logo.png

Reclaiming Our Birthright: A Conversation on Sovereignty, Citizenship, and the Constitution

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Primary Blog/Reclaiming Our Birthright: A Conversation on Sovereignty, Citizenship, and the Constitution

By: The High Priest King

In the United States, we often celebrate our liberties as “God-given” and guaranteed by the Constitution—one of the most revered governing documents in the world. Yet many are unaware of certain critical details about how, from the very moment of birth, a potential conflict emerges between natural sovereignty and a state-managed system of paperwork. This post seeks to shed light on these important issues, addressing how birth certificates and Social Security numbers may bind us to corporate frameworks, and what that might mean for our freedoms. While the discussion is complex, I present these facts as they are known and trust that our moral compass, grounded in justice, truth, love, and constitutional principles, can guide us toward a better understanding.

Imagine you have a brand-new baby brother or sister. When a baby is born in a hospital, grown-ups usually sign a paper called a “Birth Certificate.” The government and hospitals trick moms and dads into signing this “birth certificate” instead of a “Certificate of Live Birth.” Why does this matter?

Well, if you sign the birth certificate, the government treats the baby like a company instead of a real, living person. The baby’s name is then written in big capital letters (LIKE THIS), and the baby is given a special number called a Social Security number. All of this is done through the States Corporation, which differs from the actual state. For example, The State of New York is the state where sovereign entities reside, but the Corporate Entity of the State is named NEW YORK STATE. All “citizens” follow rules and regulations made by NEW YORK STATE, whereas sovereign entities are free to say “no, thank you” and continue living under the laws of the Constitution.

This means the baby is never classified as a sovereign being with freedom, and instead grows up being told what to do and having to abide by a set of rules and regulations implemented through various organizations and corporations—not under the laws of the Constitution. Considering the government and hospitals fail to inform mothers of this when a baby is born, it is seen as a breach of trust between the government and its people. Police and special courts (called administrative courts) might punish people for breaking these “company” rules, even if the person believes they shouldn’t follow them because they are a real, living person with natural rights and choose to live under God’s Law, also known as the Constitution of the United States.

Some grown-ups say this isn’t fair or honest. They think everyone should be seen as a living, breathing soul with rights and freedoms, and that no one should be treated like a company or a number. They also worry that moms and dads don’t know the difference between a “Birth Certificate” and a “Certificate of Live Birth,” and that the United Kingdom owns and operates the corporations for each state—doing this on purpose as a way to control the masses and take away the freedoms for which our forefathers fought and died. 

In the end, we the people want the government to tell the truth and respect each person’s freedom. We the People believe we should all live under the Constitution (which protects our rights), not a bunch of confusing rules for pretend “companies.” That way, everyone—especially new babies—can grow up as free and happy as possible, just as our forefathers originally intended: to live in one nation under God.

Birth Certificates, “Certificates of Live Birth,” and the Question of Sovereignty

  • Fact: Hospitals and government agencies typically provide a “birth certificate” for each newborn child. This document often differs from a “Certificate of Live Birth,” which reflects the reality that the child is a living, breathing soul.
  • Claim: By having mothers sign a “birth certificate” rather than a “Certificate of Live Birth,” the state allegedly treats the child as if they were “legally deceased” for the purpose of creating a corporate entity—often recognized by the child’s name in all capital letters.
  • Impact: The idea is that this corporate entity, once established, can be regulated under the United States Code (USC) and other statutes, effectively removing the child from their natural, sovereign status under the Constitution.

Why It Matters: If we believe in the inalienable rights granted to individuals by the Constitution, any system that reduces a person’s essence to a mere administrative or corporate form seems to contradict the fundamental truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Recognizing that a newborn is—and always has been—a living soul upholds the constitutional principle of each individual’s inherent dignity and rights.

Social Security Numbers and Corporate Citizenship

  • Fact: Shortly after (or at) birth, children in the United States are generally assigned a Social Security number.
  • Claim: This Social Security number is attached to the child’s legal name in uppercase letters, referring to the same corporate entity created via the birth certificate. By doing so, the government effectively categorizes the child as a “citizen” (in the corporate sense), subject to statutes enforced by administrative courts.
  • Impact: A “sovereign being” under the Constitution might interpret this as an intrusion on their unalienable rights. If a child is automatically placed under a system of codes (USC) without fully informed parental consent, then the question becomes: Are we truly born free, or are we bound to a contractual system from day one?

Moral Standpoint: From a moral perspective, it’s essential that any system of governance be built on honesty and transparent consent. Children—who obviously cannot consent—should at least have the option to confirm or reject such a status upon reaching adulthood.

Administrative Courts vs. Constitutional Courts

  • Fact: Many people interact with courts that appear to function under administrative, rather than purely constitutional, jurisdiction. Common examples might include traffic courts, child support courts, or other specialized tribunals.
  • Claim: These “administrative courts” are in place largely to oversee the rights and responsibilities tied to the corporate entity—the uppercase-named citizen. Because the child was never told about this duality, the system purportedly gains compliance by default.
  • Impact: This arrangement can lead to situations where natural persons, who have inalienable constitutional protections, are instead treated as if they are corporate entities. The concern is that enforcement officers and judges might impose the USC on living souls, effectively sidestepping the higher authority of the Constitution.

In Search of Justice: If our core principle is that no one should lose their constitutional rights arbitrarily, then ensuring that courts distinguish between natural persons and corporate entities is a moral imperative. A transparent judicial system respects each individual’s unalienable rights, as safeguarded by the Constitution.

Law Enforcement and the Imposition of USC

  • Fact: Police forces throughout the country enforce state and federal laws, typically grounded in statutory codes like the USC.
  • Claim: The police may unknowingly or knowingly treat everyone as if they are subject to corporate or administrative codes rather than the fundamental protections found in the Constitution. This can lead to arrest or imprisonment when people violate the USC—whether or not they ever chose to be governed by it.
  • Impact: When officers or agencies enforce administrative statutes onto individuals who identify as sovereign beings, we see moral conflict. The Constitution upholds due process and recognizes inherent rights; if those rights are ignored, it can be viewed as a stark overreach by the state.

A Perspective Rooted in Love: The best law enforcement agencies operate first to protect the people—ensuring that no harm befalls our communities. Aligning police practices with love, compassion, and respect for fundamental rights ensures that the system remains just, not oppressive.

Constitutional Ideals vs. Corporate Realities

  • Fact: The U.S. Constitution is championed as the supreme law, meant to protect our God-given freedoms.
  • Claim: In practice, some people believe the Constitution takes a backseat to USC and related administrative regulations. They argue that the moment a birth certificate is signed, the government presumes jurisdiction through a corporate mechanism, bypassing inalienable constitutional rights.
  • Impact: This leads to questions about government overreach and transparency. If each individual is truly born free under the Constitution, then the existence of an alleged corporate overlay runs counter to the founding ideals of a free republic.

Moral Imperative: Standing for truth means ensuring that any laws, codes, or statutes remain subservient to the higher principles of our Constitution. It’s morally critical that we remain ever-vigilant to ensure no unseen mechanisms deprive us of our birthright.

Charting a Path Forward

Considering the facts, the moral and constitutional arguments in favor of sovereignty, transparency, and loving governance remain compelling. Whether one is new to these ideas or deeply involved in them, here are a few suggestions for moving ahead:

  • Educate Yourself - Investigate your state’s documents regarding birth registration, Social Security, and court procedures. Understanding how these systems function is essential for any meaningful reform.
  • Informed Discussion - Engage with neighbors, family, or online communities about these issues. Open, respectful dialogue allows us to highlight potential moral inconsistencies in our current system.
  • Push for Transparency - Encourage policymakers and administrators to disclose the genuine purpose of birth certificates and Social Security numbers. If clarity is lacking, legal or civic actions can press for more comprehensive explanations.
  • Respect the Constitution - Advocate for a return to, or reaffirmation of, the Constitution’s principles in all courts—whether administrative or otherwise. If the Constitution truly is the supreme law, it should guide every aspect of governance.
  • Choose Love and Truth - Approaching this topic with love, compassion, and a shared pursuit of truth helps avoid adversarial confrontation. We are all members of the human family; honoring one another fosters a just society.

At the heart of this conversation lies a profound reverence for truth, justice, love, and the Constitution of the United States. The facts, as presented, suggest that when a child is born, there may be a profound transformation—one that transitions the new life from a sovereign soul to a government-recognized entity, subject to statutory authority through birth certificates, Social Security numbers, and administrative courts.

​From a moral perspective, any system that withholds full disclosure or imposes obligations without genuine consent stands at odds with the ideals of liberty and transparency. As Americans (and as human beings), many believe we are called to live under the guidance of constitutional values—values that recognize our divine spark, our innate sovereignty, and our duty to treat others with love and respect.

Ultimately, this topic calls us to vigilance: to ensure that our birthright as free beings under the Constitution is honored and that government structures operate as faithful stewards of our sacred liberties, rather than as gatekeepers who keep us from them. It is both a challenge and an opportunity to uphold the true spirit of the Constitution in our daily lives, and to do so rooted in unshakeable commitment to justice, truth, and love.

customer1 png

High Priest King

Do not Fear, someone greater than Solomon is here.

Truth, Light, Love, Free Will