Toms Biblical worldview of Government and church

Throughout history it has ALWAYS been dictators, not the church that have tried to take control by denying God from its citizens, teaching them that Christians should not be involved in the affairs of society. Ironically some like, Stalin and Hitler, even today’s congress that use scripture against us quoting Romans 13 that it is the duty of Christians to submit to Satan’s authority to pass the devil’s legislation like abortion and homosexuality while the pulpits of America sit in continual deafening silence at the violation of Gods laws.

Who’s will are we really doing? God has blessed us but not without reason, the blessing of history, for example, is so that we would learn from our mistakes, so our refusal to know history is denying the very blessing He has given us. How much longer will mankind guide his own way, denying his own history constantly trying to do things without God? How long will we continue to do so?

In the past few years I have read more than all of my years combined, about American history, law, philosophy, apologetics, about a multitude of worldviews, the rise and fall of people, judges and nations and have learned many things. In 2 Chronicles 7:14 we are reminded to turn from our wicked ways and he will heal our land. God has left us a way out if we would just follow Him.

In reading about the fall of societies I am reminded about the consequences in not following Gods laws, becoming a law unto ourselves and returning ourselves to bondage and IN my reading of scripture, the book “LEX-REX” , and many others, I am also reminded and affirmed that God does offer a way out, in scripture it was freedom from captivity, for Europe it was through the Black Robe regiment pastors, who called their government accountable and if it never happened, the people of Israel and those in Europe, may still have been left in bondage and the Dark Ages.

Is the promise to God’s people that He loves us and will never leave us or forsake us? Is not love a reciprocal voluntary action to do his will for those who love Him? In Romans 13:1-4. God's word states, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.

For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Wilt you then not be afraid of the power that which is good, and you shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil."

First, this passage of Scripture outlines Gods government, the Bible teaches the Church is to obey God rather than men when the laws of men in conflict with the law of God. This truth is revealed throughout the Old and New Testaments. One can recall Daniel in the lion’s den and thrill to the miracle of the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace. This Biblical theme is vitally important as it relates not only the modern-day church that falsely believes we are to obey tyrannical civil government, but that somehow civil government was given the authority, by GOD, to usurp the laws of God.

The Bible calls this not only heresy but idolatry as it violates the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no others gods before Me.” Is this failure to engage by “doing nothing” not serving Satan or is it, in fact, serving two masters, one on Sunday and the other, the other six days of the week? Secondly, godly government recognizes that God is the supreme authority. Since He created and established civil government, they are duty bound to uphold His will as it applies to the entire civil sphere.

Again, they are His ministers. Good civil government must recognize like the tyrant Kings of old that God rules and reigns in the affairs of men. He sets up kingdoms and knocks them down. He possesses and dispossesses nations according to the dictates of His good will. This is one of the fundamental truths that blessed America since its inception. We believed we were One Nation under God, that it was with Gods providence that we broke the chains of tyranny from Great Britain to form a “free nation”, were we violating God’s will and should we have stayed under the tyranny of the king?

It is most simply this…When mankind rejects this Biblical truth of God’s sovereignty, man has only two options. First, the state (Government) is sovereign and the ultimate authority, which historically has led to some form of totalitarianism (Socialism, communism, Fascism). In the 20th century alone, more than any other time in history, hundreds of millions of innocent people were massacred by this monstrous lie that “the government has the best interests of the people.”

The second option is man is sovereign, which has led man only to anarchy, chaos, and confusion. Only One Nation under God can secure the delicate tension between social order on the one hand and individual freedom on the other. All else is sinking sand and cisterns that can’t hold water. 2Peter 2:19 states: While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. Gods created civil government acknowledges ONLY God’s law as the standard for good and evil, right and wrong.

Therefore, civil government is called to punish evildoers as God defines evil and protect those who are good in God’s sight. Isaiah 5:20 states “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! are we not seeing this today?

Throughout Scripture, however, God warns rulers that it is an abomination to punish the righteous and pardon the wicked (Proverbs 17:15). Psalms 2 extends this warning to kings and judges, "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Isaiah 10:1 states,

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.” Rulers descend to this deplorable condition when they refuse to acknowledged God’s law and their duty to uphold it in the civil sphere. “It was Thomas Jefferson who stated, “The legislative powers of government reach to actions only, not to opinions.” Civil government is due our prayers, Constitutional taxes, tribute, and submission to lawful authority but not without clear understanding. And are not due, however, our faith, consciences, or thoughts. No government official has the authority to determine our beliefs, regulate our faith, or punish our thoughts. "

Today, after hundreds of years, the traditional Christian doctrine has been subtly and effectively replaced with the human autonomic dogma of Humanism and that Christians cannot and should not legislate morality. The truth is every, supposed, secular law and public policy is based upon Biblical fundamentals of morality, of good and evil, and the clear boundaries of right and wrong and is impossible to escape this reality.

The only question that remains is it God’s consistent law of morality and objective truth or that “relative and changing” law of man that will be upheld? There are, in fact, both similarities and differences regarding the church and the state and Both very important. Similarities between the church and state:

Both from God Both His ministers Both shall give an account of their administrations before God They must observe the commandments of God related to their sphere of authority Both are granted specific directions and principles from Scripture to guide them and are appointed for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind. Differences between the church and the state:

The church and state should each compliment the other rather than being in competition as they are both, when exercised properly, extensions of His will in the earth. The Church’s role is the eternal salvation and welfare of the souls of men. The civil ruler’s role is on the physical safety and temporal general welfare. The Church is to be a minister of grace The civil government is the minister of justice. The Church has the authority to punish evildoers by excommunication The civil rulers have the authority to execute capital offenders. The church is to expose evil The civil government is to punish and restrain evil. The Church should teach God’s law Civil government should enforce God’s law. The church is supported by God’s social tax, the tithe. The civil government is supported by God’s civil tax-the head tax. The church is to concentrate on the welfare of mankind, while The civil government is concentrate on the warfare to protect and serve its citizens. Both the Apostle Paul and Peter called the church to obey civil authorities and interestingly enough both died at the hands of civil authorities. Were they hypocrites that contradicted the will of God or simply understood that civil government was to be a “minister of God” who punished evil doers as God defined evil and protected those who were good in God’s sight, as God defined good.

When civil government denies and reverses this divine calling, and punishes the righteous and pardons the wicked, Christians are duty bound to obey God rather than men. When the laws of men are against the laws of God, we must trust God and continue to do good, even though we may suffer persecution for our faith. This is God’s directive to His people in times of tyranny and is also His living rebuke to a civil government that is in defiance against its divine calling.

To me it is unconscionable for Christians to absent themselves from the realm of activism and politics when the Bible they profess to believe in tells them that all power comes from the God they worship, that judgment comes on those who fail to do his will and punishment will come to those who are willing to subject His children to harm by doing nothing.

Is it logical or even possible to be the “salt and light” that scripture speaks of while simultaneously abandoning that accountability, supervision and “conscience” that Christians inherently bring through scripture to those in leadership?

How can a “Good Christian “ in “good conscience” think it is Gods will to abandon our children to the rotting corpse of societal decay, for them to be left at the feet of Satan only to suffer eternal damnation?

Why would God tell us to fill our quiver with arrows, to build Satan’s army only to become Satan’s minions or for us to teach our children in the way that they should go, that they may be the salt and light to others, using God’s word to penetrate, preserve and occupy all of society, to drive out the darkness, to preserve God’s blessings of freedom and liberty, leading by example?

In America, we have a rule of law, the Constitution and the spirit of the law, the Declaration of Independence that clearly define that we are endowed by our Creator with certain Inalienable Rights, Rights that cannot be taken away without the authority it was never given. These documents were not only what kept this nation the most free but what has allowed us to be the “beacon of light” to other nations, to spread our faith in the fulfillment of Matthew 28 and “Go into all nations”.

When our government finally disallows God to be present anywhere in society (an authority they were never given) how will preachers preach, how will Matthew 28 be fulfilled and how will we continue to be the “salt and light” to the earth as we have been for so long? Is this really Gods will for His people to squelch His word, I doubt it. Separation of Church and state, not so fast As we profess our faith in Christ, we must believe all things were created by God and He alone is the giver of Rights, He has bestowed the blessings, of Liberty, by His authority alone, for us to be good stewards of these blessings, to remain vigilant, educated and to pass these blessings down to future generations as his legacy while failure to do so is not “of God” but, in fact, selfish as well as criminal to our children and those generations that survive us whom will apparently be left with only what is still “intact” when we are gone. Can we as parents find this acceptable when we say we want better for our children than what we had? Can we as Christians find this as an acceptable legacy fit for the future descendants of children of Israel?

What will you leave for your children, this secular cesspool of immorality, tremendous burdensome debt, and fragments of a once just society where now there is no right from wrong, that man is autonomous and the soul giver ( and taker) of your rights and freedoms and that you must subject yourself to them because you feel its Gods will? Why then does God offer grace and way out, a choice, through repentance, to turn from our ways, to give us that way out when he could just subject us to bondage and let us go when he feels we have learned from our mistakes?

If that is the case, as sinners, would He or should He ever let us go free?

Finally, if you happen to be someone that believes it is Gods will to “do nothing” then you have forfeited all rights to complain about the world’s problems. If you refuse to get involved in politics because you feel it is so dirty, should you then consider abandoning your attendance at church fellowshipping among the “dirt” and filth of sinners?

Or Is our failure to engage a paralysis created by fear?

Shall we watch and do nothing when we see a car accident, a murder, robbery, rape, when we see wrongful convictions, abuse and what we know is wrong? If we, as Christians believe that our conscience is the conviction of the Holy Spirit, that “wee small voice” telling us we need to do something, would it be “like Christ” and consistent with His word to just ignore it? Is there any time in scripture where Gods wants us to “do nothing?” Even when he tells us “to be still”, it isn’t necessarily to do nothing but rather to stand in awe, in praise or pray, and do it without ceasing. Will we suffer persecution as Christians and should we?

2 TIM 3:12,

“And all that would live Godly would suffer persecution.”

Romans 8:13,

…Who shall separate us from the love of Christ, shall tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness or the sword?

There are at least 10 instances in scripture where the word “persecution” is used. My first thought is if we are to be “LIKE CHRIST” then we must be willing to subject ourselves to persecution “LIKE CHRIST”, for John 15:13 says there is no greater love than to lay down your live for another, did He not suffer for another?

1 Peter 4:1 states

Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; Is not then persecution and chastisement a form of discipline, a process, that refiners fire that transforms us from that dirty rough nugget into the shining pure medallion? Many times the Lord may give us a pass that may aviod persecution, but to me it isn’t whether we get persecuted as much as are we willing to, in other words are we willing to say “Yes Lord, I will GO!?” or sit back and do nothing in fear of retribution of what others may think?

Rev 3:5 states:

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. It may be crucial to ask what is referred to when he uses the word Overcometh? If one must overcome, must one perform an action? Logically speaking are we to understand then that those who do not perform this action that are not overcomers shall not be subject to the blessings of overcomers?

It is my thought that God rarely acts directly in human affairs but works indirectly through men and women in whom He delegates this authority. Is God not always looking for bold, fearless, willing servants with humble awareness that can be held accountable and trust in him for His direction to be used in ways that can only, according to man, be considered miracles? I am a Husband to a wonderful wife, married into an unbelievable family. I am the most blessed father to have such wonderful children. As you all know I am far from perfect and not without issues. I have made my share of mistakes and fear to no end the sins of the father upon my children. I have repented and asked God for forgiveness of those sins but shall I wonder if one of those sins should be my inaction at the time I am called?

To me, it is crystal clear, I have any other choice as a soldier for Christ, husband and a father but to step out of the boat in faith, to trust in Him, be accountable to Him while I hold other’s accountable in the navigation of our future? I could surely not just stand by, dressed in the full armor of God (Galatians 6) and do nothing as our future and that of our children is being destroyed at the hand of the giant, what did David do?

Hebrews 13:8 If Jesus was a “Doer of the word” and we are to be like Him and If Jesus Christ is the same today, tomorrow and forever, Is “doing nothing” really consistent with fulfillment of God’s word and His will for His people?

Perhaps the famous Dutch statesman, Abraham Kuyper’s quote describes me best when he suggested that we not only have a reason to be involved but a moral duty, he said:

“When principles that run against our deepest convictions begin to win the day, the battle is your calling, and peace has become a sin; you MUST, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your youth.”

And I may add “especially if you have children.”

So, today, I ask you to do as I do every day, say “YES Lord”, I am willing, I am able and continue to wait for your preparation and instruction.

( I would like to thank God for the opportunity to speak this message at church and thank Coach Dave Daubenmire for being my mentor. I would also like to thank American Vision, Rusty Thomas and Chuck Baldwin for the various pieces and parrts used that, in my opinion couldn't havew been said any better than I could have.)

VIDEO: Stop the Tax Increase Rally and more...

Greetings,
Thank you for all who attended. For those who did not, this rally has been uploaded in five parts, please share with all who may be interested.

For your information, It is my intention to post all Idaho events at the link below if I can attend them regardless if I am allowed to speak or not, just to help get the word out. For friends and family that know me and are interested, I am in part 2.

I am still in the process of getting the Nullification House affairs committee video uploaded but it will need to be broken down into about 23 parts so it may take time, I was hoping other states that are looking at Idaho may find it useful. I am also still trying to get Phil Harts first hearing.

VIDEO: Stop the Tax increases Rally, Boise, Idaho 2-17-2011
http://www.youtube.com/user/truthofpr?feature=mhum#p/u/4/Kjzo4E4SWOo

A reminder to all, my good friend “Coach” Dave Daubenmire will be here speaking at the US patriot club at the Foothills Christian church, on State street in Boise, Friday , February 25th. For questions please contact www.uspatriotclub.org or contact me here. His website is www.ptsalt.com

If you have comments, they are always welcome.And may God bless America if he still will,

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.

Travel, a right or a privilege?

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

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.
SOURCE OF ARTICLE

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.

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)