The United States is Now a Religious State Dictatorship

ARE ALL MEN EQUAL NOW, OR ARE SOME “MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS?”

by Jedi Pauly, ©2012

Where is the Spirit of 1776 now?

(Feb. 14, 2012) — What do these words from the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal,” mean?  These words were written as a counter to the claims of the King of England who had the distinction, in a monarchy form of government, of being the only person with the privilege of being a sovereign authority.

His sovereign authority was artificial in nature, decreed by him and accepted by his subjects.  The recognition of his sovereignty was without consent.  It was a grant under duress by the subjects who were forced to recognize his sovereign political authority, and by the man-made laws that decreed his sovereign political authority to exist.  He was the only person in the realm who had the legal right or privilege to claim a sovereign political authority.  If anyone else claimed a sovereign political authority, they would be in a direct conflict with the king, would be guilty of crimes against the State, and would be put to death by the king.

Now we come to the American Revolution of 1776, with the words “all men are created equal” and the qualifications in Article II that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to hold the Office of President.  How are these concepts related?

The words from the Declaration of Independence that say “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”, is a statement that sovereign political authority is a natural authority, an inherited function of the Laws of Nature, existing as a Natural Law of Nature that comes from a Creator, and is not an artificial man-made legal privilege that is bestowed, a privilege that only belongs to kings or is in the purview of the government to dole out with statutory authority (plenary powers, Positive Law).

One simply inherits this natural sovereign political authority at birth from one’s citizen father according to Natural Law (“natural born Citizen”).  At least at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, that is how things worked and were understood, because it is also stated in the Declaration of Independence, “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” [emphasis added], meaning that males are the ones who secure these natural political rights by participating in government, as women did not vote or hold political office in those days.  Also, our nation’s citizenship laws only recognized an inherited U.S. citizenship to occur at birth from only being born to a citizen father.  You could not claim an inherited U.S. citizenship from a female U.S. citizen mother if your father was an alien.  And if a U.S. citizen mother gave birth outside of the U.S. to a child of an alien father, then that child would not even be a citizen of the U.S. at all.  It was that way up until at least 1934.  Just listen to the transcript of the Supreme Court case Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS.  This is stated beginning around the 39-minute mark.  Finally, the consent part is in the Declaration of Independence because the artificial political sovereign authority of a king requires obedience to the laws of the king’s government without the consent of the subjects being required for the king’s authority to be lawful.  It is being declared in the Declaration of Independence that the element of consent is required, and is how natural inherited sovereign political authorities (the People, all men created equal, natural born Citizens) obtain their just or lawful powers of government.

So, the qualifications that one be a “natural born Citizen” is in Article II, in part, to secure a Separation of Church and State, so that the government will not usurp the authority of the Creator by claiming for itself the authority of God to declare who of those which are born into the society are natural sovereign political authorities.  Thus creating a religious state, just as the churches did in the monarchy forms of government in England and Europe around the times of 1776 and previously throughout the Middle Ages, when they decreed who the natural political sovereign authorities were.  That system of government had led to the privilege of the Nobility, so that only a privileged class of nobles could claim the political authority to be the Head of State.  The nbC qualifications in Article II prevent a monarchy form of government and a religious form of government, by requiring one to inherit one’s natural sovereign political authority according to Natural Laws.  This removes the authority from the Church and the State to determine who can be the Head of State, by removing from them any claim that they are the source of Natural Law and therefore capable of creating people to be natural sovereign political authorities (i.e., natural born Citizen), which only Nature and Nature’s God can create via inheritance from a citizen father.

If the government claims the authority to legislate who shall be natural born sovereign authorities by declaring, with its plenary powers, who shall be a “natural born Citizen,” instead of it just being naturally inherited from a citizen father, then they usurp the Laws of Nature that come from the Creator to determine who is born into society as natural members of society, with natural sovereign political authority in that society, who is able to represent the other natural sovereign members of U.S. society.  Congress and the Courts then have set themselves up as a religious state with the divine authority of the Creator, in violation of the First Amendment, and they have also taken away the element of consent from the naturally-occurring sovereign political authorities (all the natural born Citizens) because Congress then becomes a source of governmental authority which does not require your consent.  We the People are supposed to be the source of the natural sovereign authority from whom the consent is required for the government’s very existence, power, and authority, not Congress or the Courts.  From the Supreme Court:

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”  [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)]

Regarding these challenges to Mr. Obama being allowed on the ballot in the States:  If any judge, as Judge Malihi has done, decrees that Mr. Obama is qualified as a “natural born Citizen” due to soil birth or a citizen mother, and a Secretary of State goes along with this, then the government will have usurped the authority of the Creator and the Laws of Nature that come from the Creator which are required under Article II to determine via inheritance who the natural sovereign political members of the society are, and they will have eliminated the requirement that the government obtain the consent of the governed, setting themselves up to be both the King and God.  This establishes both a monarchy form of government and a religious state, in violation of Article II and the First Amendment separation of Church and State completely abolishing our Constitution and 200 years of history.  This usurped authority from Nature and the Creator, would be akin to the government usurping authority to make it a law that the earth is flat instead of round, or that the earth is the center of the solar system instead of the sun, both of which are only determined by Natural Law endowed by the Creator.  This is beyond Congress’s power and authority, as it is beyond their authority to define what a natural born Citizen is and decree that Mr. Obama is one, which by the Laws of Nature he is not.

It is my opinion that those making ballot challenges regarding Mr. Obama being on a State ballot for the Presidential election, need to raise these issues stated above in their ballot challenges before these judges.  It is not necessary to ‘define’ natural born Citizen.  One need only raise these issues above and state in their challenge that it was never the intention of Article II nbC to secure natural political rights for foreign non-citizen male fathers of other countries to pass on to their natural born son’s of a foreign country, the natural political right to be President of the United States.  Won’t you please forward this article to those attorneys who are bringing these challenges and ask them to read and add these arguments to their efforts?

One Response to "The United States is Now a Religious State Dictatorship"

  1. meyerlm   Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM

    Unfortunately, the Quotation of the Most Powerful and Instructive Paragraph EVER Written is MISSING Here: “WHEN, In the course of Human Events, it Becomes NECESSARY~~~~~~~~
    The “Founders” herin this paragraph call out Specific Duties and Responsibilities that the Citizens of the Republic MUST Follow and enact to “Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America from ALL Enemies Both Foreign and Domestic!!”
    Sadly, at this point-in-time~NOBODY is Reading or Understanding, or Enacting those “Duties and Responsibilities!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.