L
|
ETevery soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)
I have heard this passage used to justify every grievous excess of government. It cannot be so used, for any government ordained of God is a government of just and equitable laws. The excesses of Hitler’s Nazi Party, of ISIS, of Stalinist Russia or of Maoist China are not ordained of God – they are in defiance of God and His social and moral order. We are, in fact, exhorted in Scripture to pray for such God-ordained government: I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. (1 Tim 2:1-2)No one has ever lived a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinessunder Communist or Sharia rule.
A government ordained of God is one which upholds order and righteous behavior. Any other kind of government yields itself to wickedness, corruption, and oppression of personal rights granted by God. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Prov 29:2)A wicked and intrusive government is one which Isaiah describes: 20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20 (KJV) The remorseless murder of innocents is never a thing ordained of God; neither is the repression of God-given rights enumerated in our Master Founding Document – the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Our American government, in its original Constitutional establishment, has proved to be the most perfect of any other governing authority in the history of the world save that of ancient Israel. Why was this so? It is because the guaranteed protection of personal freedom and liberty opened the flood gates of human ingenuity and innovation. It starkly stipulated that those rights were inviolate as granted by the Creator of the world and not subject to the restraints of petty government.
Many decades ago, the manipulators of power politics in America found themselves incapable of wrenching those freedoms from the American citizens. The US Constitution forbade it! They found a willing tool to circumvent those Constitutional provisions of protection of rights – the Supreme Court of the United States. All they needed do was to seek out justices for the Court who would redefine the clearly stated terms of the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land. That distinction belongs to the Constitution itself. Elementary education of my generation clearly taught those principles in Civics classes from Maine to San Diego and Seattle to Miami. But the social engineers who have infiltrated public education have decided it best to ignore civics as a class for students who might suffer a longer period of socialist indoctrination were that course widely taught.
So, what has happened to the beautiful dream? How did our youth come to view every sin and vice as acceptable? How did they come to become abusers of drugs, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, violence, and disregard for the property of others? This did not happen in a vacuum. There is always a First Cause.
Youth are no longer capable of critical thinking, logic or reason. They are quite adept at shouting out Marxist and Nihilist slogans as they destroy public and private property under the guise of ANTIFA (Fascists pretending to be Anti-Fascist – an old Communist ploy described years ago by Dr. Fred Schwartz).
Our public lecturers tell us that there is only a RIGHT and LEFT political spectrum, and that this spectrum is comprised of Fascist on the Right and Communists on the Left. One side is total government, the other side is the total absence of government. How foggy can this be! All totalitarian governments are much alike. The Right side of the spectrum in government represents what is RIGHT (Personal guarantees of God-given freedoms) and the Left is all government which leans to totalitarianism under Communism, Fascism, Islamism, etc. So, a statesman who stands up for his nation and her Constitution is labeled as some sort of right wing Fascist.
Back to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has redefined the US Constitution as some sort of ‘living document’ which changes with time and social concepts. If the Constitution does not mean exactly what it says, it is no longer a Constitution. A Constitution is a written legal document whose provisions must be meticulously followed. The corrupt justices (not all) on the Supreme Court are able to accomplish more fundamental change, illegally, than all of the efforts of the complicit legislators who lack the backbone to stand up and openly deny the safeguards of the Constitution. The ancient proponent of Republican forms of government wrote:
Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God's Law from which all Equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God's eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it.
Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges. - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.
Let us review our Civics lessons on the Constitution. Your will remember most the first three Articles on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. Article I outlines the powers of the Legislative Branch, Article II the powers of the Executive, and Article III the powers of the Judiciary. The precise powers delegated to each are clearly enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments. Article I provides that Congress can only make laws within the framework of those powers granted it under the terms of the Constitution. The powers of the Executive Branch provide for the power of the President and his staff to enforce constitutionally enacted laws. The power of the Judicial Branch, headed by the Supreme Court, is limited DIRECTLY by the precise wording of the US Constitution to determine that all laws passed by Congress are in compliance with the US Constitution. That is all!
Let’s examine a few of the first Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 1
Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably o assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If Congress has made no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (and they have no power to do so), who made the law that children cannot carry a Bible to school or pray any where they choose? You guessed it – it was the supreme Court who exceeded their bounds of authority in making themselves legislators.
Amendment 2
- The Right to Bear Arms
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Founding Fathers had just experienced the excesses and oppression of a government which recognized no rights of the colonist. A disarmed populace is at the total mercy of such government. In order to safeguard the government from invasion or insurrection, a militia was envisioned as necessary; but, congruent with that militia, the people must not be left helpless before such a militia. So, the right to bear arms was necessary – not for hunting and sport, but to defend against government grown oppressive. What powers were reserved to the individual states (States Rights)? The Ninth and Tenth Amendments articulate those powers:
Amendment 9
Other Rights Kept by the People
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10
Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
These are self-explanatory sufficient for any child to grasp.
There is a great and immoral force that has been acting under the surface to enslave the American people – in fact, the world (globalists) – by educational indoctrination (oxymoron), subterfuge in misinterpretation of the constitution by unscrupulous judges, and an imbalance of justice. The US Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to every state – a form of government whose laws apply equally, without exception, to every citizen. Each citizen would retain possession of the fruits of his own labor. It was feared that the American government might degenerate into a democracy in which justice is meted out to the loudest special-interest voice.
The Church itself has been complicit with the decline in morality in our nation. Where was the outcry of churches when the Bible was banned from public schools, and then Prayer, and then abortion became legalized for the absolute murder of the most innocent among us – the baby in its mother’s womb. Marriage itself has been demeaned and discouraged. In a pure Communist society, there actually is no such thing as marriage, so it must be destroyed. Satan in the Garden envisioned the destruction of all the Creation that God had made. He began by asking a question: Hath God said? and ended in flatly denying the word of God: Ye shall not surely die! Later, he led the people of Sodom into the grievous sin of homosexuality. This give an ungodly dignity to homosexual marriage which we observe today in society. Satan has many weapons for the destruction of mankind: abortion, homosexuality, war, disease, famine, and the death of love.
In conclusion, I will append an excerpt of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx in which he outlines the Communist position on marriage. If you wonder from whence the motivation to undermine godly marriage comes, it will be worth you time to read the quotation:
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property--historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production--this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property. Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus. The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
