The three things that are abhorrent to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are only three things that are abhorrent in the USA according to the U.S. Supreme Court: Identification Credentials, forced oaths, and forced confessions.

Do not be fooled into thinking that these things are required by the same government that proclaims them to be abhorrent.

By the way, a signature under penalty of perjury is a forced oath. A forced perjury oath.

Identification Credentials

US Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):

“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States…

Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important for job and business opportunities – for cultural, [378 U.S. 500, 520] political, and social activities – for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys. Those with the right of free movement use it at times for mischievous purposes. But that is true of many liberties we enjoy. We nevertheless place our faith in them, and against restraint, knowing that the risk of abusing liberty so as to give rise to punishable conduct is part of the price we pay for this free society. ..

Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged, …”

… Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 . And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful – knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …”

U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429, quoted part of an Arizona case Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1: Here is the more complete quote:

The issue here, therefore, is whether the fourth amendment permits officers to stop and question persons whose conduct is innocent, unremarkable and free from suspicion. The question has frightening implications. The thought that an American can be compelled to “show his papers” before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals.”

By the way, the 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, determined that the elected officers in Washington DC could not be issued government credentials proving who they were.

That’s right! They could not be issued any stinking government badges.  Maybe you can take your case up to the Supreme Court and get Marbury v. Madison overturned. But you want it overturned for a different reason than the lawyers expect — the Marbury case was also used to justify the groundless theory that judges can interpret the law.

Compelled testimony

Back in 1956 the Supreme Court determined in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 that punishments like loss of a job, or ineligibility for a passport are penalties for criminal acts, and now the same punishments are automatic until you are compelled to deny religious liberty.

“The forfeiture of property on compelled testimony is no more abhorrent than the forfeiture of rights of citizenship. Any forfeiture of rights as a result of compelled testimony is at war with the Fifth Amendment.
”The Court apparently distinguishes the Boyd case on the ground that the forfeiture of property was a penalty affixed to a criminal act. The loss of a job and the ineligibility for a passport are also penalties affixed to a criminal act.

In 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court in Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, at page 632 explained that

any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath… is contrary to the principles of a free government … it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.”


In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision, 384 U.S. 436 at page 459, acknowledged that Miranda’s famous right to remain silent comes from a long history of resistance to oaths.

In the student flag salute case Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, The Supreme Court said that:

“Such a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States.”

The U.S Supreme Court in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61 (1946):

The victory for freedom of thought recorded in our Bill of Rights recognizes that in the domain of conscience there is a moral power higher than the State. Throughout the ages men have suffered death rather than subordinate their allegiance to God to the authority of the State.” …

“[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition.”

* * *

These abhorrent themes are the basis for most of my content on

* * *

I will leave you with these thoughts.

May you learn about the enemy within, and relearn liberty.  And maybe you will find out why you tolerate the abhorrent.

US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:

This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. … Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. … The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government. … When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder… the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image …”

U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, at page 485:

“In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face

[Footnote 3] In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. 241, 250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

JAMES MADISON, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 6, 1788:

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Dissenting Opinion in Robertson v. Department of Public Works 180 Wash 133, 39 P2d 596 (1934)
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the “Robber Barons” and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.”

My books on Identification Credentials, and Oaths. These provide in-depth history of our right to resist. And plenty of other authorities.

If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules on how to defend yourself in their courts, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

Bill of Rights Institute


* Well after the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, which lawyers insist is the “proof” of judicial authority, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September 25, 1820 to refute this emerging dangerous doctrine: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible as the other functionaries are, to the selective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Reasons to refuse REAL ID

Have you noticed that you are denied more and more liberty unless you swear allegiance to your Novus Ordo Seclorum secular New World Order?  There is a reason for this.

Their assault on your liberty will incrementally increase until you acquiesce.  Resistance is futile.  You will assimilate. Your only options will be to either live as a hermit, or join a community of believers who will not violate fundamental principles.

Government is a manmade (graven) artificial entity.  It was created on paper — the Constitution — and run by those who swear an oath of allegiance to obey the  words on paper. Now that everyone was taught to automatically worship the artificial entity, the Real ID laws demand allegiance to a not-real graven-image.

Their unceasing march to compel allegiance will continue.  They will eliminate most buying and selling until you comply.  When Islamic extremists in Syria had a kneel or starve policy, the rest of the world called it genocide. It happens in the U.S. every day and nobody notices.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, quoted below, declared that identification documents are abhorrent in the U.S.  And that’s right here in a country where the Supreme Court declared in Marbury v. Madison that elected government officers were not entitled to, and could not get, government ID to prove who they are.  That’s right.  We don’t need no stinking badges.


As a comparison to state ID laws, lets examine the Passport application.  Applying for a passport presumes an oath of Allegiance. Title 22 US Code section 6-212:

“No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States”.

And now the Real ID state ID and driver licenses do the same thing.  REAL ID is a real nightmare.


There is no need to repeal the 13th Amendment to legalize slavery. Don’t look now, but voluntary slavery is perfectly Constitutional.

Allegiance is required by Homeland Security in their Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, section 337 as a commitment to perform unpaid slave labor.

… I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”

A passport application legally makes one subject to indefinite “work of national importance.” Is there a limit to this “work of national importance”, or is it an oath to perform unlimited hours of perpetual slavery?

Now go to a Law Dictionary and lookup Villenage. “A feudal tenure whereby the tenant was bound to do all such services as the lord commanded”.   Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum.


A forced signature is not a signature.  It is a crime to force a signature.

How did we evolve from a government that secures the blessings of liberty, to one that denies the right to travel  (and SSN wage authorization numbers) until you swear a perjury-oath signature on government applications? Back in 1956 the Supreme Court determined in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 that such punishments are for criminal acts, and now the same punishments are automatic until you are compelled to deny religious liberty.

“The forfeiture of property on compelled testimony is no more abhorrent than the forfeiture of rights of citizenship. Any forfeiture of rights as a result of compelled testimony is at war with the Fifth Amendment.
”The Court apparently distinguishes the Boyd case on the ground that the forfeiture of property was a penalty affixed to a criminal act. The loss of a job and the ineligibility for a passport are also penalties affixed to a criminal act.


ID applications are submitted under the penalty of perjury according to the law, even if the signature line fails to mention the standard perjury-oath signature stipulation.

Licenses and ID cards now require swearing, contrary to the command of Christ to never swear.  Christ told us to never swear oaths in Matthew 5:34.  Above all thing, Christians will not swear oaths, least they be condemned.  James 5:12.

Some states have regulations that require a signature under penalty of perjury, but now hide the requirement for swearing by using the word “declare” — which means the same thing and has the same effect.  And they like to point out that  “affirm” does not invoke any religious connotation.  They lie.  It has the same effect.  Just because some Quakers once allegedly agreed — or at least failed to protest — the affirmation redefinition, does not mean “affirm” remains free of religious connotation.  It might as well mean that you kneel to the state as your god.

Another requirement is that you must be a resident.  See definitions, below.  Also look up your own state’s definition.  You cannot qualify to be a resident without applying for government granted-benefits.  Once you ask for benefits, you are reduced to slavery.  Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.

  • In a nation where we are all created equal, only subordinates will take oaths. Equals will not salute equals.  Equals have no duty to obey other equals.
  • A perjury oath signature is an oath.
  • Every encyclopedia and dictionary will tell you that an oath is a religious ritual.
  • Hebrews 6:16, oaths are only taken to superiors.
  • James 5:12 Above all things, do not swear, least ye be condemned.  Why am I required to condemn myself to regain a right to contract?
  • When ISIS in Syria starved Christians to death with their “kneel or starve” policy, everyone called it genocide.  Why do U.S. banks and employers commit genocide and nobody cares?

Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition (published in 1891 long after the 14th Amendment) gives the definition of Resident:

“RESIDENT: A tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord’s land, and not depart from the same, a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. 9 Wend. 11.


Vittel’s Law of Nations, chapter 19 (attached):

residents are aliens who do not enjoy the rights of citizenship.”

Do not think that this has changed.  You changed.  You forfeited your citizenship.


Ex-KGB Chiefs Gen. Yevgeni Primakov (also former President of Russia and close associate of Saddam Hussein) and Karpov were hired as consultants to work in the Department of Homeland Security to help in designing an internal passport for U.S. under the pretense of fighting the never-ending ‘war on terrorism’. and


L1 Identity Systems, Inc. provides equipment and software used to produce State licenses and U.S. Passports that meet all global standards. L1 is owned by a French company, Safran, that is one-third owned by the French government. Your biometric data and proof of allegiance (as collateral for the national debt) is now partially owned by the European Union. Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum.



Those who think that rights come from government can complain about discrimination.

Here is a link to a 2006 study that shows 18% of seniors, and 25% of blacks do not have photo identification. Here.  This study influenced some state courts to declare their voter ID laws were unconstitutional.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Voluntary servitude is entirely Constitutional. They are setting us up for slavery. How harsh will be this “work of national importance” that you agreed to perform for 24 hours a day for the rest of your life? Even Compton’s dictionary says that statute labor is often indistinguishable from slavery.

Why give allegiance to the manmade (graven – created) above your allegiance to the Creator?  We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that to secure those rights governments are created among men. How can it be that any government that was created to secure Creator-endowed (God-given) rights, now conditions those rights upon a denial of God?  Nature’s God entitles the U.S. to exist, according to the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.  How can this entitlement be presumed by those who now deny the legitimacy of their office.

    • Doesn’t the first Commandment require allegiance to the LORD, a jealous god, such that you would have no other Elohiym before Him?
  • Doesn’t the second Commandment prohibit bowing down (saluting) or serving a manmade (graven) artificial entity?
  • The truth that we are all created equal IS the opposite of allegiance.

We would not have a Switzerland today if William Tell had saluted judge Gissler.  Scotland has their own Parliament because Braveheart William Wallace chose to be executed rather than pledge allegiance to the King of England.  And the U.S. Supreme Court tells us that we have a Fifth Amendment because in 1637 John Lilburn risked being torn apart by teams of horses rather than swear an oath to King Charles.

    • Those who seek to save their lives will lose them. Luke 17:33. Just like all the apostles who were executed. They stood firm.
  • Galatians 5:1 (KJV) “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
  • Those who endure to the end shall be saved.
  • Your duty is to obey the LORD and suffer the consequences.
  • Obedience to counterfeit authority is mutiny against legitimate authority.

U.S. Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):

“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States.”

Many Jews today still oppose mandatory ID, see:

We fought those who demanded IDs. We have not won a war since then.

Welcome to your fascist Novus Ordo Seclorum.  Same as the old one we fought against.

For more information read my eBook Identification Credentials: Mandatory or Voluntary.  And don’t miss the section on Checkpoints.



There are many varieties of preppers.  I look forward to living off the grid like the Amish.  Amish will not have ID. (Or as a hermit like Howard Hughes, if you can afford it.)

I recommend which is on the Logos Radio Network. Listen to Eddie Craig on Monday nights, and Randy Kelton on Thursday and Friday nights. They do this without pay — so donate what you can.

In the meantime, prepare to be dragged into courts.  Learn the procedures and process that run the courts in America.

I recommend the online law course by Jurisdictionary.  It has legal forms for pro-se litigants. Why spend $thousands on a lawyer?  This online course costs as much as one hour with a bar attorney.  And you know more about your own case than a lawyer.

Prepare for Hearings or Trial … be ready for brutal competition against trained gladiators who do this for a living in an arena made for them.

  • Most court cases can be won before trial.
  • This online course will show you:
  • Proper pleadings.
  • Evidence discovery tools.
  • Motions and memoranda.
  • Courtroom objections.
  • Pleadings.
  • Evidence proves the facts alleged.
  • Motions “move” the court to act. Learn from Jurisdictionary step-by-step
  • Courtroom objections put the judge on notice he will be appealed if he rules against you!

All the basic law procedures that run American courts are explained in this “How To Win In Court” self-help course.

And study my other essays at