Unalienable Rights -- congress a type Rev Wright?

Unalienable Rights –congress a type of Rev Wright


The Supreme Law of this land is the contract law known as the Declaration of Independence and it states in writing, in part from a long held basic human concept, that each and every individual is endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and among these (not limited to only my listing) Life, Liberty (no one over), and pursuit of Happiness (absolute property ownership). I do not know why folks have such a problem with this simple law? Why it was only a few short years ago that even if I wanted to I could not go to school with or marry a sub-human who GOD made to be inferior. Since some Folks say God has now made these folks equal to white, browns and yellow, he has now reserved per some “so-called book” that Christians can be killed for not believing in Allah and his designated writer/s, and per “another so-called book” killed or beaten for wanting to marry a like individual. I believe that the words that the California Supreme Court used was the state has no business trying to say that civil unions were equal to state supported marriage union. The used words of logic were the same one they used when ruling that separate but equal was a farce under the USC contract when it concerned black schools and taxes. The problem being that the inferior courts and congress are still trying to avoid saying that for years they have been crapping on the law made by the People of this land. Congress wants to be a king and king mob slaver over the People. Congress wishes to be a type Democratic King and be over you, not serve you via the contract you hired them to work by. Why I do believe I have heard many say (and I think Hillary Clinton also) that to listen to anyone such as Rev. Wright and not walk out is a sure sign of evil. Why? When Rev. Wright might read and think that any just God would think blacks were just as equal as whites, and had all the same unalienable Rights as endowed (given) freely and forever a gift from the Creator. The error I see in Rev. Wright expressed views, is that the Rev did not mention that all the whites of the body politics were also facing the same problem. The congress is playing as a king and using force to try to run whatever game rules congress is going by. I cut some slack for Obama (because he is a first term federal congress person). Hillary, McCain, and Paul all want me to vote for them to lead me. I have not heard a one of them say they wish to serve me per the USC contract. Nor have I hears a one of them say they will respect and honor my unalienable rights and keep their stealing hands out of my pockets.

Some of us (9 by state count) have moved to define the accepted and in-place USC contract. The contract does not call for a king (congress or president or bank) over We the People. The USC service contract also called for minted metal coins to be the money (not non-redeemable serial numbered paper) used within the states. It further has requirements for where the various congresspersons must or must not come from. It does not have a valid requirement to pick a President and vice-president from the same majority vote of the “electors”. Is the change that people want of which Obama is speaking of but not saying that he, Obama, is going to serve We the People per the contracts? The contracts are designed and written to best secure our (yours and mine) unalienable Rights from Creator. I for one would like and support that change. Why I bet even Rev Wright would support such a change.
Promoting a contractual peaceful resolution to the long unflawed but not properly followed contracts, much study and thinking on has been done, as well as the principles of law and justice. To that end, nine states (TN, CO, WY, IO, AL, MD, MO, CA, and NE) have been signed on and we the signers consider the contracts as given by us nine to be in full force and effect. If folks from other states wish a valid law, then consider signing on for your state. It is your choice. If you wish to learn more about the law as we are reading the contracts, please contact Mary Severance ---- severanceme@yahoo.com . There is nothing to buy, only read and think on. If you reach the conclusion we have a lawful point, or at least call the contract used question up for your use, then sign papers of your choice and mail to US Sec. of State for filing to affected persons. We suggest using priority mail with a confirmation of delivery, which makes your cost to post office under 6 bucks.

1. We the nine have made a claim of being, by our adoption, making owners of both the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC).
2. We hold both the DoI and the USC are contracts. Some folks use long dead folks and claim the dead actually were meaning to claim by writing or actions of long ago what the dead actually meant. The folks then use dead hear say to back their view. We use our sense of right and wrong in any contract that We take part in, especially as We claim to be one of the makers.
3. We hold the view (belief) that all contracts are civil in nature because to take part of the contract is to agree of ones own freewill to be bound by the contract terms. We have done so, as We read and understand the terms. Force is not a part of the contract equation for either of us or the hired help.
4. By the same token, since (if I understood your logic correctly) "inalienable --- means not subject to a being part of a contract" then for use the word has to be unalienable. If not; then, the hired help are equal to us the hiring masters. How could We contract for a house builder, if the builder could not accept that our wishes concerning the house were greater than his? That is why unalienable means the individual has to pick up the burden and place the burden (duty) on his own shoulders. To serve me, the hired hand has to; of the hired hand’s own free will accept that contractual duty. That duty is by the contract.
5. Since only the makers can change the contract and the 9 makers who accepted for their states long ago are dead, 9 of us present day makers have stepped forward and signed on as makers of the original and hence current USC contract and the so called first 10 amendments.
6. The signatory states makers are from CO, NE, TN, WY, IO, MD, AL, MO, and CA. If other individuals want their state to be covered by this contact, then they have to sign on of their own freewill, as we 9 did. What changes it will make, I have not a clue. We are trying to follow the contract terms as we read and understand. All 9 owners' letters have been sent to the Sec of State for her to notify the appropriate persons. I think there would be quakes to follow one law in 9 states and another law in the other 41. We shall see.
7. If you have no part of a contract, then any action against you via said contract has no jurisdiction to involve you. If by faulty presumption, others are going to claim contract covers you, then sign on and claim the contract makers' roles and the makers' superior status.
8. That way, one's claim of unalienable rights and the primary intent of the subordinate USC contract is to best secure those rights, gives you the logical lawful high road.


Yours for Unalienable Rights from the Creator