Conservatism; and What is Liberalism, Really?


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, 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?


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.



Jurisdiction: Federal and State

So, what are the limitations as to the jurisdictions of the States vs. the federal government?  Here are some hints…

“A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It (the State) was in existence before it(the federal US). It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: the voluntary and deliberate choice of the people… A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless in the special circumstances when the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419 (Dall.) (1793)

“New states, upon their admission to the Union, become invested with equal rights and are subject only to such restrictions as are imposed upon the states already admitted. There can be no state of the Union whose sovereignty or freedom of action is in any respect different from that of any other state. There can be no restriction upon any state other than one prescribed upon all the states by the Federal Constitution. Congress, in admitting a state, cannot restrict such state by bargain. The state, by so contracting with Congress, is in no way bound by such a contract, however irrevocable it is stated to be. It is said that subject to the restraint and limitations of the Federal Constitution, the states have all the sovereign powers of independent nations over all persons and things within their respective territorial limits.” 16 Am. Juris. 2d, Sovereignty of states §281

Hmmm… then why does the federal government exert such authority within our State? Is their authority lawful, or criminal?

“If the time shall ever arrive when, for an object appealing, however strongly, to our sympathies, the dignity of the states shall bow to the dictation of Congress by conforming their legislation thereto, when the power and majesty and honor of those who created shall become subordinate to the thing of their creation, I but feebly utter my apprehensions when I express my firm conviction that we shall see ‘the beginning of the end.’” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

28 U.S.C. §297 – Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated compact states

(a) The Chief Justice or the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may assign any circuit or district court judge of the Ninth Circuit, with the consent of the judge so assigned, to serve temporarily as a judge of any duly constituted court of the freely associated compact states, whenever an official duly authorized by the laws of the respective compact state requests such assignment and such assignment is necessary for the proper dispatch of the business of the respective court.

(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) of all necessary travel expenses, including transportation, and of subsistence, or of a reasonable per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence. The judge shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts any amount received pursuant to this subsection.

“The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct and separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.” Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519; 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839)

I’d say that our State has surrendered to (or become and accessory with) our corrupt federal government. Ok, so what are the lawful limits of federal authority?

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union; the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

“The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

Federal authority is limited in the States and unlimited only in DC and the territories. Is the income tax Constitutional? If not, then where can Congress impose it? In Washington DC and federal territories. Then why are they imposing it within the State? Two reasons: either 1) we were fooled into ‘volunteering’ to pay the tax under threat of force, or 2) at some point in time our States reverted to territory status. This would explain why the southern states couldn’t secede. If they were truly independent nations, they could opt out of the Union at will. After all, nations change their status in relation to each other, forging alliances and breaking them, all the time.

 “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States… In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld.” Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” N.Y. re: Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479; Affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287.

If our government were operating lawfully, acts of Congress would not apply to the People but only to those territories under Congress’ plenary power. The States are supposed to have authority to govern (and protect) the People of America. The States have surrendered, or ignored, their responsibility to protect their people and now We the People are at the whims of the tyrants in DC. This isn’t how it was supposed to be.

The federal government was given jurisdiction over foreign affairs and commerce between, not within, states, the only exceptions to this general rule is subject matter within the states over the following:

  • Slavery under the 13th Amendment
  • Counterfeiting under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution
  • Mail under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution
  • Assault and infractions against its own officers under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18
  • Treason under Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2

Also included in the above list is the power to coin money (surrendered to the private banks of the “federal reserve”). Do you see any authority for an FCC, FBI, CIA, EPA, etc., etc., etc.? How will it be possible to reign the fed in? Not sure it will end peaceably when you have what amounts to an organized criminal syndicate acting as our government.

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


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.