“unalienable Rights” = Individual Sovereignty
received the following email:
I was just reading your
post on the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable”. I found it quite
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
| - - - - 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.
There, in its second sentence, the Declaration offers the single
most radical statement of truth in at least 2,000 years of Western political
“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
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.
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
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
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
. 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
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
You might not think so just yet but, in truth, you can’t get
enough of the Declaration’s second sentence. It’s that
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
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
Again, for the third time (I’m shameless), that spiritual
foundation includes the second sentence of the Declaration:
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
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=16
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.
The “United States” is merely a component or agency of The United States of
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.
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
4) I am one of the “people” of one of the States of
5) The 9th Amendment to the Constitution compels the federal
government to recognize my God-given, unalienable Rights; and then,
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
Written at arm’s length without the United States, by