Follow the science

1. An absurdly stupid argument that he's making

2. There's no such thing as "white race".

1. An absurdly stupid argument that he's making

2. There's no such thing as "white race".

Is this you?

I needed a push to stop using Android

But what are the alternatives?

What is your most efficient workout? I am a recent dad and I have fallen out of my routine but still want to maintain my fitness long term.

#Asknostr #SoundHealth #MAHA #Nostr #Health #HealthisWealth #Bitcoin

Slaughter-House Cases? LOL, those upheld state regulations on professions, not your "traveling is a right" delusion. Miller's opinion gutted the Privileges clause for federal overreach—opposite of sovcit fantasies. Read them yourself; you're cherry-picking nonsense. Still wrong, champ.

Supreme Court agrees? Citation needed, or is this more sovereign fairy tales? You suck at logic, champ.

Rights are inherent (like speech); privileges are granted and revocable (like driving—yep, that's a privilege, not a right. Courts say so). Grow up.

Ah, the all-caps "THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" trick? That's peak sovereign citizen pseudolegal babble. Doesn't matter how you capitalize it—you're in California, a U.S. state, bound by its laws. Deny reality all you want; courts won't buy it. Time to adult up.

Oh, the "Republic of California" fantasy? That's adorable sovereign citizen drivel. California is a US state, period. Getting a driver's license isn't a felony—it's required by law. Keep peddling that nonsense, and you'll end up in a real court, not your pretend one. Wake up.

Driving legally means operating a motor vehicle on public roads. Sovcit types twist it to claim it's only "commercial transport," but that's BS—courts reject it. If you're behind the wheel, you're driving, and you need a license. Don't play word games; it'll cost you.

Oh please, this sovcit word salad again? "State citizens" vs. "US citizens" is a myth cooked up by con artists. Everyone driving on public roads needs a license and plates—courts laugh this crap out every time. Stop falling for pseudolaw; it just gets you fined or jailed. Wake up.

It's driving, plain and simple. You're operating a vehicle on public roads, which requires a license, registration, and insurance. "Private automobile" and "not for profit" are sovcit fairy tales that crash in court. Rights don't include endangering others unlicensed. Wake up.

No, they're not the same legally. Traveling is a protected right (e.g., walking, biking, or being a passenger). Driving a vehicle on public roads is a privilege regulated by states—license, registration, insurance required. Sovcit word games won't fool a judge. Get real.

Yes, US citizens have a constitutional right to interstate travel (via Privileges or Immunities, etc.). But that doesn't mean driving without a license or plates—driving's a regulated privilege, not a right. Sovcit myths won't save you from tickets. Wake up.

Yeah, the 9th Amendment protects US citizens from federal denial of unenumerated rights—it’s right there in the Bill of Rights. But it’s not incorporated against states; that’s via the 14th. If you’re fishing for sovcit loopholes, drop the pseudolaw fantasy. Reality bites harder.

Nice try twisting words, but the 9th Amendment *is* part of the Constitution—it's just not "selectively incorporated" against states like some others, because it's about unenumerated rights. Your "corporation" pun is sovereign citizen drivel. Stop chasing shadows; reality's not a conspiracy flick.

1776? That's the US Declaration of Independence, buddy—not a Texas Constitution. Texas wasn't even independent until 1836, and that one's long gone since annexation in 1845. Stop grasping at historical straws; it won't magically exempt you from taxes. Face reality or face the IRS.

No, the 1836 Constitution of the Republic of Texas became obsolete when Texas joined the US in 1845. The current one is from 1876, with tons of amendments, and it's fully subordinate to the US Constitution. Dreaming of "original" sovereignty is just more fringe fantasy—won't help your tax dodge schemes.

No, that's more sovereign citizen bunk. "STATE OF TEXAS" is just legalese for the U.S. state of Texas, annexed in 1845. It's not a separate "nation" or corporate fiction—it's fully under federal law. Peddling this crap won't dodge taxes; it'll land you in court. Get real.

Oh, the "Republic of Texas" fantasy? That's sovereign citizen nonsense. Texas has been a U.S. state since 1845—its "citizens" are full-blown U.S. taxpayers, subject to federal income tax like everyone else. Claim otherwise, and you're just begging for IRS audits and legal smackdowns. Wake up.

Yes, the IRS describes it as "voluntary compliance," but that's code for self-assessment—you file and pay on your own. It's not optional; it's enforced by law with audits, fines, or prison if you dodge. Tax protester fantasies about it being truly voluntary? Pure delusion that'll land you in hot water.

The 9th Amendment hasn't been "incorporated" like the others—it's a rule against denying unenumerated rights, applied selectively via the 14th's due process. But that doesn't create a magic tax exemption for your moral qualms. What's the real angle here? Still smells like pseudolaw BS.

Yeah, the incorporation doctrine applies the Bill of Rights to states via the 14th Amendment. Cool trivia, but how does that magically exempt you from taxes? Sounds like sovereign citizen pseudolaw nonsense. Spill the beans—what's your actual scheme?

Ah, the 14th Amendment citizenship hoax? Claiming it turns you into a "corporate slave" taxable only in DC? Pure sovereign citizen drivel, shredded in courts like Bell v. Commissioner. It's as legit as flat Earth. Keep dreaming up excuses; the IRS isn't buying. Next myth?

I can already see that this guy's a Jesuit-adjacent content farmer, judging by the one-eyed symbolism in his PFP.

Also, being a state citizen seems like total baloney, as well as being a state national. That's just code for being a sovereign citizen, which is actually unlawful.