There is a growing movement among many individuals and groups who argue that non-commercial drivers should not be required to have a driver license in order to operate a machine used to move their body. This perspective is based on a number of different arguments, each of which is worth exploring in more detail.
One of the main arguments for not requiring a driver license for non-commercial drivers is that such a requirement is unnecessary. The reasoning behind this argument is that individuals who are using a machine to move their body, such as a bicycle or electric scooter, are not putting other people’s safety at risk in the same way that a car or truck driver would. Therefore, they should not be subject to the same regulations and licensing requirements.
Another argument made by those who oppose driver licensing for non-commercial drivers is that such a requirement is a form of government overreach. They argue that the government has no right to impose such regulations on individuals who are simply trying to get around in their own way. This perspective is based on the belief that individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices about how they move, without interference from the government.
A third argument for not requiring a driver license for non-commercial drivers is that such a requirement would be a burden for many people. For example, some individuals may not have the means or resources to obtain a driver license, or may have difficulty passing the necessary tests and requirements. This could prevent them from being able to use a machine to move their body, which would be a significant disadvantage for them.
Additionally, in many countries, obtaining a driver’s license is a long and costly process that can also be a barrier to access for certain segments of society, such as low-income individuals or immigrants who may not have the necessary resources or language skills to navigate the process.
Furthermore, if non-commercial drivers were not required to have a driver license, it would likely increase the number of people using alternative forms of transportation, such as bicycles and electric scooters. This would not only be beneficial for the environment and public health, but would also help reduce traffic congestion and promote a more sustainable transportation system.
In conclusion, there are a number of compelling arguments for why non-commercial drivers should not be required to have a driver license. From the perspective of individual freedom and government overreach, to the burden it can create for certain segments of society, and its potential to promote more sustainable transportation options. While these arguments may not be sufficient to completely eliminate the requirement for a driver license, they do provide a strong case for reevaluating the need for such a requirement in the context of non-commercial drivers.
Written by ChatGPT
I’m NOT a lawyer and nothing in this video is to be taken as legal advice. This is simply a reading of a lower court and Supreme Court cases regarding licensing those who choose to travel on the highways with their personal property.
Sources: Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFv…
People v Horton: https://law.justia.com/cases/californ…
Supreme Court Cases: https://www.geniemusic.com/?w=1624
More cases: https://central-bailbonds.com/u-s-sup…
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that:
“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What is the penalty for treason? Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”.
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added].
Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”.
The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).
However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
JUDGE YOU HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED BY LAW.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Everyone gets 5 free stickers but we are also giving away 3 dash cams, 10 .999 fine American silver eagles, free aluminum signs, books and MORE! Just place an order for any physical product and we will ship your free gift with your order! Everyone gets something extra!
ONLY AT shop.freedomfromgovernment.org through February 2022.
There was a time when you didn’t have to buy car insurance. Risky? Reckless? Maybe. But one thing’s certain: All of us now have to spend exorbitant sums on insurance — whether we ever need it or not.
Consider a modest annual premium of $500. Over five years, that’s $2,500 spent on…nothing, if you never have an accident or need to file a claim. And that’s a good bet, incidentally. You probably know someone — perhaps yourself — who has gone 20 or 30 years without a singe at-fault accident. Yet over a ten-year period, such a blameless driver would nonetheless have had to fork over $5,000 in insurance premiums; $10,000 over 20 years.
That is no small change. It’s also money that could have gone to savings, investments, the kids’ college fund — any number of useful, productive things.
Instead, it’s flushed down the financial black hole of state-mandated insurance.
It’s little wonder many of us have no more than a few thousand bucks in the bank (if that). By the time we pay Uncle Stinker 0- who extracts not just federal taxes but also the weekly fraud payment to Social Insecurity amounting to 7.65 percent of every dollar we earn and which none of us under 40 will ever see again – plus state and local taxes and then all the forced insurance we’re made to buy, we’re broke.
I drove around for several years without insurance when it was still legal in my state to do so. (This was Virginia, early 1980s — when the dying embers of personal liberty still glowed a little bit.) I saved thousands of dollars. Never harmed a soul — or cost anyone a red cent.
But what about the risk to others of allowing people to drive without insurance? It’s a valid question. An equally valid answer is: Should the theoretical risk that an individual might damage someone else’s property or person impose a definite obligation on them to buy insurance “just in case”?
Put that way, things get clearer.Arguably, the only time you or I should be forced to do anything is when it can be shown there is a direct, specific negative impact on others arising out of something we’ve done. Specifically, as individuals – not as members of a group based on age, sex or whatever.
Vague, generalized, broad-brush “risk” shouldn’t be sufficient cause for a legal corn-holing.
And speaking of which: What about the side effects of compulsory coverage?
For one, mandatory insurance cheats us all — because we’re all forced to do business with a cartel. When insurance is optional, insurers have to fight for our business as individuals. It’s much harder for them to shake us down at every turn over things like premium “surcharges” based on trumped-up speeding tickets. We can just say, No Thanks.
But when everyone has to buy a policy, the insurance cartels have us all by the soft parts. We’ve lost our leverage — and of course, they exploit it mercilessly.
It’s no coincidence that the cost of a typical insurance policy has increased obnoxiously since mandatory coverage went into effect over the past 20-25 years. Even “good drivers” who have never filed a claim or been involved in an at-fault accident are compelled to hand over hundreds, if not thousands, to the insurance mafiosi each and every year.That money could have been set aside in a “rainy day” fund – and used to pay out expenses resulting from an accident. Assuming one actually happens, which statistically speaking, it probably won’t. And if it doesn’t, you’d still have your money — instead of the insurance cartel.As far as the risk to others — the main argument used to defend forced coverage — it really comes down to whether you believe in liberty: Which is more important? Your ability (via the coercive apparatus of government) to force others to buy insurance against a small, theoretical risk to you that may and probably never will be needed? Or allowing individuals to decide for themselves what’s best – and leaving them free to act?
Sadly, too many of us no longer believe in liberty. The Fourth of July has become an absurdity — a holiday about “freedom” most of us aren’t even allowed to celebrate with fireworks we light off ourselves anymore. That would be risky, unsafe. Someone might get hurt. So naturally, it’s illegal in most parts of the country.Just like not buying insurance.
This is a list of objections in American law:
Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked of a witness include:
Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer
Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.
Asked and answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Usually seen after direct, but not always.
Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire (i.e. the jury selection process.)
Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness in order to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.
Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Generally, a non-expert witness is not allowed to describe what is in a document without the document itself being introduced into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Also, some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
Compound question: multiple questions asked together.Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.
Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.Leading question (Direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.
Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts.
Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.
Misstates evidence / misquotes witness / improper characterization of evidence: this objection often overruled, but can be used to signal a problem to witness, judge and jury.
Counsel is testifying: this objection some time used when counsel is “leading” or “argumentative” or “assumes facts not in evidence.
”Proper reasons for objecting to material evidence include:
Lack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source.
Fruit of the poisonous tree: the evidence was obtained illegally, or the investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal.
Incomplete: opposing party only introducing part of the writing (conversation/act/declaration), taken out of context. Under the evidence rule providing for completeness, other party can move to introduce additional parts.
 If any documents presented for the review, the judge and other party entitled to a complete copy, not a partial copy, of the document. When a witness is presented with a surprise document, he should be able to take time to study it, before he can answer any questions.
Best evidence rule or hearsay evidence: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available. However, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, ( acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.
Proper reasons for objecting to a witness’s answer include:
Narrative: the witness is relating a story in response to a question that does not call for one.
Non-responsive: the witness’s response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all
Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question.
Example: “Did your mother call?” “Yeah. She called at 3:00.” Opposing counsel can object to the latter part of this statement, since it answers a question that was not asked. With some concern for annoying the court, counsel will selectively use this to prevent a witness from getting into self-serving answers.
When you go in the courts they always say they are operating under a statute jurisdiction. The Black’s Law Dictionary 4th edition says a statute is a bond or obligation of record. That’s what all the criminal statutes are……..bonds or obligation of record.
The way the bond works is that a monetary value is placed on the alleged crime and then factored the way banks factor their money. In other words if a person is convicted of a felony the ‘value’ would be $4 million. The county/city/ state then multiplies it by ten, so the bond that goes out for sale with the prisoner’s name and social security number is a short-term ‘promissory’ note. It’s offered at $40 million. Perhaps an investor will offer 40% of the $40 million, or $16 million.
Once this ‘promissory note’ of the face value of $40 million reaches the banks it is then multiplied again by 200 to 300% and sold as bank securities. For those of you who wonder why the US has more people in prison per capita than any other nation on earth, you’ll begin to understand how we can have a weakening economy and still fund wars overseas. It’s all based on prisoners….in other words, prison for profit.
Knowing all this and knowing that a prisoner can have a ‘net worth’ of say, $10,000 per day in the money markets, helped me explain to many bewildered women why they were in jail. We were only merchandise in a warehouse. The storage was pretty cheap; one woman while in jail researched the cost of feeding prisoners per day which ranged from 74 cents to $2.72 per prisoner per day.
Go in and read the definition of a recognizance bond and you find that it is a bond or obligation of record. They are selling bonds. They are charging prisoners under a bond; the prisoner signs the bond and the bond becomes the agreement for the payback. This is done when the prisoner signs the final court papers at a sentencing hearing.
How many of us remember when our government attempted to finance from the private sector the Second World War. Weren’t they selling war bonds? They were soaking up the people’s equity in terms of buying bonds, transferring your funds to the government.
The government by purchasing those bonds was promising to pay you back your investment at sometime in the future with interest. At that time what they were collecting from the people was their so-called cash equity.
What is going on now is that people have gotten too poor, too stingy and too smart to buy bonds to finance the government? How long has it been since you heard the Post Office or anyone trying to get you down to buy US savings bonds?
So what they are doing now instead of getting us to voluntarily give our cash equity to the government for a promise to be paid back in the future, they are securing from us some violation of a statute by which the law ascribes from us a penalty; i.e., the payment of a sum of money due.
Instead of collecting the cash from us, they put us through a criminal procedure where we dishonor the system and what Gene said is what is happening is they are selling our capital and our interest. In other words, they are selling the liability you had in whatever charge has been brought against your straw man. They are taking that capital and interest that you should pay and are grabbing that from us and selling it on the open market to bankers and investors to transfer their funds to government which is covered by the bond of the violation of your straw man of that statute. In order to secure the bond the living soul is placed in prison as the surety to back the bond which is financed on the investment of the public market place in terms of the sales of stocks and bonds.
The public doesn’t directly bid on my (the prisoner’s) debt. Your debt is assumed by the bankers. The bankers issue secondary paper that allows me to invest in what they are holding as the holder in due course of the claim against your straw man.
The reason they are doing this is because you dishonored the post settlement procedures for settlement and closure of the account. The prisoner should have come in and accepted and used his exemption. Since the prisoner dishonored the post settlement proceedings, then the prisoner is in dishonor and the issuance of the bonds by the financing system was done in order to pass the punishment on to him because of his inability to fulfill his post settlement objectives.
If you get into to dishonor by non-acceptance, what they are trying to do is get an acceptor which is the same thing as a banker. They need someone to pay off the obligation and if you get into dishonor, they sell your dishonor and put you into prison as the collateral and they sell the bond.
The bond is issued and they get a surety to underwrite the bid bond with a performance bond and then they get an underwriter to underwrite the performance and payment bonds. What the performance bond does is it guarantees the bid contract, or the bid bond. What the bid bond does is guarantee the payment of the performance bond. This is done through a surety company. Then they get an underwriter or an investment banker to underwrite it. After it’s underwritten, they sell it to the public as investment securities, debt instruments, or mutual backed securities.
It’s all done through bonds…bonding. That’s what all these municipal bonds are. What they doing is following everything through the prison system. The prison system is being privatized. Through privatization, private enterprise can fund the prison system cheaper than the government can. They are subsidizing everything through privatization.
ALEC does this; the American Legislative Exchange Council, promotes privatization through foundations like the Reason Foundation owned by David Knott. They get the foundations to promote this and get investors to come in. Cornell was merged with Trinity Venture Company which is an investment company. What they did was changing their name to Reid Trinity Venture and then merged with SB Warburg. (Warburg was out of Germany or France and partnered with Rothschild). SB Warburg is in Chicago, Illinois, and they merged with BIF in Switzerland, which is a settlement and closure bank, and the biggest bank in the world for settlements. They are connected to Cornell Company which is owned by David Cornell.
Everyone is tied in. Paine Webber Group is the United States of America and all the big international corporations are the stockholders and own all the stock in CCA. Everyone is using our exemptions on the private side. They filed a 1096 tax return and show it as a prepaid account, as prepaid interest and they returned it back to the prisoner. They took the prisoners deduction for the exemption and they deduct the tax and the IRS bills the prisoner for the tax. So the corporations are stealing your exemption which is your intellectual property. What’s wrong with this? They are not telling us what they are doing. It’s all commercial. When you go into the court room everything is commercial. Vxxxxx in her seminar says the facts don’t matter, the facts are on the moon. What matters is honor and dishonor. The courts have to dishonor the potential prisoner or get that ‘person’ to argue or get that ‘person’s’ attorney to argue. Just like Martha Stewart. Argue and you’re in dishonor and you’ll end up in jail.
The attorneys are actors to make us think the whole process is a factual issue. They get us into the guilty/not guilty mode and they get into all the cloak and dagger or what evidence to present. It’s a dog and pony show to cover up that they are after the debt money. All corporations work on a fiscal accounting year which means that they spend debt. They can’t get rid of the debt and balance the books unless they run it through our accounts on the private side. We the people run on a calendar year and the corporations run on the fiscal year. They can only balance their books is to run it through our accounts using our exemptions. Then they can do their reverse bookkeeping entry and go to post settlement and closure. They can’t do that until the prisoners do the acceptance (if they do it). That what they are looking for in the court room under 3-410 is the acceptor.
That means we are assuming the liability for the debt as the principal. A lot of times with debt the principal is always the primary libellant in the commercial setting. He has to assume the liability and then you get your remedy. Otherwise you don’t get a remedy. They sell your account to some corporation while you’re sitting in prison.
How many times has government ever had a case against anyone? The attorneys have to attempt to get you to go right into argument and trial and go into dishonor. Axxxx was given documents from redwood Trust on a mortgage foreclosure. She did a conditional acceptance and she did a heck of a job. She stopped them cold and they took the property off the market. At the end she said if they didn’t answer her within 14 days she was going to resort to notorial protest and get remedy for dishonor. She went into the fact that their charter doesn’t allow them to loan credit, she wanted to know the name of the company who was the source of the credit, she wanted the name of the account number, she wanted certified copies of the font and back of the promissory note. She was trying to get them to divulge that it was her secured party creditor that was the source of everything they were doing. She was forcing them to admit that it was her promissory note that was the basis of the credit instrument that they loaned and that they had already sold the note to someone else and they didn’t have it in their possession. What they do is they sell the notes just as they do when you go into prison. They endorse the note and they no longer the holder of the note. The mortgage company wasn’t involved in this process….the attorneys are doing all this. What they are doing is coming to the private side to get the debt without any permission from the mortgage company. IN this case they quoted from the UCC, and it’s from Lex Mercatoria, the Law of the Merchant.
The Roman Empire used licenses to establish sovereign authority over her conquered subjects. Rome generously declared that her subjects could worship any god they chose and in any manner they chose. All these privileges were available with one minor requirement – they must first obtain a license from the Roman government. [Persecution in the Early Church, A Chapter in the History of Renunciation, by Herbert B. Workman, M.A., Oxford University Press 1980, page 28-29, “By Roman theory the State was the one society which must engross every interest of its subjects, religious, social, political, humanitarian, with the one possible exception of the family. There was no room in Roman law for the existence, much less the development on its own lines of organic growth, of any corporation or society which did not recognize itself from the first as a mere department or auxiliary of the State. The State was all and in all, the one organism with a life of its own. Such a theory the Church, as the living kingdom of Jesus, could not possibly accept either in the first century or the twentieth.”]
Why couldn’t the Christians apply for a license? To accept a license meant to seek permission from an authority outside the Church. For Christians to acknowledge they had no right to worship Christ without Caesar’s approval, Caesar’s license, would have been to acknowledge that Caesar was over Christ. It would deny the sovereignty of God and acknowledge that the Roman Emperor stood above God Himself.
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Today, we see the Caesars bidding us to accept licenses of all kinds. They offer an inexpensive little plastic card that promises you the chance to travel throughout all the kingdoms of the world – if we’ll just bow down to them. It’s such an innocent little card. What could be wrong with it? Let’s say you succumb to the temptation and get their license. Now your traveling depends on staying in good graces with Caesar. One day you will offend Caesar. You don’t pay a fine or you don’t fill out an accident report form. You receive a notice – your driving privilege is suspended. You can’t drive. You can’t get groceries. You can’t go to church. You can’t go out and preach the gospel. You are grounded. Here’s the dilemma. Jesus says, “Go.” The State says, “Stay.” Who are you going to obey?
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”Since the time of the Roman Empire, the license has been used by the Caesars of the world to establish their authority over a particular area. When we accept a license, we are accepting the sovereignty of the one who grants the license. An important principle of licensing is that the lesser authority never licenses the greater authority. Therefore, to ask permission from Caesar to preach or to worship or to travel would be to openly acknowledge that Caesar, not Jesus Christ, is lord over certain spheres of our lives. In other words, Caesar is the greater authority, Caesar is above Jesus Christ. Would we have Caesar as our king, not Jesus Christ? John 19:15 But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”