Allegiance
You may read this article on the
net with active footnotes at:
"Man's primary allegiance is to his vision of truth,
And he is under obligation to affirm it."1
The concept of allegiance is defined in Black's as, "The
obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes
to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in
return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and
permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary
one."2
This of course only refers to a citizen that is a member as
opposed to one that is a mere inhabitant
3
As an example a "Natural Allegiance," as stated in English
law, "is due from all men born within the king's dominions,
immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual,
which cannot be divested by any act of their own." This of
course refers to a time when the free dominion of the land was
no longer held by the people. They had lost that position of
"freemen" upon the land created by God and had become subjects
under oaths of fealty or acts and applications under the
dominion of kings. Such allegiance is a form of worship.4
In principle the Declaration of Independence and the so
called "America Revolution" could not divest that obligation on
its own. It was the freemen, domiciled upon their own land, that
had already removed themselves from that particular binding
dominion of the king many years before with the manumitting
charters of Charles the I and II. The Charters did not set men
free. Freedom does not come so easy. They allowed men the
opportunity to seek, struggle and strive to eventually be born
on their own land, their own free dominion in the new world of
the Americas.
"The civil law reduces the unwilling
freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes
judge once manumitted as ever after free."5
This Maxim of English law was either forgotten or ignored by
George the III, although proclaimed by many men of England like
William Pitt and Parliament itself. And it was the usurpation,
by George, of the rights of the freeman living in the American
republics which gave lawfulness to the Declaration of
Independence. In actuality it was the King who did the revolting
not Americans.
"I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone
who does not agree with me is a traitor."
-- King George III of England
The only real freemen in America were those
who made the effort to establish the ownership of land as an
estate, a free dominion as a free individual. Hamilton
did not include the non landed populous called "our rabble, or
all unqualified persons, shall have the right of voting, or not
be taxed; but that the freeholders
6 and electors, whose right
accrues to them from the common law, or from charter, shall not
be deprived of that right."7
The principle upon which Natural Allegiance stands, although
presented under other names, is the basis of the obedience owed
a Father by his Children8,
Parens Patriae9.
Other forms of owed obedient allegiance are Master by his
Servants10
or a Sovereign by his Subject11
or a Benefactor by his Client12.
The fact that the State governments, as Republics of America
before and after the adoption of The Constitution of the United
States, rested not in the hands of the State governments but in
the hands and hearts of the individual freeman living on his
land, an estate in fee simple as an
allodium. The state governments had no real sovereign
authority to make the United States a sovereign nation with
dominion over the People. The States knowing they had only a
"titular" authority13
adopted the Constitution creating the United States in the name
of the people who vested themselves in that corporate being.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.14
Even Alexander
Hamilton wrote against the bill of rights, "Here, in strictness,
the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they
have no need of particular reservations...."
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far
less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration,
which is merely intended to regulate the general political
interests of a nation, than a constitution which has regulation
of every species of personal and private concerns."
He went on to say that the bill of rights were "unnecessary"
and even "dangerous." "They would contain various exceptions to
powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to
do?"15
"The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."16
The once colonial and now state administrative government and
other equitable and economic interests wanted or settled for a
Constitution. The State or status of the sovereign people, was
independent of the administrating government in the republics.17
This explains the need to use the phrase, "We the People of the
United States." This new agreement had almost no power over,
"The ordinary citizen, living on his farm, owned in fee simple,
untroubled by any relics of feudalism, untaxed save by himself,
saying his say to all the world in town meetings." For he, "had
a new self-reliance. Wrestling with his soul and plough on week
days, and the innumerable points of the minister's sermon on
Sundays and meeting days, he was coming to be a tough nut for
any imperial system to crack"18
and he certainly didn't want this new Constitution.19
In those days of individual sovereignty each household were
states "independent of their form of government". They learned
to come together in groups called hundreds. But their loving
alliances often fail under the burden of affluence and
abundance. Men forget their neighbors rights are as important as
their own and instead of loving their neighbor as themselves the
began to covet their neighbors goods in social democracies and
are more content to live by the sweat of others than by their
own brow.
Today, the government is referenced as the United
States Federal Democracy even though at the beginnings of
government in the America's the word Republic was the title most
sought and most used. Is there a difference?20
The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…21
"Republic. A commonwealth; that form of government
in which the administration of affairs is open to all the
citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state,
independently of its government."22
We see here that there may be more than one sense to the word
republic. First, the 'administration of affairs' is open to
citizens and it can be referred to as a commonwealth which
denotes the general welfare of the people or the public. In the
other sense a republic 'signifies the state independent of its
government'.
What does that mean? Haven't we been taught that the state is
the government? Here it says the state is independent from the
government. The word state in Webster's has almost
twenty different definitions. A state is a status or an estate
or a condition of life which in the case of a republic can be
independent of its government.
In another place we find the word republic defined, "A state
or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens…
A state or nation with a president as its titular head;
distinguished from monarchy." In this definition we see again
that the supreme power is in the hands of the citizen who is
entitled to vote to choose the ministers of government but it is
not a common purse where you can take away the rights of your
neighbors.
The representatives are in charge of administrating the
affairs of government. In the second definition it states that
the singular executive is titular. Titular is defined as,
"existing in title or name only; nominal…" while a monarch is "a
single or sole ruler of a state… a person or a thing that
suppresses others of the same kind."23
A leader of a true republic does not rule the people nor do the
people rule over each other as in a democracy. In such a
republic people are free to rule themselves, "free from things
public".
In a democracy the majority rule over the minority while in a
pure republic the majority may choose those who will minister to
the public affairs of the people. In a republic of noble and
virtuous souls there are few affairs of the people that are not
taken care of by the people.
This people taking care of people is actually what is meant
by "altars of clay"24.
For a number of reasons men need to come together in more
systematic groups, hence the altars of stone25,
republics, democracies, kings and tyrants. The less men control
their own willful greedy bestial nature the more they move under
the despotism of tyrants.
The United States Federal government is to guarantee to every
State, status or condition of life a Republican form of
government, a government where men are free from things public.
Why then does the government of the corporate States and the
United States seem to have such a supreme authority over almost
every aspect of its citizenry and their lives? Whose fault is
this, who is to blame? Is it the usurpation of government or the
ignorant, greedy and covetous application of men?
When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider
diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat,
if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his
dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Proverbs 23:1-3
What is the true nature of this American Republic? What
should be the true nature of a Republic? Plato's Republic was
very much contrary to those early Republics where kings and
central governments were ousted or rejected or exited.
Today, there are many nations calling themselves republics
but they are very different from each other and many are
different than they were in their beginnings.
Some may assume that the United States of America and the
original Republic are one and the same thing but you have to
look no farther than April 3, 1918, when the new American Creed
was read in Congress beginning with the words, "I believe in the
United States of America as a government… whose just powers are
derived from the consent of the governed: a democracy in a
republic." In other words the U.S. Federal democracy is a
corporate political society that exists within the Original
Republic, a Republic that predates the United States'
Constitution.
The United States was note a continuation of the Government
of the people but a departure by certain select people and
institutions. Some may ask why the United States needed a Creed
but the fact is all governments are systems of faith. Fidelity
is from the word fides, meaning "confidence,
faith, trust".
The creation of the United States could not subject an entire
nation of free people to the will of that corporate body to make
law by the signatures of a few men, by the adoption of
representative forms of government that were not given such
power to begin with. Nor could it gain such power by the vote of
the people even if such a vote had been called for which we have
seen earlier26
is not the case.
How does a government get its power and authority?
Can it just take such exercising authority?
Those captured by pirates and robbers
remain free.27
Because:
Things captured by pirates and robbers do
not change ownership.28
Governments obtain power and men become bound to obey those
institutions on earth because of numerous reasons.
All of those aspects, pitfalls and reasons are warned against
or forbidden in the Bible and by the teachings of Jesus Christ,
although not always by those who profess to know him.
"or to take any oath of allegiance to the
Government thereof" Article II The Jay Treaty, Treaty of Amity
Commerce and Navigation Concluded November 19, 1794
One things common to Republics is the remaining power of the
people to contract for, apply to and receive gifts gratuities
and benefits. Such contracts, covenants, leagues or applications
steadily erode access to freedom common to a responsible,
self-reliant and diligent free people.
Anglican ordination in England required an
oath of allegiance to the British crown who had ordered the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy.
And the "Test Act" again required all civil
office holders to take oaths of supremacy and allegiance
A 1393 "Statute of Praemunire" stipulated that
"lands, tenements, goods, and chattels are to be forfeit to our
lord the king" for showing disrespect and contempt for the crown
by asserting superiority of any legal authority outside the
kingdom. There was a great pressure to compel these oaths and
there was a great movement to avoid them based on a Biblical
faith in Christ the king and Lord of a kingdom which was at
hand.29
To avoid such oaths of allegiance men fled with their
families to Americas in hopes of being freemen under God instead
of subjects serving governments with the sweat of their brow and
bowing down to law makers who exercise authority yet profess to
be Christian.30
If the Bible was about government and man's relationship to
it, and it was:
If Israel and Judea was a government not a religion, then
Christ was a king of a government:
If Jesus was the highest son of David and he was, then he
was king of that government:
If Christ preached a kingdom, and he did, then we should
seek it:31
If he told us to do the same, then we should:
If He said it was at hand, and he did, then it is here now32:
If He was a king and appointed that kingdom, and he did,
then where is it:33
If it is within you, then it should be manifested in you
and your actions:
If he told us not to take oath, then we should not34:
If he told us not to exercise authority over each other,
then we should not even if we are legal voters35:
If we are to live by the sweat of our brow, then we should
and not live by the sweat of others:
If we are not to covet our neighbors goods, then we should
not tax them to obtain our desired benefits:
If we love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves, then
we should be as concerned about his rights as we are about our
own:
If John told us to make straight the way of the Lord, then
we should be doing that today:
If the power and authority to rule and judge men is
reserved for gods then we have strange gods before us:36
If allegiance and service is a form of bowing down and
worship, and it is, then we worship other gods:37
If governments with ruling power are based on the law of
the father and it is, then we call men on earth Father:38
If the Church is a government based on faith, hope and
charity, then it is about time we restored the non coercive
Church:39
If we are supposed to seek the kingdom of God and its
righteousness then we should not be seeking governments that
do not manifest that righteousness:
If the United States is almost an exact duplicate of Rome,
then it is not Christian in design40:
Yes, Roman government at the time of Christ and the early
"Church" bore an uncanny almost mysterious resemblance to the
United States. The Emperators of Rome, translated "commander in
chief", were originally elected by an electoral college, served
a term of office and ran again for election on platforms the
promised a return to the public and claimed to promoted family
values. They often held other offices which included the
"presidency" of Rome and the Apo Theos41
who appointed imperial or federal judges throughout the empire.
They were dependent upon their constitution and a division of
power that eventually became centered in their commander and
chief and president and brought about tyranny that persecuted
the early Christians. They were never persecuted because of
religion for religious freedom was guaranteed by the Roman
constitution. They were persecuted because they would not swear
allegiance to any other King but Jesus.
Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary
to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king,
[one] Jesus.Ac 17:7
How can so many so called Christians today
read the Bible and take so much of it literally but cannot see
that Christ was preaching a form of government which operated on
faith, hope and charity and the perfect law of liberty. Abraham
left the men that devised civil government with codified laws
and compulsory taxes in Ur and Haran, Moses brought the people
out of a government where the people had a tax liability equal
to several months of labor each year, the gold and silver was in
the treasuries of the government, the people only had a legal
title to land and the banks charged interest on anything you
borrowed.
Moses gave the people a government where they
only paid taxes to support the government "according to their
service", charitable taxes were given as "freewill offerings" or
self inflicted "sin offerings" all the gold and silver was in
the hands of the people and interest was almost completely
forbidden.
In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but]
every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.
Jud 17:6
Jesus did much the same as Moses, Abraham and
many other free governments up until our modern times. The first
century Church was a well organized and self disciplined
republican system of governance, an "ever increasing state".
It was not like the kingdoms of the other nations where men
ruled over other men. This included monarchs or a single man
ruling or democracies where the mob, your neighbors, rule over
you.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not
as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work
out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Php 2:12
Christ preached a kingdom of service, charity
and sacrifice not entitlements, benefits and forced taxation. He
told us to apply to his father in Heaven and not benefactors in
man made governments. He taught us faith, hope and charity,
according to or God given freewill, not the making of statutes
and regulations by men in positions of power enforced by men
with weapons of war. It is because we apply to benefactors other
than the LORD that we owe Caesar what should be God's alone.
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority
upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but
he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and
he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is
greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not
he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed
unto me; Luke 22:25
That kingdom he preached and appointed is
still at hand42
and it is the mission and obligation of the "Church", ekklesia
or called out, to teach and preach and serve that kingdom. For
those who seek that kingdom and its righteousness they can began
to find it now while they are still "friends" with the
"unrighteous mammon"43.
The Church as we have come to call it had a particular
structure and was composed of particular kind of men, ordained
under particular conditions to do a particular tasks for the
people who sought the kingdom of God on earth.
..., and I praised and honoured him that liveth for
ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his
kingdom is from generation to generation: Da 4:34
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his
righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mt 6:33
May we all seek the kingdom and its
righteousness, may we receive it in our hearts and minds and may
we manifest that kingdom in our words and deeds, using our heads
and our hands to do the will of our Father in Heaven on earth
from this day forward unto the end of time.
Join
the Kingdom News List
