God-given “unalienable Rights” = Individual Sovereignty

16 Dec

Robert R. Livingston

Image via Wikipedia

I recently received the following email:

Hi Alfred,

I was just reading your post on the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable”. I found it quite interesting.

I was also reading an article about President Obama omitting “Creator” when quoting the Declaration ( when I noticed that he repeatedly uses “inalienable”. The omission of the one word and the incorrect usage of the other in numerous instances can only be intentional. He’s very consistent about it. I was curious about your thoughts on this.


At the time, I responded briefly. However, here’s an expanded version of my reply:

In the context of American history, the terms “Creator” and “unalienable Rights” appear first and most famously in our “Declaration of Independence” of July 4th, A.D. 1776. There, in its second sentence, the Declaration offers the single most radical statement of truth in at least 2,000 years of Western political thought:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Prior to our Declaration, the nations of the western world were governed by monarchies where only one man—the king—was deemed to be sovereign. The king was sovereign because he, and he alone, was deemed to have been directly endowed by the God of the Bible (the earthly king’s “Creator”) with the “divine right of kings”. That endowment of God-given rights did not attach as a result of an election or human appointment. That endowment attached as the result of a “coronation ceremony” that took place in the highest church within the nation.

The king would wear a crown of gold and jewels which was intended to symbolize the glittering “corona” seen around the heads of the Christ and saints in medieval paintings. The crown didn’t simply represent the king’s secular or political authority; it represented his spiritual authority. Because the king, and only the king, got his rights directly from God, the king had a special spiritual status (sovereignty) that no other man living in that kingdom could match.

We can see some confirmation of these observations in the rules of chess and the design of classic chess pieces. In the classic chess piece design, the king alone has a cross on the top of his crown. That cross symbolizes that the king is directly “endowed by his Creator” with the “divine right of kings” and is therefore sovereign.

Under the rules of chess, you can “kill” (remove from the chess board of “life”) all of the other pieces. If an opponent lands on a pawn, knight, bishop, rook or queen, that piece is effectively “killed” and removed from the board. But the opponent can never “kill” the king. You can checkmate the king by putting him in circumstances where he is both threatened with “death” and unable to move to another, safer location. You can even accidentally put the king in a circumstance where he is not “in check” (being directly threatened) but can’t move without moving into “check” (death).

The king, and king alone, had the “divine right of kings”—which included an unalienable Right to Life. You could capture a chess king, but you could never, never, lawfully “kill” him.

The king in a monarchy enjoyed the “divine right of kings” because the source of his rights was “divine”; i.e., the God of the Bible. He was sovereign because he alone received his rights directly from God.

All else were subjects because they did not receive their rights directly from their Creator/God.

Get that?

I cannot overemphasize the significance of God-given rights. Those who have rights given them directly by God are sovereigns. Those who do not have such rights are subjects.

So far as I am currently able to understand, the attribute of God-given rights goes to the very heart of our spiritual struggle with tyranny in general and our current government, in particular. This attribute explains why President Obama refuses to mention our “Creator” or “unalienable Rights”. It explains why modern government has twisted the “separation of church and state” from a concept designed to protect the church from the “state” to a principle designed to protect the “state” from the church.

Obama and our current government do not serve the God of the Bible, but they truly “fear” Him in that they don’t want the American people to regain their memory of this nation’s spiritual foundation. That spiritual—not political, spiritual—foundation is found in that second sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” which, again, declares:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It may seem odd to some that I’m repeating myself; that I’m again offering the text of the second sentence of the Declaration. But I might reproduce that sentence a third time in this article—or maybe four or five times. Why? Because once you really grasp the spiritual significance of that single, 35-word sentence, you will have taken the first, concrete step towards regaining your Liberty and reducing the size and power of our current government.

You might not think so just yet but, in truth, you can’t get enough of the Declaration’s second sentence. It’s that important.


Because the “divine right of kings” found in monarchies and bestowed on just one man or woman per nation, corresponds to the “unalienable Rights” with which, under our Declaration, “all men” are “endowed by their Creator”. The God-given, “unalienable Rights” elevated you and me from the status of subjects to the status of sovereigns.

As subjects (without rights from our Father YHWH Elohiym), we must obey any and every rule, regulation, law and arbitrary decree of government.

As sovereigns (endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights), the government has only those limited powers over us which we (as individual sovereigns) granted to the government in our state and federal constitutions. Otherwise, government can’t lay a glove on us—unless we have injured or damaged another sovereign and that sovereign invokes both the powers of our servants (the government) and a jury of our peers (co-sovereigns) to decide what punishment, if any, should be imposed upon the defendant-sovereign.

There is no Liberty without the unalienable Rights. There are no unalienable Rights except through the God of the Bible. Ergo, there is no Liberty without God.

If you’re a satanist or an atheist, you’re screwed. You have no hope of Liberty. You will necessarily be a subject all of your life. By your choice to eschew the “unalienable Rights” given by the God of the Bible, you will have chosen to abandon any hope of ever being free. You will be a life-long subject in a secular world where might (not God) makes right.

There is no other political or spiritual ground for claiming your unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (freedom of religion)–except the God of the Bible. If you’re unable or unwilling to claim the unalienable Rights granted by the God of the Bible, you’ll will live your life as a slave. If your choice of faith denies the God of the Bible, you will live your life as a slave.

The “land of the free” cannot exist without the God of the Bible.

Which is exactly why President Obama and others of his ilk insist on trying to eradicate the people’s memory of the spiritual foundation for this country by not expressly referencing our “Creator” or “unalienable Rights”.

What is that spiritual foundation?

Again, for the third time (I’m shameless), that spiritual foundation includes the second sentence of the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But that spiritual foundation also includes the correlative third sentence of the Declaration:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Read the first half of that third sentence (“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, . . . .”). What’s it mean?

It means that the primary purpose of government as envisioned by our Founders was to “secure” to each and every man, woman and even unborn child, their God-given, unalienable Rights. Even if we were too ignorant, lazy or incapacitated to know what our God-given, unalienable Rights were, our government was supposed to nevertheless “secure” those rights.

For example, under the Declaration it’s clear that our God-given, unalienable Rights attach as an attribute of a creation—not as an attribute of our “birth” (as found in the 14th Amendment).

There is passage in the book of Jeremiah where our Father YHWH Elohiym declares that He knew Jeremiah long before Jeremiah was even in his mother’s womb.

Implication? We were created by our Creator long before we were conceived by the joinder of a sperm and ovum in our mother’s womb. Thus, our unalienable Rights may have attached to us before we were even “conceived” in this life.

But even if our creation did not precede our conception, our creation is certainly no later than our conception. Thus, under the Declaration, even the unborn have the God-given, unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Under the Declaration, abortion is an abomination, a criminal act committed against an (unborn) sovereign.

On the other hand, under the 14th Amendment of A.D. 1868 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”), our civil rights do not attach until we are “born”.

Result? It’s legal to abort the unborn because they are not deemed to have yet received their civil (secular/political) right to life.

Under the Declaration of A.D. 1776, our unalienable Right to Life attaches as an attribute of our creation and therefore abortion would be illegal. I.e, because the government’s primary duty is to “secure” the unalienable Rights to all, the government would have to prevent abortion even though the unborn was too ignorant and weak to claim its own right to life.

Similarly, under the two principles of the Declaration (1—we receive our most important rights from God; and 2—government’s primary duty is to secure those God-given rights), our government is obligated to secure our God-given rights even if we are too dumb, lazy, ignorant or apathetic to secure them for ourselves. This obligation probably underlies the term “land of the free” in that our government was obligated to secure our rights even if we didn’t know how to do it ourselves.

Today, the situation is much reversed. Government will not secure any of our rights unless we are 1) sufficiently intelligent, knowledgeable and forceful to compel government to do so; or 2) sufficiently wealthy to afford to hire a very high quality lawyer.

Today, if you want any rights you must fight for them. Insofar as our nation has forgotten our foundation principle (that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights), we have become subject to the principle of might makes right. In today’s system, if you’re strong enough, smart enough, rich enough or corrupt enough, you can “have it all”. If you’re not that strong, smart, rich or corrupt, you’ll be a subject/victim or, at best, a victim-in-waiting.

The persistent omissions by President Obama that Matt described in his email tell me that references to our “Creator” and our “unalienable Rights” strike fear into the gov-co’s heart. These persistent omissions confirm an observation I’ve understood with increasing clarity for at least 15 years: at bottom, our struggle for liberty and against tyranny is not a secular or political conflict—it is a manifestation of a spiritual war that’s been ongoing for several thousands of years.

President Obama is no dummy. If ordinary men fail to mention the “Creator” or “unalienable Rights,” we might dismiss those failures as a consequence of laziness, ignorance, or low intellect. However, Obama’s persistent refusal to recognize the “Creator” and/or “unalienable Rights” tells me that he understands the spiritual war and isn’t about to remind people of their God-given, unalienable Rights.

Obama surely recognizes the spiritual war and is working for the the “other side”. (What a damnable fool, hmm?) That is, he wants to strip this country of its spiritual foundation. He is arguably a Muslim, an atheist, or perhaps even a satanist. But, whatever he is, he is certainly not cut from the Protestant faith that laid this country’s foundations.

I have to admit that while I disagree with Obama on most things, I admire his intellectual integrity in this matter. He might be an atheist or a satanist or whatever, but he will not (so far) lie about the people’s relationship to the God of the Bible. I.e., it would be easy for him to refer to our “Creator” or our “unalienable Rights” at appropriate times—and thereby avoid public controversy, while—in the background—he was secretly working to remove those spiritual concepts and values from our nation’s foundation.

Curiously, President Obama instead appears too honest to expressly refer to our “Creator” and/or our God-given, “unalienable Rights” even while he’s working to hide or destroy those concepts. (Perhaps demons, empowered to lie about almost everything, still can’t lie about our Father YHWH Elohiym, hmm?)

In any case, Obama’s persistent refusal to reference our “Creator” and/or “unalienable Rights” confirms 1) my growing awareness over the past 15 years of ongoing spiritual warfare; and 2) the need to learn and rely on the weapons of spiritual warfare in our struggle against our government’s growing tyranny. I therefore want to do whatever I can to understand and properly claim my God-given, “unalienable Rights”.

For the moment, I believe the key to claiming and enforcing our God-given, unalienable Rights may be the 9th Amendment which declares:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the the people.”

There can be no denial that the unalienable Rights declared in our Declaration in A.D. 1776 were recognized by the government when the Bill of Rights was ratified in A.D. 1791.

For more insight, read the relevant sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States of A.D. 1875 (see, Statutes at Large, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, Volume 18, Part 1 A.D. 1873 starting with “THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” at and read/copy the following 56 pages.

Note the name: “THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”—not “THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE UNITED STATES”. The organic law of the “United States” (federal government) is The Constitution of the United States. However, that Constitution (plus three other documents) comprise The Organic Law of The United States of America.

Implication? The “United States” is merely a component or agency of The United States of America.

The 56 pages of Statutes at Large are evidence that The Organic Law of The United States of America includes four documents: 1) “Declaration of Independence” (A.D. 1776); 2) Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781); 3) Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787); and 4) The Constitution of the United States (ratified by the People in A.D. 1789).

There is no indication in these 56 pages that any one of the first three documents were repealed by the last document (the Constitution). The “Declaration of Independence” is every bit as much the LAW today as is the Constitution.

Thus, properly argued and supported by evidence, I have a constitutionally-secured right to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the Declaration.

Therefore, I conclude that my remedy against much of the tyranny of this government will depend on my ability to prove that:

1) I am a man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28;

2) That the Declaration of Independence is part of The Organic Law of The United States of America;

3) I am therefore declared by law (the “Declaration“) to be endowed by my Creator with “certain unalienable Rights”;

4) I am one of the “people” of one of the States of the Union;

5) The 9th Amendment to the Constitution compels the federal government to recognize my God-given, unalienable Rights; and then,

6) Under the 9th Amendment, the courts/government are obligated to recognize and perhaps even “secure” my God-given, unalienable Rights.
I am convinced that the God-given, unalienable Rights are the spiritual/political foundation for the people of The United States of America to be recognized as individual sovereigns. Therefore, if—under the 9th Amendment—I can compel gov-co to recognize any of my “unalienable Rights,” I may be able to compel gov-co to recognize me as an individual sovereign.

That recognition as “sovereign” is the “holy grail” of the legal reform movement. IF you can cause the gov-co to recognize you as an individual sovereign, you will have achieved real Liberty and as high a political stature as is available to any living man.

Written at arm’s length without the United States, by

Alfred Adask


Posted by on December 16, 2010 in 9th Amendment, Bible, Christendom, God-given, Sovereignty, Values


23 responses to “God-given “unalienable Rights” = Individual Sovereignty

  1. PatriotOne

    December 16, 2010 at 2:06 AM

    ‘Without the exercises of opposition Man cannot hone his standing’
    If “man is endowed by his creator”, is it mans right to choose his particular creator? Does the Declaration confine a man to “our Father YHWH Elohiym”?
    My comprehension of the Declaration is that Man is his own master, that no other man can declare himself the master of any other man than himself. That the Creators presence is not required for one man to be free of another man or group of men.
    If I am forced allow a man to compell “our Father YHWH Elohiym” upon me before he will allow me to be free, aren’t I already a mans slave?
    Can a man say to me “because you have not declared your creator I am your master”?
    The Declaration orders that; any man serving the progressions of this Declaration shall not have any authority over any other man inhabiting the earth, leaving all men alone and at peace, rising only to inform of danger, of threats to freedom, or to offer assistance for defenses of a mans life, liberty, and property against all trespasses and trespassers.
    Any man serving the progressions of this Declaration shall never rise above any other man and shall remain equal in his life, liberty, and property as any other man.
    “our Father YHWH Elohiym” is not necessary for freedom to exist. “endowed by his Creator” is nothing more than an example placed before men that they should know that man is not the master over man, and that a group of men calling themselves government have no authority over man, except to fend off the trespassers of man.
    I should not be required to tell another man anything in order to compell him to leave me alone. If I am required to tell a man “God is my master not you” and he says “prove it” and I attempt to ‘prove it’ (depending upon my offering of proof), that man is already my master.
    Eg; If I am sitting and smoking and a cop walks up and says “are you smoking weed?”, I say “you are not my Creator GO AWAY”, cop points gun at me…
    The cop should never appear upon me unless I call for help, or if I have injured another man. I should not need God to stop another man or group of men calling themselves government.

    • John Cooper

      March 21, 2013 at 9:28 PM

      So, we should all choose who are creator is? That’s bizarre. I think you have been smoking to much of that weed you referred to.

      • James Freeman

        March 26, 2017 at 11:05 AM

        Don’t know, John.
        But this I do know, no governments will everbe our Creator.

  2. Luke

    December 16, 2010 at 3:13 AM

    Just what in darn blazes does “separation of church and state” actually mean. First off it isn’t “church” but “Church”. And “State”, not simply “state”. Same has nothing to do with being a bondsman in Christ. Albeit often referred to “Christian”, or, “I’m a Christian”, etc.

    “One remark is necessary: the Constitution of the United States, while retaining other Roman principles of public law, departed Rome altogether in separating Church from State.”

    “The Common Law is absolutely distinguished from the Roman or Civil Law systems.”

    Regarding to so-called “Divine Right of Kings” merely means that a so-called Higher Law is acknowledged as Supreme over man’s law and since the King is in this position of rule over subjects, etc., etc., it’s obvious that Law of Nature is in motion. It’s a conceptual pretzel but it is there. Likewise it is Law of Nature that is maintaining and keeping you where you are, or whoever. The program and conditioning is deeper than deep…deeper than most folks want to go. If a Man does not know himself how can He possibly know the Will of God. “There are In-com’s, no Incom’s to be paid at our coming in to Jesus Christ.”

    The bait and trap for Mind, et al: “Law in the sense of the analytical theory, the body of legal precepts bearing the guinea stamp of the state, was taken to be but an imperfect reflection of an ultimate and universal natural law. It was an attempt to realize an ideal of what law should be, founded on rational consideration of human nature, and a resulting picture of an ideal human society.”

    Just some meaningless cuts and pastes.

  3. mAximo

    December 16, 2010 at 11:49 AM

    Al, you ought to have said:
    ‘You may “kill” a chess king, but you could never, never, lawfully kill him.’
    As check is only threat of capture, and checkmate is to “kill,” when capture is
    unavoidable while in check (or stalemate when check is unavoidable while not in
    check) only the king thereby enjoys the unalienable right to life. Your article
    otherwise makes a good case for the Federalists also having chess in mind when
    creating the system of checks & balances, when turning the central gov’t into
    the opposing king.

    • Don

      July 2, 2011 at 1:53 AM


      One of the two best books I ever read was entitled CHECK MATE. The other, “The Man nobody knows.” The thought occurred that you would like them too.

  4. John Johnson

    October 17, 2011 at 11:31 AM

    Articles of Confederation were Revised,
    by the Constitution for the united States,

    and by the way,
    Look at the Picture of that Constitution,
    it reads:
    Constitution for the United States of America

    and Look at the Transcript:
    it reads:
    Constitution for the United States of America

    but the Heading of the page reads:
    Constitution of the United States of America

    the Question now becomes:

    What is the Distinction between
    Of and For?

    Who can do a Differential Diagnosis,
    on these words?

  5. Adask

    October 17, 2011 at 9:53 PM

    As I understand it, a “constitution” is a document that originally creates, incorporates or “constitutes” some entity. We say “The Constitution of the United States,” but the same text might just as easily have been called “The Charter of the United States” or “The Incorporation Papers of the United States”.

    Thus, a document that “constitutes” a particular entity need not be named “The Constitution of That Entity”.

    We are all familiar with the federal “Constitution”. I believe it’s proper name is “The Constitution of the United States”. I believe that document constituted or created an entity called “United States” which is commonly referred to as the federal government.

    Some people believe that Constitution’s proper name is “The Constitution for the United States of America” because the last phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution reads “. . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That belief might be correct, but I disagree. I believe that the text in the Preamble is telling us that “this Constitution” is being ordained and established FOR THE BENEFIT OF the pre-existing entity named “The United States of America”.

    If I’m right, then the “United States” created by the Constitution is a separate and distinct entity from “The United States of America”.

    If I’m right, the Constitution created the “United States” but some other document must’ve created or constituted “The United States of America”.

    Q: What other document predated “The Constitution of the United States” (ratified in A.D. 1788) that might’ve constituted “The United States of America”?

    A: The Articles of Confederation ratified in A.D. 1781.

    If you read the Articles of Confederation, you’ll that its Article 1 declares: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.”

    I read that to mean that the Articles of Confederation created or constituted an entity whose proper name is “The United States of America”. If so, then the Articles of Confederation are the “constitution of “The United States of America”.

    Again, I therefore believe that the later instrument that came to be called “The Constitution of the United States” created/constituted another entity called “United States” that was separate and distinctly different from “The United States of America”. More, I believe that the “Constitution” constituted the entity “United States” to act for the benefit of the beneficiary named “The United States of America”.

    What possible difference could there be between “The United States of America” (as constituted by the Articles of Confederation) and the “United States” (as constituted by The Constitution of the United States”)?

    I see a fundamental and glaring distinction. If you read and compare the “Articles” to the “Constitution,” you’ll see that “The United States of America” includes only the States of the Union. There is no proviso for territories owned by the federal government, nor is there any proviso for a federal “district” that is currently called “Washington DC”. On the other hand, the latter “Constitution” provides for the federal government to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over TERRITORIES and allows for the “district” that is now called “Washington DC”.

    I speculate that a primary benefit to be provided for “The United States of America” (the States of the Union) by the “United States” (national (?) government) was to own and operate the TERRITORIES for the benefit of the States of the Union.

    I similarly speculate that if someone asks if I am in one of the “United States” (meaning the entity created by the “Constitution”) and I say Yes, it might be possible for others to presume that I am in a territory of “this state” of the “United States”. On the other hand, so long as I insist that I am within “The United States of America,” I must be within a State of the Union and I cannot be in a territory.

    I’ll bet that any address with a Zip Code is in a territory rather than a State of the Union. I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that one of the first orders of business is to understand the difference between The United States of America and the United States, and then be prepared to effectively claim that everything you do is within a member-State of the perpetual Union called “The United States of America”.

  6. Chosen

    November 5, 2011 at 10:55 AM

    To PatriotOne: because you would choose not to believe in the Creator, referred to in the Bible does not negate his existence. You cannot believe because you haven’t been given that revelation. This does not mean however that you are not subject to His will.

    • PatriotOne

      November 6, 2011 at 5:02 AM

      I did not disclose (i don’t think I did) whether I believe in a Creator or not.

      My statment was to proclaim that Man is not my master no matter my belief as to a Creator.

      Alfred explains that ‘government’ will treat me as though I am an animal unless I inform it, and motion it, that I am the creation of God.

      I simply state that I should not be required to claim a God/Creator in order for ‘government’ to leave me alone.

      ‘government’ is a fiction, words on paper, just like ‘Alice In Wonder Land’ is a fiction/words on paper.
      Men and Women put on the costume of “government” and prowl the earth demanding that People bow down to ‘them’ and obey ‘their’ ORDERS that ‘their’ “government” costumes allow them to command. But if I tell the Men and Women wearing “government” costumes that they are not and God is my master… they will go away and leave me alone? — only to again explain to the next gang of costume wearers that God IS and they are not….?

      How many times must I claim my God IS and “government” costumes are not?

      The Declaration compells all Men to know that “all Men are endowed by their (own personal) Creator..with Rights…”, and that any other Man or gang of men (government) cannot trespass upon the Rights of Men without risking their life in persuit of their trespasses.

      Simply being seen a Man is all I need for “government”, espically USA “government”, to leave Me alone. I do not need to write 10k words (motion/Writ/Declaration) in order to convince a “government” costume wearer that “it” cannot treat me like an animal, that “it” must treat and accept Me as a free Man.

      How is it that a common thief does not care whether I have a God/Creator or not, but a “government” costume wearer will stop if I do have a God/Creator? “government” (men and women wearing costumes) is a fiction (factually-words on paper complete with roles to play for the actors), and since “government” is a fiction how can I prove that God/Creator exist?

      “government” exist only on paper, God/Creator exist only in my mind (or on the Bible paper).

      Neither are more or less the opinions of Men and Women written on paper.

      I am flesh and blood, I can see, hear, taste, feel, smell, think. Words on paper cannot do the things I can do. Therefore I should not need to tell any man wearing a costume that he cannot order me to do or not do any thing.

      But Men are liars and thieves, and they wear costumes to do their trespasses. They will claim their costume makes them my master, that Me being a Man is not enough to be left alone, that I must also prove a God/Creator has authority over Me before their costume has authority over Me.

      I am not anti Christ, I am anti man demanding that I have a Christ or be treated like an animal.

      My Creator is private to Me. I do not need to convince a thieving Man, costumed or not, of My Creator. (it might be good to try but a thief is very quick, and the IRS costume isn’t interested)

      • PatriotOne

        November 6, 2011 at 5:12 AM

        additionally; the USA (men and women wearing costumes) seems to refuse to accept the Muslim Ceator, the Budist Creator, and every other Creator. Even the “Christian” refuses to accept any Mans individual choice of Creator. Al Capone wasn’t jailed for murder, he was jailed for ‘trespassing a fiction’.

  7. EarlfromOregon

    November 6, 2011 at 9:47 PM

    Because of Sin,
    everyone is under an Authority,
    or is lawless.



    Holy Matrimony is an Ecclesiastical subject matter jursidiction.

    Marriage is civil law jursidiction.

    People and institutions Recognize, a man and woman living together,
    is lawful(matrimony) or Legal(marriage).

    If they are living together, Not under one of those authorities,
    people and institutions recognize what they are doing is Lawless,
    that is one of the reasons why people discourage “living together”
    and civil law does Not allow benefits to pass thru, to the Live In.

    The Bible tells us that Fornicators are Not allowed into the Kingdom of God,
    which is a Serious penalty.

    By this example, we see that Everyone must be under an Authority,
    either a Church – the Authority for those trying to be good,
    or Civil government – the Authority for those who chose Not to try to be good.

    • PatriotOne

      November 7, 2011 at 3:37 AM

      Why must ‘everyone’ be under an “authority”? Which MAN-made that LAW? If the USA is an attempt of Mans ability to rule over His self, how can a Man be compelled to follow the LAW of an other Man.
      My home is My Castle. When I control My self I do not trespass. If I fail to control My self and committ trespass, all things being equal, I have effectively offered My self to be trespassed against (commonly referred to as fended off, or someone defends Their self against My trespass). Without a trespass their is no need to defend, Men are free, left alone, and at peace.
      I do not (should not) need to prove or claim a God to be left alone and at peace. The only kind of Man that would require Me to claim a God or he can eat Me is a faux religous Man that really wants to be My GOD.
      If Man is endowed by His Creator with certain unalienable Rights, (‘certain’ meaning Rights exist as a matter of fact, and ‘His Creator’ means His self chosen-or not chosen, but no other Man can choose,) Man is to be left alone and at peace, not trespassed upon by any Man or gang of men calling themselves “government”.
      According to the ‘spirit’ of the USA, Man is His own King/Creator/Master upon Him-self and not upon any other Man or Men. And every other Man must respect every other Mans unalienable Rights if He expects to be a free Man among other free Men. No God is needed, preferred maybe, but not needed if Man is to be free.
      Even God offers Man the ability/freedom to choose Life over death. For if God compelled any Man all Men would be slaves and God would be MASTER and worse than satin. satin can trick a Man but it cannot compell a Man. Man/Men do compell an other Man to defend Him self, but the USA government (Men and Women reading words on paper and acting them out), under the Constitution, is commanded not to compell any Man.

  8. Adask

    November 7, 2011 at 3:54 AM

    There’s passage in the Bible that says (roughly) “choose this day who you will serve–God or mammon?” If my understanding of that verse is roughly correct, it’s not man’s law that puts us under authority; it’s God’s law. But God allows us to choose which authority will be under or “serve”.

    It is arguable that only real freedom that any man enjoys is the freedom to choose which authority–God or mammon–that we will serve.

    If you won’t serve God, you WILL serve mammon. If you won’t serve mammon, you must serve God.

    Mammon will enforce your obedience to mammon–unless you can make a very effective claim to be subject to God. God will not enforce obedience to Him in this life. He leaves that choice to you. However, it appears that you will be held accountable for your choice in the next life.

  9. PatriotOne

    November 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM

    In the USA Man is free because he is alive, not because he has a God. If Man were required by the USA to have a God in order to be free in the USA, the USA would need to define God in order for Man to claim and prove he has a God. The USA has a Supreme Court that cannot define its own Constitution, how can the USA be expected to define a Creator or God?

    “Mammon will enforce your obedience to mammon–unless you can make a very effective claim to be subject to God.”

    1) Factually, what is ‘mammon’?
    2) If the State is ‘mammon’, isn’t the State confined within the Constitution?
    3) Does the Constitution specifically allow the State to trick the People into contracting away their freedom?
    4) Does the Constitution specifically allow the People to contract with the State? (because if the constitution DOES allow the People to contract with the State, for what purpose does the constitution exist at all?) (I would accept that the constitution allows the People to contract with the State limited to being elected which is a voluntary contract, never forced to be elected. If being elected is voluntary, how can an elected Man use force against any Man?)
    5) government is nothing more than a gang of men and women pointing guns at People demanding payment for and allegiance to their good intentions/services.

    I suspect ‘mammon’ to be/represent a lie. I could read this quote “choose this day who you will serve–God or mammon?” to ask ‘God or lies/liars’.

    The USA seems to Me to be set up as Man not needing a God to be free from an other Man. The Declaration commands that government actors know and accept that Man can bind only Him-self, and government cannot bind itself to a Man, because government is nothing more than a gang of Men.

    The USA is NOT a God and is NOT a Man, it is a fiction and therefore cannot touch any Man and has no ability to believe in any God, exactly like and no different than ‘Alice In Wonderland’.

    I hope I am explaining my thinking coherently. In the USA Man is free because he is alive, not because he has a God.

    To serve God is simply to leave your fellow Man alone and at peace, thereby the peace of God is freely adsorbed by the peaceful Man. I believe that Man knows God before he ever read the Bible.

    Could it be asked; state v State v Freedom – or simply SLAVERY v Freedom ?

  10. Adask

    November 7, 2011 at 10:13 PM

    You might define “mammon” as any alleged “authority” that does not flow from the God of the Bible. I.e., “mammon” = “not God”. If God is Truth, then “mammon” could be defined as “lies”.

    I doubt that The United States of America is a fiction. It is a perpetual Union of individual “sovereigns” who comprise the States of the Union. It is a “confederation” and arguably an ASSEMBLY (or association) of living men and women or the sort protected by the First Amendment. Each of these living men and women are “sovereigns” because they received their “unalienable Right” from their Creator. Without those “unalienable Rights,” they can’t “sovereigns”. Without God there can be no “unalienable Rights. If you plan to claim to be a sovereign, I am so far unable to imagine any basis for doing so other than the “self-evident” truth declared in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. No Creator/God = no unalienable Rights = no individual sovereignty.

    “God and sovereignty,
    “God and sovereignty . . .
    “Go together like a horse and carriage. . . .
    “Dad was told by mother,
    “You can’t have one without the other!”

    (Actually, you could have God without earthly sovereignty, but you can’t have earthly sovereignty without God.)

    • PatriotOne

      November 13, 2011 at 2:22 AM

      Man must be able to have earthly sovereignth with or without God, as far as Man is concerned. Even God allows Man to freely choose God or not. So how can Man take away the choice that God has given to Man? The USA Declaration and Constitution does NOT allow any Man to force, through government, any Man to do any thing. The USA can only recognize that a Man has a right to His life, not to any other Mans life.

      I want to make sure that all reading this know that I do believe in ‘God” as the creator of the heavens and the earth. What I disagree with is that Man can make that decision for any other Man but Him-self.

      Because I choose for Me does not allow Me to choose for You.

      The Declaration stating that ‘all Men are endowed by Their Creator with…” means that no Man has a right or privilege to endow any Man with any thing by way of force. That because the Declaration declares individual freedom, I read it as allodial freedom, it forbids any trespass to that freedom in the resulting Constitution.

      The only (Wo)Man bound to the Constitution is the one that volunteers to be elected and serve under Oath, the Oath being the only contract to the Constitution. I offer the following:

      Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
      (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocal obligations;

      “The Constitution tells the state (State-STATE?) to let the people alone”

      This ^^^ is quite different from “”it tells the state to let the people alone ONLY IF THEY HAVE A GOD that is superior to the state””

      The Declaration did not define ‘Creator’ because the founders knew that a government, if permitted to define Creator, would assassinate people according to the definition. ‘Americans’ today want to kill any Muslim. They also want to kill any non-‘American’ “illegal alien. It seems today that “all Men” only referees to ‘American’ Men, and this is SLAVERY forced upon Man Creator or not.

      If the USA/’Americans’ do not allow “all Men” to be free-allodial simply because He is a Man there can only be SLAVERY.

      What kind of Man can enslave an other Man because the other has no God? I would answer; a Man without God. And if a Man is without God what good is it to tell him he must leave you alone because You do have a God?

      Today the USA will point a gun at a Mans head if he fails to pay the IRS for permission to work. The USA has decided that, God or no God, Man is the SLAVE if he wishes to sustain his life. The USA has decided that all Men around the world SHALL BOW DOWN to the MILITARY or be murdered, just like the USA has the IRS upon every ‘American’.

      Once the USA is permitted (I think is defacto is) to force Man to choose God or not, Man is a SLAVE simply by being forced to choose.

      I say again; If the USA/’Americans’ do not allow “all Men” to be free-allodial simply because He is a Man there can only be SLAVERY.

  11. Adask

    November 13, 2011 at 2:51 AM

    The question is one of authority. Your arguments might be correct, but my argument (that sovereignty flows from God) is easier because my argument is based on legal authorities (the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the 1st and 9th Amendments) which the government is pretty much obligated to respect. Your argument is ultimately based on force. My argument is based on legal authorities. I know that the government may not respect my arguments, and if they don’t, they we are we be compelled to rely on the force you imply or accept our status as slaves. Your argument and mine are not mutually exclusive.


    March 20, 2018 at 5:24 PM

    Straight to perfection manifested by me sophannaro sovereign KIM ssn 561-83-7251


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s