May 29, 2017

Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

Nothing that man does is guaranteed, nor does he have the authority to assure the right of liberty to anyone, for any reason. It is in man’s nature to be lawless. Only the perfect laws of our Creator, Yahuweh, can place us in an eternal state of liberty.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, a compilation of documents many believe were the cornerstone in devising the U.S. Constitution and ruling guidelines over much of the world…once upon a time, it is stated that liberty cannot be achieved without laws. The largest problem with this statement is that these are the words of man and the laws of man. They always fail.

In our struggle to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto Yahuweh, that which is Yahuweh’s,” we are left dealing with man’s laws and whether those laws directly contradict the Laws of Yahuweh. Regardless of how great and wonderful you think the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, they are not the inspired words of our Creator. They are man’s words. Because they are man’s words, they are guaranteed to be broken.

In Maine’s debate about Question 3, a proposal crafted by reprobate minds, we see that one man, his billions of dollars and his many blind followers, think of themselves as gods of this world – and as such they probably are. Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to Maine people, and of course ultimately the world, how, where and when they will be able to adequately, or equitably, defend themselves against the darkness of evil from those who have deliberately turned or been turned into continued lawlessness. Why should he or any other man be allowed to do that by anyone?

In the second paragraph of the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, it states: 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Life” in part: The interval between birth and death.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Happiness” in part: Comfort, consolation, contentment, ease, enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction. The constitutional right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop the faculties, so as to give to them the highest enjoyment.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, contributes four columns, on two pages, defining Liberty. Of particular importance, to me anyway, are the following:

Liberty. Freedom: exemption from extraneous control. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others… The absence of arbitrary restraint…

The word “liberty” includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment….It also embraces right of self-defense against unlawful violence.

For whatever man’s laws are worth to you, our own Founders acknowledged, if only for themselves, that “their Creator” (to me that would be Yahuweh) gave to us unquestioned rights – unalienable – among which are Life, Liberty and Happiness. When you examine Black’s Law Dictionary, how and why, then, have we allowed man to limit and destroy unalienable rights, including the right of a creation of Yahuweh to choose how they will defend themselves, their families and their property? What right does Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama or any other man have to pretend to be “their creator” and limit an unquestioned right – one as important as being able to choose the necessary and proper way to defend oneself?

In the debate about Question 3, I have yet to read anybody’s suggestions, opinions or ideas that even come close to expressing the desire to migrate more closely to the unblemished Second Amendment, which must have been founded under the principal that all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by Yahuweh with unquestioned rights, including self-defense.

A Maine representative says that Question 3 is “too broadly written.” He also says everybody he knows will “begrudgingly cough up the cash” in order to “transfer” a gun in the state. That’s nice, but what about the thousands of people who don’t have any cash to begrudgingly give up to a man’s law? Are they now eliminated from, i.e. no longer created equal, the unalienable rights described above. Whoa to the delusional person who also stated that this “inconvenience” (spending money to be subjected to a government spying routine) levied onto law-abiding citizens should be no problem. Inconvenience? This is the value-weighted nonsense that dominates the mindless – even those possessing billions of dollars.

Another says that Question 3 would be a violation of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives law. Maybe, maybe not. To think that one man’s law, of which pays no mind to the foundation of “there can be no liberty without law,” would somehow have meaning to another man’s laws, of which the people did not participate in creating, is a practice in futility – it’s also a bit of insanity.

We can also read an opinion piece about the killing of people, real or staged, in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, extolling the benefits of having lawful armed citizens in places where more reprobate minds are running loose looking for people to kill. Of the reference here is that places like malls and far too many other places are “gun-free zones.”

If I, as a creation of Yahuweh, as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, have an unquestioned right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, how then, even when defined in Black’s Law Dictionary that rights are distributed equally among all, is it an equal distribution and opportunity for me to be able to choose how to defend myself against crazies, when man establishes “zones” where I give up my right to choose? And these “zones” are growing rapidly. Bloomberg’s intent is to turn Maine into a gun-free zone. What good is any item for protection if there is no place to lawfully use it?

We can also read the words of a Maine man, former chief counsel of Maine Gov. Paul LePage, explain about how Bloomberg’s proposal “misses the target.” The author states, “if we need to do something, let’s first identify the problem,” and then suggests crafting more laws for specific problems. Are there problems? Who decides what’s a problem. There are no laws that stop criminals from killing somebody that they have a mind to kill. Why is it then we keep pouring on of more and more useless laws? Don’t you get it……YET?

In addition to this political double-speak, the same author says that in answer to hypothetical responses to those who ask, “so, what, we should do nothing?” – his only answer, again, political double-speak, “No one is saying that.”

Well then what are they saying? What are they offering for “solutions” to the “problem?” You’ll never get them because all responses that make the media outlets come only from politicians or people brainwashed by the politicians. It is insanity and we must worship it because it’s everywhere and promoted everywhere.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo, rants and diatribes from both sides – one pitted against the other in attempts to out-rhetoric the other. What a laugh. Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3 in November, I still have lost my right to choose how to defend myself and what defense is left is limited in geographical scope. I will soon live in one giant gun-free zone. Where are any of these limits found in our explanations of unalienable rights?

As insane as the world and the people in it have become, rational thought would be that as a people we would be looking first at what caused the world’s insanity and secondly, how can we further insure that people have the right to decide for themselves? But that is NEVER going to happen.

In Scripture, in Mark 7: 6-7, we read: “This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Also in Collosians 2: 8 -“Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Yahushua.”

We see that man pretends to honor Yahuweh with lip service, but outwardly they cling to the laws and traditions of men, even to a point where those traditions and laws directly oppose “that which is Yahuweh’s.” People have come to know nothing but the fake, commandments (lies) of men and willingly find trust and faith in them. It is the focus of their lives and many don’t know it – they are incapable of recognizing it.

I have many times asked why are people all around me so blinded by the lies of men – how could they not see what seems obvious? However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, we read that for those who have not sought to honor Yahuweh through salvation and the keeping of His Commandments, “And therefore Yahuweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies,

That all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

These things were foretold by Yahushua as what it would be like in the Last Days. Surely we are in the last days as the “strong delusion” appears in too many people.

Here’s an example of someone, no doubt, operating under “strong delusion.”

cutoutquestion3sign

Share

Immigration for Freedom – Immigration for Freebies

Immigration is a hot button issue in the U.S. these days, I suppose hidden behind the shroud of the claims that we need to tighten up boarder security to keep out terrorists and mixed in with this tale we hear of the criminals, unchecked because of lax immigration laws and the cost to the taxpayer, etc.

While Congress puts up a false front of pretending to debate immigration “for the good of all”, it appears nobody cares much about the grass roots of immigration, what it was, what it meant and in particular what was expected of those wanting to come to America.

Few even realize that immigration was mostly sold as a dream vacation for some, as greedy capitalists wanted cheap labor to bulk up their profit margins. And we can’t overlook the millions of immigrants sent to the United States by the Catholic Church in order to gain global dominance and control as many countries and their governments and their education institutes as possible.

I suppose the Pilgrims were some of our first immigrants, but even from the time of 1620 until the early 1900s, what drove people to want to come to this country is a far cry from what it is today. Consider the differences between once when the sales pitch was about being a free and ideally an equal chance to accomplish what every other man could. Today, not totally unlike many years past, we still have greedy capitalists seeking to exploit the foreigners for money, the Catholic Church still looking for a super majority of followers and we can easily add to that now, the slimy politicians looking for more voters who will keep them in their cushy and corrupt jobs as out of touch, wealthy criminals who hide behind the red, white and blue.

I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I have no issue with letting anyone who wants to come to this country for all the right reasons, to do so. Once America had an identity and dream for a future that is very much unlike what reality has bestowed upon us today. Why is it that we feel compelled to give immigrants more than they need to come here?; i.e. food stamps, welfare, education, driver license, etc. The immigrants of the past came and got a piece of paper that told them they had a right to be here and take care of themselves, by themselves and if they wanted they could work toward citizenship and assimilate into an America that was free and independent. Wanting a chance to better themselves and a fair shot at doing so, separated the wheat from the chaff. This is what made America great. An immigrant had to really want to be an American; an American once defined.

My how things have changed.

Over the weekend I read a short book by Mary Antin called: They Who Knock at Our Gates – A Complete Gospel of Immigration. The Riverside Press, Cambridge – 1914. The book examines the justification of immigration as is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence; that the reasons for America to want to be free from the despotic reign of King George, so too must all humans be given that same right.

But as I’ve tried to point out, immigration and what drives people to seek refuge in this country has drastically changed. To prove this point, below I’ve typed out an excerpt from the book that is describing what kind of person(s) wants to come to America and why. Compare this with what is happening today.

“I have little sympathy with declaimers about the Pilgrim Fathers,
who look upon them all as men of grand conceptions and superhuman foresight. An entire ship’s company of Columbuses is what the world never saw.” – James Russell Lowell

It takes a wizard critic like Lowell to chip away the crust of historic sentiment and show us our forefathers in the flesh. Lowell would agree with me that the Pilgrims were a picked troop in the sense that there was an immense preponderance of virtue among them. And that is exactly what we must say of our modem immigrants, if we judge them by the sum total of their effect on our country.

Not a little of the glory of the Pilgrim Fathers rests on their own testimony. Our opinion of them is greatly enhanced by the expression we find, in the public and private documents they have left us, of their ideals, their aims, their expectations in the New World. Let us judge our immigrants also out of their own mouths, as future generations will be sure to judge them. And in seeking this testimony let us remember that humanity in general does not produce one oracle in a decade. Very few men know their own
hearts, or can give an account of the impulses that drive them in a particular direction. We put our ears to the lips of the eloquent when we want to know what the world is thinking. And what do we get when we sift down the sayings of the spokesmen among the foreign folk? An anthem in praise of American ideals, a passionate glorification of the principles of democracy.

Let it be understood that the men and women of exceptional intellect, who have surveyed the situation from philosophical heights, are not trumpeting forth their own high dreams alone. If they have won the
ear of the American nation and shamed the indifferent and silenced the cynical, it is because they voiced the feeling of the inarticulate mob that welters in the foreign quarters of our cities. I am never so clear as to the basis of my faith in America as when I have been talking with the ungroomed mothers of
the East Side. A widow down on Division Street was complaining bitterly of the hardships of her lot, alone in an alien world with four children to bring up. In the midst of her complaints the children came in from school. “Well,” said the hard-pressed widow, “bread isn’t easy to get in America, but the children can go to school, and that’s more than bread. Rich man, poor man, it’s all the same: the
children can go to school.”

The poor widow had never heard of a document called the Declaration of Independence, but evidently she had discovered in American practice something corresponding to one of the great American principles, the principle of equality of opportunity, and she valued it more than the necessaries of animal life. Even so was it valued by the Fathers of the Republic, when they deliberately incurred the dangers of a war with mighty England in defense of that and similar principles.

Share

Day 86 – No Executive Orders

BREACH OF TRUST!

After 86 days of false promises on executive orders for gun control, there still remains absolutely nothing posted on the White House website concerning those orders.

It is my opinion that in what is commonplace among failed governments, the people, of whom are supposed to be the governing body in this country, have through progressive teaching, a failure to learn history, while taking their eyes off the Creator, thus losing their way, have no comprehension of the first inalienable right of self protection and in conjunction any understanding as to what our inalienable rights are or the importance to sustaining a moral direction that leads to a prosperous life.

In listening to the leaders and citizens of this country in the past few years, and in particular of late, in discussing such things as forcing people to be slaves to President Obama’s healthcare plan, along with the destruction of gun rights, as well as all our rights, I am constantly reminded of what is written in the book, “The Two Republics”, by A.T. Jones.

Below is a very important excerpt that helps to explain what was the mindset of the Founding Fathers and the root of much discussion about the need to craft the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution. It is incredible to me that in just a mere 235 or so years, Americans have very little understanding of the importance of independence, self determination, liberty and inalienable rights, all the while believing they, somehow, have a right to take away the rights of others.

“The Two Republics”, by A.T. Jones – excerpt:

In declaring the objects of government to be to secure to the people the rights which they already possess in full measure and inalienable degree, and to effect their safety and happiness in the enjoyment of those rights; and in declaring the right of the people, in the event named, to alter or abolish the government which they have, and institute a new one on such principles and in such form as to them seems best; there is likewise declared not only the complete subordination but also the absolute impersonality of government. It is therein declared that the government is but a device, a piece of political machinery, framed and set up by the people, by which they would make themselves secure in the enjoyment of the inalienable rights which they already possess as men, and which they have by virtue of being men in society and not by virtue of government; — the right which was theirs before government was; which is their own in the essential meaning of the term; and ‘which they do not hold by any sub-infeudation, but by direct homage and allegiance to the Owner and Lord of all’ (Stanley Matthews), their Creator, who has endowed them with those rights. And in thus declaring the impersonality of government, there is wholly uprooted every vestige of any character of paternity in the government.

In declaring the equality of all men in the possession of these inalienable rights, there is likewise declared the strongest possible safeguard of the people. For this being the declaration of the people, each one of the people stand thereby pledged to the support of the principle thus declared. Therefore, each individual is pledged, in the exercise of his own inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so to act as not to interfere with any other person in the free and perfect exercise of this inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any person who so acts as to restrict or inter with the exercise of any other person’s right to life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, denies the principle, to the maintenance of which he is pledged, and does in effect subvert the government. For, rights being equal, if one may so act, every other one may do so; and thus no man’s right is recognized, government is gone, and only anarchy remains. Therefore, by every interest, person as well as general, private as well as public, every individual among the people is pledged in the enjoyment of his right to life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, so to conduct himself as not to interfere in the least degree with the equal right of every other one to the free and full exercise of this enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ‘For the rights of man, as man, must be understood in a sense that can admit of no single exception; for to allege an exception is the same thing as to deny the principle. We reject, therefore, with scorn, any profession of respect to the principle which, in fact, comes to us clogged and contradicted by a petition for an exception….To profess the principle and then to plead for an exception, let the plea be what it may, is to deny the principle, and it is to utter a treason against humanity. The rights of man must everywhere all the world over be recognized and respected.’ (Isaac Taylor)

From “The Two Republics by A. T. Jones.

Share