The Pledge of Allegiance

I have been contemplating why when Americans stand with their hands covering their heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance their eyes appear to gloss over as they vacantly chant, with the rest of the mesmerized crowd, those familiar words engrained in their mind, the whole while being distant from the true meaning and substance of their utterance.  It is my perception that many Americans, with the exception of a few military vets, don’t believe a word they are saying.

I perceive that many Americans perform the pledge only because everyone else does— from a place of peer pressure.  Ironically, while pledging their allegiance these Americans do what they are doing because that is what free Americans are supposed to do, while what they are really doing is repeating, from their fundamental programming, perceived, acceptable conduct.  Do most Americans truly understand and agree with the pledge, or are they merely hypnotized members of a socialist body trained by the indoctrination of the government school system?

It is just as well that when pledging their allegiance Americans don’t check in to see whether they actually believe the words they are parroting.  Contrary to what many may think, America is not founded on the Pledge of Allegiance. Rather, America is founded on the principles of her Declaration of Independence, principles presumptively consistent with gospel of the kingdom of Heaven promulgated by the Messiah Yashua.

Regardless of what many Americans may think, the sovereign American People owe no allegiance to a flag which is nothing more than a standard, a banner, a symbol, an idol.  Neither do they owe their allegiance to the government for which it stands.  If they did, such allegiance would directly contradict their obligation to perform their most sacred sovereign duty to alter, abolish or throw off the government should it become destructive to the end for which it was established, or should a design be evinced by traitorous politicians and government agents to subjugate the American People under absolute despotism.

Americans owe no allegiance to the created thing, but rather to the Creator, and to the Creator’s appointed King, who has all power in Heaven and Earth, and to each other as fellow citizens of the King’s Royal Court, which are America’s founding principles.

Immigrants who have lawfully expatriated from the soil of their birth onto American soil, who are required as a condition of immigration to renounce their allegiance to their former sovereign, are required to pledge their allegiance to their new sovereign.  If the American People are sovereign, if America is founded on the principles of the gospel of Christ, why are immigrants required to pledge allegiance to the United States of America who is not the sovereign, but rather merely the agent of the sovereign? 

Why do the sovereign American People join immigrants in pledging allegiance to the creature rather than the Creator?  What is the United States of America to which both Americans and immigrants alike pledge their allegiance?

The United States of America is the name of the Confederacy created by Article I of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution for the United States of America was later adopted in order to form a more perfect union. The intent of the Constitution was, in essence, to give the Confederation more power. 

No requirement to pledge of allegiance to the Confederation is found in either the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution for the United States of America. The Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, first appeared in America in a magazine called, The Youth Companion, a publication analogous to today’s Reader’s Digest.

When America’s Civil War occurred, the Confederation was split.  The North was designated “Union,” the South kept the style “Confederacy.”  A spoil of war, the victor gets to write history.  The post civil war United States of America is a re-union of both sides under the military force of the chief executive. The Southern states were not allowed back into Congress unless and until they pledged their allegiance to the Union, agreeing, under duress of military force, to ratify the class of national citizenship created under the 14^th Amendment.

Whereas the American People are sovereign, they don’t owe their allegiance to their creature, but to their Creator, the Alpha and Omega, the author and giver of life, and to the principles of the kingdom of Heaven promulgated by America’s de jure King, the source of their sovereignty, the means through which unalienable rights are endowed.  The government, created and granted with power by the People to serve the People, owes allegiance to the People.  Those who derive their citizenship from the 14^th Amendment owe allegiance to the American People and their King, not to the government owing its allegiance to the People.

For Americans to pledge their allegiance to a flag and to the Republic for which it stands is a pledge of allegiance to an idol and the creature it represents, both of which are the work of human hands.

Idolatry is why America is dead.   For America to be resurrected, We the People need only pledge our Allegiance to our King, and to each other as members of the sovereignty, and act on that pledge.

In War, Truth is the First Casualty

We are at war. The first casualty of this war was truth. Only the truth will set us free. 

Though it may appear that America is faced with a dilemma, the premise bringing us to the precipice of the apparent dilemma is necessarily flawed. To solve the apparently unsolvable, the flawed premise must be supplanted with the truth. 

Here is a flawed premise: The government can do anything it wants and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Here is the truth: Lawmakers, so called, may not negate what is authentic with a counterfeit, by making what is otherwise counterfeit authentic by fiat. 

Should a counterfeit be accepted as real, the real is rejected as counterfeit. When a counterfeit is all we see, all we see is a counterfeit. If all we see is a counterfeit, we will never see what is genuine, real, authentic or true. If all we know is a counterfeit, we know nothing of what is authentic. If all we know is a counterfeit, and we know nothing of the authentic, we can't know the in-authenticity of the counterfeit. 

Though we may know what we know, and know what we don't know, we don't know what we don't know, and can't know that we can't know. We live in delusion when we accept a lie as truth. How then, do we begin to distinguish what is genuine, real and true, if all we know is the counterfeit? How can we know something we can't know? 

We must first be willing to consider the possibility that what we know may actually be a counterfeit. We must be willing to confront our own ego, its need to be right, and be willing to be wrong. We must be willing to accept the possibility that what we think is true, might not be. We must be willing to consider the possibility that we have been believing as true is in fact merely a counterfeit being promoted as authentic. We must be willing to entertain the possibility that certain edicts we currently accept and dignify as law by our tacit, consensual obedience, might be unworthy of our allegiance. If by legislative fiat what is authentic is supplanted by a counterfeit, does what is authentic cease to be real? Is that which is true negated because lawmakers enthrone a counterfeit? 

Read carefully this opinion by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803): 

"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. "That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

"This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. 

"The Government of the United States is of the latter deion. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act. 

"Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. 

"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. 

"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. "This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject. 

"If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. 

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." 

[Emphasis added] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)