Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Man and God...email debate with a non believer

In a recent email I invited a few friends to listen to a friend of mine, Coach Daubenmire on the Michael Savage radio program of which I couldn't believe the email response I received, so disapponted I had to post it.

My friends response to the invitation:

"But, I'll pass on Coach ’Do I now become your enemy because I tell the truth?’ Dave....
Not a big fan as you can imagine. Generally don't dig an uncompromising right wing evangelical man with the self-appointed mission of “uniting and mobilizing God-fearing Americans” who orginizes confrontational actions against fellow americans and trying to make laws that take away our american freedoms. Not some one I would call a friend."

My response back to my my friend:

As much as I enjoy your friendship, this one stung a bit; not only personally but as I remember all of the fallen soldiers and those God fearing Americans that fought for this country.

These men sacrificed their lives and left their families so that people like you that can deny its CLEAR history and slander all of what this country was because, in great part to their gratefulness, faith and of their fear in God and His law. These men knew and believed with all they had was necessary for a morally upright society, not that at points in time, they may not have made mistakes as ALL MEN do but knew what was necessary nonetheless.

You man, I have always thought to be an incredibly intelligent man but I lately have come to question your knowledge in several areas one of which I thought for sure you would stand solid, So here are a few questions:

How is it that a man, like yourself that denies God as the giver of life and Creator of the world and all things in it, would rather believe in Human autonomy, that humans are the “BE ALL END ALL?” How is it you feel man is the answer to all the world’s problems, when there is enough proof to show that this has never been true.

Have you seen someone create a universe, make the sun rise the same way every day, create complex human systems like the lungs, heart and liver and they intricate way in which they operate and how they are each necessary to each other, how humans all are created the same way with all of the necessary parts no matter what color you are or where you came from…logically , consistently and purposefully, not random through ridiculous chemical reactions and supposed "hard scientific" evidence you have never seen which also relies on logic, facts and reason? Inconsistent, perhaps?

You make God fearing people out to be the enemy and you say that it is these people that destroy your Rights. Where is it exactly do you think your rights came from?

Let me explain why I think you need to rethink your position.

There are only two governing entities, God and Man.

Men who are governed by God
acknowledge Gods law and man’s law as long as it is consistent with it. The constitution, our rule of law and the declaration confirms this and you should have no choice but to agree if you have really searched the truth for yourself. The God fearing people you have difficulty with and ridicule are the same ones that established our rule of law you say you love as well as to uphold the same principles that made this country the beacon of hope to the world for hundreds of years. It is man’s denial of God that has destroyed this image to the rest of the world imposing restrictions on other countries we never had the right to do.

These men in creating the constitution knew that our Rights came from God that is why they were written as inalienable “God given.” They knew that man had no right to take something away they weren’t given the power… that was given by God that they had no authority to take away. That is why they wrote the constitution to limit the power of government, man’s law, not to restrict those who wrote it.

They also understood that if man denied God, they would become a law unto themselves, creating more and more law restricting the rights of the people ending in tyranny of some form of totalitarianism as history has also proven time and time again.

Men governed by men acknowledge man and look to man for their rights, which by its own definition insinuates that it is this governing entity, man that control and regulates the rights of man, even whether they are entitled to them , who is entitled and for how long if at all. Since they acknowledge the evolutionary theory, it also poses another set of problems in that it gives you no basis on which to define anything logically due to the random nature of your worldview unless you stand on consistent Christian principles…my worldview.

These “men” say they believe that all men are entitled to be free to do whatever they feel is right, without boundaries which has always been a hot selling point for non-believers due to the “freedom” and lack of necessity for accountability which is why the term “don’t judge” has become so popular but history has always told a different story for they do not believe this at all because of their fallen nature and their selfish desire to rule over each other that history has also proven. Have you not imposed judgement upon those like myself and "Coach?" A bit inconsistent, wouldn't you say? How do you justify your position?

If you truly believe in freedom as you say you do and that all men have the right to their own truth and should do what is right for them, how can you justify your position in the condemnation on those, like my friend Coach, who believe differently than you do when you feel they were created as a random chemical reaction and perhaps have no control over what they do? Isn’t your condemnation against others who believe differently than you do contradictory to your worldview? Aren’t you now the one imposing restrictions on another? Your worldview is a contradiction unless you stand on the Christian worldview one of logic, reason, purpose and rationale.

You say that it is the God fearing Americans that organize against others to aid in the restriction of rights? You mean like the removal of the freedom of speech, religion, press, right to redress of grievances, the right to own guns, grow food on your own property, how many children to have, the constant increase of laws that regulate the freedom of people and endless taxation? You mean the ones that give elevated rights to minorities and the immoral? It is “secular man”…those who deny God, like yourself, that has imposed such regulations, like the ACLU, SLPC, Planned parenthood, unions, like the SEIU, congress, president and many others.

Why is it that the word “tyranny” in Greek defined as “secular rule? Fitting isn’t it?

If you knew the founding documents you would realize that it states that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED (by God) EQUAL WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS AMONG THOSE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS” (not rights given by man…the government!) Not to give rights to just the homos, or the Muslims…. What you fail to understand due to your desire to ignore the truth is that we were a nation created with Christian principles and that our founders knew that a nation could not survive without God, that multiculturalism was a danger to our sovereignty and that freedom of religion was not originally intended for other religions than the Christian religions, they were speaking of denominations but I understand you will never seek it out for yourself and I’m not willing to argue about it.

All laws were to be created for all people!! It is the God fearing people that understand that all men are created equal not that equality is imposed by the government? If the moral decay of society is not obvious to you today, we can only hope that one day it will, hopefully before it’s too late.

Why is it that the Bible says that Laws are for the lawless? They understood when people denied God, man had no choice but to increase law, to increase restrictions because people abandoned personal responsibility or felt personal responsibility was relative according to the individual who creates chaos in society…just look outside, read the news, can you really tell me that we are better now than ever before?

God says that people who deny Him, have blinders on, can I not help but wonder?

The rights you feel you are losing are being destroyed by those in which you hold in such high regard…man. The state, your government , ever increasing, of which there is no end, endless spending, corruption, no moral or ethical restraint and no clear boundaries because right and wrong change, all in the name of tolerance.

Why it is that Aristotle even stated that “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.”

How is this conducive to a peaceful society when something continually evolves, how is it exactly that stability is achieved to grow and prosper, to raise families, to engage in commerce, to create wealth and businesses, is it not necessary to have logical consistency rather than the constant evolution and change of everything?

I’m sorry but your position is weak, it is arbitrary, it is inconsistent and absolutely absurd, with all due respect, Of course.

My friend, You are brighter than you write here, I know it, you know it and I know that you can see it. I appreciate you trying to pull my chain, as only friends can do to one another and then go out for a beer.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Travel, a right or a privilege?


An email I received with great information of TRAVEL. Many people ask the question if it is a right or a priviledge, it is our ignorance that begs this question, that we have allowed the government, established by "we the people" to secure our GOD givern rights, to make such restrictions they were never given the right to do!

This article explains it perfectly WITH supreme court cases to fit with, what I believe to be unconstitutional case law. In a nation of "individuals" how can we suggest "collectivism" in what our rights are and what are not unless is a means of financial generation and corruption by our own pathetic government? The answer, the pathetically ignorant that have allowed it to happen!!

By Jack McLamb (italics added)
from Aid & Abet Newsletter

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.

Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

• CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

• CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

• CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

• CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.

Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.

That means it is unlawful.

The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.

The first of such questions may very well be this:

If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.

• In Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

"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.

• "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?

The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.

These are:

(1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or
(2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

• 1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves:

• 2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)

We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.

An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling --discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

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

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Our children- Asset or liability...

The above title is one I wanted to find that I could get people to read and respond to and I thought it would get more attention than “Our children, what have we done”, or " Our children and public school" or Our children, reap what we sew or a variety of others which would probably be more appropriate. I hope readers find it thought provoking. ( If anyone reads.)

Do you love your children? Do you feel “the state” should too? Do they, or just say they do?How about us?

Do you, as parents, feel that if you love them that part of loving them is the desire to take personal responsibility to take care of them and discipline them or do you feel that it is a job of “the state?” Are they an asset as they should be or have we made them a liability?

When I grew up as a child, I remember my parents telling me what to do all the time. I remember having chores to do in a timely manner or there would be consequences. I had to clean my room, do dishes, wash cars, clean up dog poop and a variety of other things before I was able to do what I wanted to do.

I used to hate chores, I used to think I was punished until I was finally told about how children learn responsibility and that it was through doing jobs, helping out around the house. It was also to be taught follow through, team work and discipline and that if jobs had to be done, and there was an agreement, that people depended on you to get things done. It helped shape me into being a man of my word but somehow something was still missing. For many years although I realized what I needed to do, I still rebelled and “forgot" to do what I said I would.

In elementary school, I attended an Episcopal school and had many Christian friends, we went to school together, played and ate together and went to church and chapel together even when my parents would drop me off an pick me up later, like they knew church was better for me than it was for them.

One weekend I went to Andrew, my classmates, house to spend the night and I was shocked about what I saw. He walked through the door and greeted his parents with a smile, he communicated with them. He was respectful to his family. He was helpful to both his mom and his dad and cheerful about it, I was perplexed, so I asked him “why is it you do what you do and do it so cheerfully?

He said “God tells us to love our parents and part of loving them is showing respect and helping them when they need it, to honor them and that God loves and blesses those who do so cheerfully.” Boy what a blow I just received. We enjoyed the weekend together even though I couldn’t stop thinking about what he said and thought about that for many months afterward.

In those months I really tried hard to do as Andrew did now that I understood the real purpose of these chores, it was to obey God.

Even today, I remember the time I spent with Andrew and his family and never did forget what he said and that I shared the same principle with my children. I wonder if he would ever realize how important that day was in my life, for I never had a chance to tell him and have since lost touch.

Now that I am older and I see how many children are today, I can’t help but see such selfishness, such disrespect, no honor, no integrity, sloppy appearance and no discipline.
Were these children not taught the values that we learned as children, why?

I live in a small town, small enough to where everyone knows each other,where my children attend public school and where it is still small enough to know what kinds of things are happening there.

For the last few years, I have been increasingly more concerned with what is happening here because as I read, I find this kind of thing is happening all over the country, like an epidemic, what is happening? My concerns that began with the school branched out into the community, the state and the country, so I began to read and eventually led me to run for the Idaho legislature.

One day, it hit home, God! I couldn’t explain why I was just sure it had to be. A few years ago, I read about the separation of church and state because I wanted to know the truth. I read about history, the founding fathers, early America, I attended seminars, buying books on tape and so on and finally into apologetics and have continued to read ever since.

Today, I feel I have the answer and it was as I suspected, it was God, or should I say it was the lack of Him.

The majority of children today have been raised by parents who were taught that God is either a personal choice and/or God had no place in the public forum and especially not in school for society teaches that God is not allowed. Are they sure they want it this way? Do they know the consequences for this decision?

In the 1950’s, before God had begun to be removed, the two biggest problems were chewing gum and talking in class.

Today, we can choose from a wide assortment of issues like divorced single families, multiple and /or same sex partners, teen pregnancy, abortion, school shootings, drugs, alcohol, increased violence, depression, anxiety, perscription meds, failure to take them as prescribed or selling them, no respect for authority and complete disregard for the law. I’ll bet that the degree of problems in the world today are a direct proportional result of the abandonment of God, the more people deny god, the more they give unto themselves and their wishes. Does the school teach this?

Due to the secularity of school that teaches that there is no God, what they really mean to say is that there is no Christ. What they are saying is that “we, the government” are god.
Aren’t they? Do they even realize it?

Throughout history, there are only two governing authorities, God and man, “the state.”
If you deny one, aren’t we accepting the other by default?

God says that he is the Creator and giver of life, the protector of His creation and that all men are created with certain rights given to each of us, by him that cannot be taken away which is why, biblically and constitutionally, government was created, to protect and guarantee these rights.

On the other hand, if one denies God, his only other choice is to believe that “the state” is the source for everything and on it and it alone, shall we be reliant, that it alone will dictate what our rights are and what they are not and these rights and freedoms can surely be taken away if you fail to do as they say.

School teachers today, say they do not teach this, some teachers even claim to be Christians. Do they not see the dangers of the denial of our Creator?

A child was recently killed crossing the crosswalk and it created a movement in town where a few parents demanded more from their city government and actually got what they asked for. While I attended the meeting, I asked them if they felt more police, surveillance cameras and lower speed limits, more crosswalks, lights would prevent future accidents, they stated it would.

When I told them that what they were asking for was outside our proper role of government and more than the city had in their budget and told them a zero cost remedy would be for the parents to teach their children, I was told to take my constitutional principles outside and ousted from the meeting confirming, to me, that the parents had no interest in either the rule of law or caring for the children, only finding a way for the government to do it, no matter what the expense, even if we didn’t have the money.

A few weeks had passed and as I parked on the side of the street waiting to pick up my kids I saw continued lack or responsibility in that kids would be rough housing on the sidewalks and not watching where they were going, they refused to look at oncoming traffic and continued to cross the street, most of them with their pants down to their ankles, wearing bed slippers or pajamas, I went to the school district office to discuss a possible remedy.

The crossing guard was there with a few others and when I told them what I saw, they agreed and said frantically, "we know its a huge problem" and they didn’t know what to do!

I told them because it all starts with parents knowing the importance of personal responsibility and government knowing their proper role.

If parents are taught, and they teach their children that government is the answer and not God then they have succeeded in their goal and the school now is poised with a problem it should never have had in the first place. I told them simply, the Bible says “you reap what you sew.” If you want children to worship the government and not God, you will have to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Our society today has broken records on children on medications, 25 % of all children in America are on medication, treating psychological meltdowns due to the inability to cope, breakdown of the family, marital conflict, peer pressure due to sex and drugs and who is left to pick up the tab? Did we not see that this was coming?

We teach our children, Marxism, that it isn’t the family that is important, that it is “the state” by our denial of God, instead the only solution is to hire more unqualified social workers and prescribe medications to have these kids walk around sedated, in a trance, doing what they are taught, “believing that they are entitled to their own version of truth” and they wonder why so may of our children have issues with depression, confusion and authority?

It seems that there are far more psychological disorders than in previous years and a medication or multiples created for each one. Are there really disorders or are they created, possibly chemical reactions due to the GMO foods and improper nutrition, and other medications or maybe just a way for the government to receive money from pharmaceutical companies that make money prescribing more and more drugs?

Either way, the abandonment of God has left us with a greater liability than an asset and one we can no longer bear. We now have problems we cannot seem to find solutions for and abandoning our personal responsibility have left the government to have to raise taxes to spend tax dollars that should have gone elsewhere instead of how to find solutions to such problems.

Problems socially due to the instability and confusion of the proper role of government and family, economically due to the increase in costs for our failure to take responsibility for our own actions and morally because everyone is entitled to do what makes them happy without “being judged”, legally because they are taught that law evolves over time, just to name a few.

If we say we love our children how is it that we have left them in such a mess? Are they a cherished asset, as they should be or a have we ignorantly created a tremendous liability, by risking their intellect, our freedom, our economic wealth, morality and their future and their relationship with God? Shall we be held responsible for our failure to teach Gods word? What have we done? Instead of saying "God bless America, we should be in repentence for it isn't blessings we will recieve, itis judgement and wrath!

America, take heed, “To live like there is no God makes you a fool.” Psalms 14:4

Education or indoctrination...

I received a Facebook comment today in response to a recent post on public school. Quadir, the gentleman, stated that he couldn’t have learned if his education wasn’t free and why would I not want him to learn. I was delighted to comment.

My response is below:

Quadir, thanks for your comment. First of all education is not free. It is provided at the expense of the working tax payers. Second, in America, we are not a democracy but a “constitutional republic” a rule of law under the constitution that was written to limit the power of government not its citizens, the ones who wrote it. If public education is not constitutional there should be no argument because providing for education would then be unlawful under our present rule of law.

It isn’t a question of whether I want you to learn or not, it is what you learn and who should pay for your education. In this country we are all recognized that we are all Created equal and have the same rights and privileges provided by God, not government.

If you want to become educated, it is a matter of taking individual personal responsibility to achieve the goals you desire on your own merit, not at the expense of others, this is government endorsed stealing or “legalized plunder.” Shall I take your wealth; you have worked hard for, by force, to educate my children, Of course not. If you would like to offer charity that comes from the heart that is your choice, but by force is robbing you against your will. The other thing about government education is that what your learned wasn't education at all, it was a brainwashing indoctrination of what they, the government, wants or thinks you should you to know, a conditioning process if you will.

Quadir, my question is what is it that you learned or hoped to learn? I assume you wanted to become educated, as you said, which requires multiple perspectives on particular ideas or theories. What has happened instead is a “free indoctrination” it is having the government take taxpayer money, by force, also unlawful, and tell you what is fact and what is not without giving you both perspectives so that you may utilize your God given ability to use logic and reason and your critical thinking skills to come to these conclusions yourself.

Did you learn about America? About our "constitutional republic", that we are a nation of laws, founded on Biblical principles, that adherence to the constitution required that you acknowledged a Creator that was the source of all things, not that we came from some “primordial soup” and are just a random chemical reaction, that our Founders were homosexuals, that evolution is a fact or that it is illegal to link Christianity to the history of this country?

Did you learn that secular societies in history have always resulted in anarchy or tyranny? How about that the word "tyranny" in Greek, that means "secular rule." How about our American Founding fathers, the sacrifices for freedom made by them and those soldiers who give their life for others for that cause that is now being destroyed by the government that" we the people" created to preserve our freedom?

To me it is very clear and hopefully now clear to you as well, Government schools promote government as god. They want you to believe they are the source of all things, that is why it is crucial that God is not taught in school. Once you have been conditioned to accept this, you will then look to the government and worship them according to the rights they think you should have or not have rather than the rights that God gave you that government was to protect, not take away!

They are not teaching you to be educated to be self sufficient, and take personal responsibility for your actions, they are teaching you to be reliant on a system, a system that will take that responsibility from you, do all things for you, a system that is doomed to fail our future generations.

The sad part is that most government indoctrinators, some whom a good people, are oblivious to this fact as they wonder why the children in these schools are becoming more and more defiant when they don’t do what these teachers ask them to. These children as well as the teachers have been conditioned to be this way by the system in which they attend.

Perhaps this is why public school was not included in our constitution.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Nature and Law

Western logic seems to always have had some regard for the existence of natural law, however eastern philosophies have remained skeptical about nature and the supernatural commonly found in agnosticism and atheism that believes in the “ultimate truth” based in “nothingness” or basically the impossibility of ‘absolute truth.”

Some that believe in natural law believe in a higher law in nature rather than the law of the state which man can and will discover as he evolves. In other words, This law of nature is the only true law, the law that will govern man.

Believers in natural law would include Marxists, relativists, and existentialists in that natural law would be what this law means to them, relatively speaking, that these laws in whole or in part and vary in description according to what they would like to believe it is as they understand it and can evolve over time as society “progresses and becomes more perfect.”

There are those who deny natural law and believe only in the law of man, or “the law of the state.” Human truth is as it appears in history, “The state” resulting in only “civil government “as man’s last and best hope,” how sad.

Chinese, Hindu, Muslim and even Western ideologies couldn’t agree on the definition of natural law. Some say law is not whats is logical but what has been experienced, as it evolves is what is understood to be convenient “at that time,” or as valuable as one thinks it is, or the experience of the people “collectively” that make changes due to experience and developments in their reality.

If law and nature are determined by changes and developed experience wouldn’t all laws and constitutions would be meaningless? If the courts had to reflect on these changes, could they keep up with the pace that laws evolve? It would seem that in these circumstances the only logical conclusion would be constantly increasing, evolving laws resulting in chaos in that it would be hard for everyone to be aware of all the laws that had been or are being changed. This results in either anarchy or some form of totalitarianism.

Christians believe that Biblical laws are created by God that govern nature, not laws of nature but laws over nature, these laws entrusted to man for his protection and the protection of the earth and all its systems and inhabitants. This distinction is that the power over nature rests in the hands of God and God alone as nature itself has no power, “it is only the sum of the total universe”

For Christians it isn’t nature but God that is the standard of all things. Nature exists in a fallen world against God as things on nature are not necessarily for good like crimes- murders, thefts, perversions etc. The world is in rebellion against God so it isn’t nature that should be our focus but God.

An acknowledgment of God is an understanding that we are governed by His established laws in nature, physical reality, society, morality, religion; church even nutrition, digestion and sleep.

Darwin destroyed the understanding of Biblical law in that he stated “rather than specific detailed consistent boundaries, law is evolving, developing, reflected experience of the people ‘collectively” as expressed through the courts making judges themselves into gods, or as Plato stated “ philosopher-kings who are totalitarian rulers over man kind, can we not relate to this mindset today?

We are told who to believe, what to believe, how to believe and not to question authority because it is those who rule over us that know better than we do.

Has anyone ever given much thought to why those who oppose God are some of the most angry and vocal when God is mentioned? If they don’t believe in God, and they can’t see him, why are they so bothered?

It isn’t that they don’t believe at all, it is when they hear the mention of God, it is my belief, they become convicted by the Holy spirit and are reminded of His existence and that they, the “men” are not gods at all, but that there is the supreme Creator of the universe that is still in control no matter how hard they try to silence those who believe.

“When we deny God as our God then we make men gods over us.” and as history dictates always leads us back to bondage and eventually death.” Psalms 127:1

(paraphrased from"Law and Liberty" by RJ Rushdoony)

Idaho's governor and the selling off of America

I have been trying to stay on top of all the important news the media is incapable of exposing and the more I read, the more disgusted I get, I mean seriously! Are we really this stupid to think that our government is doing what is in the best interest of its citizens?

The drugs and propaganda this regime is shoving down our throat must be working in the fulfillment of their agenda, we now willingly train our military with the communists, that hate us by the way, in our own country and no one sees this as a problem? Are we immune here in Idaho, NOT A CHANCE!!

Months, maybe a year ago I heard on local KTVB, Idaho’s communist news channel, how elated this state is to accept the Singapore military to train here in Mountain Home, that it would be long term.

Months later I read or hear about the Chinese military here as well also staying long term, I was outraged at the ignorant smiles on their faces and wondered if anyone knew the serious ramifications of what is to come.

Economically speaking, I red that China pretty well owns America in that it holds more US treasuries than anyone else which means to those who don't know, that this country is indebted to our enemy! Do we see the problem yet? Let me continue

Recently, I have been receiving email from a friend where Idaho now has engaged in something else.

Chinese company eyes Boise: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html

Evidently China feels that Idaho will be a good economic industrial foothold. Now it appears that Idaho government has stepped into prostitution becoming the pimp for the Chinese whores in that we can now sell off our sovereignty granting citizenship to those who pay enough for it and help us get out of the financial mess that was created by spending beyond our means with the budget the Idaho legislature stated they supposedly balanced.

Instead of the American people realizing the danger of such transactions they say:

“I think China’s coming over here shows they are willing to collaborate on the reinvigoration of the American industrial base,” said Jeff Don, CEO of Eagle-based C3, which is acting as an Idaho representative for the Chinese company, called Sinomach for short.

So China, our communist enemy, is trying to HELP us now?

So I read on that our CONSERVATIVE governor Otter traveled to China last June, probably on the back of the taxpayers, “to tell anyone who would listen that Idaho is open for business.” China surpassed Japan as the second largest economy in the world in 2010. What better way to take control of the last free nation on earth, all under the guise of “helping us.”out of our economic woes.

Did we realize our governor supports the global warming theory by his endorsement of this project? “Sinomach, who is working with Southeast Idaho Energy company also would separate the carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change and ship it to Wyoming, where it can be pumped underground to enhance the extraction of natural gas.

What if the Governor and our local Idaho legislature decided to save money by killing its own citizens or reduce the amount of children born to decrease levels of CO2 that THEY BELIeVE is contributing to “climate change? Sound impossible? Why? It’s what communist governments do. With China as the economic powerhouse that now apparently owns the US, what would stop them?

Otter, while in Beijing, also worked with Doug Sayer, president and CEO of Premier Technology, “to build long-term relationships with China National.” (This sounds promising.)

“Anything we can do to work toward having good industry opportunities for investment is important whether we get a piece of that work,” Sayer said. (Anything huh?)

Pat Sullivan, a Boise lobbyist who works with Southeast Idaho Energy said “One thing these Chinese see is we have a governor here who has a great big open-door policy, and I think that’s making a difference in this Sinomach project,” he said.

So we have a governor with a “great big open door policy,” a president that has a great big open border policy, who calls his own citizens terrorists and grants the real enemy full amnesty to roam this country in full freedom to achieve economic prosperity while the tax paying citizens are losing our sovereignty, our homes, jobs, wealth ,our freedom and under increasing surveillance?

The really neat thing were doing here (NOT!) in Idaho is making a constitutional amendment that will allow the government to allow us to go into more debt, “that allows the airport to borrow money to build facilities that can be leased to companies on a long-term basis.” The airport commission also has the authority to grant long-term leases and landing rights to air carriers, including those from China.” (Isn’t this wonderful?)

This is such good news that the the flood gates will be open when they stated “We’re getting calls from investors from all across Asia who are interested in Idaho,”

Brad Little also showed support stating: “Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia,” said Lt. Gov. Brad Little. “Asia’s where the money is.”

So, its all about the money. Forget sovereignty, forget the constitution, the founders “original intent”, forget national security, forget those who have sacrificed their lives so that we could remain free, lets just throw it all way, I mean “Who cares about America anyway? Apparently no one that we elected to represent us!

“Little, who met with Zhang Chun, director general of Sinomach, and other company officials, said “he thinks the state and the company are a good fit.”

But we should be proud of our lieutenant governor when he did say ““We’re sure not going to favor a Chinese company over an Idaho company,” (Isn’t that reassuring.)

In summary, it is my belief, our government welcomes our communist enemies to do business here because they fear that maybe the citizens will finally realize that maybe they weren’t as fiscally responsible as they said they were and by allowing these transactions to take place, it would be a great way to cover their tracks since the Chinese own us anyway.

Reality is if China owns us and they are that good for Idaho’s economy, our government will bend over and do anything to keep them here even if it means favoring China’s interests like CO2 regulations, child birth limits to help reduce carbon emissions or promoting their business interests over our own.

Every day as we fall deeper into tyranny, it becomes more and more difficult to see any visible remains of what America was, even here in Idaho.

Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
—John Quincy Adams

"An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest."
— Jewish proverb

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."

- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

Monday, January 3, 2011

Politics, Pornography and the Law

Another attempt at paraphrasing a chapter from the book “law and Liberty , By RJ Rushdoony. I felt this book so compelling I didn’t know how else to share it. The credit once again should be given to the author.

Ever wonder if the whole idea of pornography is based on the advancement of some kind of “agenda,” political gain or is it really just a business, a product of our free market economy?

Is or should pornography be considered obscene? It has been said that obscenity is a “cleansing process” but pornography tends to “add to the murk,” that pornography is “dirt for dirt’s sake” and obscenity is the destruction of law and moral order, pornography is more explorative and obscenity does have rather a “revolutionary purpose.”

Pornography abandons law and favors rebellion against it, fanning the flames against law,
hates morality and views it as man’s bondage to restriction. It sees morality boring, tedious and restrictive and views these restrictions as evil.

Supporters of Pornography state that morality is “death due to the confinement of marriage, family, law and religious faith.” These supporters believe that morality is “old school” and the destiny of man as he “evolves” should be free of such restrictions for man’s greatest enemies are religion, morality and law.

How is it that these supporters feel that they can make such a statement, like“old school” of "evolution" when such a statement insinuates the adherence to a natural consistent order of events, that includes restrictions based on fact that is absent in their worldview? If man is also free from restrictions are they not free to do and think as they please, and in no position to say what “should” and “shouldn’t be?” It appears it would be a bit contrary in its position?

Socialist scholars (a contradiction in terms?) call for the destruction of the monogamic bourgeois family as we know it. They call for complete “sexual freedom.” These scholars view religion and morality as slavery and view Marxist socialist as freedom specifically quoted as “Moral anarchism is the tool for totalitarianism, socialism and dictatorship!” Does this mean that the socialist government would now welcome the breaking of laws to prove the people are free? Or that the more restrictions they face, the more they violate laws making them more free or quite the opposite? Or is this a way for the government to return people to bondage under the auspices of “freedom?”

While Christianity gives man logic, reason, consistency, it also gives him is individualism, faith and character of self government, Humanism (Marxism) espouses inconsistency and chaos of a ransom nature, it abandons the individual, denies faith in God and suggests faith in man instead, denies individual character and the importance and value of the individual, suggesting “collectivism” as its alternative, that results in a totalitarian government that then determines rights.

Isn’t it interesting that Marxists are opposed to legislation against pornography,” in the name of freedom,” but say nothing about the increased restrictions due to the contant and growing involvement of government in the personal lives of the people whom they govern and the moral anarchy they welcome?

Just the idea that those who support pornography can deny God, law and order in support of their position that they are a random chemical reaction, that all things are a result of chance and say that people are entitled to be free then suggest that people should think and act a certain way is completely contradictory to their worldview. If this were true they would have no adherence to anything requiring logic or consistency or have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do due the fact that they were a result of a random chemical reaction, a freak of nature.

Shall we promote “sexual freedom”, including prostitution, pedophilia, adultery, incest, rape and sodomy but call for the abolition of the death penalty, theft and murder, or shall we state all acts now have equal standing in the law? This arbitrary and inconsistent nature is the problem with man’s law that does not exist in God’s law and why God’s law is crucial in the proper function of society.

The politics of pornography is the “politics of Marxist revolution.” It is the reorganization of life, laws, thought and a society in the hope to fulfill the unrealistic, unobtainable “wishful thinking” utopian ideology of a “free world,” free from the restrictions of religion, morality and law, which in reality are absurd, illogical, irrational and unbelievable!

Today, the supreme court and many Americans believe that what were once moral violations of Biblical proportions (Sodomy, homosexuality, adultery etc) are now socially redeemable justified activities and that such laws are capable of evolving over time, and will if we continue our present course.

If two hundred years ago, in this country, pornography and other “sexual freedoms” were considered unlawful and now have become accepted, in fifty years, as we supposedly “evolve” shall we accept bestiality and things that are not yet socially justified today?

Substituting God’s law for man’s law makes anything possible, anything legal, and anything acceptable, it would only be a matter of time.

What is the result of replacing your trust in God for your trust in man, as Marxist promote? As history dictates people have been conditioned by their government to believe that they do things in the best interest of the people, always resulting in anarchy or some form of totalitarianism.

The question is, is your government really trying to protect your freedom or is it using the promotion of an agenda “in the name of freedom” to return you back to bondage?

With our country now adamantly promoting “the separation of church and state,” that God has no right in government, the governments agenda should be clear, this is not about freedom, it’s about control.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Liberty, Pornography and The Law


In my excitement about reading “Law and Liberty” by RJ Rushdoony, I continue my attempt to paraphrase the book that I wish everyone would buy because of how it explains the relationship of law in the various areas of our society. Full credit should be given to the author as my only desire is to promote his book and share his point of view of which I completely agree.

Are laws imposed on pornography a violation of one’s freedom of expression, their liberty and their freedom?

For years it seems, to some, we have tried to find a way to legislate and restrict the freedom of a two billion dollar a year business, they see it as restriction of free market capitalism while still others feel that this freedom has gone to the extreme and needs to be controlled.

It has been said that the legislative process has been difficult because of the lack of strength of current laws but regardless of whether those agree on the various laws or not, it is agreed among most that tighter restrictions and laws are needed to control crime and STD’s.

If we passed laws against porn would it mean a greater loss of liberty, through government censorship creating a larger problem than the one in question?
This moral issue creates problems because morality directly affects liberty.

Liberty is defined as: “The state of being exempt from domination of others or from restricting circumstances.”

As a “free people” are we really free, being exempt from domination and restrictions? We all have responsibilities, husbands, wives, children, animals,bosses, offices, taxes and government, are these responsibilities not domination and restriction to various degrees?
We all have some form of restrictions and no one is exempt, even “free people.”

Is absolute or unlimited liberty even possible and is it even a good thing? If man, as described by God, is fallen and has an inherent sinful nature will he not eventually be a law unto himself?

All societies in history whom have abandoned God have resulted in either in anarchy or some form of totalitarianism, both which are the enemy to law and liberty.

God’s law was created because of the inherent nature of man, so that we may live the most free, most prosperous and be able to achieve maximum liberty through such moral restraint and respect for others which is the purpose of law.

Is it really endangering liberty if we impose laws against pornography?

Is freedom really unlimited freedom? How about freedom of religion? Can we go and do as we please and say what we want in the name of free speech or expression? Can we lie to others and do so legally under the same premise, why are they different? Can you yell “bomb” or”fire” in an airport or crowded room? Can we freely use profanity on TV or in meeting with government officials, How about the press?
Freedoms we have must be respected and exercised using personal responsibility with respect to all without creating chaos.

American liberty and law are achieved and maintained by furthering liberty by the law not to create freedom from it. Legislation must CAREFULLY and CONSCIOUSLY be created to preserve liberty for future generations and God’s law, not man’s law is the principle that guarantees this freedom.

Laws to control pornography further liberty not destroy or obstruct it because it protects families and prevents social decay because it begs the utilization of personal responsibility through Godly, moral and ethical behaviors.

Pornography is, in fact, more of an enemy to the law rather than an element of liberty because it demands a society of moral anarchy where people break laws to prove they are free.

Today, while people compare pornography to freedom of the press, it is much different in that it breeds moral irresponsibility, destroys families, creates bitterness, sadness resentment and anger when combined lead to anything but a civil society where children are lost and made wards of the state, parents are lost and looking for ways to mask the pain, “on the rebound” perpetuating the pain, the children are neglected, become angry, hostile and allows for the government to have to take care of all of them, resulting in the endless creation of physical and psychological disorders and medications to treat them.

Our Founding fathers were quoted as saying “Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people and wholly inadequate for any other form of government” ( Did I see religion and government in the same sentence?)

What happens to our law and our liberty when we become a people whom are neither?

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Life and the Law

Again, as the previous post, this was another chapter in the book “Law and Liberty” by RJ Rushdoony. The more I read it , the more I appreciate it and my desire was to share it with those would also find interest in it. Again, the credit goes to the author as I try to paraphrase this wonderful chapter in a truly awesome book!

Most people, if not all of them will say they have a “reverence and respect for life.” Some believe that life is equally revered whether they are animals, humans, insects or plants. They believe that killing anything is an act of murder without any difference in what is moral and what is not but somehow believing “what is Biblical is restrictive and oppressive.”

Christianity, through Gods inspired word in scripture provides clear and concise definitions and boundaries. Thou shalt not murder” defines God to be the giver and taker of life for life is a gift from God and to be lived according to His law.

If one man kills another, is it murder and unbiblical? In Genesis 9:6 it states “Who sheds a mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed”, In Exodus 21:12 it states “Smite a man and he shall be put to death.” And in Numbers 35:16-18 it calls capital punishment, the punishment for murder.

It is God that has the right “to kill” not man but as the church’s ministry is discipline, the government’s ministry is justice, BOTH under God’s law. These positions are like God’s for they have the authority over laws to protect life.

“ If God’s justice is perverted, they shall die like men.” Psalms 82:7

Capital punishment by “the state” is not subject to the interpretation by man’s law because it puts the life in the hands of man but required under God’s law which clearly needs no interpretation and secures life in that the decisions do not evolve over time and become arbitrary according to who you are or what you may believe.

Biblically, man should be presumed innocent until found guilty (if this sounds familiar, it is proof yet again of God’s foundation in American law) but once a man is found guilty he should not be an object of pity (If this sounds familiar, it is because the American rule of law now denies Gods law) because it then puts the power of God into the hands of man and again becomes subject to man’s arbitrary nature.

“Those that forsake the law praise the wicked.” Proverbs 28:4
“He that turns his ear from the law, his prayers shall be an abomination.” Proverbs 28:9

Humanists believe that freedom is life beyond the law, beyond good and evil which is both the abandonment of Law and morality.

Christians believe God’s law is a condition of life, like water to a fish or soil to a tree and believe that the abandonment of law results in oppression by man, leading to chaos, disorder, lawlessness and death.

“Hatred for God id hatred of life” Proverbs 8:36
“Those who despise the law are guilty of the sin of presumption.” 2 Peter 2:10

“Humanists believe in presumption to take for themselves the authority for which they have no right, whether it be from God on their own terms, to reframe and reorganize their world where they will rule rather than God.” Without the belief in God, man is free to govern as he pleases without accountability, or so he thinks.

It is only under God’s law where life is protected. Under His law humans whether unborn or elderly it is left to God and God alone, who giveth life and taketh away.

Interestingly enough, It is the Humanists who claim to value life, equally in all forms, while they abandon God’s law, legalize the death of 5000 unborn babies and allow the government to withhold food and drink from the elderly and infirmed, These Humanists kill plants and animals for food to sustain themselves while praising the environment, planning on the death of the elderly, maintaining the executions of babies all in the name of overpopulation, yet somehow they fail to live by example? Now who’s hypocritical?

It is clearly God’s law to protect life and freedom, to become good stewards of the earth we have been given while it is man’s law that is inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational that has always resulted in anarchy, tyranny or death.

One thing to keep in mind the next time you hear someone say "God bless America" remember what scripture says...then ask youself, If we turn from his law, Should he?

“He that turns his ear from the law, his prayers shall be an abomination.” Proverbs 28:9

Law, religion and morality

I just finished a great book called “Law and Liberty”, by RJ Rushdoony. I enjoyed the book so much I wanted to buy everyone a copy. Due to lack of funds I tried my hand at paraphrasing what I had read about. All credit should go to the author and not me.

People say that you can’t “legislate morality,” is this true or are all laws ,in fact, based on morality?

Should people be made to be moral “by force” or would it create some kind of social rebellion? Should the laws of morality be imposed fully or only to various degrees and, if so, how exactly would that degree be determined?

What few realize, especially those that state the above, is that upon close examination all laws are based on morality. Laws against murder, adultery, stealing, slander, perjury, traffic, police and courts are all created based on this principle. Isn’t it amazing the stark familiarity to the Ten Commandments? It is interesting considering so many today absolutely refuse to believe that religion should have anything to do with “the state?”

Law provides clear boundaries between right and wrong, it punishes what is wrong while protecting what is good. If the defining boundaries of law, of good or wrong are skewed does law, what is good and what is wrong become skewed as well? How would society appear if such words had multiple meanings or no clear definition?

It is my understanding that it is impossible to have morality in a society without religion as its foundation. “Law is based in morality and morality is based on religion and when one is weakened, it tends to weaken the others” resulting in a breakdown in society and an eventual collapse.

It is no surprise to anyone that searches for the truth to know that the American legal system was founded on Biblical law and because of this “our system was not a system to save men by the law” but to maintain and adhere to a system that mimic’s a Godly society.

American Biblical laws were not established to “save men” or to fulfill some ill concerned utopian ideology but ONLY to be grounded in faith, again, to punish wrong and protect what is right as Biblical law, the constitution, declaration and Founders “original intent” define to protect life, liberty and property and to provide justice for all, not for the government to create equality but to understand we were all Created that way.

It seems today that we have been condition to believe that it is the duty of our government to make decisions for us, as if they are more qualified, to save us from ourselves, “to save man.” Only God can do this and only through His grace. Reality is that man can only be restrained through government but cannot be saved.

It is my belief that the problem is the clash between worldviews.

First Humanism, that denies God and the reality of absolutes, that all is relative, including law, where everyone is entitled to their own version of truth of what is right and what is wrong. The problem with this theory is that it can only result in chaos, no order and instead of purely black and white, a full spectrum of grey areas which then makes law impossible to define because of its relativity and continual evolution.

The irony here is although they believe that they are free to define their own truth and what is right for them, they also believe “the state” and its increasing laws will perfect man somehow without restriction, not to mention that the simple fact that truth is not person relative.

Second, Christianity, that understands that it is absolutes that maintain order and that everything created has a purpose. Absolutes define clear boundaries of right and wrong, create strictly black and white areas with no shades of grey, that law, in fact, does not evolve but is consistent, “set in stone” because it is the law of God rather than the law of man. Law when left to be interpreted by man only leads to arbitrariness and inconsistencies which undermine the foundational purpose of law.

Christians believe God created us to be free men, as our Founding fathers agreed and the founding documents guaranteed, God has given us Rights that were inalienable, that could not be taken away by man. It is also believed that if society followed Gods law, and not that of “the state”( if contrary to it) free man would be most free without the continual increase in laws of man which have resulted in either Anarchy or some form of totalitarianism, as history has taught us.

Christians believe in “salvation by grace” through faith in Jesus Christ not by “salvation by the law” or “the state” by the continual increase of legislative enactments.

Is it possible to deny God and claim to be free? Is freedom not subject to whom you look to for it? Is it not simply that you are Created by God, with God given rights, given your freedom from Him, that cannot be taken away or you deny God, believe that you spontaneously came into existence with the understanding that your rights come from the government man created that have always been taken away?

In communicating these two theories, it should be rather obvious that there is really only one clear choice that makes logical and rational sense. The very idea that our culture today believes that God should be separated from the state, isn’t because they actually believe it, it is because they want to abandon their conscience, being held accountable and to escape the reality of judgment, after all, it isn’t really the judgment of man they are angry about or afraid of, it is the judgment of God for scripture says we all know Him.