Search This Blog

Thursday, December 17, 2009

College Thought Police Enforce Global Values

College Thought Police Enforce Global Values
By Mary Ann Collins
December 7, 2009

“The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible.... This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda.” (L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology)[1]

“A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people... living in the United States....” (The University of Delaware)[2]

“The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended.” (L. Ron Hubbard)[1]

“The University of Minnesota... intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the ‘wrong’ beliefs and values—those who either do not have sufficient ‘cultural competence’ or those who... will not be able to be converted to the ‘correct’ beliefs and values even after remedial re-education.”[3] Letter to University of Minnesota

The University of Delaware has about 7,000 students living on campus. It requires these students “to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism.” Students are “pressured or even required” to make statements that comply with the school’s views.[4]

Being quiet about their beliefs isn’t enough to keep students out of trouble. They are interviewed, one-on-one, with intrusive questions. If they fail to give politically correct answers, then a report is written about them, and they are subjected to “treatment”—compulsory re-education. (This is a state university, which means that it is supported by taxes. Therefore, people who would be appalled by such things are required by law to support them financially.)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has produced an online video about this brainwashing. In interviews with students and professors, it shows how the university’s Office of Residence Life used a variety of methods to “coerce students to change their thoughts, values, attitudes, beliefs, and habits” so that they would “conform to a highly specified social, environmental, and political agenda.”[5]

One of the university’s views is that all whites of European descent are, by definition, racists. That would include William Wilberforce, a white Englishman who spent his life working for the abolition of slavery.[6] Hard to believe? Then read these current definitions from the “University of Delaware Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training (PDF)

“A RACIST: ...all white people.... By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination.” (Page 3)

“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites.... In the U.S., there is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.’” (Page 3)

“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called “blaming the victim”).”(Page 3)

The “racist” label would apply to James Reeb, a white American man who was beaten to death by segregationists on March 11, 1965, because he participated in Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s march for civil rights in Selma, Alabama.[7]

It would also include my friend Sheila, a white woman who also participated in that civil rights march in Selma. Although timid by nature, Sheila could be strong when it came to standing up for what she believed in. She risked her life to participate in that march, and she had to face police dogs and cattle prods. But the University of Delaware says that Sheila is a racist because she is white.

It would also include white couples who adopt black children. And it would include whites who marry blacks. According to the university, these people are, by definition, racists—no matter how they behave, and no matter what they believe.

So according to the University of Delaware, “racism” has little or nothing to do with behavior, beliefs, and motives. It is all about the university’s philosophy and ideology. What men and women actually think, and how they actually behave, is irrelevant.

There was strong resistance to this program at the University of Delaware. As a result, it was discontinued in October 2007.[8]

But in May 2008, the program was revived. And it still has the same definition of racism.[9]

The University of Minnesota has proposed a similar program. It apparently intends to change its admissions process in order to screen out potential students who have “wrong” beliefs and values. Present students whose beliefs don’t conform to the university’s ideology, and who do not change their beliefs as a result of mandatory re-education, would not be able to get degrees. In other words, successfully completing their studies, they would be refused the degree that they earned because of their personal beliefs.[10]

This program of indoctrination is especially aimed at future teachers. The Teacher Education Redesign Initiative is a group whose objective is to “change the way future teachers are trained” at the University of Minnesota. It requires teachers to embrace (and teach) its worldview, which sees America as being “an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.”[11]

Many American colleges are indoctrinating students instead of educating them. This widespread problem is documented in Jim Nelson Black’s book “Freefall of the American University: How Our Colleges Are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation. (Thomas Nelson, 2004)

This process involves coercion, mind control, and the unconstitutional lack of free speech and freedom of conscience. It also involves “service learning”—sending students into troubled neighborhoods where they are trained to justify immorality and despise traditional values. What does this do to the ability of students to think logically and to deal with objective facts?

Replacing real education with indoctrination creates a generation of students whose beliefs and behavior are ruled by propaganda and feelings instead of facts and logical thinking. These victims of contemporary brainwashing can easily be manipulated by clever slogans, clever music, and clever TV ads. It is a perfect set-up for power-hungry politicians.

Back in the fifties, countless Western prisoners-of-war faced Communist brainwashing in Asia and the Soviet Union. Only those whose faith and values were anchored in unwavering truth were able to resist the disorienting assaults on their minds. Genuine Christians demonstrated a spiritual resistance that baffled Communist change agents and even converted guards. Never has it been more important to stand firm in God’s Word, train our children to reject compromise, and stand together in God-given strength as we face a world that hates our values and mock our God!

“What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31)

“The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?” (Psalm 118:6)


NOTES
1. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard
2. “University to Students: ‘All Whites Are Racist.’: Mandatory Program ‘Treats’ Politically Incorrect Attitudes,” October 30, 2007. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
4. “University to Students: ‘All Whites Are Racist’: Mandatory Program ‘Treats’ Politically Incorrect Attitudes,” October 30, 2007. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
5. Video: “Think What We Think...Or Else: Thought Control on the American Campus”
6. “William Wilberforce (1759-1833),” http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm
8. University Drops ‘Whites Are Racist’ Plan: Prez Says: ‘I have directed that the program be stopped immediately’,” November 1, 2007.
9. “’All Whites Racist’ Indoctrination Revived!” May 28, 2008.
10. “Teaching Plan: America ‘an Oppressive Hellhole’: University Outlines ‘Re-education’ for Those Who Hold ‘Wrong’ Views,” November 27, 2009.
11 “At U, Future Teachers May Be Reeducated: They Must Denounce Exclusionary Biases and Embrace the Vision. (Or else.),” November 22, 2009.





Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit




Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Piratical Solutions

Piratical Solutions
By Charlie Daniels
December 7, 2009

One of the silliest things to happen in the last several decades, with the exception of Obama’s fiscal policy, is commercial shipping lanes allowing a handful of rag tag pirates in a glorified row boat to capture ships off the coast of Africa.

This is asinine, dangerous, costly and totally unnecessary.

One trip to Barrett Arms in Murfreesboro, Tennessee could put a stop to this idiocy. Simply purchase two of Ronnie Barrett’s 50 caliber rifles and hire two men who know how to use them. Put one on the port side and one on the starboard, draw a bead on any pirate boat when it’s about a mile away, pull the trigger a couple of times, put a couple of holes in the bottom of the boat and send the whole kit and caboodle to Davy Jones locker.

End of threat.

Back in the old days, practically all merchant ships were armed with canon and crews who knew how to fight and any pirate who tried to board one of them had to do so at considerable danger to life and limb.

Nowadays the merchant ships don’t even fight back and the problem is only going to get worse as time goes along. So far they have extorted millions of dollars by hijacking sea vessels. It is a self-proliferating enterprise and it costs a lot of money.

It is ridiculous to keep giving in to this bunch of nitwits when just two well armed sharpshooters could deplete their ranks in just a couple of encounters.

Now my understanding is that some of the countries where the ships pick up their loads won’t allow firearms on board the merchant ships that frequent their harbors.

Well how about this…?

How about some private security firms, like Blackwater, buying some small ships and meeting the merchant ships at the beginning of international waters where they could put a couple of guys on the ship to protect it until it was out of danger?

I know it would be fairly expensive but how expensive is the loss of a ship full of crude oil, and the loss of a human life can’t be measured in money.

This is a situation that will require violence to solve. It can’t be handled with kid gloves and it is not going to go away by letting them get away with it.

When the Maersk Alabama was captured and her captain was being held hostage we finally sent the Navy Seals in and rescued them, but even then the rescue was soft-pedaled. Those Seals could have taken out everybody in that boat where they were holding the captain, but they weren’t allowed to, so several of these vermin lived to fight again.

The longer this situation is allowed to fester the worse it’s going to get and the more innocent people will get killed or hurt.

The only thing that will stop this is a harsh response to every act of piracy, meeting force with superior force, blowing these scumbags out of the water every time they come close to a merchant ship.

But we probably won’t do that. It would not be politically correct and besides, Eric Holder would probably sue. You know terrorists and pirates have rights too.

Whatever happened to “don’t tread on me?”

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

© Copyright The Charlie Daniels Band



Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Obama’s Speech

Obama’s Speech
By Charlie Daniels
December 4, 2009

There is one thing I very much want everyone who reads this to understand. Although I vehemently disagree with just about everything Barack Hussein Obama has done since he has been in office, and I really believe that he’s digging a fiscal hole that this nation will be generations, if ever, digging out of, although I believe him to be a total socialist and just hate it when I have seen him bow to royalty around the world, I will write this piece with as much impartiality as I can, so that it will not be about the man or anything he has done in the past, but rather about the defense of this nation.

First of all, trying terrorists in America is nothing more than gross arrogance by our President and Attorney General.

The repercussions of a terrorist trial in New York could be so catastrophic that you don’t even want to think about it.

The people we are dealing with have no conscience at all. To see what kind of people they are, just look back a few years ago at what happened in Russia when the Russian government was holding Chechen terrorists in prison.

Other Chechen terrorists took over a school and held the children hostages trying to obtain the release of terrorists that the government was holding. They chose a middle school and not by accident. It was because the boys were big enough to do physical labor and the girls were old enough to rape.

They forced the boys to help barricade the building stacking furniture against the walls and raped the girls and women teachers and then proceeded to murder them.

These are the kind of people we are dealing with, and Obama wants to bring this clear and present danger into New York City.

Total insanity.

If there is a gonad left in congress they will put a stop to this, Democrat, Republican, whatever and especially the Congressmen and Senators from New York should be fighting tooth and nail to put an end to this travesty and they have the power to do it, by law.

If they don’t, they share the blame with whatever happens.

Secondly, the President’s speech Tuesday night was an exercise in futility.

He might as well have gone ahead and told the world that he was not committed to winning the war in Afghanistan, that he had no resolve and that he was sending three quarters of the troops General McChrystal asked for, he was going to remove them after eighteen months and that was that.

This has been the problem with every president we’ve had in the last half-century with the exception of Ronald Reagan, there is no commitment to winning the war. They use words like “containment” and “exit strategy.”

If we don’t intend to fully winning a war, we should never send one soldier anywhere. Our enemies know that Obama has no designs on winning in Afghanistan. He’s just playing politics; playing both sides against the middle.

Why even send the troops?

I say, Mr. President, why don’t you just bring them all home starting today? Because all al-Qaeda and the Taliban are going to do is wait you out and after the troops leave they’ll move right back in and take over, so why risk even one more American life.

And while we’re at it, why don’t you just bring all of our troops home from all over the world? You’re not going to let them win, so why put them in harm’s way?

The men and women who lay their lives on the line every day deserve respect, and what do they get?

Three Navy Seals are being put on trial for punching a murdering S.O.B. in the gut.

We have a President who has surrounded himself with arrogant snobs who know as much about fighting a war as a hog knows about an airplane, an Attorney General who treats the terrorist scum they’ve risked their lives to capture like citizens of this country. As Commander in Chief, he seems more interested in trying to avoid hurting some Muslim’s feelings than he is in supporting the efforts of those he is commanding.

To say this President is in way over his head is a gross understatement and Tuesday night let the rest of the world know it.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

© Copyright The Charlie Daniels Band  




Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


 

Monday, December 14, 2009

What Is The U.S. Constitution?

Posted on 09 December 2009
by Timothy Baldwin

After my latest article, Our Dead Constitution, was released, I received much response, many from those who understood and agreed, and some by those who were opposed to my statement, “Our constitution is dead.” This leads me to reasonably believe that many of us need to be educated about what a constitution actually is before constitutional law and freedom can be restored throughout the states.

1. A constitution does not create freedom. A constitution is created only to protect and secure freedom which already exists, through forms, structure and limitations of government. This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if one’s perspective about the U.S. Constitution is that it statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I could understand how he would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is dead. To the contrary, we know that freedom exists in a state of nature, created by God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These natural laws and rights never die. They existed prior to 1787 and they will exist after we are gone. Thus, a distinction must be made between natural freedom (which never dies) and a constitution (which can die).

2. A constitution may be worthless to secure freedom. History proves this–even America’s history. A constitution rests upon a serious distrust of human nature, and simultaneously upon the skeptical and temporary trust placed in delegated power, which supposedly will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” James Madison, Federalist Paper (FP) 46. These principles determine the constitution’s nature, character, form, and function. This necessarily means that a constitution itself is to be contrasted to the eternal principles that formed the constitution, and where government does not conform its actions and intentions to the principles of the constitution, the constitution itself is practically meaningless and dead. American jurist, William Rawle, expresses the same: “By a constitution we mean the principles on which a government is formed and conducted.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2.

That our government must conform its actions and intentions to these principles is confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, by those who formed our constitutions, and by those who helped form the very fundamental thoughts of American jurisprudence: (1) “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). (2) “[N]o free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but…by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Benjamin Kidd, Principles of Western Civilisation, citing Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776, (London, The Macmillan Co., 1902), 511. (3) “Once the principles of government are corrupted, the very best laws become bad and turn against the [people of the] state.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 116.

Thus, a maxim must be admitted: where the principles of freedom are abandoned, the constitution no longer serves its constituted purpose; that is, to limit the government as the consent of the governed demanded at its creation. And once the constituted purposes and principles are abandoned, how could it be argued that the constitution has life? Is the form (the constitution) greater than the substance (the principles)? Certainly not.

3. When a government breaches its limitations placed upon it by a constitution, (a) the government agent loses its trust to rule, (b) the powers delegated to it are reverted back to the creators of the constitution, and (c) the constitution becomes non-binding on those who created it. This is the natural law concept of “the consent of the government,” as expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is further a concept regarding the rights of the parties who enter into a compact. As noted by our founders, we do not normally exercise this natural and compact right over “light and transient causes,” but in cases where a “long train of abuses” are evident. European forefather, Hugo Grotius, recognizes that when a government contradicts the principles that created its power, that creation (i.e. kingdom/constitution) dies and the people have the right to institute new government:

“[I]f the king act, with a really hostile mind, with a new to the destruction of the whole people…that the kingdom is forfeited; for the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together.” Hugo Grotius and William Whewell, trans., Hugo Grotius on the Rights of War and Peace, Book II, (Cambridge: University Press, 1853), 57–58.

A constitution that has been continually breached by the government is no longer a constitution at all, because the very purpose of a constitution is to limit the government by the will of the people who created it. Thus, a people who continually live under an abandoned constitution do not live under a constitution at all; but rather, they live in voluntary slavery, and the constitution is dead to those people and that government. It is literally time “to alter or to abolish” that constitution before the people’s lack of resistance is deemed to be “the consent of the governed.” (See, Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 185. “[T]o conquer [the existing constitution’s] will, so as to rest the right on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and cessation of all opposition.”)

4. Particular to the United States, the U.S. Constitution was voluntarily formed as a compact by existing sovereign states with existing state constitutions. See FP 39. Despite the deceptive proposition that the States were created by Congress, the States existed prior to and independent of any Congress, as confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which, by the way, was not overturned by any subsequent legal action of the states). “The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 31. And, “Each State, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.” James Madison, FP 39.

Today, there is a fraudulent notion in America which places the U.S. Constitution above the importance and relevance of the state constitutions and state sovereignty, despite the fact that we were told (in efforts to get us to ratify the U.S. Constitution) that “the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 32. The authoritative advocates of the U.S. Constitution confirm that even with the U.S. Constitution ratified or with the U.S. Constitution dissolved, the states would have their own constitutions to protect freedom and secure the blessings of liberty within that state.

It was even proposed during the 1780s that instead of one confederacy being created through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, several confederacies be ratified instead. See FP 2. So, it cannot be accurately stated that the U.S. Constitution was the sole form of convenience of the states. The U.S. Constitution was in fact an “experiment” of union, which admittedly may not work. James Madison, FP 14. Many notable American patriots, of course, (prophetically and correctly) believed the U.S. Constitution would in time, by constitutional construction, become destructive to the natural rights and sovereignty of the people of the states. Even pro-U.S. Constitution advocates warned us of the tyrannical tendency of central governments and implored the State governments to “afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 28.

Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution no more creates freedom than any other government creates freedom; and that the U.S. Constitution was simply a union of states for very limited purposes, all of which were and can be handled by the states themselves without the existence of the U.S. Constitution or federal government.

5. Constitutions can be destructive to freedom where the document itself is used against the people. Montesquieu expounded upon this, as I cited in, Our Dead Constitution. If you disagree, pray tell, how is it that Congress can regulate virtually anything it desires under the Commerce Clause of the constitution? How can the United States Supreme Court “constitutionally” uphold those unconstitutional acts by its rulings, which are supposedly made impartially “according to the rules of the Constitution” (FP 39)? How can the bill of rights be used against the retained powers and sovereignty of the states, when the U.S. Constitution was never intended to limit the states whatsoever? How can a federation be turned into a nation without the consent of the people? How can the first amendment, designed to restrict the federal government in all regards (“Congress shall make no law…”), be used to not only make law through the federal courts but also restrict individuals and states from exercising their natural rights within their own jurisdictions?

How can the constitutional limitations of the federal courts to apply the Supreme Law of the Land be used to justify “federal supremacy” in un-enumerated powers over the states, contrary to the principles of the constitution? How can the constitution’s general welfare clause be a legal justification to the federal government socializing healthcare, economics, banks, manufacturing, and education, despite the clear intention of the ratifiers to the contrary? How can Congress create a fiat money system without any constitutional power whatsoever to do so? How can the President engage in an eight year war with no declaration from Congress? How can Obama supposedly not be eligible to be President while absolutely no one in the federal system cares? You call that a constitution alive and well!? I could go on and on, as many authors have already well documented for generations now. The long train of abuses is clear: the constitution has been and is being used every day against the freedoms and rights it is supposed to protect and against the principles and trust that created it.

6. Constitutions can be dissolved by those who created it. Our Declaration of Independence confirms this natural right, which is inherent in all sovereigns. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the voluntary assent of the sovereigns of the states, in their capacity as states. FP 39. The states created the U.S. Constitution not to create freedom, not to create powers they did not already possess individually, and not to create union for union’s sake. They created it for certain benefits that union provided (at that time). If this union were ever destructive to these ends, the states would most certainly have the right to dissolve their part of the union to preserve freedom for that state. (James Madison, FP 39, “dissolution of the compact”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 28, “original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 26, “people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”)

Thus, a political maxim must be admitted: union, through the U.S. Constitution, does not equal freedom and can actually be destructive to freedom. Given the natural laws of sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation and self-government, the States may in fact be better off not to be a part of a union that is causing their demise. More pointedly put, the States may in fact be better off to declare the compact (the U.S. Constitution) or at least, the federal laws creating their demise, null and void within their sovereign borders. Naturally, this sovereign power can come in different forms, through nullification, active resistance to federal usurpations, controlling the mechanisms used against the states, and secession.

Regardless of your agreement with these truths, the information provided is all based upon the natural law and political discussions of those who formed the foundation of our Republic. The fact that we do not understand them only causes tyranny to tighten its grip on us. Before freedom will ever be restored, government will be limited, and the people will govern themselves, the sovereigns of the states must recognize that the U.S. Constitution is not the answer to our political and societal plight. Rather, it is the principles of freedom that provide the answer. The time has come in America when to restore constitutional law and freedom in the STATES, the people of the states must begin looking internally to their own powers, sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation, self-reliance and constitutions.

Copyright © Timothy Baldwin, 2009.


Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


 

Our Dead Constitution


Posted on 05 December 2009

Our Constitution is dead. Rigor mortis set in a long time ago. Peculiar enough, many Americans who claim to love our constitution believe it is alive and well with hot red blood running through its vein. Plainly put: they are naïve, deceived or ignorant. Those who killed the constitution (and their posterity, with whom we are living today) pick up the dead corpse, move it around like a puppet on strings, put make up on it to make it look pretty, prop it up against a wall to stand on its own, and proclaim and swear an oath to us and God that they will preserve, defend and protect what they know to be dead. Ironically, they accomplish this, in part, through what they term a “living constitution”, which has bled the life’s blood from our constitution. Unfortunately, most Americans fail to see that our political circumstances are very similar and parallel to those which our founders considered to be a line in the sand.

Claude Halstead Van Tyne, in his book, The Causes of the War of Independence, describes the circumstances which caused America’s War for Independence. The cause was not “taxation without representation” per se. It was not “the government is too big” per se. It was not “taxes are too high” per se. It was the concept that government is limited by the principles of freedom found in the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and secured by their constitution; and government actions taken beyond those limitations are to be met with resistance. In Van Tyne’s description of this causation, what is strikingly similar to our current situation is that Great Britain considered their constitution to be “living” and to give Parliament and King George the power, authority and right to essentially act in whatever manner it deemed appropriate. Van Tyne observes,

“The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Samuel Adams and many of his fellow countrymen, on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by ‘the law of God and nature,’ and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but Lord Mansfield and his followers, on the other hand, asserted rightly that ‘the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,’ and ‘there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now’ and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain… Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.” The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), 235, 237.

Great Britain’s political ideology is the same ideology that 99% of our federal politicians demonstrate today! This is just what Congressman Henry Hyde (R) expressed in 2006, when he responded to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that Congress must declare war before G.W. Bush can constitutionally launch (what is now) an eight year and growing war half way across the world, sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to risk their lives and die and spending hundreds of billions of tax payer monies to support the same. Hyde says, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.” James T. Bennett, Homeland Security Scams, (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006), 133. Did the vast majority of Congressmen (Republican and Democrat, House and Senate) believe the same as Hyde? We know they did because they continued to shirk and even ignore their constitutional obligation to declare war, while funding the same with our money and with our lives–all contrary to the constitution, to the lessons of human history and to the principles of self-government and limited government.

Many thousands of persons all across America repeatedly and continually scream the voice of discontent of unconstitutional government. Thousands of books have been written on how the constitution has been ignored, trampled, despised, and even laughed at by those we elect to uphold that very document and the principles founding it. I do not need delineate the (not so “light and transient”) abuses, encroachments, and usurpations upon our constitution. It is a known fact. It is admitted. There is no hiding it. The long train of abuses is evident, established and provable. Our federal government has, through fraud, deceit, force and bribe, converted our once Constitutional Federal Republic into a Despotic National Oligarchy. We now have the same (if not worse) form and type of government that we seceded from in 1776. Yet, many people who claim to love the constitution will criticize those who recommend a different course of action other than voting for a President who will hopefully appoint a “conservative” judge to the supreme court; other than focusing our solutions on Washington D.C.; other than playing political games with those causing and controlling all that we claim to despise; or other than confining our redress to federal courts and two political parties.

Thomas Paine witnessed those during his living-constitution/government-despot days whose only method of redress was to send correspondence and complaint to King George and Parliament, hoping for reclamation of freedom through the very system that was enslaving them. To these plans of action, Thomas Paine says, “There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.” Thomas Paine and Mark Philip, ed., Oxford World’s Classics: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Common Sense and other Political Writings, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 27. To Thomas Paine, changing the plan of action to resist and arrest tyranny was simply Common Sense. Thankfully, our founders agreed. Thankfully, this change meant truly standing for freedom, natural rights, limited government, self-government, federalism and constitutional government. This change necessarily meant putting off the old man and putting on the new. It necessarily meant burying the dead and quickening the fetus of freedom.

The United States Constitution was formed and framed on certain immutable principles: principles which acknowledge that God is the Source of all rights; the Definer of all authority; the Judge of all actions and laws; the Giver of life, property and pursuit of happiness. Those principles never die. They live forever. However, as our founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence, governments can become destructive to these ends. Indeed, they can. Understand: Great Britain’s history was similar to America’s. It contained men and women of principle and courage who were catalysts to providing freedom throughout Europe. Europe indeed is the home of the forefathers which our founders studied and adored. Great Britain’s constitution was formed and framed upon the principles expounded upon by Enlightenment philosophers, jurists, lawyers, judges, and theologians. Yet, their constitution died–not because of natural causes, but because those who were constrained by it killed it.

History proves this: not even a (free) constitution can secure freedom where the principles of it are abandoned and the applications of it are ignored. French philosopher Charles Montesquieu (whom our founders relied upon heavily in political thought) confirms this in his book, Spirit of Laws, when he says, “The constitution may happen to be free, and the subject not…It is the disposition only of the laws, and even of the fundamental laws, that constitutes liberty in relation to the constitution.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 183. How observant he was.

Why is America not free? Is it because we do not have a free constitution? No. Is it because the principles that formed our constitution do not create freedom? No. Is it because Obama is in the White House? No. Is it because Democrats are evil? No. Is it because God was “kicked out” of our public schools? No. Is it because abortion was made “legal”? No. Is it because America engages in unjust wars? No. Is it because America’s presidents have entangled in foreign affairs? No. Those are simply fruits of the root of our dead constitution. Our constitution is dead because our agents, the government, have created a matrix, a system whereby our original constitution and its principles have no application to their power. They are merely bound by their arbitrary discretion–the very definition of tyranny. Even worse, our constitution is dead because the people and the states have consented to its murder.

Like a loved-one who has passed on, I love and miss our constitution (not that it has been alive since I was born in 1979). Yet, while I love the constitution, I love the freedom it was designed to protect much more, and I put freedom and its principles above and beyond the document and words of our constitution. Indeed, the words of the constitution do not create freedom. History and common sense teach us this (which is why America cannot “spread democracy” to the world). Thus, I do not love the words contained in the constitution. Rather, I love the principles of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God which formed the words. I do not love the three separate branches of the federal government: I love the limits of power and authority they were instituted to secure. I do not love federalism: rather, I love the security it brings to ensure that my children live in freedom.

Thankfully, since principles derived from the laws of God never die, we the people of the states continue to have the power of truth to reestablish and reinstitute forms of government to secure our freedom. Thankfully, we have fifty sovereign and independent states to activate the principles of free government within those political borders, resisting and arresting any attempts from outsiders who would attempt to enslave their citizens. Thankfully, our forefathers bequeathed to us a framework, legacy, heritage, and foundation of hope and freedom. They bequeathed to us truths we hold to be self-evident.

We all have fond memories of our constitution when it was alive and well, but the time has come when we who love the freedom it protected must admit that those who are supposed to be bound by its mandates, principles and limitations have killed it, and they need to be treated like the murderers they are, just as Thomas Paine said about his government: “A common murderer, a highwayman, or a housebreaker, has as good a pretence as he.” Paine and Philip, ed., American Crisis I, 64. These murderers have put us into a place in nature before the constitution was quickened and made alive by the people of the sovereign states of America. See, Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 14–15. We are literally better off not having made alive this document that is literally being used against us, our posterity and our freedom. They are forcing us to consider recalling and retaking all the powers we gave them (as our agents) for the protection of our and our posterity’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness–our natural rights from God. In fact, this is what John Locke confirms about our natural right:

“Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give to any one, or more, an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them. This were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man, or many in combination.” Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 72.

The people of the states must get serious about this matter. We must put the fear of God and the fear of the people before the eyes of tyrants. Otherwise, they will be like those described in Romans 3:16-18 (KJV) and we will continue to suffer for it: “Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.” When the people of the states of America recognize our natural power to abolish, alter and institute new forms of government to secure the ends of freedom, we will have a free constitution alive and well and a free people benefiting from its life. We will once again have government (of, by and for the people) that has the fear of God and the people before their eyes and that will act accordingly.




Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Sunday, December 13, 2009

Christian or Deist?

Christian or Deist?
By Buddy Hanson
The Covenant News
December 09, 2009

As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words,” so the question each of us needs to answer is: “Does our lifestyle reflect that we are a Christian, or a non-Christian?” For Christians, a more realistic question might be: “Does my daily decisions (whether in the legislature, the courthouse, the home, or other vocation) testify to those around me that I am a Christian or a Deist?

Were I not, by God’s grace, a Christian, I probably would be a deist. From a non-Christian viewpoint, there are a couple of good reasons to be a deist. First, this explains the orderliness in creation that cannot be explained by a totally chance and random “Big Bang” theory. Second, imagining that God created the universe (and us) and is now sitting idly by watching us “do our thing” is comforting because such a view doesn’t hold us accountable for our actions. Since Deists don’t allow for any on-going communications with God, we could make up ways to worship Him one day a week, then push Him completely out of our minds during the remainder of the week, while we attend to our “real world” obligations.

The separation of the church and state takes on a completely new meaning for Deists. According to Christianity, both of these spheres are assigned specific responsibilities by God, and the state should not usurp the responsibilities of the church, and vice-versa. Both spheres, however, are accountable to operate according to biblical ethics. On the other hand, Deists have no such guidelines, so they can live like hell on earth, while imagining that they will go to heaven when they die. Talk about the best of both worlds!

While Deists can’t see that theirs is a false religion, the scales from our eyes have mercifully been removed so we can correctly see the truth (Acts 9.3-19). We know that God is actively involved in His creation, and we know that we have been called to transform our culture into one that reflects His will (Matthew 6.10).

Living and governing ourselves according to biblical ethics brings order out of the chaotic “law of the jungle” that our evolutionary non-Christians believe-in and according to which they legislate.

Do we really need to be reminded of the diabolical differences between a non-Christian’s purpose for life and a Christian’s? Non-Christians, with their self-centered interests, are motivated to amass power and control while bringing honor and esteem to themselves. This was the self-expressed motivation behind the building of the Tower of Babel: “Let us make a name for ourselves (Genesis 11.4). The four examples that follow should help make this clear:

Man’s Ideology Determines His Purpose

Ø      Everybody does their own thing. (anarchy)

Ø      Man is an economic unit to fund the state’s priorities. (communism/fascism/socialism)

Ø      The more that central government expands, bureaucrats usurp the liberties of citizens, forcing them to conform to their regulations, instead of being self-governing.

Ø      Law becomes an instrument of social reform, as courts usurp the responsibilities of elected representatives by imposing their ethical agenda upon the populace.

Ø      Lawmakers outwardly complain, but inwardly refuse to apply constitutional restraints upon the courts by using rhetoric that the court system is “running away” with our constitutional rights, when the truth is the legislators are “running away” from their responsibilities to police the courts because they agree with the courts’ rulings and are complicit with them in their unconstitutional and anti-American rulings.

While non-Christians are striving to build a name for themselves by serving their interests, we should be striving to build a name for God by serving His interests.God has “written His laws on our hearts and promises to be our God,” so instead of being concerned about the negative consequences that may or may not result by obediently following Him, our focus should be on the sure and certain blessings that He promises to us and to our children and their children. (Exodus 20.5-6) Non-Christians who scoff at our absolute ethics as being archaic, will one day be destroyed by their own wisdom!

“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will reap.” Galatians 6.7

Their attempt to remove Christ from His throne is similar to attempting to remove the law of gravity from physics. It simply cannot be done. The Creator of the earth may allow a country, or several countries to live in darkness for a time in order to suit His eternally perfect purposes, but sooner or later Christ will raise His scepter, through the obedient members of His kingdom, and “crush our enemies under our feet.” (Romans 16.20)

As a people who have been rescued from eternal separation from our Creator, we no longer are compelled to have a selfish ambition, but now have Christ’s mind embedded in our hearts. (Philippians 2.3-5) So let us join in taking part in Christ’s victory on earth by making Satan’s worst nightmare come true! May we “stand firm, letting nothing deter us from giving ourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because we have been promised that our labor in the Lord is not in vain!” (1 Corinthians 15.58) As we refuse to be conformed to the non-Christian agenda for our culture (Ephesians 5.7-11), we will be able to say with Joseph:

“How then could I do this great evil and sin against the Lord?” Genesis 39.9

Buddy Hanson is President of the Christian Policy Network and Director of the Christian Worldview Resources Center and has written several books on the necessity of applying one’s faith to everyday situations, circumstances and decision-making.



Contact:
Buddy Hanson
President
2 Windsor Drive
Tuscaloosa, AL 35404
205.454.1442


Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit