0 votes

Unalienable rights come from our Creator, not a Bill of Rights.

April 15th, 2008

A Liberty article

By the power and authority entrusted to us by our Creator, we the people of these united States choose to exercise our unalienable right to establish and define ourselves as free people independent from the government of "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". (Incorporation of District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871)
No existing amendment or law shall have power over this definition as it is de jure, and as such no vote by congress shall be necessary for it to be included into the Constitution nor shall any vote by congress permit the elimination of this definition by law. Our freedom is self evident by law of nature, under the authority of our Creator, that all people have unalienable rights received from our Creator and shall be supported by the actions of the people of these united States.
From this day forward all people within these united States shall be sovereign with no legal bond under any institutional government, we shall no longer be considered citizens of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but are to be considered sovereign people of these united States with unalienable rights given to us by our Creator as equally held by all earthly kings.

Land Rights
We declare that any land assets held in trust for us by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" shall be divided into land patents. Distribution of land patents shall be received by people in the form of an allodial title. We shall not recognize rights to lands as were held in trust by the U.S. government which have been given to any government, foreign nation or corporation, other than the government of these united States.
Native American Indian reservation lands including rights held in trust by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", shall pass exclusively to individual members of the American Indian community in the form of land patents and be distributed to individuals of these tribes and nations in the form of allodial title, which by definition include all mineral rights. The American Indian community consisting of many different tribes shall no longer be bound by any authority of the "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" , and shall establish their own governments as soveriegn individuals such as they find necessary. These American Indian nations are also entitled the right to Statehood if they so choose, as do all other territories currently under the control of "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and Canada under the terms of the "Articles of Confederation"..
The minimum size of a land patent shall consist of one square foot. The number of land patents each person shall receive will be determined by the total square foot area of land held in trust by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" divided by the number of people of these united States. These land patents may be traded by the entitled person.
All individuals currently in possession of private lands shall be entitled to have their lands recognized by land patents. Any corporate land held in trust shall negociate with "it's" respective share holders to have transfered all land to private individual ownership for which they shall also be entitled to land patents.
Each State will be entitled to a proportioned part as part of a whole part of additional properties, excluding land, held in trust by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERCA". Each State shall be entitled to receive a portion of all assets held by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and transfered to the authority of the people of these united States for deposit into the treasury of each independent State.
The sale of all property, excluding land, but including territories not entitled to Statehood and national waters held in trust by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" shall be actioned exclusively to living individuals of these united States and no foreign nation or corporation shall be allowed to participate in such actions. Purchases will be used to pay in "Real" money, gold or silver, goods or services for all debt owed by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", as a means of exchange for Federal Reserve Notes in circulation and owed by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" as outstanding debt to foreign nations and individuals. Upon reciept of these outstanding Federal Reserve Notes of debt, all notes will be destroyed. The Federal Reserve Bank as of the 17th September 2008 will have no right to issue new notes, nor does "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" have the right to create more debt. We the People of these united States, do hereby declare that property ownership shall be recognized by these united States only under the condition of private ownership by individuals; corporations will no longer be recognized as having equal rights to those of an individual. A transition period of no more than 4 years shall pass for the transfer of property titles to individuals. No longer will patents be controlled by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", but by local governing systems under total control and individual responsibility of the people of these united States, All patents shall hencefore be the full responsibility of the individual owner to protect and defend. Those holding a land patent are liable for all actions which cause damage or interfere with the rights of other land patent owners. All privately owned residential properties shall hold a land patent and the responsibility to protect and defend these land patents shall be with the owner, any recognition or admistration of land patents shall be by local freely elected land patent officials.
We the people establish that no taxes shall be levied against land patents other than freely raise monies between private local neighboring owners of land patents.
Taxes may be applied to corporations who lease multiple land patents from owners for their activities by local governments. All responsibility for activities on lands will be with the owner of the land patent.
We the people do hereby declare that no longer will amendments to the Constitution be honored with respect to taxation beyond those specifically outlined by the original articles. Therefore no federal income tax shall be levied against the people by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", all user fees solicited in exchange for service, roadways and waterways shall be administered by local elected officials with direct authority strictly from the people. Taxes may be levied against corporations according to State law.
A maximum of 1 year (as of September 17th, 2008) shall pass for the free exchange of Federal Reserve Notes, afterwhich the Federal Reserve Notes will no longer be recognized by the people of these united States of America as money. Real money shall be considered the coinage of gold, silver or other commodity, by which the minting of coins shall be the responsibility of local governments.
No commodidy or service may be restricted for use as a means of exchange as well as no tax may be applied to any kind of trade between individuals.
All local public services shall be the responsibility of the local government to contract and paid for from donations or fees raised from such community or from corporatate taxes within their district. All services shall be privatized and only local government regulations may apply.
Payment of debt held by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" shall be made to debtors in Federal Reserve Notes, these notes will be valid for trade within these united States for a term of 1 year(as of September 17th, 2008). Federal Reserve Notes after the prescribed date shall no longer be recognized as legal tender in these united States. And all debt shall be paid by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" by actioning all possessions, excluding land. No transfer of holdings by "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to any government other than the govenment of these united States will be recognized. "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" reffers to any entity created by the Incorporation of District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Recostruction Acts.

This article shall become effective on September 17th 2008



Personal Liberty declaration

By the power and authority entrusted to me by my Creator, I, a person of these united States, choose to exercise my unalienable right to establish and define myself as free person independent from the government of "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

No signature necessary to validate.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Deadline" September 17th 2009

Time is drawing near...


I always have to remind people of this very fact....

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
– Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention

“The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had." - Eric Schmidt

Rand Paul....

Rand Paul says we all are endowed with inalienable rights, because the country is a constitutional republic.

And he'd be very correct to say that, thank you very much!

They don't have much time left.

One year has almost expired.

lets make it a little more simple for all the

deep thinkers. let us use this wonderful gift of reason and logic we are suppose to have. If your rights come from a creator you cannot lose them till he makes his appearance and reveals himself. Then only he can take them away. If you don't believe in God what is to fear? Under your beliefs he will never show up and you will never lose your rights. Sounds like a winner situation for you. Whats the beef! We also are a nation of laws and if you break the law there is lose of liberties for the period of time that you are sentanced. Then your liberties should start right back up when released. I don't care if you beleive or don't believe in a creator or who you think it is. only that you believe that your rights come from a higher authority that you have not yet met preferably something higher than dictator or king. If not we are in a world of hurt. I fully entend to be coming back with Christ to stop the battle of armageddon and no I'm not trying to make armageddon to bring on the coming back of Christ. I believe in post trib so I believe I will go through this whole 3-1/2 years of tribulation (well if they don't kill me between now and then then it will be pre trib). I believe the rapture takes place right before the battle of armageddon, then the marriage supper, then Christ comes back and I fully intend to be behind him. I don't believe Jesus will need anyones help fighting this battle but I do intend on witnessing his glory. God fights my battles! however if he calls me to fight I will fight like never before and will do whatever he tells me to do. I doubt many atheist will make it through the 3-1/2 years either if they believe what they preach. You shouldn't bow down and worship the anti-christ any more than you would Jesus so it will be off with your head also. In the end the world government will requiren your worship of the the image of the beast as well. I guess we will find out how many of you truely believe in evolution when you are willing to lay your life on the line for it. Your usefulness on division will come to an end pretty soon and they will want unity. They will require worship from you also.

Time for people to take control of the state.

Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today.

How about we

take our rights not by any authority but the fact we are here and occupy space and time. Just a thought to stir the pot. Peace

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Anyone willing to add this to the Constitution?

It may save our children a few problems in the future if we assert and define our rights more clearly.

The Missing 13th Amendment

David M. Dodge, Researcher, Date 08/01/91, http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml

You miss the point of our founders ENTIRELY

The fact is that our government was formed to protect rights which our founding fathers recognized we already had.

Denying you the excersice of your rights is different than eliminating your rights. I know it's a matter of semantics to some, but it is in fact a signifigant distinction because if you do not realize that your rights are unalienable you have already given them up.

Stop thinking in terms of being controlled by anyone. Start thinking as a free American.

***meant as a response to this post -->
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45842#comment-456378 below.

Your Rights are Endowed by Your Creator

If you are an atheist, this would be your parents. If you are not, this would be God.

"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."

Ghengis Khan

"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."

Ghengis Khan


Do you really believe you have rights when you can't assert them?

The point the founding fathers made at the beginning was recognizing rights which they believed we SHOULD have to make the best society.

These rights didn't exist at the time anywhere in the world and were unheard of at the time. We're talking completely different society from anything that had previously been set. And don't cite Grecian Democracy, we're not a democracy.

If I deny you your salary, is it the same as eliminating your salary?

You can't just yack and yack and yack and make it true. The more times you repeat "the government doesn't give us rights" the more times it's just as false as it is the first time you said it. No the government doesn't "grant" you rights. Individuals grant you rights in a social context. The government was an institution of individuals created to help protect those rights from individuals or groups who would infringe upon those rights. What kept the power of government in check from infringing the rights it had agreed to hold dear was the combined force of the people and their guns. The lack of centrality of power kept the government from getting too strong. Now, unfortunately we lack the power to assert those rights, and are held at the charity of a beast our parents and grandparents fed and raised.

You have no rights that you cannot assert or claim. When you cannot protect your property, through means legal or physical, you cannot call it property. And you can scream, "But the law says so!" till you're blue in the face, but it is the government that recognizes the laws it creates, and if it will not enforce those laws, how good are your "rights?"

Eric Hoffer

May I refine your assertion?

> Now, unfortunately we lack the power to assert those rights,...

We lack the will to exercise our rights (at least in significant numbers).

Couch potatoes who need to exercise their rights.

Build it and they will come.
If we wait until there are significant numbers to begin, we will never begin.
222 years the Constitution as the blue print of the nation, we will celebrate come September.
But what do we have to celebrate? Is it all about the bread and the circus?
During the 222 years, instead of liberty and freedom, the builders have made changes or in many cases exchanged the blue prints, for the purpose of building a monumental State government.
If we as individuals, do not assert our right to individual government, what do we have to pass on to our children?

Worship my Creator not a book.

You are assuming that "our Creator" is defined by the writings by men who wrote the books of the Bible. Personally I tend to believe that the Bible, since it was put together by men who wanted to conquer other men, (Constantine/Sunworshipping/Warmonger) is more of a playbook for warmongers wanting to scare men into submission. I can't imagine a Creator or God doing this or depending on men to write a book for Him. The only proof I need is to look at the creation/creature and see how magnificient our Creator must be to have provided all of this for us. Considering that the bible also has the ability to divide people as well as to unite people, it could be that it is really as much an instrument used by imposters pretending to have the authority of the Creator. But I will respect the right of those wanting to worship a book as long as they respect my right to worship my Creator.

so , your God is not big enough to...

preserve His own Word? i suppose that is why you are a Preterist then...and we are now living in a wonderful perfect world. funny...heh

2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The "Creator" they mention is "Nature's God"

That is a Deist term, not Christian.

Nature's God doesn't come from a book.


Lisa C.


Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Lisa I disagree with you on

Lisa I disagree with you on that... the God of the holy bible is the only God I know of that is referred to as the creator.. maybe i'm wrong but I think our founders were specifically in reference to Jesus Christ.

as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD

Assuming this is in response to me?

I'm assuming this means me, as I'm the one that mentioned The Bible.

I'm sure people aren't exactly worshiping The Bible. They respect it, live by the rules it teaches, but they don't exactly worship it.

We haven't exactly established what counts as a "Creator." I'm assuming you mean a benevolent God sort of deal and not your parents.

Your faith, while not exactly specific enough or derivative enough for my taste, is absolutely yours and I won't argue it with you. However, you're only addressing my issue I had with the use of the word Creator and not with the facts within my post detailing WHY as human beings in a community we need rights.

For instance, lets assume there is only one person left alive on the planet. That person is you. Would you have these rights? Would you have come up with the idea of "rights" on your own? No, because you don't have to defend those rights from men.

Can you imagine the absurdity of explaining to a tiger your right to the pursuit of happiness? Remembering as it rips open your gut that it TOO is God's creature following its right to life.

If you argue that it is just eating to survive, if we introduce more humans, you would need to support another human's right to kill and eat you to survive, never mind the fact that he's not respecting YOUR right to life.

Eric Hoffer

The way I see it...

I don't believe the term "our Creator" alienates atheists, in fact since unalienable rights are given to all individuals by a Creator, then surely Atheists can choose not to worship or believe in a god. The concept of unalienable rights can only come from a higher authority making it a natural law, like that of gravity. The term "Out of Chao" comes unalienable rights, does not make sense. If we should use the term "Out of Chao" come our rights, then our rights cease to be "unalienable rights" and become "inalienable rights" for which one is not entitled, but must secure, or request from a government.

The "Creator", for atheists,

The "Creator", for atheists, could simply refer to the fact that our rights do not come from the government but rather somewhere else that the government cannot touch or alter. Essentially, "Creator" could just as well mean "our humanity."

That which government giveth government can taketh away. We must never let it be established that our rights are given to us by government. NEVER! My rights come from somewhere far beyond the control or influence of any government!

We empower government for one reason and one reason only: to protect our rights and liberties.



Where do you think rights come from if not from the social contract of individuals for moderation of our behavior? Mars?

Again, I continually state, rights are a socially contracted agreement backed by our ability to defend ourselves with whatever tools are available, be that governmental, social, or physical.

Without other people, what are your rights and why would you need them?

Eric Hoffer

I understand your point and

I understand your point and I am not arguing that a supernatural "Creator" exists. My point is that we need the source of our rights to be untouchable.

If the government can alter or even influence the source of our rights then that means the government can eventually own us and our rights given enough time to chip away at them (as has been happening).

The government must remain in a position where it cannot modify our rights. What government on this planet could alter or influence a creator/god?

Again, I stress that this is not about religion. It's about limiting government and putting any chance they have of removing the limits to be out of their reach.


I'd agree

With a slight change.

I think it's already happened. With the current centralization of force and government, we're pretty well screwed without some major federal government changes.

Eric Hoffer


I'm sure all the Globalists are shaking in their boots.

Lets all have a conversation about "unalienable" rights and whether or not they come from a Creator or whether or not they're brought upon by social contract.

If we're saying we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" we've got a problem on our hands with the whole "vengeful God" problem of the old testament. In that case, God gave us those rights sometime AFTER the Resurrection and someone forgot to write it out there in The Bible.

We could also talk about the right to property, but then we have to get into all the Crusades and Protestant Reformation and which side God was REALLY on and all that, because God seems to be violating these rights of ours left and right. One could say that it's God's right to violate our rights since he gave them to us in the first place, but that's kind of like saying if you give a guy a motorcycle you have the right to take it away the next week.

Rights don't come from the idea of a Creator, rights come, for all intents and purposes to increase the happiness and life expectancy of the most possible members of the group. Human beings are the ones who created the idea of "rights" in order to provide for a very loose code of conduct around which other frames of reasoning may spread forth. It is the spine of the body of our moral code of ethics and governance.

These rights are all enforced at the point of a gun.

Understand that without force, rights are meaningless. You can shout to the rapist of your children that they have rights. You can explain to your murderer that you have a right to happiness, to the burglar in your living room that you have a right to property, to your government that you have a right to free speech.

The distribution of force inherent in America at the time of the crafting of the Bill of Rights is what kept those rights intact for the time. The consolidation of power into the military and government is what has robbed us of our rights. We do NOT have rights based on the Command of God, otherwise those rights would never be violated, and they CERTAINLY wouldn't be violated in the name of The Church. Rights are created by the allowance of people to not beat you up or steal your things, with the understanding that you will reciprocate this allowance.

We have at the time been robbed of our means of collectively enforcing our rights.

What am I saying? That mobs rule and might makes right?

Absolutely not.

The spreading of force throughout America is what kept our government in check. We no longer have that. Rioting in the streets will not stay the hand of a ruthless government. Lets all remember the brave students in Beijing. It may have taken a time for the tanks to roll, and they may have slowed them down, but they rolled eventually.

Unfortunately, this document is pure satire.

Feel good satire, and a humorous idea, but its very existence mocks the blood that went into the original Declaration and Constitution. This is the internet folks. This is not war, as many soldiers will attest. Anyone can say, "This is the new type of war." behind their keyboards while other people are shot and die.

To quote Andrew Jackson, "...have made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it."

There is so much garbage in her worded so loftily that hasn't been thought of critically that it makes me slightly nauseous. I hate to be a killjoy, I hate to belittle the hard work that went into this, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Do you understand what it would require to get all the gold necessary to enforce this? "Local governments" meaning what? City? County? State? Region? Do you understand the logistics of what it would require? Oh, wait, we can use paper representing gold. But where is it stored? Locally? Regionally? How is it accounted for? By what body?

Who stores these "land patents?" Who recognizes them? Which overruling body?

What will we do with foreign debts? Are you going to be carting a few billion gold coins to China? After all, those Federal Reserve notes aren't worth anything. I hope you're not just going to default on the debt, inciting war with China.

All these are things you need to think about. There is WAY more here that needs to be considered. Change is a slow process. There's a violent revolution every now and then, but lets all remember the good Doctor's opinion on the Civil War. This will take time folks, government doesn't move at the speed of the internet. Keep working hard, ignore this type of thinking and work on REAL projects to get our country back. The neo-cons whittled away a good 40 years before they accomplished their goals, are you less dedicated than they are?

Eric Hoffer

You do not need to believe

You do not need to believe in a "God" or "Creator." The issue of primary importance is your understanding that government cannot take away your rights since government did not give them to you.



I restate my case.

Government did not GIVE you those rights. Those rights were agreed upon for the foundation of our society at the time of formation of our government.

This silly idea that government is some alien creature not composed of human beings really has to go. People are what necessitate rights. Without people, you have no need of rights. Without rationality you cannot agree upon rights. Rights all come down to the issuance of force. We agree that we will NOT violate the "rights" of others. We agreed on the outset for the outline of our government that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness are as close to Holy Ideals as our country can hold. They are the foundation on which we built our government. The point being that government was previously held accountable to the people, due to the numbers of people with guns, and that over time the centralization of power has robbed us of our ability to hold the government to it's original foundation.

Eric Hoffer

I do agree with much of your

I do agree with much of your argument. Probably all of it. The government is to serve us and is the will of the people, etc. People are necessary and the documents were written by people.

My main point in all of this is how we, the people, hold on to our rights.

It very well may be that the founders expressed our rights to come from our "Creator" simply so that the government could never grasp at those rights, especially since they are unalienable.