Letters Keep the Gears Turning

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Ticket to Heaven

Re: Content Cluster Muster 3/16: Ticket to Heaven Interesting, given that the lyrics seem to take the point of view of someone sending money to a televangelist . . .

Disclaimer: I am a fan of Knopfler & co.

Bugs Not Bunny

BNB, right. The song is about a televangelist shyster who is ripping off a poor woman—something Jesus touched on once (Matt. 23:14).

What Adam Did Not Do

Not referencing a particular post. What is your take on why Adam followed Eve’s lead in the fall? 1Timothy 2:14 says Adam was not deceived as Eve was, so he willfully sinned. I am tending to think it was despair: he knew Eve was dead, whether she looked it or not and decided to join her in a mad attempt to save her. Afterwards, he resented it, hence God’s judgment that man would rule(harshly) over woman. I also think maybe that’s why Christ is called the last Adam instead of a new Adam. Anyway, curious about your thoughts. Best regards,


James, we can’t be sure, but I suspect it is because he didn’t want to give her up, and he did not think to do what he should have done, which was turn to God and say, “take me instead.”

Mercy and Judgment

I’m hoping you can help me understand how God’s blessings work with judgement. Please bear with me as I’m fairly new to Scripture (and my husband and I are first generation Christians, to boot).

Generally, it seems God blesses obedience and punishes disobedience—hence our country looking the way it does. But what about small scale obedience, such as a family’s? Every so often you see a buzz of reformed folks online discussing how faithful, homeschooling families keep losing their kids to various current ideologies. Granted that doesn’t mean they won’t return, but does God revoke normal blessings during a nation’s judgement? Is he less likely to save believer’s kids? What about larger scale faithfulness, such as End Abortion Now? I understand common graces change, but what about to believers?

Thank you for your time,


H, I believe that compromised believers feel the effects of the judgment falling around them, and experience it as chastisement, not punishment. I also believe that God spares a faithful remnant, whether by means of an ark, or the land of Goshen, and so on.

That’s Not What Freedom Means

Regarding recent interview with John Anderson on YouTube entitled America Divided.


Around the 45 minute mark, when you were telling the story about Covid, masking, and the young ladies buying a gift for their teacher at the store, you said “freedom doesn’t work that way.”

What do you mean by that comment?


Ryan, what I meant was “freedom doesn’t mean doing what you are told.” Freedom means that differences are allowed.

That Too

“any conservative Christian who addresses cultural issues at all is not worth his salt if he does not get himself accused of racism” Nah. These days it’s all about being a homophobe and transphobe.


Ian, yes, quite. The field is expanding.

The Gospel Only Guys

I read some of the ‘gospel’ only guys. I think their problem is that God is too small for them. Righteous ends at abortion and sexual sin. They seemed oblivious to the tyranny rather than the required servanthood of the government during the COVID years. Romans 13 was shouted like the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord talisman. I ponder how they understand Jesus’ Kingdom parables; light, leaven, mustard trees and the rest.


Jeff, yes. And the small god comes from a small bible.

About to Pop

RE: Why Fox News Needs to Free Tucker. And Then a Word about the Gospel of Sovereign Grace Pastor Wilson,

I have been frustrated by certain claimed liberal conspiracies in American politics. January 6th is the one that angers me the most. What gets me spun up is the fact that the footage wasn’t in some vault in the bottom of a well. Republicans (including Trump) had as much access to it as Democrats did. If they edited together a nasty looking cut then the best time to point that out was during the impeachment. Yet Trump’s attorney Bruce Castor opened his remarks by describing the liberal edit as, “an outstanding presentation.” He then went on to give one of the most poorly written speeches I’ve ever heard. Now years have passed and Tucker is relitigating the case as though nobody knew about “Discovery” until 2023.

I think the claims of a January 6th conspiracy are a fig leaf covering up embarrassing levels of incompetence on the part of conservative politicians, attorneys, and thought leaders. It’s not victimhood if you simply didn’t prepare. I’ve been told with some confidence that Trump is rich, yet his attorneys appeared incapable of putting together a coherent sentence.

Examples include: improperly formatted legal filings, spell check errors and other typos, and missed deadlines. I’m tired of conspiracies that gloss over these failures. To borrow an analogy from you, at a certain point it’s time to stop calling everything a foul and accept that we’re just getting dunked on by a better team.

PS: (Not angry at you Doug)


Henry, yes. And I think it is possible for both to be true. The J6 business was an ethical monstrosity, and at the same time outmaneuvered and ill-prepared conservatives just handed the left a propaganda gold mine.

The Executive Wife

Hello again, Doug. Seldom is a reader afforded the opportunity to seek clarity from a favorite author, so I thought I should take advantage of it by asking . . . In your excellent book “Gashmu Saith It,” when writing about the three governments redeemed men must learn to function within, you write, “The husband is the head, his wife is his body and the executive, and together they shepherd their little ones.”

What EXACTLY do you mean by referring to the wife in these terms? I do see the “Christ and the church” imagery in the use of the word “body,” and feel I can tease that idea out biblically, but I must admit that I’m a bit flummoxed as to what you intend by assigning the role of “executive” to the wife. The Proverbs 31 woman might be an example but would you be kind enough to elaborate and provide some scriptural pointers toward your meaning?

As always, thank you and Nancy for your diligent kingdom work. I refer your podcasts to people often.


Carey, what I mean is this. The husband is head of the home, and the wife is the one who “executes” the decisions that have been made for the home. She is the one (largely) who implements.

Options for Canadians

Thank you for publishing my letter about Fairview Baptist Church and Tim Stephens.

I also read the letter from Colin who lives in British Columbia. Here are some churches I’ve found:

1. Surrey Reformed Baptist Church, Surrey

2. Cloverdale Free Presbyterian Church, Cloverdale (next to Langley)

3. Chilliwack Free Reformed Church, Chilliwack

4. Free Grace Baptist Church, Chilliwack

5. Redeemer Baptist Church, Kelowna

6. Heritage Free Presbyterian Church, Prince George

7. Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, Prince George

I hope this helps him!


CR, thanks much. Colin, there you go.

What God Could Do

We have been one of the wealthiest and most free nations on earth. How appropriate, then, would it be for God’s judgment to make us the poorest and most oppressed? As in, worse than North Korea . . .


SR, and if God were to do that, it would be better than we deserve.

Amazing Restraint

If there were ever a time when your epitaph, “I was holding back” was true, it might have been in your interaction video on Jen Wilkins on the topic, “Public School for Christian Kids?” ;) You showed amazing restraint.


Luke, thanks. Well, that is, if you liked the fact that I was restrained, thanks.

Lining Up Voices

RE: WORDSMITHY Hey Doug, I just finished Wordsmithy (on audio actually, which I’m just realizing is a bit ironic!). In it, you talk about the need to get your writing voice in line with your speaking voice. I have to admit, I write FAR more precisely than I speak on the fly. How can I get these in line? I have a feeling it’s a bit of a confidence thing, because I notice I can think logically and coherently, but then when I go to speak those things, especially when I’m around other preachers, I sound like a babbling buffoon. Thanks, brother!


Chaz, it is possible that the presences of others only makes you feel like a “buffoon.” That’s one thing. It might be better than you think. But the second thing is this. Begin with your speaking voices when it comes to prepared or semi-prepared remarks—preaching, lectures, Bible studies. Start your work there.

Book Recommendation

Though I hate others telling me, “You have to read this book.” I’d love to hear your thoughts on Vigen Guroian’s Tending the Heart of Virtue: How Classic Stories Awaken a Child’s Moral Imagination, now in a second edition from Oxford University Press.


Ted, can’t promise anything because life is short. But I did order it.

Lord’s Day Issues

Re: 11 Theses on the Glory of the Lord’s Day First of all, let me say that thank you for your ministry. Coming out of a liberal mainline background, your ministry has helped me to think through so many different issues. I don’t think there is anyone who sees the contemporary culture through a biblical lens as clearly as you do.

Another issue that I’ve been trying to think through is the Sabbath. Where I’m at right now is that I think there is still a sense in which we should keep and honor the Sabbath, such as by gathering for worship on the Lord’s Day. In this sense, I think you are correct in what you said about the way that the New Testament speaks about the Lord’s Day. However, I would not consider myself a sabbatarian, because I don’t think the New Testament expects us to keep the Sabbath in the same way that this was expected in the old covenant. Paul says that some consider one day more sacred than another, while others consider all days alike, but each should be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5). There’s no way that Paul would have made this type of statement about worshiping idols or adultery, so its hard for me to see how he could have considered the Sabbath to be binding in the same way that the rest of the Ten Commandments were.

However, I am still trying to think through this issue and am open to being convinced otherwise, so I would like to better understand your position as a sabbatarian. Do you hold to the classic reformed position that any work or recreational activities done on the Sabbath are sinful? I love and have learned so much from the Puritans, and this seems to basically be their position. In his spiritual autobiography, John Bunyan spoke about coming under conviction for the sin of Sabbath breaking, even believing that he would have gone to hell had he continued in it. The Sabbath breaking that he had in mind was playing board games in his house. Would you consider this Sabbath breaking and therefore sinful, if not, where do you believe Bunyan and other Puritans have gone wrong?

It also seems to me that a lot of Sabbatarians are inconsistent, as they typically consider the Sabbath to be a secondary issues. Since I am not a Sabbatarian, and based on what Paul says in Romans 14, I wouldn’t consider this a primary issue or an issue that Christians should divide over, but if you are a Sabbatarian and you believe that a large part of the Church is just blatantly disregarding one of the Ten Commandments, how could that not be a primary issue? Based on what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5, we couldn’t continue to have fellowship with professing Christians who were unrepentantly engaging in adultery or idol worship, so why would it be different with unrepentant Sabbath breakers, if you consider the Sabbath to still hold the same authority as the rest of the Ten Commandments?

I really appreciate you taking the time to read my letter, as I earnestly want to better understand your position.


Will, I am a sabbatarian, but I believe that sabbatarians historically go wrong by starting with the question “what am I not allowed to do?” Is throwing a frisbee at the park lawful? The sabbatarians that Jesus collided with in the New Testament were all wound up with this sort of question. I regard that kind of thinking as a peculiar form of sabbath-breaking. I believe that works of piety (worship) are required on the sabbath, and works of necessity and mercy are permitted on the sabbath. But the center of the command is to rest, take it easy, don’t pursue your normal vocation.

I found your piece “11 Theses on the Glory of the Lord’s Day” interesting, and I think you made some good points. Since this traditional view of the meaning of “The Lord’s Day” is often taken for granted, I appreciate you taking the time to make the case. I do, however, want to challenge you on two points:

1. To convince people like me, you would need more than a sentence or two explaining what Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16 do and do not teach. Is esteeming every day alike not a viable option for Gentile Christians? Where are guys like Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner wrong in their exegesis?

2. It seems to me that many Christians in our time think of church as mainly a Sunday thing and as something we go to and from. If so, would you agree that something is missing from the picture of the Christian community we see in the New Testament, with believers sticking together, encouraging and exhorting each other daily, eating together, sharing belongings when needs arise and confessing sins to each other, together with the frequent use of family language?


Ruben, on your second point, I do believe that our koinonia fellowship should be a lot more involved than it currently is. On the passages you mention, you have to remember that there were sabbaths other than the weekly sabbath—as in, the first day of an annual festival like Passover was a sabbath also. As I believe the apparatus of the Judaic calendar was fulfilled in Christ, I think those passages are referring to that.

The Short Answer

Is man eating meat a result of the fall? Without the fall would we all be vegetarians? If yes, then maybe you could answer a slightly sillier question for me. Were Adam and Eve created with canines or molars only?


Aaron, the answer is yes. Meat eating is a result of the fall. But I don’t think we know enough about dental telelogy to pronounce on what our teeth will look like in the resurrection. And speaking of that, there will be bacon in the resurrection—but there won’t be slaughterhouses. The clear solution to that problem will be bacon trees.

Possible Book

I am seeking counsel on whether I ought or ought not write a book about a correlation between the 6 days of Creation and the corresponding 6 millennia since with an open question/potential guesses for what it means about the 7th millennia. I am not a dispensationalist or anything in that way. Lean A-mill but would love Post-mill to be the case. I have just come to see a tight correlation between the method, content, and flow of each day of creation with the millennia it would be associated with when looking at each millennium from a high orbit.

My issue is that I don’t know the potential ramifications of it. I would like the reader to takeaway a new appreciation for God in His power and sovereignty, optimism in the future, and, potentially, a fresh desire to strive after Christ and His kingdom. However, doomsday predictors could use it to advance their agendas in unintended ways or people taking it too far and betting their life on a particular timing and outcome.

I really appreciate your thoughts and feedback.



Stephen, if you think you have a tight case, make it as best you can. You are not responsible for gross misunderstandings of your thesis, just so long as you hedge against obvious misapplications.


I am in my lower/mid-twenties and am surrounded by a culture of Christians who seems uninterested in sharing an entire one-half of the Gospel. That of course being the Old Testament half that represents God as infinitely full of wrath and condemnation. It is, admittedly, the uncomfortable half. A God of infinite mercy and love is easy to talk about. You are fully aware of the modern church and its insistence on pegging many of us classical theologians as being cynical, divisive, and judgmental.

Is there any sense in which they might be right? Now. I’m not talking about the theology of the thing. An undying loyalty to Scripture is, in my opinion, an unspoken prerequisite to knowing Jesus. If you can’t trust part of it, you won’t be able to trust any of it. However, I have found that there are a few prominent theologians (not you) who present their loyalty to Scripture in a “jerkish” way, and I cringe when I see it because I know their actions will be used as a weapon against Scripture, not against sin. Their theology is sound but their attitude is lousy.

On the flip side, there are many likable, docile, charming “theologians” out there who can smooth-talk just about anyone into believing what they’re saying. Their demeanor is good but their theology is questionable. So is it any wonder that we and our theology are lumped in with the angry stone-throwers? Could it just be that our sensitivity meters have gone all out of whack, and we’re not used to the language anymore? Or is there some kind of historical spine behind the accusations? Maybe a little of both? Was there ever a time in church history when this was an actual problem, or are they just making stuff up? Finally, how do we sift through this on a personal level and decide if we have an attitude problem? They are fellow brothers and sisters, after all.


Laura, you are describing a very real problem. Some are an orthodox cinder block while others are a heterodox swath of plush velvet. But Paul says in Ephesians that we are to speak the truth in love, which means that we should always be striving for the marriage of the two.

Good Old Calvinism

I’m at a point where I’m more and more convinced of Calvinism being correct. At the very least, as you said about your own journey, I’m willing to accept that it could be true. I saw your recommendation in last week’s letters to read “Easy Chairs, Hard Words,” which has really helped answer a lot of my remaining questions. I’m curious what your opinion is of children and the need for being “born again” (1 Peter 1:23, John 3:3) and for “repenting” (Luke 5:32, Acts 2:38). I guess my question is, when a child is raised as a covenant member of the church, I assume this removes the so-called “age of accountability” teaching that is prevalent in the Arminian, credobaptism world, but what do you do with texts that seem clear in their teaching for new birth and repentance? I have to believe you’ve written on this, and would appreciate being pointed in that direction.



Tim, yes, I have written on the absolute necessity of the new birth. The book is called Against the Church. Children are sinners also, and must learn repentance, and even though they are covenant members, their faithfulness to the covenant is not automatic. They must learn to walk in the covenant by faith alone.

Yes, Indeed

I’m curious what your thoughts are on whether the USA had a Christian founding, and was it ever a Christian nation. As it relates to that, have you read Founding Sins by Joseph Moore, what are your thoughts on that book?


Reagan, sorry, I am not familiar with that book. But I do believe that America was a Christian republic in its founding—very clearly so. We are not a secular nation now, but rather an apostate nation, which is a significant difference.

War on Drugs?

Once or twice, in your book on race, you decry the “war on drugs.” As someone who works for a private non-profit for shutting down drug houses through civil litigation, could you point me to previous resources where you’ve commented against the war on drugs in more detail? Or would you recommend further reading on this issue?


TR, the best place to look would be in my book Devoured by Cannabis. I don’t have a problem with society fighting drug use lawfully, but I do have a problem with the “all bets are off” approach. The rights of the accused should not evaporate simply because the charge is a drug charge.

Erasmus and the KJV

This question is about Erasmus’s Greek New Testament and the King James Version of the Bible.

Even though my pastor preaches from the NASB, and I regularly reference the other versions. I am mainly a fan of the KJV. I’m pushing 70 years old and the KJV is what I grew up with and memorized from and have been “imprinted” with from an early age. Also I like reading the older books which mainly quote from it. Also I like how it is embedded in the culture and I like its innate literary beauty, when it was translated, etc. And not to mention it meets all 3 conditions of your good Bible translation criteria. So after having read through the NASB and ESV I have pretty much decided just to stick with the KJV for my main reading and use. It is less confusing for me just to stick with the KJV and I like it better.

But my bubble kind of burst a little the other day when it was brought home to me (if I’m understanding correctly) that the KJV NT is based on Erasmus’s Greek New Testament . . . and that Erasmus, when he came to the last part of the book of Revelation “reverse engineered” the Latin Vulgate(?) version back into the “original” Greek!?

Pastor Wilson, is this true? . . . and if so how does that not really cheapen and/or corrupt his Greek New Testament . . . and therefore the KJV? . . . and if not true, would you please explain where I’m wrong and what really happened and how we should think about it . . . And finally, Sir, I know you’ve talked about these things before, but would you please recommend any resources about this sort of thing whatever might come to mind?

Thank you for your time and all your work for the Lord,


Robert, as far as Erasmus is concerned, that actually is the case. But the Textus Receptus has more than just Erasmus to go on. Erasmus was simply an early edition of the TR in the era of the printing press. You can feel good about continuing to use the KJV. Also I recommend a book by Ted Letis called The Ecclesiastical Text.

Sorry, No

Have you had any interaction with the “American State Nationals” movement? I’ve recently found out a Christian friend drank this Kool-Aid and was interested if you had any advice navigating those waters of discussion?


Chris, sorry, no. I have not heard anything about that. Readers?

And It Is a Problem

As a single young man in his 20’s how should I look at the marriage/lust situation. By God’s grace I have had progress in this area but have slipped up with porn every few months generally. I don’t want to bring this into a marriage situation but also recognize that the Bible talks about marriage being a protection against lust. Want to be wise! Would love your thoughts.


Roger, your problem—and it is a problem—doesn’t sound to me like the kind of addiction that you would track into marriage. It also sounds like the kind of problem that marriage would help to solve. I would encourage you to pursue marriage with a godly young woman.

My Favorite Subject

Good morning! I was wondering if you would be willing to talk about your views on the Civil War. How much of the war was about slavery and how much of the war was about the state’s rights? I noticed you have said you are just to the right of Jeb Stuart politically and I would be interested to know what you meant by that. Thank you!


Jon, the best place to get my views on all that would be Black & Tan. The short answer is that I believe the South was correct on the constitutional issues regarding the right of secession, and that the calamity of that war was a judgment on the entire nation, both North and South. I also believe that the centralization of power in the federal government was a downstream consequence of the war.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

Re: What Adam Did Not DoI think many give the 1st man way too much credit. 1st, Who was responsible for allowing the serpent into the garden when Adam had the authority to keep\kick him out. 2, why was he allowing the serpent to speak to his wife, much less approach her. 3, where did Eve get the addition to the commandment re. the tree of knowledge, “don’t even touch it.” 4, as for Eve’s guilt level, she was deceived, “tricked.” Adam was not. HE OPENLY REBELLED!! 5, Notice who Adam blamed, “This woman YOU (God) gave me!” 6, Many… Read more »

1 year ago
Reply to  HC

Could all the animals speak like humans? Or was it like, “Honey? This, this what-did-you-call it… Serpent. Well, it’s TALKING.”

Brandon Leatherman
Brandon Leatherman
1 year ago
Reply to  Kristina

I have been puzzling over the whole “serpent” thing (along with many other Biblical things) for a while. According to Blue Letter Bible, the Greek word for serpent is “nahas”, which means…well…serpent, or snake. But that was Lucifer. Did Lucifer enter in and possess the snake? If so, why is the snake punished? I’ve also heard one preacher say claim that the word for serpent could also be translated “shiny one”. This would make sense, due to Lucifer’s physical beauty and radiance. One more thing- Rev 12:9 and 20:2 both refer to Lucifer as a snake. Could this be a… Read more »

1 year ago

Pedantry, but… It is my understanding that “Lucifer” is not actually a name given to the Devil; Satan (accuser) is what he is usually called. Lucifer (actually just light-bringer, lucifer is a latinization) in the only passage it exists at best only might be referring to the Devil. I think lots of Reformed folk believe it’s referring to the High Priest. Also, I think there being a literal snake is confirmed by the curse on the serpent. Plus being called the “dragon of old, which is the devil and satan” in revelation seems to be a reference to the snake… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Jonathan
1 year ago
Reply to  HC

Adam was not taking the authority given by God and therefore, Eve usurped that authority. That was/is THE temptation in all marriages…. from the beginning. Both were sinning in different respects. Both were “active” in disobedience. When it comes to the authority structure that God has established for families, He will only deal with the husband/father regarding matters that are most important to Him, assuming the husband is listening. The temptation happens when the husband/father stops listening to God. Thus, the dysfunctional family.

1 year ago

I’ve noticed in recent years that it’s become a popular idea with preachers to say Adam was “passive” and stood by and let all that stuff happen in the garden. Then that idea leads to how men are passive in marriage, etc. That is possible, but it also sounds like a very modern idea (and one possibly based on psychology) being woven into the story. I wonder if ancient people ever would have come to that conclusion?

1 year ago
Reply to  me

Wouldn’t that be showing that male passivity is sinful/a problem? It seems like the view Adam was passively sitting there supports strong masculine active leadership.

1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan

All true, but it sounds like a very modern argument is all I’m saying. I doubt preachers of the past emphasized that point. It reminds me of the approach where someone starts out with and idea and then goes scripture-hunting for passages to back it up, rather than just teaching from the text.

Amanda Wells
Amanda Wells
1 year ago
Reply to  me

Wasn’t human sin brought into the world by the disobedience of tasting the fruit? How could Adam’s “passivity” been a sin before there was (human) sin?

1 year ago
Reply to  Amanda Wells

I’ve thought of this very thing before myself. The “passive” bit doesn’t add up to me but seems like something read into the passage to make preacher points.

Andrew Lohr
Andrew Lohr
1 year ago

Robert re KJV, or at least re Textus Receptus, John Burgon defending them did his homework, and many of their modern critics copy from (cheat from) one another instead of looking at the details dean Burgon looked at. Doug re Civil War, what was it a “judgment on the entire nation” for? Even U.S. Grant thought the original 13 states had a right to secede (and since a state is not a colony, but equal in status to each other state, I say so did the rest), but slavery (especially without reading, with manumission discouraged, and hereditary) was a terrible… Read more »

1 year ago

Thanks a lot, pastor Wilson, for answering my question about Erasmus and the KJV! ..and thank you too, Mr. Lohr.

Nathan Tuggy
Nathan Tuggy
1 year ago

Re: “American State Nationals” movement. I was actually just talking to some coworkers about this. It seems to be just another name for Sovereign Citizen: avoid taxes and vaguely referenced “monitoring” by spending years delving into enough obscure and/or mystical legal arcana that even cops aren’t quite sure what to think of your arguments, and hopefully nobody will call your bluff in a real court. Pretty much all of the concepts are the same: the modern US government is a corporation (i.e., literally a business — they don’t understand synonyms very well), not a federation; individual citizens’ bonds sold to… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
1 year ago
Reply to  Nathan Tuggy

My sole experience with sovereign citizens was years ago when, as a journalist at the time, I covered the trial of two of them in Alabama for killing a police officer. Their defense was that Alabama never properly rejoined the US after the CIvil War and therefore American law did not apply in Alabama, so the court lacked jurisdiction to try them. Didn’t work.

Nathan Tuggy
Nathan Tuggy
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Wow, that’s whack.

To be fair to these American State National folks, they specifically claim immunity from prosecution except when they have harmed another, so I don’t think this would square with their movement. They don’t seem to be trying for that kind of lawlessness.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
1 year ago
Reply to  Nathan Tuggy

As I understand their view, they take the position that because they are sovereign citizens the police have no right to stop, question or arrest them, so when they killed the officer they were acting in self defense. That, too, is whack, but if you accept their premise the conclusion sort of follows.

1 year ago
Reply to  Nathan Tuggy

Yes, along with what Mike said I think they would take the position that defending oneself against a police officer is the equivalent of combating an invading hostile power.

1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Not all of the sovereign citizen material is crazy. In Colorado, the sovereign citizens took off their vehicle license plates and sent the plates along with their drivers license to their sheriff. They stated what identification was on their vehicle. Of course, that made the news and everyone said that can’t be true. The problem was that the sovereign citizens actually read the Colorado vehicle code and correctly realized that it only applied to commercial drivers, vehicles of commercial size or seating, or vehicles which drove on military reservations. The news didn’t report on the facts of that situation and… Read more »

1 year ago
Reply to  Dave

As usual, you are absolutely wrong.


  • Within sixty days after purchase (42-3-103(1)(a) C.R.S.)
  • Within ninety days after becoming a resident of Colorado
  • An owner of a foreign vehicle operated within this state (42-3-103(2) C.R.S.)
  • Every nonresident person who operates a business within this state and owns and operates in such business any motor vehicle trailer, semi-trailer, or trailer coach (42-3-103(3) C.R.S.)
  • Within forty-five days after the owner has returned to the United States (42-3-103(4)(b) C.R.S.

I think it’s time for you to retire from commenting.

Maybe you should check your meds, too.

1 year ago
Reply to  Nathan Tuggy

Thank you for the response to my ASN post.
Could you elaborate more on your comment, “ The whole thing falls apart as soon as you recognize that a nation or state has binding authority even over people that didn’t specifically give their informed consent. That is, it rejects any covenantal aspect to civil government.”?

Wouldn’t they say they are honoring the “true” covenant with the “true” civil government by denying their make believe “incorporated government”?

Nathan Tuggy
Nathan Tuggy
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris

Well, the problem is that there is no extant civil government operating under the old system that they claim was never properly abandoned. So they’re trying to imagine it into existence; on their own individual authority as self-appointed experts in the law, they want to declare the correct and appropriate form of government, and proceed as though it existed already. But you can’t do that. You can’t uphold a civil covenant or legal order without civil obedience — as a people, not just as a few isolated individuals. You have to take into account the government you actually have, and… Read more »