Natural Law and the State of Things

When we look at the world today, whether you are conservative or liberal, Christian or pagan, you see turmoil, unrest, violence, threats of violence  and signs of societal decline on every side. The question everyone asks, if only to themselves, is “What caused this and what is the solution?”

The answer: everything we see in the world today is an act of natural law.

First, what is natural law?

“The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved.” (The Free Dictionary, https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/natural+law)

At its simplest, natural law is the “law of consequences.” In this essay, “consequence” is used to reference something negative, an inherent penalty, whereas a blessing is a positive result. Life is a series of choices, and with each choice you will receive one of two outcomes: either you will get a blessing or suffer a consequence.

Look at the experience of history. Ancient Rome, before the advent of Christianity and before the empire, was a moral nation. And the blessing for that morality was a blossoming, expanding empire and great power. But, as they became wealthy and powerful, their morality failed, and they began more and more to suffer consequences rather than inherit blessings.

Ezra Taft Benson (Quorum of the Twelve) wrote the following:

“Military service was an obligation highly honored by the Romans. Indeed, a foreigner could win Roman citizenship simply by volunteering for service in the legions of Rome. But, with increasing affluence and opulence, the young men of Rome began avoiding this service, finding excuses to remain in the soft and sordid life of the city. They took to using cosmetics and wearing feminine-like hairdo’s and garments, until it became difficult, the historians tell us, to tell the sexes apart.

“Among the teachers and scholars was a group called the Cynics whose number let their hair and beards grow, and who wore slovenly clothes, and professed indifference to worldly goods as they heaped scorn on what they called ‘middle class values.’

“The morals declined. It became unsafe to walk in the countryside or the city streets. Rioting was commonplace and sometimes whole sections of towns and cities were burned.

“And, all the time, the twin diseases of confiscatory taxation and creeping inflation were waiting to deliver the death blow.

“Then finally, all these forces overcame the energy and ambition of the middle class.”

It’s simple: you do good and good things happen to you; whereas if you do “bad” things, you suffer the consequences of your actions. When we look at the policies modern liberals tend to favor, we shouldn’t be too surprised to see them full of consequences rather than blessings.

Let’s look at some of the causes of our society’s miseries today.

Drug Abuse: People who become addicted to readily available drugs consume all their readily available wealth to support their habit. In the process of being impaired, they are also more likely to commit crimes. Often included in this is a government system that benefits to some degree off the drug trade and doesn’t apply its full efforts to stamp it out, as it has too much wealth to gain from it. Once these drug-slaves’ money runs out, they take to theft and ultimately resort to living on the street, spending any money they obtain to continuing their addiction, expecting the public to support them and provide for their housing and necessities as their health inevitably fails. Isn’t this what we see today? One who cannot support themselves is not only not a free citizen, they are a slave and a public burden. The result of this is rampant crime and class warfare (the “rich” against the “poor”) and the destruction of the economy.

Abortion/Evolutionary Doctrine: When the unborn are regarded callously as mere “tissue” to be removed at the mother’s convenience, the inherent sanctity of all life is demoted. This results in ‘senseless, unthinkable’ violence’. Why shouldn’t people, especially young impressionable youths, see other people as mere animals they have every right to eliminate if it benefits them (or for their simple pleasure)? The very conscience of the people becomes tarnished and what used to be a taboo no longer has the stigma it once held. When life is held to be of little importance, the very fabric of society, that which holds people together is endangered.

Weakening of the Family: When children are taken away from their parents because those parents did not raise them the way someone else, or the government, believed they should, the moral fabric of the nation is further sundered. Children are then moved to homes where more often than not they are molested or abused worse then they were at home. Now, I’m not saying genuine child abuse doesn’t happen, but I believe the majority of the cases of so-called abuse are simply the consequences of a system that is designed to financially benefit from the destruction of families. Social workers are encouraged to use the state’s powers to steal children from their God-given homes for such petty reasons as refusing to vaccinate or seeking alternative medical procedures to treat illnesses. The end result is a Clinton-esque communist government of tyranny where the children are raised (and propagandized) to support the state.

Gender Identity: A nation that can’t tell one sex from another is teetering on the brink of destruction. Such purely natural distinctions should, in an intelligent society, not even be questioned. When they are, you can be sure that the moral decline of that nation is just about at the bottom. Rampant infidelity and promiscuity is the result, with increasing abominations and perversions abounding. Child sex. Bestiality. Even polygamy is a symptom of this decline, as it is not the norm throughout the majority of the world and again common sense should dictate that one person can only really have a true intimate relationship with one other. Crimes against persons and violence inevitably follows a society’s profligate ways. As well, the weakening of the society as a whole, as its members’ roles are now in flux and old-fashioned concepts such as “faithfulness” and “loyalty” disappear.

Greed: When a government can spend the wealth of its people witlessly, on any contrived excuse you know that the end is coming. One thing many nations that have failed have in common is a nominalization of their currency. Rome began with silver. By the end, silver was scarce. The United States was founded, wisely, on a gold standard. Didn’t take too long for that to disappear. Fiat currency is debt currency, not wealth. Inflation and debt are the consequences of foolish spending. When you have a government that has to spend its people’s future on the “environment” (whatever that means), maintaining the other consequences of the society’s decline (homeless shelters, socialist security, state-paid healthcare), when the lazy wait for welfare handouts while the decent members of society struggle with supporting themselves as well as the welfare leeches, you have a society on the downturn.

Rampant Uncontrolled Crime: When society believes that punishment for crime is inhumane, and ‘mental health’ so-called ‘professionals’ believe that the offenders’ “low self-esteem” is the problem rather than their “extreme arrogance and self-absorption”; when the death penalty is abrogated as being old-fashioned and hard-hearted, while murderers commit crime after crime knowing the just penalty for their crimes will never be served; when “low-risk” offenders commit petty crimes by the barrel-full (often while receiving welfare benefits) and there is no shame – in fact, they believe it’s their right to do so and to receive what is not theirs; when, in short, the concept of crime has become more of a political issue, a revolving door to propagate a corrupt legal system and support reams of attorneys’ high salaries, you know the system is going to fail eventually. Societal distress and violence is the consequence for these failed beliefs and policies.

The Bible lays out the good and the bad, the blessings and the consequences of such things.

Galatians 5:19 “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  (21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23  Meekness, temperance:”

What kind of nation would you rather live in? What consequences do you enjoy enduring? What would it really take to turn this nation around? All you have to do is embody the good, positive aspects of life, decency, morality, honesty, sincerity. A people who reject such common-sense facts of nature deserve their fate. We either allow our nation to continue its decline until it erupts into violence and destroys itself, or we take this nation back, get the economy back to reason, restore the value of life, eliminate crime and justly punish criminal behavior, and require public decency and a return to a more natural and respectful relationship with each other. Otherwise, the degenerate will destroy all that was good in this country.

Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: (23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”

2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Advertisements

Christian Society vs. World Government

Christianity vs. the World

In thinking about the state of our nation, the contest between conservatism and liberalism, the eroding of our rights and the program to democratize this nation, I came to a realization about the enemy that opposes us.

First, what is liberalism? Yes, I know, I’ve posted about this before, but really, what is liberalism? A form of Marxism. But what is Marxism at it’s foundation, it’s most basic ideology? What, really, is very single other belief system on earth at it’s very core?

A rejection of the Creator. Resistance to what we all are born knowing. OPEN REBELLION.

What is paganism except a man-made construct of ‘deities’ based upon the realities of existence which surrounds us. The humanizing of natural forces based on man’s own imagination (and desire). The creation of gods that mimic (and epitomize) the fallen human existence. What is nature worship but, again, a rejection of God and a worshipping of that which was created. What are philosophical systems (Confucianism, Buddhism) except the vain imaginings of a fallen mankind? God warned us before that this would happen.

Deuteronomy 4:16  “Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,  (18 The likeness of anything that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: (19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.”

1 Corinthians 1:25 “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Isaiah 55:9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

You can look at any religious or philosophical system and you will find only a dogmatic refusal to accept reality. We have Scriptures which have survived the ages, and that give us God’s very words as recorded by His prophets… and none of His prophecies can be proven to have failed. Not one. The record for other faiths, however, is not so reliable. But, I digress…

Marxism is the root of humanism, and the basis of the modern “paganistic” paradigm. Just as ancient Romans were crucifying and killing Christians for sport, so too today’s Marxists have and are killing believers throughout the world. These are some of the same people in our country claiming the educational and moral high-ground, proclaiming that they are more educated, more rational, more individualist thinking, claiming to know better than the rest of us.

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. (from Wikipedia)

Superstition is a pejorative term for any belief or practice that is considered irrational: for example, if it arises from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality, a positive belief in fate or magic, or fear of that which is unknown. “Superstition” also refers to religious beliefs or actions arising from irrationality. (from Wikipedia)

So, these ‘rational,’ ‘empiricist thinking’ Marxists are the ones toting, oh, the theory of evolution. This is nothing but one man’s mad philosophy, without one shred of evidence, and which nature and true “empirical” science has consistently and soundly refuted. Evolution has become a “religion”, based on “dogma” and “faith” over fact or evidence.  So, by their own definitions, those Marxists and atheists who subscribe to evolution are superstitious and irrational. Any “theory” of science that has had 150 years for its adherents to prove it as a law of science, and is in fact even further removed from being proven than when it originated, is hardly something to dogmatically rely upon. But it’s all they have, and its either continue to promote it or admit that God exists and all their evidential scrounging’s for the last almost two centuries have been a waste of time. And that is the crux of the issue: their refusal to admit to God’s existence and their responsibilities to abide under His commands to mankind.

To sum up thus far: there are really only two belief systems on earth today: Christian and non-Christian. You either accept the God of the Bible or you don’t. And if you don’t, you imagine something else to worship and serve other than your Creator. We can see this today in our own nation, which was founded upon Christian values and principles, yet that is denied and is not taught in the government schools. What is the alternative we are being force-fed?

Well, our children and our society are being taught a disrespect and disparagement of law. There are two factors to consider: 1) “Law” as it is being passed in legislatures and the Congress today are not all good, not all moral laws, so in this case there are laws which should not necessarily be respected. 2) Long-standing laws which are based on protecting the public morals and maintaining the public peace.

Those who used to be pillars of authority, unquestioned and institutions in our society are no longer respected. How many Hollywood productions and television sitcoms show men as either abusers or fools especially when compared to their wives or children?  Police are being rendered as objects of derision, and the military as well. Authorities are being belittled and made fun of. This disrespect is a symptom of a more serious illness. What’s the point of it all?

“The origin of its law is its god. The final authority for our law is our God. Since we are a people under God’s Law, we are a people under God, or God’s people.

Wherever the emperor is accepted as the source of law, the emperor is also hailed as god. If Der Fuhrer or Il Duce, or The Leader, or the Soviet dictator, gives and enforces the law, he is openly declared to be god. If the final authority is claimed for parliament, parliament usurps the place of Divinity. Such a claim, in fact, incited a War of Independence in the American Colonies. But if the final authority is believed to be in the whole people, the demos, then the voice of the people is said to be the voice of god and we have set up the tyranny of the mob.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 3-4.

Mobocracy is Democracy. Democracy eventually fails, every time it is tried. That is why the United States was founded to be a representative Republic. We are, however, via the legal system, Hollywood, political system, societal engineers of any and every kind, being driven to a tyranny once again.

What is law?

“Law in its simplest form is the set of rules which are consented to and imposed upon all members of any group of people, and its purpose is to preserve the existence and identity of the group as a whole. The law sets forth the terms which every individual must observe for the sake of the whole body. The end and purpose of the law in this world is to protect society as a whole. The law protects the nation or the people from the vagaries of individuals.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 3.

“There is a foreboding distortion of truth in the recent pronouncements from the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect that the function of law is to protect the individual from society. That perverted philosophy of law has produced a spate of decisions from the Supreme Court which are not only a travesty on law and justice, but an insult to humanity, an offense against nature, and a breeding ground of chaos and violence.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 4.

So, the non-Christians are out to destroy everything created by our Christian forefathers. Is this a surprise to anyone?

“The liberal movement is dedicated to the establishment of a supreme world tyrant whose conscious human will is law and whose decree cannot be questioned. It cannot achieve its purpose until it succeeds in breaking down God’s legal system built upon the Ten Commandments, and substituting therefore a system of regulation by law of all human conduct. The recognition of the Ten Commandments as law in the United States and all Christian nations is the bastion of defense of Christian freedom and a rock against which every tyrant must smash.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 3.

Thus, the movement to eliminate the 10 Commandments from all government/public buildings. Bring up an issue of morality with a liberal. They will laugh in your face. They have no conscious concept of or tolerance for morality, which is clear in our world that normalizes fornication and legalizes removal of the consequences for such acts (hence abortion). The murder of the resulting child is societally insignificant. Is this situation purely accidental? No, it was planned.

“The alternative to God’s law is not no law, but human law. Governments who do not jealously guard the majesty of God have no choice but to uphold the majesty of their own human authority. Where crime is not an offense against the moral order of God, it is an offense against the arbitrary power of the state.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 6.

“The will of one man is the alternative to the will of one God, but one will there must be. The distinctive mark of a world government under man as opposed to the present arrangement under God is that it kills for political insubordination – rioting, rebellion, treason, spying, and such like. Christian governments kill for insubordination to the Divine majesty – violations of the law of God.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 18

“The modern word for such a government is totalitarian: a government that arrogates to itself total power. The crowning goal of Satan is to have a totalitarian world government.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 24

I only have time for one illustration. I’ve often wondered at the liberal dislike of corporeal punishment. It just seems like the most logical, rational solution for those who have proven to be an irredeemable threat to society. Otherwise, it is inhumane punishment on society to support these worthless, dangerous people in prison for their entire lives. Also, the fact is that God ordered the deaths of murderers.

Genesis 9:5 “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. (6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

But, it seems liberals would rather incarcerate than execute. Why? A helpless baby is prone to be eliminated without thought, they actually defend the ‘right’ of mothers to murder their own children, but hardened killers, they must be kept alive. Why?

“The whole Christian doctrine of temporal government rests upon administration of a system of rewards and punishment according to the laws of God. That is what we mean by justice. The execution of punishment is the specific work of the head of government. The cornerstone of the power or authority to punish is the power to execute the chief punishment, which is death. The death penalty thus becomes the symbol of temporal power in a Christian republic. The proposition is recognized from both sides of the issue, by those who believe it is good and right, and by those who believe it is wicked and wrong. John Locke, in his treatise on civil government, writes: ‘Political power, then I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties… and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws…’ Consequently, all less penalties is the phrase that acknowledges the key importance of what is commonly called the ‘capital’ or ‘chief’ punishment. In the opposing camp, a Dr. John R. Silber quotes Dr. Sheldon Glueck of Harvard University as follows: ‘The presence of the death penalty as the keystone of our penal system bedevils the administration of criminal justice all the way down the line and is the stumbling block in the path of general reform in the treatment of crime and criminals.’

The liberal movement confirms the key importance of capital punishment by its own dedication to its ‘abolition’. It is necessary to try to strip the government of its power to kill in order to destroy Christian civilization and replace it with a reformed system whose head, himself, sits in the place of God and whose own will and decrees are the only things inviolable… You and I and our state governments are the targets of this mammoth drive. It is our way of life that is to be abolished. The reformed system would be a world government. There can be no world government as long as Texas, for example, retains it sovereignty. Texas loses what Christians have always recognized constitutes temporal sovereignty the minute it gives up the power to put criminals to death under the criminal code of God. The only alternative to utter chaos, then, is the identifying socialist passion to set up a government to rule the whole world. The socialist blueprint for world government is well attested by a leading socialist spokesman, Dr. Martin Buber, who recognizes that such a government must be under man rather than under God. He writes that, ‘for Utopia everything is subordinated to conscious human will, as though there were no other factors at work than conscious human will.’ And again, ‘if… the whole population is to be limitlessly determined in all branches of its life, and thought by one central authoritarian will [God’s will?] then it is inconceivable how such a stage can ever evolve into socialism.’” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 17-18.

The liberals, or at least the leadership, know exactly what they are doing.

“Even the liberals or socialists who are so passionately trying to demolish these principles know perfectly well what it is they have set about to destroy. Remember the devils were among the first to recognize Jesus. And the enemies of Christ are among the best informed on the score of what Christian government looks like. The trouble with relying on a liberal scholar is that in his passion to destroy, he is apt to distort. Moreover, what the Christian approves, the liberal abhors. If you accept the liberal mind as the standard of approval, then you may hear the Christian position accurately described, but viewed with horror and alarm. For example, discrimination is said to be a bad word. It is simply wrong, say the liberals, to discriminate. Now Christians not only do discriminate, but we regard discrimination as of the essence of all Godly activity. Our whole life in Christ is a process of discriminating choices in every phase of activity – from acquiring knowledge to choosing our associates. We are told that it is an abomination to hold any person guilty by association. But Christians have always quipped, “Birds of a feather flock together.” And Christian legal principles recognize the charge of being guilty as an accomplice to a crime by association under certain conditions with the criminal after the crime is all over.

The socialist has no qualms about disagreeing with what Christ holds to be good, because he has rejected Christ’s authority in the first place. But he is never in any real doubt as to what Christ has said, and what Christian authorities in all churches have generally agreed Christ said.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 16.

“Everywhere in the Christian world there is underway a powerful, highly organized movement to abolish the power of governments to punish men for violations of the Ten Commandments and to substitute therefore the power of the state to uphold arbitrary decrees, because, say the socialists, when the government speaks it must be obeyed. If, they argue, we will submit to absolute human sovereignty, resistance to which must bring swift execution, men will have peace such as we cannot know under the moral laws of God.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 8.

Something as simple and seemingly insignificant is actually just another attack on our Christian foundations. It’s just another step the liberals/communists/non-Christians are using to destroy what our Founders created, a system with God as it’s head. Think the forbidding of prayer in schools was an accident? Nope, it too was a rung on Satan’s ladder to world government.

“The alacrity with which the liberal movement springs to the attack against any hint that the government might function under Christ is too familiar to need further illustration. It does need to be pointed out, however, that the very denial of a Christian basis for keeping the government out of the regulation or prohibition of practices of worship leaves only the alternative of a totalitarian human supreme will in the place where God ought to be. Apart from Christ, the principle becomes a legal guarantee of atheism. The government must be obeyed: and the government must forbid worship in any activities with which it is connected. The fact that this principle also results in a bald-faced violation of the Constitution against the prohibition of Christian worship is ignored. The fact remains that when the Court rules that the schools may not provide Christian teaching, it is prohibiting Christian worship. One may argue that the government has a perfect right to do so in its schools; yet it is the subjects of that government who are affected and whose freedom, unrestricted, to worship as Christ commanded, is forbidden in a school they are required to attend. Two violations do not produce an affirmation; they merely result in confusion worse confounded.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 30.

Wake up before it’s too late. Many liberals may simply be ignorant and misguided, but undoubtedly many also know exactly what they are doing, and unless we oppose their foolishness in seeking a “utopia” on earth without God, we will all suffer the consequences of their foolish attempts.

Funny; on an ending note, those who oppose the will of God are the ones fulfilling His prophecies. If they stopped trying to create a world government, stopped corrupting our nations and opposing God’s people at every step, His prophecies of the end times might actually fail (not that they will, but philosophically speaking). By pursuing their agenda they are assuring the successful accomplishment of God’s Word.

The Unlawful Effort Toward Gun Control

There is a strong movement today, promoted and supported by an aiding and abetting media establishment, which functions more for the engineering of society than the informing of the public for the purpose of alienating the People’s right to keep and bear arms. Of course, “necessity” is the plea, the “necessity” of public safety.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” –William Pitt, 1783

The ‘gun control’ issue really is quite simple: it’s an attempt to repeal a natural right of the People for spurious reasons. Spurious why, you may ask? WELL… let me tell you.

  • Lawfully purchased and owned guns save more lives than they take. Lawfully owned guns are rarely used to commit crimes.
  • Guns stolen from lawful owners, assembled by criminal elements, or filtered into the country illegally via the ‘black market’ are where the majority of the weapons that are used in crimes originate. Imposing onerous laws on the law-abiding will have absolutely no affect on this problem.
  • Mental illnesses, which cause a significant number of firearms-related crimes, have a number of different causes, including and largely related to drug and alcohol abuse. Just as we can’t control the use of illegal drugs and abuse of alcohol, we are similarly incapable of preventing shootings by such unbalanced people.
  • By definition, criminals do not obey laws, including gun laws. It is only the law-abiding that are limited and penalized by gun laws.
  • It is the law-abiding People who could potentially stand up to defend their rights against an out of control tyrannical government that are the real target of rights-infringing ‘gun control’.

If we want to solve the artificially inflated, so-called “gun problem”, we first need to tackle the issues mentioned above. I’m sure there are many more than I have listed.

What is the real Gun Control motive? It’s a movement by the “elite” to remove guns from our society. Gun ownership is a natural right, a God-given right, which cannot be repealed by all the governments in the world. It was not given by them, and it cannot be lawfully denied by them. God gave us the right (see the Declaration of Independence), and only God can take it away. A government that tries to do so is a Tyrant and is to be opposed.

The founding fathers understood the wisdom of private ownership of guns.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.“ –Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

We have guns for the express purpose of self-defense against an aggressive and totalitarian government, not just of personal self-defense against assailants. Those who would even attempt to repeal this sovereign right of the People are worse than traitors.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”–Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755.

Legally speaking, those who would limit the exercise of a right are themselves criminals. Theft (taking possession of someone else’s property), murder (stealing someone else’s life), restricting someone’s movement (unlawful imprisonment)… all these limitations of the rights of others are CRIMES. So-called “gun control”, for whatever reason it is pursued, is a criminal if not treasonous act.

Fact is, the right to bear arms relates to military grade weaponry, not just popguns and water pistols. The patriots fought off the British with military hardware of their day. How can a free people stay free if they cannot match the power of that government’s military arsenal or that of a foreign military?

How about a historical view of this right? The quote below is taken from “Handbook of American Constitutional Law” circa 1895 by Henry Black, the author of Black’s Law Dictionary:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be denied or infringed by congress or the other departments of the national government. The amendment is no restriction upon the power of the several states.[33] Hence, unless restrained by their own constitutions, the state legislatures may enact laws to control and regulate all military organizations, and the drilling and parading of military bodies and associations, except those which are authorized by the militia laws or the laws of the United States.[34] The “arms” here meant are those of a soldier. They do not include dirks, bowie knives, and such other weapons as are used in brawls, fights, and riots. The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance.[35] And a statute providing that a homicide which would ordinarily be manslaughter shall be deemed murder if committed with a bowie knife or a dagger, is valid. It does not tend to restrict the right of the citizen to bear arms for lawful purposes, but only punishes a particular abuse of that right.[36] This right is not infringed by a state law prohibiting the [Page 404] carrying of concealed deadly weapons. Such a law is a police regulation, and is justified by the fact that the practice forbidden endangers the peace of society and the safety of individuals.[37] But a law which should prohibit the wearing of military weapons openly upon the person, would be unconstitutional.[38]
[33]. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165.
[34]. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6 Sup. Ct. 580.
[35]. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473.
[36]. Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394.
[37]. State v. Wilforth. 74 Mo. 528; Haile v. State, 38 Ark. 564; Wright v.
Com., 77 Pa. St. 470; State v. Speller, 86 N. C. 697.
[38]. Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly (Ga.) 243.

A History About the Washington State Constitution, circa 1878

picWith Excerpts taken from the above.

“When Washington Territory was created on March 2, 1853, it included what is now Idaho and western portions of Montana and Wyoming. In a few years the miners and cattle men in that vast area east of the Cascade Mountains became ambitious along the lines of government. Three counties – Shoshone, Nez Perce and Idaho – were created in 1861. In January of that year a memorial to Congress was introduced in the Washington Territorial Legislature asking for the creation of the Territory of Walla Walla. It was not adopted and the eastern men then circulated a petition asking the Legislature to submit to the voters a constitution for a proposed State of “Idaho” to include the whole eastern area. On the last day of the session, January 29, 1868, a motion was carried to change the bill by substituting the word “Washington” for “Idaho” and in its amended form the bill was tabled. The mountain and valley men of the east then took their cause to Congress and on March 3, 1868, the Territory of Idaho was created, giving Washington the eastern boundary that has remained unchanged.

The people in the northern part of “panhandle” of Idaho were not content. They memorialized for a return to Washington. In 1867 there began a legislative agitation for statehood, the northern end of Idaho to be included. Each session of the Legislature submitted the question to the voters but no adequate response was received. In 1878 another scheme was attempted to create a new territory which should include Eastern Washington and the “panhandle” of Idaho. Then followed the preparation to participate in the Centennial Exposition. Aspirations were stimulated.

The Legislature in an act approved on November 9, 1875, once more submitted to the voters the question as to whether or not a constitution should be prepared for submission to Congress with a request for statehood. Contrary to former experiences, if was found in the general election of 1876 that more than 7,000 voters had responded and the majority in favor of framing such a constitution was 4,168. At the next session of the Legislature, by an act approved on November 9, 1877, provisions were made for delegates to be elected and to convene at Walla Walla on the second Tuesday of June, 1878, to frame a constitution…

The delegates assembled in Walla Walla and on Tuesday, June 11, their formal sessions began. After forty working days they adjourned on July 27. The men were in earnest.

The constitution was ratified by the people at the general election in November. However, it was never put into operation. When it had become known that a convention was going to be held, the Delegate in Congress, Orange Jacobs, introduced a bill in Congress for the admission of the State of Washington, in December 1877. Again, after the Constitution had been framed and approved by the people, the newly elected Delegate in Congress, Thomas H. Brents, introduced another bill for the admission of the State. Neither of these bills received favorable action. Washington was to remain in territorial tutelage for another decade.”

What do we know from the above? First, the people ratified a constitutional convention for the State of Washington, which was every bit their right to do. Having approved a Constitution, the “Territory” became a State. The Constitution included very explicit instructions on how the Territorial government would be replaced by the Constitutional government, but as we know, through outright corruption, the elections for State offices was never held.

Understand, the people have the right to form a State. Admission to the Union of States was up to Congress, but Congress had no authority to deny Statehood. At the point that the Constitution was ratified, Washington became a State, but not a part of the United States.

“The delay was largely a matter of national politics. Professor Frederic L. Paxson says: “In Congress, however, there was little disposition to admit new states. Colorado had come in in 1876, and since its last territorial delegate, Thomas M. Patterson, was a Democrat, there had been hope that it would cast three electoral votes for the Democratic candidate for President. Without its three, which were thrown against Tilden, General Hays never could have made a successful contest for the office, and the course of history might have been changed.” (“Admission of the Omnibus States,” from the Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin for 1911, page 81). The Democrats has control of one or more branches of the Government from that time until the Fifty-First Congress, 1889 – 1891, with the exception of the Forty-Seventy Congress, 1881 – 1883. During the last named Congress, the bill for the admission of Dakota got at least a hearing. As soon as the Republicans regained control, in the Fifty-First Congress, six new Western States were admitted within two years, four of them by one act.”

So, what we know is that Washington became a State with the Constitution of 1878, but was denied admission to the Union because the Democrats didn’t want their majority upset. (Typical). But the fact that the authors above seem to miss is that Washington became a State by the decree of the people regardless of Congress. Membership into the Union wasn’t within the people’s power, but the people had every right and authority to form a state. The original 13 colonies/states came into existence before the Union of States was even formed. Statehood is self-determinate by the will of a sovereign people, not dependent upon concession from Congress. We the People create states, not the federal government, otherwise states would merely be puppets of the United States government.

As stated before, the 1878 Constitution included explicit conditions by which the newly created State offices would replace the Territorial offices. The requirements for amendments and/or replacement of the Constitution were laid out in Article XVI “Amendments” section 1-3. The schedule for the implementation of the constitution and State offices under the Constitution was specified in Article XVI “Schedule” Section 1-21. Understand, this Constitution was formed and ratified with the intention of the State thereby formed becoming a part of the Union of States. Such membership being initially denied, the Statehood created by the Constitution was still a fact in law. However, the lawful election of state officers was never held, the state continued to operate as a Territory in rebellion against the lawfully created Constitution.

The following is an excerpt from “History of the State of Washington”, copyright 1947 by D. C. Health and Company:

“Delegates to the convention met in Walla Walla in June of 1878. (A delegate from the Idaho Panhandle was present but had no vote). The convention spent twenty-four days in drafting a constitution. A request for admission to the Union was made shortly after. Congress did not act favorably on the request and the work of the convention went for nothing.”

Went for nothing? That’s what the powers that be would like us to think. There was a lawfully ratified Constitution and State formed, regardless of its non-admission to the Union at that time.

And that is the history of the lawful Constitution for the State of Washington. The 1889 Constitution, what of it? Well, ok, let’s go into the history of that just a bit, then I will come to the conclusion of the matter of which Constitution is the real Washington State Constitution. The following is another quote from “History of the State of Washington”:

“It became more and more evident that Washington’s claims to statehood could not be denied any longer, and on February 22, 1889, Congress passed an enabling act setting up the conditions under which statehood could be achieved.”

Again, is it Congress’ prerogative to create states, or the will and vote of the People? The People had already formed a State, it just needed to be accepted into the Union. Ultimately, it was. That is the crux of the issue. Today the so-called 1889 Constitution, which is portrayed on the Washington State Attorney General’s website, is a counterfeit, false Constitution imposed by the moneyed-powers that sought to usurp the rightful Constitution the People had previously ratified, and which didn’t fit into their interests. You want proof? Contact the National Archives and request a certified copy of the Washington State Constitution. 50th Congress, 2nd session, Senate miscellaneous document #55. The text is that of the 1878 Constitution ratified by the people and rejected for admission into the Union of States at that time. Yet, it is ironic that somehow, through some confusion perhaps, or the hand of God Himself, the correct Constitution, the 1878 Constitution for the State of Washington, was the one brought before and ratified by Congress.

What is the difference between the two Constitutions? I don’t claim to be an expert, but there are a few very large differences I think would benefit every Washington citizen.

“Article VI, Section 15: No bill, except for general appropriations, shall be passed, containing more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title, but if any subject shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.”

No more “riders”. No more laws that have hidden agendas and corruptions behind its supposed intent. Each bill was to be of one specific subject and be clearly expressed in the title of that bill.

“Article II, Section 3: The people of the State, in their rights of sovereignty, are declared to possess the ultimate property in and to all lands within the jurisdiction of the State; and all lands, the title of which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall revert or escheat to the State.”

No federal ownership or oversight of State lands. The People of the State would own everything within their sovereign capacity. Where is this in the 1889 constitution?

“Article V, Section 3: All persons are by nature free, and equally entitled to certain natural rights; among which are those of enjoying and defending their lives and property, and of seeking and obtaining happiness…”

The right of self-defense and protection of property is constitutionally mandated.

“Article V, Section 4: All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”

I believe that a business refusing service to any customer is an indefeasible right.

“Article V, Section 23: All lands within the State are declared to be allodial; and feudal tenures, with all their incidents, are prohibited.”

What does “allodial” mean? According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, it means “Pertaining to allodium; freehold; free of rent or service; held independence of a lord paramount; opposed to feudal”

According to USLegal.com it means:

Allodial title is a real property ownership system where the real property is owed free and clear of any superior landlord. In this case, the owner will have an absolute title over his or her property. Property owned under allodial title is referred as allodial land. Allodial lands are the absolute property of their owner, and are not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior. In allodial lands there will not be any control by a superior landlord.

What it means is that you could not lose your property for failing to pay taxes. Your property is totally, truly yours. That doesn’t mean that payment wouldn’t be due prior to it being passed on to an heir, or sold, but the government wouldn’t be able to take your land to pay a debt. Wouldn’t this be a nice right? Can you see now why the powers that be would want an inferior Constitution for this State?

So, ultimately, the argument state and federal officers might have regarding which constitution governs Washington State is moot, for the 1878 Constitution was ratified, erroneously or not, in 1889 and became our State Constitution. It was ratified by the People in 1878, and created a State, whether regarded by the US government or not is irrelevant. The National Archives proves what is right. So, why is our state operating with the wrong Constitution?

 

Conservatism; and What is Liberalism, Really?

socialismfistenvironmental

I have been hard on the liberals for their viewpoint, behavior and especially their outlook on ‘conservatives’. The question that posed itself to me is: do ‘liberals’ even know what ‘conservatives’ really believe, or the consequences of what they believe, or do they only know what their teachers, school administration and government curriculum have painted for them?

I have come to believe that liberals honestly do not even know what conservatism is, and are largely, like the animals that psychologists have experimented on, programmed to respond to certain key words spoken by school teachers and media personalities. Like programming a dog to avoid or engage in certain behaviors, liberals are taught in the government schools to react certain ways to certain terms. Terms like “conservative”, “bigot”, “compound” and “cult” are common words with meanings which have largely been redefined by media and school officials to mean something else.

When Christians go to church or have a gathering, at a retreat or campground, it is often reported as a “compound.” What is a compound really? The internet dictionary states it is something that is “composed of two or more parts, elements, or ingredients”. It just means a place that is composed of more than one building. Oh, this sounds dangerously threatening, doesn’t it? It gets even worse if the participants are labelled as “cult members”. Such “code words” are programmed into students in today’s government schools, and the media takes “liberal” advantage (pun intended) of these terms to denigrate those the government disagrees with (i.e. conservatives).

While we’re on the subject of the schools, do you realize that Adolf Hitler was a national socialist (the liberal of his day) and one of his first acts was to revamp the educational system to produce socialists? Called “Hitler’s Youth”, they were taught to rat out their parents if they heard any non-party talk or anti-Hitler comments. The socialist fruit hasn’t fallen too far from the socialist tree. When a distraction or opposition was needed, the youth were called out to “protest”; hurt people and break things. Sound familiar? So, we could say with some truth that liberals are not so much “progressive” as “regressive”; going back to corrupt policies and practices that history shows are failures.

“Socialism” is nothing more than a regression to a tribal social structure, where the strong take the lion’s share of the resources, and the rest “share” the remainder. It is the elite’s vs the peasants, a form of feudalism. This is not some incredible, fantastic new utopian idea, it’s the same tired old doctrine of the tyrant.

Before we get too far, also realize that many call themselves “conservatives” but do not really hold to conservative values. These are often called “Neo-cons” or RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only). Just because someone is labelled as conservative (or labels themselves such) doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. I dare say that most republican politicians are actually not very conservative.

So, what is Conservatism?

Conservatism is just as much a way of life and a belief system as it is a political outlook. The definition of “conservative” might be a good starting point.

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary states:

CONSERVATIVE, adjective Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.

The modern Webster’s Dictionary states:

a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is established b :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs

In essence, a conservative believes that traditional values, those encapsulated by this nation’s founding fathers and our founding documents, form a near-perfect concept which would secure the freedom and prosperity for everyone… if they were followed. This is in opposition to those, called “progressives” or “liberals” who believe they alone know what is best for our society, and attempt to push their ‘novel’ concepts on society and force changes that may or may not be all that truly ‘progressive’, but which may rather be viewed as retrogressive.

Below I will enunciate some of the ‘Conservative values’ and the liberal alternative opinion.

* Personal Responsibility – A true conservative believes in taking responsibility for themselves and those in their household who fall under their responsibility. This includes maintaining their property and meeting their financial responsibilities and obligations. The taking care of their own household and making all decisions for it. You would know a true conservative as a person who provides for their own, respects their property and that of others, holds rights to be sacred, and basically ‘picks up after themselves’ as a normal or innate aspect of their character, not something they do just for show. This would of necessity require a small government with very limited powers and limited regulation. Some would call this simply being mature or responsible, but nevertheless it is an aspect of the conservative lifestyle and mindset.

The liberal mindset is that government is more intelligent,  compassionate, more able to handle each person’s affairs, even better than they can themselves, thus more regulation is seen as better. I think in terms of welfare and the abuse that system is infamous for. It used to be (and maybe still is) that in certain state and national parks, the park rangers set up signs “don’t feed the bears”, the stated reason is that once animals learn to get their food from humans, they tend to lose the instinct to get food naturally. The same goes for people who live off the government tit. They lose the ability (work history, work ethic) and desire to fend for themselves and instead become, essentially, slaves to the system. For an outlook like liberalism that views slavery as a social evil, it is odd the hypocrisy they follow when it comes to entitlements like welfare, illegal immigration, and the like. When people are provided for, they no longer have to provide for themselves, and they become servants to those that provide for them, at the ballot box and elsewhere.

* Biblical/Lawful Foundation – A true conservative views the Christian religion, founded upon a conservative, historical and faithful interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God, as the key to personal and civic peace and prosperity, and a system of laws founded upon those Biblical principles. As the United States Supreme Court itself has said:

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the redeemer of mankind… It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” –Supreme Court, 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States

The Scriptural examples by which our laws were originally fashioned were fair and equal. A murderer, for example, was to be executed. No exceptions by rank or status or ethnicity were allowed. One who stole was to replace what he/she stole and then pay a penalty on top of it as a punishment. Families were protected by stringent laws against adultery, and the fact that the government was largely kept out of the home. Crime was punished commensurate with the severity of the crime, and punishment was enacted swiftly.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 – “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

Murder used to be a capital offense, because it was one of the most morally repugnant of crimes. This also happened to protect society from the ravages of men who, as rabid animals, were dangerous to the safety of others.

Genesis 9:5 – “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6)  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

As a system of law is of necessity based upon the dominant religion of a nation, so too this nation was founded upon Biblical precepts and it could not have survived the trials it has endured, and remained free as long as it has, without that foundation. I mean, think about it: what is wrong with the moral commands in the Scriptures? Are they really so repressive, or are they actually the glue that holds a society together? Is abstaining from lusting after your neighbor’s wife strengthening to society, or weakening to it? What is there in Scriptural morals that is so repugnant to society that we must make a new, more “enlightened” legal system?

I believe that the liberal’s repugnance to law based on the morals from the Scriptures relates more to their spirit of rebellion to God and any lawful authority. As soon as God is mentioned, liberals begin to almost foam at the mouth and inevitably spout “separation of Church and State”, as if that really has any meaning. It was a poorly extrapolated statement that doesn’t mean what it says. The government was meant to maintain a Christian standard, and only a Christian-based system can survive. Humanist-based systems inevitably explode and are the spectacle of violence and inequality around the world.

“We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.” –U.S. Supreme Court–Zorach vs. Clauson, 1952.

What it boils down to is a liberal tolerance for crime to the point that criminals are a protected segment of society and have more rights than the people they victimize. A murderer, rather than suffer public contempt and execution are coddled in prison for life (sometimes), their expenses imposed on the backs of those who are already struggling to support themselves without having to pay for the housing, healthcare and dental care of a bunch of scum and gang members who are a blight on our society. Is this the “compassion” the liberals tote? Compassion for whom? Certainly not for the victims of crime, nor for the public at large. The simple fact is that some people should not be tolerated, some behaviors should not be accepted, and self-esteem be damned, some people legitimately should not be allowed to continue an existence on God’s earth.

 

* Liberty not ‘Freedom,’ AKA Moral Foundation – A true conservative recognizes that a people cannot coexist in any peaceable and lasting way unless they have the liberty to do so, not the “freedom.” Freedom implies no moral restraint, whereas liberty has the connotation of freedom within ethical constraints. We have the liberty to live as we will, provided we live in a moral and peaceable fashion. We do not have the ‘freedom’ to do whatever we want, for our very laws are founded upon the moral strictures of the Bible.

Once we begin to change the laws, to make perverse behaviors acceptable, the very foundations of our government and legal systems become corrupt. If a politician’s wife cannot trust him to be faithful to his marriage vows, why should his constituents trust him to honor his oath of office? Words and behaviors have repercussions, and conservatives desire only the highest of both as a bulwark to safeguard our government and personal lives.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to want to legalize if not grant special privileges to every aberrant behavior they can conceive. Gay marriage, openly gay behavior, the lust-inspiring and wicked “performances” of many singers and actors/actresses and content on public television erodes our society, it doesn’t “progress” or advance it. A liberal will rake a conservative over the coals, figuratively, for being a womanizer, all the while condoning a liberal singer who flagrantly flaunts and touches her body inappropriately in plain view of a public audience. It’s the singer who is inspiring lust in everyone around her, tempting them to do what they know is perverse, but it is the conservative, who is accused of some behavior or other, that is the evil one. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Our government was not designed to allow or function with uncontrolled wickedness. The wicked man cannot be self-controlled or self-governed, but must be governed with an iron fist.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” — Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Maybe this is why liberals keep calling this a “democracy,” perhaps they instinctively realize that their behavior is incompatible with a republic… or maybe I give them too much credit…

* General Political Considerations – The modern Webster’s dictionary pretty much has it right as far as what a true conservative emphasizes in the realm of politics. In a system where everyone lives by “conservative” standards, working to support themselves, following a law-abiding lifestyle, and living in a Constitutionally operative government, taxes would not need to be high, and welfare would be largely non-existent. We wouldn’t need many jails (there are always a few who just can’t follow rules), and if everyone exercised a little common sense, we wouldn’t need a lot of government regulation. These things are possible on a large-scale, but it requires the majority of the people to follow suit.

On the subject of “bigotry” and racism, one must realize that there are bigots and racists in every ethnicity and nationality. Some are borne of personal experience, some from a national or cultural source. American conservatives, in general, believe in taking their opinions of individuals based on that person’s behavior and attitudes. Obviously, there are exceptions, but conservatives in general hold no person to be less than any other just based on their genetics. So, this constant media and educational bias of calling anyone with a conservative bent “racist” is fear-mongering and slander at best, but sometimes a conservative’s record is of such quality that there is nothing else a liberal can do to sully that person’s reputation than to resort to innuendo and slander.

The Liberal Alternative

Do these points sound “archaic”? Intolerant? Does every behavior and idea necessarily have a right to be ‘tolerated’? Aren’t there ideas that are poisonous to a society? Those who enforce their concept of morality on the public, would they accept a modern Aztec practice of ritual heart removal? Why not? Is homosexuality any less moral than ritual murder, especially if the victim is willing to go under the knife? Or assisted suicide? Or the euthanasia of the elderly? Or bestiality, or incest? Or are all of these really sins and crimes? A true conservative would believe so.

Opposed to conservatism, what are the ‘liberal values’? Freedom from religion, freedom from morality, take from the rich and give to the poor (rather than build the poor up and make them self-sufficient), radical environmentalism, which devolves into a pseudo-religion for some of the more fanatical liberals. Liberalism is basically the ideology which opposes traditional values and standards, seeking to go from a place of peace and equality to a man-made, historically disproven kind of equality and fairness: the theoretical humanist utopia. Government over all, without any constraints from any God. Tribalism. Strong vs the weak. The doctrine of the wolf vs the lamb. A degeneration of society rather than its advancement.

What about the environment? What is the conservative position on that? Well, the modern ‘climate change’ ideology came largely from Karl Marx and company.

“The dialectical nature of climate change is a striking confirmation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism developed by the founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.”

The dialectical process is, in a nutshell, to create a problem for the express purpose of offering a solution to that problem, of course one that benefits Marxism, which are the ones who use this process. Incidentally, liberals and the government use it all the time…

So, create a problem (climate change) and then give the world a cause for this problem (human beings), then propose a (Marxist) solution to solve the problem – population control and taxing the right of everyone to live (the very air everyone needs to breathe). Environmentalism is not a conservative issue, since it’s largely a made-upon dialectical issue, not a real-life issue. If everyone lived a conservative lifestyle, lived responsibly, individuals and businesses, then “climate change”, if it were real, would be recognized as a product of a natural cycle (which it is), not a man-made problem.

Unfortunately, the end result of liberalism (which is Marxist socialism) is a Communist Dictatorship, which eliminates, as much as possible, any personal freedom (hence, everyone has equal freedom – none), financial incentive (fiscal freedom – total equality), and right to life. Liberals: under a system you would consider “fair” and “equal”, you would find all deformed/retarded children/adults would be euthanized. All babies considered by the state to be unnecessary would be aborted. The elderly and disabled, who under such a system would not be able to produce anything, would be euthanized. The government would tell you how to live and whether you would get the opportunity to live. This is the end result of extreme Marxism, and it is what liberalism is trying to create within our nation. It happened in Hitler Germany under a Socialist regime, and it can and will happen here if these Socialists (“Liberals”) are not stopped.

According to http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/, the number of deaths from Marxism to date are as follows:

People’s Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Body Count: 58,627,000

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Body Count: 3,163,000

Cambodia Body Count: 2,627,000

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan Body Count: 1,750,000

Vietnam Body Count: 1,670,000

People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Body Count: 1,343,610

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Body Count: 1,072,000

To my knowledge, this does not include the number of infanticides and abortions by these nations.

Is this really preferable to a “conservative” system of fair laws and personal morals and responsibility? I think not.

 

ADDENDUM 11/28/16

Remember the hoopla about “Rush is Right”? Well, I was right, about the truth behind liberalism and its Marxist roots. Upon the death of the infamous Fidel Castro’s death, what was the reaction in the liberal world?

castro

See, one of the most wicked men of our generation, responsible for his tight-fisted control of his country and abuse of his “peasants” is lauded by liberals as a great man. Are they really that stupid? No, but they share his Marxist opinions and that makes them bad for America. Anyone who would look up to a Castro, or a Hitler for that matter, who was also a Socialist, needs to be “re-educated”. In my opinion, they are too foolish to know what is good for themselves or this country. Yes, they need to be governed, for they do not have what it takes to be self-governed. That is the fault of the socialist government schools, also called “public schools”. Unless this is fixed, its very possible that a new civil war could be the result. Marxism and the Christian Republic our founders left us are not compatible. One must succeed and one must fail.

 

The Revised Codes of Washington (RCW’s) Are Not Law

docscan

The Revised Code of Washington specifically disclaims any authority of law, to wit:

RCW 1.04.021 Rule of construction – Prima facie law

“The contents of said code shall establish prima facie the laws of this state of a general and permanent nature in effect on January 1, 1949, but nothing herein shall be construed as changing the meaning of any such laws. In case of any omissions, or any inconsistency between any of the provisions of said code and the laws existing immediately preceding this enactment, the previously existing laws shall control.” [1950 ex.s. c 16 § 2.] (emphasis added)

Is it possible that something which is law cannot change the law? Absolutely not! Such a statement would be exceedingly ridiculous if the RCW were actually law.

While it is true that the Revised Code of Washington purports to be prima facie evidence of the law, this does not mean that it is the law, nor is its claim of prima facie authenticity necessarily valid.

The Washington State Supreme Court has specifically stated that it is not the law.

The Washington Supreme Court has specifically stated that the compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington” is not the law.

“In this respect, the1951 legislature was following its own unconstitutional device for amending a section of an act in disregard of the specific constitutional mandate. The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington,” which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged.” Parosa vs Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 415 (1960) (emphasis added)

“But we think that the fundamental error into which the court fell was in assuming that the several sections cited are concurrent in point of time. A glance at the chapter alone will show that it is not composed of any single enactment of the legislature. On the contrary, it is a composite of several independent acts of the legislature ranging from territorial days down to the session of the state legislature of 1907; it is so to speak, the compilers idea of what now remains as law of the many enactments of the legislature. But the compilation has no official sanction in the sense that it controls the construction the court must put upon the several acts.” Spokane P. & S. R Co. vs Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 26, (1919). (Emphasis added)

The RCW is unlawfully revised

The compilation entitled “The Revised Code of Washington” is not the work of our legislature, or any elected body of legislative representatives. Instead, it is a private compilation, a private ‘law’ which is written for private purposes, private agendas, and private gain.

The code reviser himself is an appointed officer; he is not elected by “We the People.” Furthermore, he is appointed directly by the Governor, and as such, he is an executive agent. Yes, that ís right. The Revised Code of Washington is the work of our executive branch. Of all the possible scenarios, the executive operating legislatively is perhaps the most dangerous of all.

The RCW is copyrighted and private

It is an undeniable and indisputable fact that the compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington” is in fact copyrighted by a private corporation Yes, it is true. The RCW, just like its predecessors, Remington’s & Balinger’s, is copyrighted. Arthur Remington compiled the statutes of Washington, and the work was copyrighted by the Bancroft-Whitney Company, originally in 1910.

The RCWs do not meet Constitutional requirements

One of the forms that all laws are required to follow by the Constitution of Washington (1889) is that they contain an enacting style or clause. This provision is stated as follows:

“The style of the laws of the state shall be: “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington.’” Article II, Section 18.

None of the statutes found in the Revised Code of Washington contain any enacting clauses. The constitutional provision which prescribes an enacting clause for all laws is not discretionary, but is mandatory. This provision is to be strictly adhered to as asserted by the Supreme Court of Washington:

“Upon both principle and authority, we hold that article 4, Sec. 13, of our constitution, which provides that “the style of all laws of this state shall be, ‘Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Washington,’” is mandatory, and that a statute without any enacting clause is void.” Sjoberg vs Security Savings & Loan Assn., 73 Minn, 203, 212 (1898); The Seat of Government, 1 Wash. T. 115, 123 (1861).

The laws in the Revised Code of Washington do not show on their face the authority by which they are adopted and promulgated. There is nothing on their face which declares they should be law, or that they are of the proper legislative authority in this state.

The RCWs lack proper titles

All laws are to have titles indicating the subject matter of the law, as required by the Constitution of Washington (1889):

Article II, Sec. 19: No law shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

By this provision, a title is required to be on all laws. The title is another one of the forms of a law required by the Constitution. This type of constitutional provision “makes the title an essential part of every law.” Thus the title “is as much a part of the act as the body itself.” Leininger vs Alger, 26 N.W. 2d 348, 351, 316 Mich. 644 (1947).

The complete omission of a title is about as substantial and plain a violation of this constitutional provision as can exist. The laws cited in the ‘Revised Code of Washington’ are of that nature. They have no titles at all, and thus are not laws under our State Constitution.

The provisions requiring an enacting clause and one-subject titles were adhered to with the publications known as the “Session Law” and “General Laws” for the State of Washington. But because certain people in government thought that they could devise a more convenient way of doing things without regard for provisions of the State Constitution, they devised the contrivance known as the “Minnesota Statutes,” and then held it out to the public as being “law.” This of course was fraud, subversion, and a great deception upon the people of this State; fortunately, it has now been revealed and exposed (Matthew 10:26, Luke 12:2).

There is no justification for deviating from or violating a written constitution. The “Revised Code of Washington,” cannot be used as law, like the “Session Laws” were once used, solely because the circumstances may have changed and we now have more laws to deal with. It cannot be said that the use and need of revised statutes without titles and enacting clauses must be justified due to expediency.

The “Revised Code of Washington” is published by the Reviser of Statutes, and is copyrighted by him or his office. The “Session Laws” were never copyrighted, as they were a true public document. In fact, no true public document of this state or any state or of the United States has been or can be under a copyright. Public documents are in the public domain. A copyright infers a private right over the contents of a book, suggesting that the ‘laws’ in the “Revised Code of Washington” thus are not true public laws at all.

“Uncertain things are held for nothing.” “Maxim of Law

“The law requires not conjecture, but certainty.” Coffin vs Ogden, 85 U.S. 120, 124.

“Where the law is uncertain, there is no law.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Volume 2; “Maxims,” 1880 edition.

I would like to give credit to the now defunct Washington Jural Society for the above information. Lies and deception seem to be the the rule in politics and law, rather than the exception.

Rights vs Privileges

                     

Everyone throws around that they have a “right” to this, or to be that. Gays are certain they have a “right” to marry and/or do whatever their agenda for the day is. Minorities are certain they have a “right” to “equal” privileges as the majority enjoy. Well, the question then arises, what are “rights”, the different kinds of “rights” and what “rights” do we really have? After all, if you don’t know your rights, you can’t assert them.

“Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970).

Inalienable Rights

Ok, in order to understand what we’re discussing we must first know what “rights” are. According to Dictionary.com:

“18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women’s rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

20.  adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.

21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.

22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.”

In essence, rights are claims or actions which are granted and protected by some higher authority. In a Constitutional sense, rights are granted by God to man. These God-granted rights are also called “natural” rights and are inalienable (in-a-lien-able or unable to be liened, or denied by any legal means).

Civil Rights

Also known as political rights. Civil rights are also rights granted by a higher authority, at least ostensibly (technically, the people are supposed to possess superior power vs the government in our system). Civil rights are typically granted by some branch of government to some or all of the people. This is from Wikipedia.com:

“Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.”

This list of civil rights is actually redundant, assuming a system that does not already recognize the God-given inalienable rights of “the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement”.

The major difference the two types is that inalienable rights, as I’ve already stated, cannot be abrogated by anyone less than the one who gave the rights in the first place, namely God Himself, while civil rights are “civil” or societal and are not so immutable. In fact, a civil right is little more than a government-granted privilege, and can be revoked just as easily as it was granted in the first place.

“A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law… Privilege is either absolute or conditional.”

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/privilege/#ixzz2qbDynDMw, “Privilege”

Civil rights are typically granted to a class or group of persons for political reasons, and are usually revocable. To make them absolute would require that language to be specifically written in the law.

“There is inherent in the very word “privilege” the idea of something apart and distinct from a common right which pertains to all citizens or exists in all subjects. It connotes some sort of special grant from sovereignty, some type of necessary special permission or consent which the sovereign in its discretion might have withheld or failed to provide, such as the right to do business as a corporation or the right to record a mortgage.” State vs Welsh, 251 N.W. 189, 200 (S.D. 1933).

Inalienable Rights Enumerated

  • Right of Association and Religion (1st Amendment)
  • Right of Speech (1st Amendment)
  • Right of Self Defense (2nd Amendment)
  • Right to Contract (Article 1 Sec. 10)
  • Right to Privacy (4th Amendment)
  • Right to Equal Protection (14th Amendment)
  • Right to not be subjected to Involuntary Servitude (13th Amendment)
  • Right to Due Process (5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th Amendments)

Some of these rights are very broad, much more so than I have the time to get into. Also, don’t forget the most important 9th amendment which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, there are other rights which were not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but which are just as protected as those that are enumerated (there was a hotly contested argument when the idea of a Bill of Rights was contemplated, seeing as how the founders couldn’t possible mention every single right the people possessed).

The most important facts I wish all readers to take away from this article are these:

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

It is blatantly illegal for any level of government to convert a right 
either into a crime or a privilege.

Right to Travel
Our concept of rights came to us from English Common Law, which was formed 
over time and from practical experience. 
One of the first recognizable documents forming the English Common Law is 
the Magna Charta (or Carta). 
The right to travel appears to have had its origins in this document, 
paragraph 41:

 “All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us.”

The right was initially invested only in merchants, but later applied to commoners as well. All were free to travel on the King’s Highway without dispute or toll. Interfering with such free travel was illegal.

Now, we all know that in order to “drive” (this is a definable term) you have to have a license. What does “license” really mean? The below is taken from legal-dictionary.com:

License – The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act.

Ok, so, if a right cannot be converted into a privilege, then do we have a right to travel or not? Yes, to travel, but not to “drive”.

Recall my previous posting about Taxes and the Law. When a lawyer wants to hide what he is doing, he codes the statutes in “terms” which are definable at will. Words such as “drive” and “motor vehicle” are terms that are re-defined to suit their purposes.

Code of Federal Regulations

TITLE 49 — TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER III — FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 390 — FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL
Subpart A — General Applicability and Definitions

Sec. 390.5  Definitions.

Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.

Sounds reasonable, right? Ok, what is a “motor vehicle” according to these people?

Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 31
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 – AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES

Sec. 31. Definitions

When used in this chapter the term  – 

”Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.  ”Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit;

Ok, do you “drive” a “motor vehicle” for “commercial purposes”? Most people don’t. Yet, you are still required to have a license to do that which is a right, to travel. License means permission. A common right, the right to freely travel along public streets and highways, has been converted into a privilege requiring government license (permission) to prevent suffering criminal action against you. Have the courts agreed to this?

The Supreme Court of Minnesota in the case of Hanson vs Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 383 (1938) had stated:

“Our society is builded in part upon the free passage of men and goods, and the public streets and highways may rightfully be used for travel by everyone.”

The Supreme Court of Nebraska in Michelsen vs Dwyer, 63 N.W.2d, 513, 517, 158 Neb. 427 (1954) stated:

“It is well settled that the public are entitled to a free passage along the highway.”

The Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of City of Chicago vs Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910, 175 Ill. 445, stating:

A license is a privilege granted by the state. To constitute a privilege, the grant must confer authority to do something which, without the grant, would be illegal; for if what is to be done under the license is open to everyone without it, the grant would be merely idle and nugatory, conferring no privilege whatever. A license, therefore implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge and without toll.” Also in: Hubman vs State, 33 S.W. 843, 844-45, 61 Ark. 482.

The Supreme Court of Colorado said:

“Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People vs Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182; 147 Colo. 210, 214 (1961).

How about Idaho?

“The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams vs City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

Virtually every State of the Union has cases such as these supporting the right of the people to travel over the roadways. Does the mode of transportation matter? The Supreme Court of Iowa has held that:

“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House vs Cramer, 112 N.W. 3, 134 Iowa 374.

Or this:

“Automobile vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.” Chicago Coach Co. vs City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205, 169 N.E. 22; Matson vs Dawson, 178 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Neb. 1970).

Now, travel upon the roads for commercial purposes, for the purpose of making money, is and always has been subject to license and taxation, i.e. vehicle registration. However, if you own a vehicle (which is property) and have a vested right to use that property, can you reasonably be taxed for its use? No, not unless you are doing so in a commercial capacity. So, why does the government seem to think everyone “drives” as part of a commercial venture?

The Revised Code of Washington is perhaps a good source to check out a theory of mine…

RCW 70.77.190

Definitions – “Person”

“Person” includes any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, concern, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.

And,

RCW 1.16.080

“Person” – Construction of “association,” “unincorporated association,” and “person, firm, or corporation” to include a limited liability company.

(1) The term “person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.

(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms “association,” “unincorporated association,” and “person, firm, or corporation” or substantially identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.

Other than the term “individual” everything else is clearly a legal creation. Firms, corporations, associations, trusts, etc, are all legal entities or constructs. There is a rule of legal interpretation called “ejusdem generis” and it simply states that in a list such as these, the items in the list must be presumed to be of the same kind or class. So, if every term listed is an artificial or legally-created entity, then it follows that an “individual” must also be a legally-created entity, which does not denote a flesh and blood human being. All legal fictions are subjects to licenses and taxes and fees which flesh-and-blood human beings with inalienable rights are not required to have or pay.

What this all means, people, is that the government views you as its creation, and under its total jurisdiction and authority. It means that legal entities, being created by a governmental agency, have no rights and must follow every rule, law and statute passed by their creator. It means, as far as your city, state, county and federal government is concerned, you are a legal fiction and not a real person and as a result, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AND MUST PAY FOR PRIVILEGES. And because you are a legal fiction, like a corporation, you must be licensed and all your property must be registered, and all the travel you engage in is for profit (after all, that’s what a corporation is created for, to make a profit). That’s the only thing that makes any sense to me, after getting this far. The question is: how can you convince the government that you are a sovereign human being and force it to respect your inalienable rights?

Truth or fiction? You decide.