"Who's Your Sovereign?"

N the ideal government there is a natural "pecking order" from top to bottom, and back to top; a natural flow of control and support that is beneficial to almost all (chiefly those willing to live peacefully and productively, in a cooperative, united effort).

    A true "government of the people" recognizes foremost the Sovereignty of the primary origin of its power and authority as the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth, and all they contain.

    The Creator's law, consequently, must be the basis -- at the very heart and core -- and the motivation of every manmade law or edict, to be a legitimate exercise of the power granted mankind in the pursuit of tranquility, happiness, prosperity and progress.

    That prime law concerns itself primarily with man's relationship with his Creator, and secondarily with man's (and woman's) relationship with his/her fellow man (and woman).

    To be effectively preeminent that law's first rule must of necessity always be: The Sovereign Creator's will comes first in everything, regardless of any person, opinion or alleged power to the contrary or in opposition thereto; for every opponent owes every moment of his or her existence to that same Creator, and thus opposes their own right to exist by taking any firm stance in opposition to their Creator's law or will.

    The same is true of any organization of men or women, governmental or private, that attempts to or does ignore, denigrate or disparage the very origin and source of their power to think, reason or act.

    The second rule by which the Creator's will must be preserved on earth is that self-preservation of His Creation must come first, in all secular matters, by putting our fellow man on an equal footing with ourselves in the rights to fair, just and equal treatment, both personally and individually, and collectively before man's institutions of law.

    Anything -- any manmade law -- or anyone not living their lives in accord with the principle of doing to others as they would have those others do to them, has abandoned every pretense of courteous mutual respect, and every right to protection of their own rights and interests along with it.

    So what exactly, then, is the actual "pecking order" in relation to those who choose not to participate in a government's schemes of social "benefits," so-called "civil rights," and retirement or national "security," and the inevitable liabilities and abundant costs that always accompany them?

    Today, most people think of government jurisdiction as a one-way street -- from top to bottom -- with government always on top and supposedly "lowly citizens" always on the bottom, struggling under the often onerous and heavy burdens imposed upon them by the fictional "state" (i.e. actually by persons acting together in the guise of a "state," which -- depending on the focus or intent of their actions -- may in fact be a conspiracy to engage in a criminal enterprise or conduct under the guise of "legitimate government" instead).

    Thus, the legal fiction known as "the corporate state" has "authorized" those acting on its behalf to engage in the presumption of sovereignty over everyone else, with assumed immunity from the consequences of even their most grievous or lawless actions.

    In reality, the veil of so-called sovereign immunity is pierced -- indeed, it is torn down and destroyed -- when anyone acting under the guise of legitimate authority transgresses the law and acts instead as an outlaw.

    And all outlaws must and will eventually be brought to justice, if not before carnal mankind's corruptible courts, then certainly before the Sovereign Creator's final Judgment Seat.

    The true pecking order, in any human-devised government, begins and ends with the so-called "sovereign" individual; and in relation to the corporate state, the "sovereign" nonparticipating individual in the exercise of his rights.

    Such "sovereign" people either create, authorize or legitimize secular governments to act on their behalf, or they tear down, abolish, alter or delegitimize such governments when they become abusive, tyrannical or dictatorial.   In reality, if humanity were truly following their Sovereign Creator, they would not set up or establish any human-devised government, but each person would behave as one of the people of the new covenant, in obedience to the Law established and legitimized by both it and the old covenant.

    Today, such governments have either directly created or presume legal fictions, based on oral, written or assumed contracts (under so-called "civil law"), called corporations and "persons."   The corporate state then creates naturalized or liege subjects (those who pledge allegiance to a government or its representative flag icon) or "persons," and gives them all "civil rights," in order to make them appear to be the equals of true "sovereign" individuals.

    A "citizen" is defined legally as a member of a "political community," which relates solely to the policy (i.e. police) or the administration (e.g.. through administrative courts) of a state or national government.

    Such political policy is always directed more toward public (as opposed to private) policy, effecting the general welfare of the citizens and subjects of a state or national government, than it is to protecting individual (as opposed to collective) rights.

    One who "owes" allegiance to a government is someone who is obligated to obey a "sovereign government," as a duty-bound subject, in consideration (payment) for the alleged "protection" proffered (but not always delivered) by said government, as in the granting of certain privileges, immunities or benefits (which almost always come at a greater cost than their true worth or value).

    A government controls -- by its option to destroy, deny, abolish or rescind what it grants or creates -- that which it permits.   And all who seek a government's permission to do what is their natural right, in essence bow down to worship before the idol of the government's alleged preeminence in all matters afforded to the fictional corporate state, or "person" created in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is a fraudulent and deceitful image of the secular state.

    Private individuals, and their inherent Creator-granted rights, on the other hand, are separate and distinct from the "general public," and do not need to conform to the "official policy" of a state or nation when it is in defiance of those ultimately Sovereign-granted rights.

    Let's look at an analogy, to help explain the differences between these distinctive concepts.

    While a nation's military forces are presumed by some today to be superior to so-called civil authorities, the difference between military and so-called "civilian" is one of servant to master.

    In other words, the military owes its very existence to the so-called "civil authorities" upon whom it relies, and to whom it must look, for its funding.

    The difference between somebody in the military and someone, of the same state or nation, who is not is a matter of contractual obligation.   You are not "in the military" until you volunteer to serve by signing a contract, sometimes known as an induction form.

    Not even a military "draft" -- in a truly free country -- can conscript (force you to sign) such a contract against your will, and so it necessarily follows that neither can you be forced to serve in the military without your express and actual (or acquiescent, or implied) consent.

    Such "consent" begins with a state-issued birth certificate (certifying or swearing you as the illegitimate child -- for the mother uses her maiden and not married name -- of a servant or citizen, and not as the legitimate offspring of a freeborn individual), and this solidifies with a later application for the state-created "privilege" (being constantly downgraded, and doubtless soon to be reneged upon and repudiated entirely, despite political promises -- or bald-faced lies -- to the contrary) known as "social security."

    Anything labeled "social" (or socialistic) is predicated upon the community known today as "society," an association or company of persons (the corporate "body politic"), based upon a "social compact," "covenant" or contract.

    The entire basis of such a contract is the implied surrender of individual freedom of action which, to be legitimate, must be a voluntary act of consent (for no valid contact can be established, maintained or enforced through coercion or fraud).

    This is why it is said (paid lip service) that "[g]overnment must therefore rest on the consent of the governed" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, "Social Contract, or Compact").

    For instance, someone who compacts or contracts to join the military service known as the Air Force, cannot then be conscripted by the Navy, the Army or the Marines (or considered by them as absent without leave, or AWOL.

    Each of these are separate and severable branches of what is called "the military," and a contract with one does not automatically imply a contract with any other, or with all.   Neither, then, can no contract with any be construed as an implied contract with the military (service), else these branches of the military would be called something more suitable, such as the military force.

    In fact, that is just what some do call them, but usually only in relation to another government and its citizens!

    In America, the so-called "selective service" was originally, and remains, an act of calling into "active service" those "persons subject to be called," as defined under the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.

    This federal law (18 U.S.C.A. section 793 et seq.) purports to punish "espionage, spying, and related crimes" (Black's, Abridged Fifth Edition).

    This so-called "internal security" act references ". . . the crime of 'gathering, transmitting or losing' information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation" (ibid.).

    This act can only imply that a "person" under the "Selective Service" Act, that is bound under contract law as duty-bound to render labor and submit his or her will to the direction and control of the military, or to be registered for the purpose of a "draft," is equivalent to the use of this latter term ("draft") in former "stockyard parlance" (Black's, Fourth) as: "All those animals in one consignment weighed as a single sales or purchase classification" (op. cit. "Draft").

    In other words, just one of the herd of work "animals" to be sent to their possible slaughter on behalf of their "owners."

    This is all related to the terms "appoint," "assign," "prescribe," "select" (as in "selective service"), and "decree."

    The key to understanding all of this is known as "nexus" or "jurisdiction."   In ancient Roman law a nexum was a form of contract involving "mancipatio" (from which derive the modern English words "emancipation" and "obligation"), which was an obligation or bond between contracting parties relating to the sale or conveyance (transfer of ownership) of "res mancipi" (or: "real property," such as land, houses, slaves, horses, or cattle).

    Today the nexus (bond or connection) of a government's alleged jurisdiction over its "citizens" or "people" is also by contract, either actual (written; e.g.. birth certificates, social security applications, driver's licenses, IRS form 1040, etc.) or implied consent (oral, or by affirmative action, or by simply complying with an order or command).

    Without such nexus of jurisdiction the state has no legitimate power to act against an individual in the pursuit and exercise of his rights -- so long as he or she does not trespass against the property or rights of another, any more than a law purporting to conscript citizens of another state or nation, or to tax the same for their domestic (internal) transactions or affairs, could ever be considered valid, binding, or lawful.

    Likewise, neither can any government legitimately force an unwilling non-participant individual into the position of a bond-slave, forcing them to do the government's arbitrary bidding.   This, of course, does not deny the illegitimate raw power of a state or national government actor to behave in a criminal capacity, to abscond with the rights and liberty of a free individual, and subject (enslave) them involuntarily, against their will.

    Yet justice will finally prevail on earth, to right all such wrongs, if not in this lifetime then assuredly in the resurrection.

    Jurisdictional nexus means that -- assuming state or national actors, the media, educators and the clergy are behaving themselves honestly, morally and lawfully, which today is too big of an assumption to make -- nobody can be forced to do someone else's bidding who is not under their jurisdiction, contractual obligation, or sworn duty.

    Those who swear allegiance to any nation, government, a military branch, or their flag, are declaring themselves to be subject to the jurisdiction (legitimate or not) that is represented by such entity or entities, as a naturalized or corporate fiction PERSON or citizen.   This is why all foreigners are forced to swear an oath of allegiance before being allowed to become a new citizen, while those who are native born are not so required or forced to do likewise.

    The "privileges of citizenship" are not the same as the rights of freeborn individuals, as every such benefit or exemption is, and will always remain, the province of its creator to later rescind, deny, destroy, abolish or dissolve.

    For instance, constitutional amendments may later be annulled, as happened when the 18th -- or prohibition -- amendment to the American federal constitution (outlawing ". . . the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors") of 1919 was later repealed by the 21st Amendment of 1933.

    The "Bill of Rights" of 1791, or the first ten Amendments to the federal constitution added fifteen years after the Declaration of Independence, and eight years after the end of the American Revolutionary War of Independence from Great Britain (1775-83), are deemed to be principles of constitutional law that are essential and fundamental -- because they guarantee rights (and privileges, if they so choose) to the individual -- that these are now contained in most state constitutions as well.

    This "summary of the rights and liberties of the people" (Black's Fourth Edition), and the rights included in this "Bill" (or declaration) are actually limitations upon the federal (and by extension, the States') power to act in defiance thereto.   And there are many today in the midst of America who would -- as enemies of their own people -- act to destroy and deny all such limitations upon their willful criminal conduct (or their desire to so act).

    Truly, you are the subject of that which you choose to obey (cf. Romans 6:16).   One way or another -- be it heavenly or earthly -- you have a sovereign.

    The only question being, "Just who is your Sovereign anyway?"