entitled to the protection and other services provided by the government, generally in exchange for obeying the laws and pledging loyalty to the government. To be honest, I was surprised by the precise definition of the word by and

The primary definition of the word according to the top two dictionaries on the internet makes it quite clear that to be a ‘citizen’, one must both owe allegiance to the government and be entitled to protection provided by the government.

(Bear in mind that the elites and their cronies can and do change the definitions of words, including ‘vaccine’, ‘recession’, ‘woman’, and many others.)

Using both major parts of this technical definition, I would argue that I am not a citizen of the united states, also known as the DC Empire, the union, America, and the USA. 

First, I never have and never will swear allegiance to the federal government, the evil sociopaths from DC, or any related person or institution. If I ever did swear such an oath, I hereby rescind it. However, even in a crazy universe in which the Constitution was somehow a contract that I somehow agreed to and signed (I was not alive in 1789 when a few men out of the millions of Americans somehow signed this ‘contract’ on their behalf, eternally enslaving all future generations to the whims of DC politicians for eternity), the DC politicians have willfully and maliciously violated the contract ad infinitum, thereby rendering it null & void. I hate the federal government and its members as much as any human could hate anything. If I could swear an oath to the antithesis of allegiance to DC, I would do so in a heartbeat, and I would repeat the pledge of disloyalty 30 trillion times. According to this part of the definition, I am not a citizen, and the millions of libertarians, voluntaryists, and many others around the union who reject the Lords from DC are not citizens. How interesting!

Second, I do not receive protection from the federal government or the state or local governments. No individuals in the united states technically receive protection from the bastards in their local government, their state government, or DC. In fact, I would contend that DC politicians make us far less safe! 

Additionally, they are by far the greatest threat to my safety! The federal government’s highest court has ruled that police officers have no duty to protect individuals; their only duty is to protect politicians and investigate crimes after they occur. Even if cops did have an affirmative duty to protect people, they literally could not possibly protect all people at all times; cops are not omnipresent and omnipotent. Additionally, nearly every cop is too cowardly or otherwise unwilling to protect people, including the many children slaughtered in Uvalde while hundreds of well-armed cops waited outside the school, cowering in fear. So, cops can’t protect you, don’t want to protect you, are too afraid to protect you, and have no legal obligation to protect you, according to the US Supreme Court! 

But what about the federal government, the military, and protection on a more general scale? Does the existence of the federal government make us safer or does it compromise or harm our overall safety? 

While some argue that the tremendous goliath that is the US military could serve as a deterrent to other hostile powers (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, terrorists, etc.), the issue is far more complicated. Of course, I would agree that this claim seems to have some legitimacy on its face, and it may be true to some extent. Personally, I believe that China already wields too much influence over DC politicians and other world leaders for the deterrence argument to be significant. Additionally, the sheer amount of destabilization that the DC Empire’s foreign policy has caused over the past few decades has clearly made the world and people like you and me far less safe. While Al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS are truly evil savages, the reckless bombing conducted by DC politicians (I refuse to use the word ‘we’, because I have no relation with DC sociopaths) has undisputedly created millions of anti-American terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers. When examining the total safety profile and total cost to life of allied soldiers and civilians due to the instigation caused by the DC Lords, we would have to calculate that many deaths, injuries, and other hardships have been the result. If the DC military did not exist, I believe that Americans and perhaps all humans would be much safer. Yes, China would continue to seek world dominance (which they are already succeeding at, likely with the assistance from DC). Yes, Iran’s government gang would likely still hate Americans and Israelis, and would still seek to obtain nuclear bombs. Yes, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and some other countries may still not be super nice and may still hate Americans and the very concept of ‘freedom’. Still, I am confident that the 50 unique, decentralized state National Guards (they used to be called ‘militias’ until Ted Roosevelt took over all state militias a century ago) would protect us from actual foreign invasion at least as well as the DC Empire’s military. 

Going much further, I would also contend that the federal government is the greatest and most existential threat to our safety. Here are a few examples that prove the point:

  1. From 1942 to 1946, the DC government gang used their violent arm (the military) to forcefully kidnap and imprison all individuals in the united states with Japanese ancestry, including US citizens! This occurred without a shred of due process, of course. In this case, were the American citizens protected by the military or did they wish for protection from the military? Of note, the DC government gang’s highest court ruled that the arbitrary internment of all Japanese-Americans was totally constitutional and super cool. 
  2. In 1993, the federal government gang sent armed men to terrorize a community in Waco, Texas. The Branch Davidians were a cult, but they did not engage in violence or even violate any laws. Federal agents tailed David Koresh, the cult’s leader (who was likely a psychopath) for long enough to eventually speak with one UPS driver who insinuated that a package delivered to the compound contained inert grenade casings, which were illegal. The FBI and ATF surrounded the compound and demanded that Koresh surrender to them to be arrested. After growing impatient, the federal cops breached the building, deposited 400 containers of CS gas (a form of tear gas) and then burned the building to the ground, murdering 25 children and 50 adults. After the incident, the federal government gang’s highest law enforcement officer, Attorney General Janet Reno admitted that her gang found no evidence of child abuse in the Davidian compound. Do you think that the innocent children felt protected by the federal government or is it more likely that they were praying to God for protection from the violent men burning them to death? 
  3. In 1970, the federal government gang and the Ohio government gang sent soldiers to break up a peaceful protest organized by Kent State University students. The government’s killers did what they were created to do: they opened fire on the peaceful students, murdering 4 and injuring 9 others. Did these students feel like the military was protecting them or did they wish they had some form of protection from the military? 
  4. In 1992, federal goons surrounded the home of peaceful military veteran Randy Weaver. After his military service, Weaver moved to rural Idaho, where he enjoyed life with his wife, 16-year-old daughter, 14-year-old son, and 10-month-old baby. The sociopaths from DC were there because Weaver allegedly sold a shotgun to a friend. This was totally legal, but the shotgun’s barrel was just a hair under 16 inches, making the sale illegal according to a wonky federal law that he could not possibly have known about. The buyer turned out to be an informant for the DC gang, and the feds successfully entrapped him into committing a technical ‘federal firearms crime’, justifying surrounding his home with many federal agents, including snipers. After staking out his home for some time, the 14-year-old boy and his dog stumbled upon one of the US Marshals on the Weaver property. The gangster from DC shot the dog and the teen, killing them both. Randy Weaver and his daughter left the house to investigate the gunshot. A sniper from the DC gang shot Randy, but did not kill him. This second shot brought his wife, Vicki, outside of the house. While holding her baby and trying to protect her daughter, the sniper shot her in the head, killing her. She fell to the floor and dropped the baby. How do you think the Weaver family felt about this situation? Were the evil violent gangsters from DC protecting them or hunting them? Some believe that the story had a happy ending because the DC gang gave the Weaver family $3.1 million, which they stole from individuals via ‘taxation’. 
  5. In 2021, The DC politicians sent dozens of armed thugs to viciously break into the home of a peaceful New Hampshire man, terrorizing him, his girlfriend, and his roommates. The suspect was accused by the DC gang of selling cryptocurrency without obeying all of their rules and receiving all of their licenses. The criminals caused massive amounts of damage to Freeman’s house and stole thousands of ounces of gold and silver, as well as large amounts of cryptocurrency and other valuables. They are now threatening to lock him in a cage for the next 400 years. Do you think Ian and his girlfriend Bonnie feel like the government protected them, or is it more likely that they wish someone would have protected them from the government? 

The list goes on and on and on. From the Philly bombing to the DC Empire killing American citizens without any due process, the government has proven that it consistently makes people less safe. Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence – the very document that spawned the united states – said very simply that the government exists for the sole purpose of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Considering that the DC Empire gangsters have increasingly demonstrated every day for the past 245 years that their goal is the opposite of protection of individuals in the united states, should the federal government be dissolved? I think so. The criminals in DC do not comprise a legitimate government. Their violent institution that masquerades as a national government doesn’t even have any citizens!

Within a few years of the Revolution, colonists in power began abusing individuals who never swore allegiance to them, and who never benefitted from their protection.