tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23581675769395578192024-03-12T17:50:58.626-07:00Things your preacher will never tell youIn a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George OrwellInalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-23196180164667941252013-03-26T15:53:00.001-07:002013-03-26T15:53:19.315-07:00Your rights ARE ABSOLUTE!<b>News for you! Your rights ARE ABSOLUTE!</b> Never mind the propaganda....<br /><br />But that does not mean that you have a right to harm others, for that is not part of any definition of a right I have ever seen or subscribed to. (Hence if you are harming someone it is not a right by definition.)<br /><br /><b>Saying that rights are not absolute is a semantical game played by government to get the camels nose under the tent and to begin destroying those rights.</b><br /><br />So why do people constantly say really STUPID things like:<br /><br />"Free speech does not give you the right to play your music loudly at 2 am."<br />Or "Owning a gun does not give you the right to shoot someone in the head."<br /><br /><br />Don't you see that these are 2 different actions? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech. It is harming other people. Shooting a person in cold blood is not gun ownership or self defense or a right, it's harming another with a special name: "murder".<br /><br />It amazes me that I have to continually address these stupid absurd comments. The government schools have done a wonderful job of dumbing people down.....<br /><br /><b>Your rights ARE absolute and don't you ever forget it. That is unless you want to lose them. </b>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-85660485896794752102013-03-26T06:40:00.002-07:002013-03-26T06:40:34.521-07:00The Starbucks Gay marriage flapCHRISTIANS WANT TO BOYCOTT STARBUCKS OVER THEIR MARRIAGE STATEMENT:<br /><br />Before getting upset about what is a somewhat nonsensical and ambiguous statement from Starbucks, perhaps we ought to analyze our own views on marriage. For thousands of year marriage was principally a contract between a man a woman and God. Then about 100 years ago the State decided that it was going to take the place of God, and be the one that "blessed" a marriage all for the worthy purpose of keeping blacks and whites from intermarrying. Christians of course went along in mass, and someone like me that questions going to Caesar for a permission to marry is looked upon as someone with a screw lose. Let me remind you that going to Caesar is admitting that marriage is no longer a God given right, but permission granted to you by the State. If you don't see this, it is you that has the screw lose.<br /><br />While the actions of Starbucks are certainly irritating, what happened to turning the other cheek? What has happened to discernment? There are literally dozens of other MORAL issues that are much more important such as government involvement in education, the Federal Reserve,<br /><br />(yes the Federal Reserve is a moral issue and shame on you if you don't understand - perhaps you don't because of the government school you attended)<br /><br />and the fact that you probably accept the State as the entity that marries people rather than God. ** In other words your view of marriage is as screwed up as that of Starbucks!<br /><br />Perhaps Starbucks needs a talking to, but at the expense of ignoring dozens of more important issues? No wonder Christianity and the world are in such a mess.<br /><br /><a href="http://joemiller.us/2013/03/starbucks-ceo-no-tolerance-for-traditional-marriage-supporters/">http://joemiller.us/2013/03/starbucks-ceo-no-tolerance-for-traditional-marriage-supporters/</a>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-39965094460902642622012-11-04T02:33:00.000-08:002012-11-04T02:38:19.583-08:00Nation of ungodly control freaks....<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0bejCDKlimf8hAUgHWu8wJV6nN0SDSK-FWsRvHAPfLd0i_rUu6hbbO7aGeMsOtQbbARISmMT85Rz9VI2trL-9vm8PVnex6b8r2J3KGhy_NTqW35EVRMUVgoPd04OlpR8_0u0IHCiw1wPM/s1600/Foreign+church.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0bejCDKlimf8hAUgHWu8wJV6nN0SDSK-FWsRvHAPfLd0i_rUu6hbbO7aGeMsOtQbbARISmMT85Rz9VI2trL-9vm8PVnex6b8r2J3KGhy_NTqW35EVRMUVgoPd04OlpR8_0u0IHCiw1wPM/s320/Foreign+church.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Just an observation about the small minded peons that work for the guberment health departments nation wide.<br />
<br />
These delusional semi-morons really think that they are doing some noble service for mankind. What they are really doing is telling people that they do not have the God given right to earn a living. That what God gave you is dependent upon their conditions and their permissions!<br />
What they really are is blasphemers that think they are above God. --- And Christians that accent their so called authority, are just as blasphemous as they are. They are in a very real sense worshiping Caesar, and not God.<br />
<br />
That is reality, and to get you to accept this insane version of the founders dream as righteous , they must by law (threatening you with violence) subject you to government indoctrination camps called schools, and add a mind altering toxic chemical brew misnamed fluoride to your water.<br />
<br />
Do you think that maybe the 501c3 churches have a conflict of interest, and that is why they are silent? Their silence is approval of this blasphemy.<br />
<br />
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” ~ Thomas Jefferson<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1387416859"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/ROMANS-13-TRUE-MEANING-SUBMISSION/dp/146287018X">http://www.amazon.com/ROMANS-13-TRUE-MEANING-SUBMISSION/dp/146287018X</a>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-52482363780684779672012-09-10T23:24:00.002-07:002012-09-10T23:24:36.992-07:00The Romans 13 Fallacy: an eye-Opening Discovery<h1 class="entry-title">
<a href="http://shazereverquar.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/the-romans-13-fallacy/" target="_blank">The Romans 13 Fallacy</a></h1>
<h1 class="entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="entry-title">
</h1>
<h1 class="entry-title">
Apparently, like Rip Van Winkle I had been asleep for a number of years without realizing it.
</h1>
Recently in Sunday school, it was decided that we would discuss
Romans 13 and Titus. In preparation for the lesson, I began studying
several treatises on the subject and discovered that there has been an
ongoing debate for decades, if not in fact, scores of decades regarding
these scriptures and passages similar to them. Wow! Where had I been
during all those years? Somehow, I assumed that Christians everywhere
were on the same page regarding our place in the world and was shocked
to learn that such is not the case.<br />
As a result of this eye-opening discovery, I began researching in
earnest for an answer to the question regarding a Christian’s duty in
relationship to so-called “government.” But no matter what articles I
read regarding the matter, all left me wanting. It was as if there was <strong>some fundamental truth that no one was addressing</strong>. Eventually, the amazingly obvious answer came to light and now I share that revelation with you….<br />
<h2>
<strong>Two Main Postulates</strong></h2>
There are many passages in the Bible that one could choose regarding
one’s relationship with government. Nevertheless, there seem to be two
main postulates in operation from which all others are derived:<br />
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li><span style="color: #993300;">Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. -Matthew 22:21</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #993300;">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. – Romans 13:1</span></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<h2>
I. The Render unto Caesar Fallacy</h2>
<div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_1282" style="width: 240px;">
<img alt="Caesar" class="size-full wp-image-1282" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/caesar.jpg?w=640" title="Caesar" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
Render unto Caesar?</div>
</div>
The Render unto Caesar fallacy has held great sway in America. This
is a living testimony to the resonant success of the Satanic American
educational system, the hallmark of which is <strong>induced ignorance</strong>.<br />
It is a fact that Americans are given no basic education in law. The
common Christian misinterpretation of this passage belies a tragic
unfamiliarity with the history, structure and principles of American
government.<br />
Article I, Section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution states:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #993300;"><strong>No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States</strong>:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.</span></blockquote>
Article I, Section 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution further states:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #993300;">No State shall enter into
any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex
post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, <strong>or grant any Title of Nobility.</strong></span></blockquote>
Americans who tote the “Caesar” line are woefully ignorant of world history. During the time of Christ, the Romans viewed <a href="http://www.theologywebsite.com/history/rulercult.shtml">Caesar as a GOD</a>.
There were NO ELECTIONS for Caesar. Modern Christians fail to remember
that the reason why the ancient Christians were persecuted by the Romans
was because they refused to worship the Roman pagan gods AND CAESAR.<br />
America does not have a Caesar. America has never had a Caesar and
America will NEVER have a Caesar. IT’S ILLEGAL! Neither can Christians
legally “honor the King.” There will never be a King, Queen, Prince,
Princess, Duke, Duchess, Earl, etc. in America because <strong>Titles of Nobility are outlawed in the United States</strong>.<br />
<ul>
<li>The President of the United States is merely an elected job-holder, NOT a monarch.</li>
<li>The President assumes an office not a throne.</li>
<li>The President is simply a civil administrator, not a divine ruler.</li>
<li>There are no coins or paper currency minted in the United States
with the face of the current US President or any other living civil
servant printed upon it.</li>
</ul>
The fact is, thanks to The Constitution written by our forefathers,
Christians cannot render anything unto A WORLDLY GOD. To attempt to do
so is illegal…period. Time has proven that our forefathers did not get
everything right. But they certainly got this part right. They crafted
the Constitution with the Bible in mind and they specified that
government (mere men) can never claim to be divine authority.<br />
<div class="wp-caption alignleft" id="attachment_1287" style="width: 235px;">
<img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-1287 " src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/caesar-coin.jpg?w=640" title="Caesar coin" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
Obama is not our god. Obama is not our ruler. There are no US Obama coins.</div>
</div>
By the way, these “Render unto Caesar” Christians entirely miss what
was happening in Matthew 22:21. The Pharisees and Sadducees were
attempting to trick Jesus with a choice of GODS. They were hoping that
Jesus would pronounce Caesar to be just a man, which they then would
have used against him, reporting his “blasphemy against Caesar” to the
Romans. The passage is NOT about government at all. Caesar was NOT a
government. It was about a choice of GODS.<br />
The words “Caesar”, “King” and “President” are NOT interchangeable, at least <strong>not in America</strong>. Christians who blithely parrot the “Caesar” or “King” doggerel are -in fact- <strong>traitors to The Constitution of the United States</strong> and threaten everything our Christian forefathers fought to establish and died to preserve.<br />
It would behoove these unpatriotic American Christians to familiarize
themselves with the history of our country, to respect and honor the
heritage of America and to rectify their woeful ignorance. Wild
extrapolation of scripture predicated upon benighted imagination is no
substitute for enlightened fact.<br />
If traitorous “Christian” citizens want to “honor the king”…fine…but
they’ll need to move to another country to do it. The Constitution of
the United States mandates that here in America, only one king may be
honored legally…the King of Kings: Jesus Christ.<br />
<h2>
II. The “Powers that Be” Fallacy</h2>
Once again, we have proof of the time-tested adage that “a little bit
of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” The Christian misinterpretation of
Romans 13:1 serves as a shining testimony to the success of the American
miss-education system; a structure which, incidentally, teaches the
captive students <strong>never to question</strong> their teacher.<br />
<h1>
God’s Natural Order</h1>
Study this diagram carefully:<br />
<img alt="God's Natural Order" class="size-full wp-image-1152 alignnone" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/natural-order.jpg?w=640" title="God's Natural Order" /><br />
Courtesy of Family Guardian, <a href="http://www.famguardian.org/">http://www.famguardian.org/</a><br />
<h1>
Everything Begins with God</h1>
Like it or not, everything begins with God. As John 1:1 states, “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.” So God’s first manifestation was God’s Law: the Word. Then God’s
Word manifested creation…“And God said, Let there be light: and there
was light.”<br />
From the creation sprang <strong>Man and Woman</strong>; from whom eventually was begotten <strong>We the People</strong>. It was We the People who created <strong>Organized Church</strong> (a worldly reflection of the Infinite Spiritual Church), <strong>Elections</strong> (a worldly reflection of the Will of God) and <strong>Grand Juries</strong> (a worldly reflection of the Judgment of God).<br />
To hold these worldly creations in balance, a social contract was formed known as <strong>The Constitution for the United States</strong>. Those persons that misguided Christians claim to be “higher powers” actually SERVE UNDERNEATH THE CONSTITUTION.<br />
Therefore, in God’s Natural Order the individuals that Christians call “authorities” are in fact:<br />
<ol>
<li><strong>Servants of We the People</strong></li>
<li><strong>Servants of the Organized Church</strong></li>
<li><strong>Servants of the Constitution</strong></li>
</ol>
<h1>
Christian Decadence</h1>
<div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_1214" style="width: 310px;">
<img alt="God is NOT amused" class="size-medium wp-image-1214 " height="300" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/christians-now.jpg?w=300&h=300" title="God is NOT amused" width="300" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
We cannot authentically claim to be Christians while simultaneously promoting a satanic debauchery of God’s Natural Order.</div>
</div>
Present day reality clearly demonstrates that Christians have
abdicated their moral responsibility to administrate the Organized
Church. This, in turn, has led to the abandonment of the Christian
ethical responsibility to supervise the servants of The Constitution.<br />
The sin of Christian sloth, having continued over several
generations, has resulted in epidemic moral irresponsibility to the
point that Satan has been allowed to step in and fill the vacuum left by
Christians to administrate GOD’S Natural Order.<br />
Amazingly enough, <strong>it is the irresponsible, decadent Christians themselves</strong>
who have sanctioned the complete upheaval of God’s Natural Order. A
demonic unnatural Order which asserts that the servants are above their
Masters. Immoral Christians have become so hopelessly depraved that they
have actually abandoned the words of Jesus himself:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #993300;">“The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.”</span><br />
<div style="padding-left: 240px;">
<em><span style="color: #993300;">- Mt 10:24</span></em></div>
</blockquote>
God’s word clearly demonstrates that perversion of God’s Natural
Order is sin. We cannot authentically claim to be Christians while
simultaneously promoting a satanic debauchery of God’s Natural Order.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Adamant Defenders of Absurdity</strong></h2>
<img alt="The Higher Powers" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1291" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/the-higher-powers.jpg?w=640" title="The Higher Powers" />The “higher powers” referred to in Romans 13 are <strong>God’s Law</strong>.
Poorly educated Christians who have been raised in ignorance by the
State and deluded by false authorities would have us believe that the
servants living in the basement who produced Man’s Law (known as
“statutes”) have moved upstairs to the master bedroom and have become
higher powers. Examine the complete chart (above) and realize for
yourself the profound absurdity of such a contention.<br />
Nevertheless, some Christians are adamant that the wicked reversal of
God’s Natural Order is the hierarchy that one must live within. How
could such a trick have been accomplished? How did mere servants manage
to pull the wool over the eyes of a whole nation of masters?<br />
The black magic that enslaved Christians and non-Christians alike was the passage of the <strong>Fourteenth Amendment</strong> which created a new class of people that never existed before, known as <strong>“The US citizen.”</strong>
Consult the chart and notice that the US citizen exists BELOW the level
of Statutes (i.e. below the servants). The incredible details behind
this demonic hoodwink is a treatise in itself and shall be saved for
another day.<br />
Suffice it to say for now that We the People are the TRUE authority and God’s Laws are the higher powers.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Enter the Grand Identity</strong></h2>
God created We the People with free will. Therefore in order to
accomplish his coup d’état in America, Satan was obliged to create a
temptation that Americans would choose of their own free will. A
temptation that would lure you to trade away your authority as a
sovereign God-ordained Man or Woman for a new identity…that of the US
Citizen; which, if you’ll recall, was the same scam Satan pulled in the
Garden…<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #993300;">Now the serpent was more
subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he
said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree
of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the
fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is
in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it,
neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the
woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong> ye shall be as gods</strong></span>, knowing good and evil. -Genesis 3:1-5</span></blockquote>
The Bible illustrates <strong>Satan’s prime trick…offering a grand identity.</strong>
A better you. Is that not what every television commercial offers? A
grand identity…a better you…”for only 19.95.” Over time the products and
offers continue to change but the premise has remained the same since
the Garden of Eden.<br />
You have been tricked into living under a travesty of God’s Natural Order by the offering of a grand identity… “US citizen.”<br />
<h2>
<img alt="The 14th Amendment is not what they tell you it is" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1301" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/14th-amendment.jpg?w=640" title="The 14th Amendment is not what they tell you it is" /></h2>
<h2>
<strong>Speaking of Confusion</strong></h2>
Now, more than likely at this point you’re probably somewhat
confused. Maybe completely confused. After all, isn’t being a US citizen
a good thing? Having lived through decades of darkness, you have failed
to realize just how profound your illiteracy of the law is and we’re
not going to clear up a lifetime of ignorance in one quick, easy
lesson…sorry. But your confusion is a good thing. All true learning
begins with confusion. Let’s just say for now that <strong>the legal title</strong> of “US Citizen” has some very serious negative ramifications that you were never told about in school.<br />
Speaking of confusion…consider this…<br />
In God’s Natural Order, the courts are the worldly reflection of
GOD’S JUDGMENT. So, why not deliver the courts into the hands of <strong>non-believers</strong>,
right? Talk about confusion! Are you beginning to grasp the illogical,
irresponsible and incredibly recklessness behavior that modern
Christians have exhibited?<br />
<div class="wp-caption alignleft" id="attachment_1327" style="width: 310px;">
<img alt="Judge Jesus" class="size-medium wp-image-1327" height="222" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/judge-jesus1.jpg?w=300&h=222" title="Judge Jesus" width="300" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
Let’s kick this guy out and install non-believers.<br />Makes perfect sense…IF YOU WORSHIP SATAN</div>
</div>
As I admitted in the beginning, like Rip Van Winkle, I too had been
asleep for a number of years without realizing it. When I recognized to
what extent Christians were misinterpreting the Bible, it shocked me.
But more importantly, it was a blessing…it educated me.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Jesus Has Been Edited</strong></h2>
In our Sunday school class we’re reading <strong>Not a Fan </strong>by
Kyle Idleman. At one point early on the author states: “They [so-called
Christians] have never heard the unedited version of what Jesus taught
about following him.” That statement is so true.<br />
The story of Jesus is a love story. But it is <strong>a law story</strong> as well. If you doubt this, consult your Bible. The word “law” is used <strong>forty times</strong> in
the Gospels (KJV). There is an entire subtext in the narrative of Jesus
Christ which you cannot possibly appreciate until you are grounded in
common law. Meanwhile, your pastor cannot explain it to you because
(more than likely) he also lacks training in common law.<br />
<strong>The legal story of Jesus has been edited out</strong> via
institutionalized complicity. Christian pastors have been raised within
the same educational system as you and I; a system which renders people
functionally illiterate regarding basic law. Hopefully, this article
will help bring to light the dreadful consequences that can result when
people fill the void of their personal ignorance with concepts derived
from personal predilection.<br />
<h2>
The Big Secret</h2>
<div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_1307" style="width: 360px;">
<img alt="sinful Christians love their ignorance more than Jesus" class="size-full wp-image-1307 " src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/hands-over-eyes.jpg?w=640" title="sinful Christians love their ignorance more than Jesus" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
the big secret</div>
</div>
The big secret that no one wants to know (especially Christians
themselves) is that the number one obstacle preventing God’s Kingdom
from manifesting on Earth has been SINFUL CHRISTIANS.<br />
It is the sincerely sinful Christians who wring their hands and
definitively pronounce without a shred of doubt, that Satan’s dominance
on Earth is inevitable. They claim that the Book of Revelation is proof.<br />
Nothing could be further from the truth.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Revelation about the Book of</strong></h2>
Did you know <strong>there are FOUR major interpretations of the Book of Revelation?</strong><br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism">Preterism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_%28Christian_eschatology%29">Idealism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_%28Christianity%29">Historicism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28Christianity%29">Futurism</a></li>
</ol>
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28Christianity%29">Christian Futurism</a> interpretation is <strong>the newest</strong> and the one upon which rapture theology is founded. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was <strong>developed in the 1830s</strong> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby" title="John Nelson Darby">John Nelson Darby</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren" title="Plymouth Brethren">Plymouth Brethren</a> and a young girl, <a href="http://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/1975_macpherson_incredible-coverup.html">Margaret McDonald</a>.<br />
In other words, the doctrine of the rapture is relatively MODERN. So
apparently, American Christians are a lot smarter than the Christians
who, for seventeen centuries throughout the world, failed to discover
the rapture interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps that might be because
the word “rapture” does not even exist in the King James Bible. More
importantly, rapture eschatology was established by means of doctrinal
LIBERALISM and the visions of a young girl. Need I say more? Don’t take
my word for it. Check it out for yourself <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture">RIGHT HERE</a>, <a href="http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/rapture.htm">HERE</a> <a href="http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm">and ESPECIALLY HERE</a>.<br />
<img alt="There are FOUR major interpretations of the Book of Revelation" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1310" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/rev-for-dummiies.jpg?w=640" title="There are FOUR major interpretations of the Book of Revelation" />It
turns out the assertion that Satan’s rule is inevitable is…how can I
put this delicately… a pile of rubbish promulgated by Christians who,
when God said “brains” thought he said “trains” and have been “off
track” ever since.<br />
Actually, the Satanic scheme for a one world government can be EASILY
foiled, provided that purported Christians pick up their cross and
follow Jesus NOW.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Many Are Called But Fewer Are Chosen</strong></h2>
There is work to be done. That work does not consist of scarfing down
burgers and watching television. You have been deliberately misled by a
group of evil people who have as their goal nothing less than the total
destruction of Christianity. You must REPENT of your American
miss-education and strive to learn the additional knowledge that was
withheld from you by the wicked enemies of Christendom. Now is the time
for you to truly die and be reborn.<br />
The fallacious interpretations of Romans 13 were crafted by Satanists
who intend to replace worship of God with worship of the State. Sadly
these STATIST LIES have been gleefully promulgated by willfully ignorant
Christians. Yes, it is the CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES who have cooperated
with Satan and it is high time for them to reform their sinful,
disobedience to Jesus. Christ is the truth and the light. Authentic
Christianity does not tolerate ignorance. You must REPENT of your
darkness and come into the light.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #993300;">Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. –Luke 11:35</span></blockquote>
The Romans 13 Fallacy is just that…a fallacy. Remove yourself from the rubbish pile of Christian black holes who wallow in <strong>willful darkness</strong>, blaming the sins of the world and their apathy on their favorite scapegoat…Satan.<br />
<img alt="Church State" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-1331" height="221" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/church-state1.jpg?w=300&h=221" title="Church State" width="300" />The
only power Satan has over America is the power We the People gave him.
God’s Kingdom will descend upon Earth as soon as Christians fulfill
their moral responsibility to <strong>enforce God’s Natural Order over America.</strong><br />
Christians must once again treat their Constitution with the same
respect and dignity as they treat their Bible. The two go hand in hand
and are inseparable…God and Country. You are a Christian AND a citizen.
For years American Christians have put their citizenship on the back
burner and the consequences have been utterly devastating!<br />
<h2>
<strong>Forsake Evil Elections</strong></h2>
When Christians vote for the lesser of two evils, they are intentionally participating in Satan worship. They are knowingly <strong>voting for evil.</strong>
The idea that one candidate is the lesser evil is somehow supposed to
make it OK in God’s eyes. IMHO, that’s just plumb crazy.<br />
Americans are not going to vote their way out of the problems which
have resulted from their long-term decadence and sloth. We the People
actually have THREE VOTES in America. Voting in an election is the least
important of these and my guess is that you do not know what the other
two votes are…am I right?<br />
In a land where Christians are so far removed from Jesus that they
cannot even discern when God’s Natural Order has been completely
compromised, it doesn’t matter who is elected, the outcome will always
be the same…more evil. No amount of prayer is going to change that.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Get Back to Basics</strong></h2>
<div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_1226" style="width: 283px;">
<img alt="Be faithful to your ancestors" class="size-full wp-image-1226 " src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/westward-pioneers.jpg?w=640" title="Be faithful to your ancestors" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
Be faithful to your ancestors</div>
</div>
If you want to pray for something…pray that you will humble yourself
enough to admit that you have been wrong, that you have been foolish,
that you have been irresponsible to your duties and that you have a LOT
to learn about being a righteous American citizen.<br />
Pray that somehow you will face the facts and admit that you have no
one else to blame but yourself and that the time to repent of your
ignorance is RIGHT NOW.<br />
<ul>
<li>When was the last time you read the Bible?</li>
<li>When was the last time you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?</li>
</ul>
Your ancestors knew them BOTH but you do not. And America has paid the disastrous costs.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Class Is In Session, You Are NOT Excused</strong></h2>
<div class="wp-caption alignleft" id="attachment_1318" style="width: 310px;">
<img alt="It's still EVIL" class="size-medium wp-image-1318 " height="160" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/voting-for-the-lesser.jpg?w=300&h=160" title="It's still EVIL" width="300" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
Vote Conservatively – DON’T VOTE</div>
</div>
I have a friend who loves to blame “the liberals.” There can be nothing more <strong>liberal</strong> than Christians abdicating their moral and ethical responsibilities to non-believers. There can be nothing more <strong>liberal</strong>
than betraying everything your ancestors fought and died to preserve
because you’re too apathetic to become an informed citizen. There can be
nothing more <strong>liberal</strong> than permitting the wholesale
perversion of God’s Natural Order by living in complete denial of it.
God’s Kingdom on Earth begins with you. It is time for repentance and
you are NOT excused.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Pastors Must Become Informed</strong></h2>
As I noted in the beginning of this article, before I did my own
research I read many treatises on this subject written by pastors and
none of them seemed to get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps, now you
can understand the reason why. <strong>Not one pastor cited the laws of America.</strong> My best guess is that <strong>they were unable to.</strong> So we have a HUGE problem in America. Pastors are ignorant of common law and therefore cannot teach it to their congregations.<br />
By the way, common law (basic law) is derived STRAIGHT FROM THE
BIBLE. There is no excuse on earth for pastors not to study common law.
Any pastor who objects to studying common law is basically objecting to
studying the Bible. It is an <strong>indefensible</strong> argument.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Reformation of America Begins With You</strong></h2>
<img alt="Liberty in Christ" class="alignright size-full wp-image-1328" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/christian-takeover1.jpg?w=640" title="Liberty in Christ" />The
whole of what has gone wrong cannot be covered in merely this one
article, but know this…all of the trouble that America is now going
through has occurred as a result of evil men replacing the original law
of America (Biblically-based common law) with another type of law <strong>that isn’t actually law!</strong><br />
They were able to do this because Christians have failed to use their
common sense. It should be obvious to anyone who knows the story
about Judas betraying Jesus for a few pieces of silver that America can
be (and some would say has been) betrayed for a price as well.<br />
<h2>
<strong>Cut the Cord of Dependency</strong></h2>
American Christians can no longer afford to sit on their rump,
twiddle their thumbs and addictively depend upon Judases to save our
country. We must depend upon God acting through us. We cannot correct
what has happened to The United States unless we comprehend the true
facts and rectify the sinful sloth that dragged us down into
this quagmire in the first place. We cannot re-institute Biblical law
while possessing no mastery of it. We cannot wait for others to do this
for us. That approach has been tried and has failed miserably.<br />
You are not going to be able to solve this problem with a donation or
a vote. You’re going to have to put your nose to the grindstone and
work hard to acquire knowledge that was intentionally denied to you.
We’re not talking about you becoming a lawyer…God forbid. Lawyers adhere
to non-Biblical statutes which need to be abolished. No, we’re simply
talking about gaining enough basic knowledge so that we can re-institute
<strong>God’s Law</strong> in the courts of America. If Christians will not perform their patriotic duty…then WHO WILL?<br />
<h1>
<strong>Summary</strong></h1>
<ol style="text-align: center;">
<li style="text-align: left;">“Render Unto Caesar…Honor the King, etc.”
is apples and oranges. We do not have Caesars, Kings, whatever. Please
stop talking like an idiot.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Government officials are servants NOT higher powers. <strong>God’s Laws</strong> <strong>are the higher powers.</strong>
You have been promoting a demonic perversion of God’s Natural Order.
Please curtail your blasphemy. God is not amused. The servants are NOT
the masters.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">The <strong>legal title</strong> of “US citizen” is a satanic slave trap. The full explanation of this is available to earnest seekers at <strong><a href="http://youdaslave.wordpress.com/">You Da Slave</a></strong>.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">The American educational system deliberately failed to teach you Biblical common law and only YOU can rectify that.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;"><strong>The secret to fixing America is re-instituting God’s Law in the Courts.</strong>
<div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_1236" style="width: 255px;">
<img alt="Take control of the courts!" class="size-full wp-image-1236 " src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/judge4.jpg?w=640" title="Take control of the courts!" /><div class="wp-caption-text">
Target Satan’s stronghold – the courts</div>
</div>
<ul>
<li>A COURT ruled that Prayer must be abolished from schools.</li>
<li>A COURT decided that Christian nativity scenes could not be displayed in public.</li>
<li>A COURT passed Rowe v. Wade.</li>
<li>Christianity is under attack everywhere. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">But Christianity is being STRUCK DOWN in the courts.</span></li>
<li>Forget about elections…TAKE CONTROL OF THE COURTS!</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Your ignorance and sloth has caused you to overlook <strong>the most powerful weapon available to you.</strong></li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Christians cannot take control of the courts without investing the time necessary to gain a working knowledge of common law.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">If Christians will not take control of the courts then the courts will be ruled by Satan and America will be lost.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Christian pastors have a duty to learn
common law, which is derived from the Bible. Any pastor unwilling to
fulfill his patriotic duty to save America is working for Satan. This
must become the new litmus test for authentic pastorship.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Be faithful to your ancestors and all of
the sacrifices they made on your behalf. If it were not for those
sacrifices, you would not be here today.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Remember…God and Country. A country is a wasteland without God. <strong>But your progeny will have no place to worship God without a country.</strong></li>
<li style="text-align: left;">For years, Christians have organized weekly Bible study. It is high time for them to organize weekly Constitution study.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<img alt="If it were not for those sacrifices, you would not be here today." class="size-full wp-image-1243 aligncenter" src="http://shazereverquar.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/lincoln.jpg?w=640" title="If it were not for those sacrifices, you would not be here today." /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #993300;">Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat…</span></h3>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
“Ignorance of the facts excuses, ignorance of the law does not.”</h2>
<div align="center">
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Maxims of Law</div>
<h1 class="entry-title">
<br /></h1>
InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-50123461031100425652012-09-08T23:06:00.002-07:002012-09-08T23:06:42.659-07:00The Attitude of an Anarchist<div align="center">
<br /></div>
<h1 align="center">
<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/finnigan-t2.1.1.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: x-large;">The Attitude of an Anarchist</span></b></span></a></h1>
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><br />by
<a href="mailto:finns79@gmail.com">Tom Finnigan</a></span></b></span></b></span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><i>Recently
by Tom Finnigan: <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/finnigan-t1.1.1.html">The
Simpsons Against the State</a></i></span></span></div>
<div align="center">
</div>
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 315px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="15"> </td>
<td>
<div align="right">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">
</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="15"> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">Anarchy is
about attitude as much as philosophy. Below is a contrast between
a conservative attitude toward government and the anarchist’s attitude
toward government. Do you have the attitude of an anarchist? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">Conservatives
show deference toward political authority; anarchists show defiance
toward political authority. Conservatives respect politicians; anarchists
revile politicians. Conservatives see voting as their patriotic
duty; anarchists see voting as a waste of time. Conservatives feel
an emotional attachment to democracy; anarchists think democracy
is a farce. Conservatives think the Constitution is sacred; anarchists
think the Constitution is a dead letter. Conservatives would feel
honored to meet the President; anarchists would feel like showering
after meeting the President. Conservatives love Ronald Reagan because
he believed in smaller government; anarchists despise Ronald Reagan
because he enlarged the government. Conservatives see sex scandals
as an embarrassment to the nation; anarchists see sex scandals as
entertainment for the nation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">Conservatives
take pride in U.S. history; anarchists deconstruct U.S. history.
Conservatives are moved when they hear the National Anthem; anarchists
just want to start the game already. Conservatives pledge allegiance
to the United States of America; anarchists </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership"><span style="font-size: small;">declare
independence</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> from the United States of America.
Conservatives think unity is important; anarchists think unity is
dangerous. Conservatives detest draft dodgers; anarchists admire
draft dodgers. Conservatives grieve for soldiers killed in wars;
anarchists grieve for civilians killed in wars. Conservatives disparage
conscientious objectors; anarchists are conscientious objectors.
Conservatives think dissent is unpatriotic; anarchists think dissent
is the highest form of patriotism. Conservatives ridicule conspiracy
theorists; anarchists are conspiracy theorists.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">Conservatives
fear an out-out-of-control population; anarchists fear an out-of-control
government. Conservatives think drugs are destroying society; anarchists
think the war on drugs is destroying society. Conservatives respect
government law; anarchists respect natural law. Conservatives think
it’s wrong for people to pick and choose what laws they want to
obey; anarchists feel a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.
Anarchists might help a teenager trying to score some beer; conservatives
would threaten to call the cops. Conservatives worry about what
their neighbors do behind closed doors; anarchists worry about what
cops and prosecutors do behind closed doors." Conservatives think
everyone should pay their taxes; anarchists think no one should
pay their taxes. Anarchists feel excited about breaking the law;
conservatives feel guilty about breaking the law. Conservatives
feel safe in the presence of law enforcement; anarchists feel threatened
in the presence of law enforcement. Conservatives grieve for the
federal agents killed during the </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><a href="http://www.waco93.com/"><span style="font-size: small;">Waco
siege</span></a><span style="font-size: small;">; anarchists grieve for the civilians
killed during the Waco siege. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">Conservatives
fear instability; anarchists fear tyranny. Conservatives value order;
anarchists value freedom. Conservatives think about what’s practical;
anarchists think about what’s right. Conservatives want to take
over the State; anarchists want to smash the State. Conservatives
want reform; anarchists want revolution. Conservatives fear extremists;
anarchists are extremists. Conservatives take interest in elections,
budget proposals, and constitutional amendments; anarchists take
interest in secession, nullification, and civil disobedience. Conservatives
worry about what would replace the existing political order; anarchists
are willing to roll the dice. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">The attitude
of an anarchist can be summarized as follows: contempt for politicians;
rejection of nationalism; disrespect for the law; and a willingness
to make radical changes to the status quo. If you share these attitudes,
you might be an anarchist. If you reject the philosophy of anarchism,
you should still consider adopting the attitude of an anarchist
if you want liberty. Attitude is more important than philosophy
when it comes to rousing the masses from their slumber. Eastern
Europeans did not erupt against communism because they had recently
learned about Mises’ economic calculation argument. They did it
because they were tired of living in a police state and weren’t
going to take it anymore. The attitude of an anarchist says, "Don’t
tread on me." It is inspiring. It is contagious. It is the
hope of humanity. </span><br />
<div align="right">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;"><i>September
8, 2012</i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;"><i>Tom Finnigan
[<a href="mailto:finns79@gmail.com">send him mail</a>] lives in
Atlanta, Georgia. </i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: x-small;">Copyright
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.</span>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-55499491243610538012012-08-24T17:08:00.001-07:002012-08-24T17:16:48.370-07:00Jesus Is an Anarchist<table border="0" style="height: 169px; width: 66%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td height="92" width="100%"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="25" width="100%"><div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is--otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="25" width="100%"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDo-_ygC775nGiaTcDdQkuTMWTvcMEuWQziZ1Inu16hRyuMj52R2oC9q0wdNnQ672fYO8X9FL_FaiRJ-MfIhYhgIqacezI2XnNLur1uTkuOsDCQDHWoMmdqOT5wGR_GVqIIJj3Brfx_P3o/s400/anarchy.PNG" width="386" /><a href="http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html" target="_blank">http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html</a></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium;">by <a class="myStyle" href="mailto:vonchloride@yahoo.com">James
Redford</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="17" width="100%"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can't be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?</span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But you read
correctly, and I will demonstrate exactly that. At this point you may
be incredulous, but I assure you that I am quite serious. If you are a
Christian and find the above title at all hard to believe then you of
all people owe it to yourself to find out what the basis of this charge
is, for if the above comes as news to you then you still have much to
learn about Jesus and about the most vitally important struggle which
has plagued mankind since the dawn of history: mankind's continuing
struggle between freedom and slavery, between value producers and the
violent parasitical elite, between peace and war, between truth and
deception. This is the central struggle which defines mankind's history
and, sadly, continues to do so. As Christians and as people in general,
what we choose to believe and accept as the truth is equally as vitally
important, for ultimately it is people's beliefs about the world that
will shape and determine what outcomes transpire in the world. If the
mass of people believe in political falsehoods and deceptions then
mankind will continue to repeat the same gruesome mistakes, as it does
presently, and the aforementioned struggle will continue to be no closer
to a desirable resolution. Genuine change must first come by changing
one's mind, and if what one had believed before was in error then one
cannot expect good results to proceed forth from it. And all change
starts with the individual. You can help change the world by simply
changing your mind. All I ask of you is to believe in the truth--know
the truth and the truth will make you free (John 8:32). </span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It is the
purpose of this document to demonstrate the above claim, and if you are a
Christian then I submit that it should be your task to honestly
consider what is presented here, for if the above claim comes as a
surprise then I will show that what you thought you knew about Jesus was
not the whole story: Jesus is far more radical than many would have you
believe, and for good reason--it threatens the status quo. For the
consequence of this truth becoming understood and accepted by even
one-tenth of the population would be quite dramatic indeed: governments
would topple like so many dominoes. For as the 16th century Frenchman
Étienne de la Boétie observed in <i>The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude</i> (<a class="myStyle" href="http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/laboetie.html">http://www.blancmange.net/ tmh/articles/laboetie.html</a>),
all governments ultimately rest on the consent of the governed, even
totalitarian dictatorships. Now this "consent" does not have to be in
the form of active promotion and support of the State, it could simply
be in the form of hopeless resignation, such as accepting the canard
"nothing's as sure as death and taxes." All governments can only exist
because the majority--in one form or another--accept them as at least
being inevitable. They believe in the deception that even though
government may be evil that it is nevertheless a necessary evil, and
therefore cannot conceive of a better alternative. But if such were true
then Jesus Christ's whole message is a fallacy. But such is not the
truth, there is an alternative: liberty. And I will show that Jesus has
called us to liberty, and that liberty and Christ's message are
incompatible with government.</span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">You may
wonder where I got the one-tenth figure from in the above if all
governments require the acceptance of their rule by the majority of
their population. Again, the reason is because this acceptance doesn't
have to be active support but merely resigned, as it usually is. If just
one-tenth of the population strongly believed that government was
itself the greatest moral evil and that there was a better alternative
it would be enough to turn the tide. Since most people are followers and
uncritically accept the reigning political opinions, those who do not
accept the status quo and who are able to form and articulate a critical
alternative will come to be the intellectual leaders by default when
the popular regime suffers a crisis and people begin to look for
alternatives. If the history of governments teach us anything it is that
such crisis is a regular occurrence, for governments by their nature
tend toward instability. If it be asked Why then do we still have
government?, it is here answered that it is because no viable
alternative to government has been articulated by a critical mass at
such a crisis, in that most people throughout history have accepted the
deception that government is a necessary evil and could not conceive a
better alternative.</span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Now I will
articulate that better alternative, the one that Christ commanded us. I
will show that Jesus and His message are necessarily anarchistic. And
what better place to start than in the beginning?:</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus's
Very Life Began in an Act of Defiance to Government (And Would Later
End in Defiance to Government)</span> </h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">If it were
not for Joseph and Mary's intentional act of defying that which they
knew to be king Herod the Great's will and escaping with baby Jesus from
out of Herod's mid as fugitives to the land of Egypt then Jesus would
have been mercilessly killed and needless to say His ministry and the
fulfillment of Scripture would have never come about. Thus in the most
fundamental of regards, there is a great antagonism from the very start
between Jesus and government (to say the least): Jesus was born into the
world as a criminal and would latter be killed as a criminal--a
criminal as so regarded by the government, that is. And what was baby
Jesus's crime? From Matthew 2:1-6 we find the answer:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Now
after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the
king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where
is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in
the East and have come to worship Him." When Herod the king heard this,
he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered
all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of
them where the Christ was to be born. So they said to him, "In
Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 'But you,
Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of
Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people
Israel.' " (NKJV, as elsewhere unless noted otherwise.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So here we
learn that Herod became troubled at the thought that there might be
someone else that people would come to regard as their king other than
Herod. Herod regarded Jesus as a threat to his power: was his fear
unjustified? It is my judgement and this document's central thesis that
Herod was correct in his assessment of Jesus as being a threat to his
power--although not just to Herod as an individual but to all that Herod
represents, in a word: government; along with the unholy usurpation,
deception and subjugation of people that it necessarily entails. For as I
will show, Jesus's Kingdom is to be the functional opposite of any
Earth-bound kingdom which has ever existed. And for government, this is
the ultimate crime of which Jesus was guilty, and which required His
extermination.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Here we read of this pivotal act of holy defiance to government, without which there would be no Christ as we know of:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
2:13-15: Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and
His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for
Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him." When he arose, he took
the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was
there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called
My Son."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As well, so
enraged was Herod upon learning that the wise men had disobeyed his
order to report back to him on the location of baby Jesus that he
ordered the extermination of all the male children in Bethlehem and the
surrounding areas from age two and younger, all in the hopes that baby
Jesus would be among the slaughtered (Matt. 2:12,16-18). It was only
after king Herod the Great had perished that Joseph brought his family
out of the land of Egypt, and then only to Nazareth as Herod's son
Archelaus was then reigning over Judea (Matt. 2:19-23).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">How very considerate indeed Jesus was being when He advised His disciples in Mark 8:15:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Then He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">At the time
Jesus offered the above advice He would have been referring to Herod
Antipas. Jesus would later be mocked and ridiculed by Herod Antipas
before finally being put to death as a common criminal by the Roman
government (Luke 23:8-12). In handling the case of Jesus, Herod Antipas
asked Jesus many questions, but Jesus refused to answer any of Herod's
questions (Luke 23:9). Thus, not only did Jesus's very life begin in an
act of holy defiance to government but it would also end in holy
defiance to government. It was also Herod Antipas who beheaded John the
Baptist (Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The story of
Jesus's life can in part be summed up as suffering through this unjust
Satanic world system for having preached the Truth, with government
being chief among the culprits of this Satanic world system. All one has
to do is review the life story of Jesus to plainly see that
government--far from being instituted by God--is and has been a demonic
tool of Satan used to oppress the righteous. And I will demonstrate that
Jesus and the early Church leaders--as recorded the Bible--knew this to
be the case and preached the same. The instrument which Satan used in
an attempt to snuff-out that Truth in an act of deicide was
government--from the beginning of Jesus's life to the very end, it was
government which sought to exterminate this most dangerous threat of all
to its power.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The
Golden Rule Unavoidably Results in Anarchism</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus commanded us that in all things we are to treat others as we would want others to treat us. Thus:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I
did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you,
till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means
pass from the law till all is fulfilled."</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
7:12: [...] "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to
them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">By saying
that this commandment is "the Law and the Prophets" Jesus is saying that
by following this one commandment that one is thereby fulfilling the
Law of Moses and the principles of the Prophets--in other words Jesus is
saying that it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to the proper
ethic of social relations. This ultimate social ethic which Jesus
commanded everyone to follow is commonly known as the Golden Rule.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But if
indeed Jesus actually meant what He said when He spoke these words--and
He most certainly did--then this alone is more than enough to prove that
Jesus is of necessity an anarchist, and not just any kind of anarchist,
but a libertarian, free-market anarchist in particular.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The reason
this would necessarily have to be the case is because it is impossible
for any actual government to actually abide by the Golden Rule even in
theory, let alone in practice. All governments must of necessity violate
the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be governments but would be
something else instead.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">To
understand why this is unalterably true, one must first have a clear and
precise understanding of just what a "government" is and just what it
is not, i.e., the distinguishing characteristics of Government which
differentiates it from all other things that are not Governments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">(When the
word is used in the sense above) Government (i.e., a State) is that
organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally
successful at maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over ultimate
control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)--this is a
feature of all Governments; as well, historically speaking it has always
been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally
obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for
services rendered but by coercion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It is here
where we find why it is quite impossible for any government to actually
abide by Jesus's ultimate commandment. The reason quite simply is
because all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their
subjects to do to them. That is, all governments, in order to be a
government, must enforce a coercive monopoly on ultimate control of the
law--this is a necessary feature of all governments. All governments set
up courts and enforce control over ultimate judicial decision, while
outlawing others from engaging in the same practice. Thus, for example,
if a group of people become dissatisfied with the judicial services that
the government is providing and decide to set up shop offering their
own private arbitration and protection services on the market without
seeking the permission of the government to do so then the government
will attack these people and put an end to their competitive judicial
services, and would thereby enforce its monopoly on ultimate control
over the law. If the government failed to enforce its monopoly on
ultimate control over the law then it would cease to be a government,
but would instead become just another private protection agency offering
its services on a competitive market.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The above
scenario leaves out something extremely vital though, as it merely
assumes that this government in question somehow obtains its revenue by
voluntary contribution and not by coercion. Yet all actual governments
throughout history have obtained their revenue not by voluntary
contribution or payment for contracted services but by coercion. Thus
all governments throughout history steal and extort wealth from their
subjects which they call "taxes," yet at the same time governments make
it illegal for their subjects to steal from each other or from the
government. Thus here again in taxes we see that historically all
governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do
to them. I say "historically" because while although all governments
throughout history have found it necessary to fund their operations
through theft and extortion, it is not necessarily the case that all
governments in theory must be supported by taxes: one could imagine that
most people in a certain society simply voluntarily donate their money
to fund a government, as unlikely as that possibility is in practice. So
while although a monopoly on ultimate control of the law is a logical
necessity of all governments, taxes are not--taxes have simply been a
practical necessity throughout all of history in order for governments
to function.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And so we
find that all governments must of necessity continuously violate Jesus's
ultimate social commandment even to simply exist. The principle which
all governments are founded upon and follow may properly be termed the
"Luciferian Principle." This logically follows, because to not follow
the Golden Rule is to do the opposite of the Golden Rule: i.e., rather
than doing to others what you would want others to do to you, you would
instead be doing to others what you do <i>not</i> want others to do to
you. Hence, if we may term the Golden Rule the "Christ Principle," or
otherwise the "Christian Principle," then it certainly follows that the
opposite of this principle would properly be termed the "Luciferian
Principle": which is none other than doing to others what you do <i>not</i> want others to do to you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It is for
this reason that anyone that takes Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment
seriously must of necessity advocate the abolition of all Earthly
governments wherever and whenever they may exist, as governments are
necessarily incompatible with Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment and
diametrically opposed to it. In passing, it's important for me to
distinguish "Earthly governments" from what is sometimes called the
"Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of Christ." In the above discussion I
have been analyzing governments as they are operated by men here on
Earth--but as I will show, the "Kingdom" which Christ is to establish on
Earth will be the functional and operational opposite of any kingdom
which has ever existed on Earth before, i.e., it won't actually be a
government in the sense in which I defined above and will in fact be
perfectly consistent with the Golden Rule.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Above I also
stated that Jesus's commandment of the Golden Rule not only proves that
He is an anarchist, but also necessarily a libertarian, or free market,
anarchist to be specific. The reason that this is so is because an
anarchist is simply someone who desires no government to exist: only
this and nothing more. Thus, one could desire no government to exist and
yet still feel that it is alright to, say, slap people upside the head
for no reason. Yet someone who follows the Golden Rule must not do to
others what they do not want others to do to them--this necessarily
means that one must respect the autonomy of other people's person and
their just property: which unavoidably leads to not just anarchism, as
was demonstrated above, but also to the free-market, voluntarist,
libertarian order. The rigorous proof of this is that everyone, by
definition, objects to others aggressing against what they regard as
their own property. If such were not the case then, by definition, such
action would not be an aggression but a voluntary action. But ultimately
<i>all</i> just property titles can be traced back by way of voluntary
transactions (which would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to
the homesteading of unused resources; or (2) in the case in which such
resources were expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or his
heir(s) can no longer be identified or are deceased, where the first
non-aggressor possesses the resource (which can then be considered
another form of homesteading). Thus, for anyone to come into possession
of property which either was not homesteaded by themselves or which was
not obtained by a voluntary transaction would thereby be violating the
Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they are obtaining a good by
involuntary means from another who can trace their possession of the
resource either to direct homesteading or through voluntary transactions
leading back to homesteading (i.e., of either of the two types given
above). Yet, by definition, this aggressor would not want others to take
his property against his will which he had come into possession of by
voluntary means--and surely everyone possesses such property, even if it
is just their own body.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Hence, if
Jesus was serious about the Golden Rule--and He most certainly was--then
it necessarily means that He is a consistent libertarian, as the Golden
Rule as a political ethic is completely congruent with the libertarian
Non-Aggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group of people may
initiate the use of force against another, or threaten to initiate force
against another.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus
does not Respect the Person of Men</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">According to
the Bible, every person is equally subject to the commands of God, and
one does not become exempt from God's law simply because one has managed
to receive some sort of title of nobility. We are instructed to treat
everyone by the same law. Yet this automatically rules out the
possibility that governments could ever be legitimate, as they can only
exist do to a privilege of monopoly on the ultimate control over the law
which they enforce while excluding all competitors. As well, they
collect taxes, which they call "theft" and "extortion" if anyone else
engages in the same behavior against them or others.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As it is
recorded in the Gospels, it seems that the people that knew of Jesus in
His day were aware that He did not regard the person of men (i.e.,
titles of nobility, etc.):</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
22:16: And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying,
"Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth;
nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men."
(See also Mark 12:14.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet this
would have been merely conforming to people's expectation that Jesus
would have been following the Old Testament commands not to regard the
person of men (Lev 19:15; Deu. 1:17; 16:19; Job 32:21; 34:19; Prov.
28:21.). But that this is indeed the case was confirmed in the apostles'
writings:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Galatians
2:6: But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it
makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for
those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">James
2:8,9: If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture,
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; but if you show
partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as
transgressors. (See also 1 Peter 1:16.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet consider
what James's above admonition means as it concerns Jesus's ultimate
ethical command of the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31). If we as
Christians were to take Jesus's command seriously and apply it to
everyone without partiality, then it would necessarily require that we
demand the abolition of all governments wherever they may exist, as they
can only exist by a continuous violation of the Golden Rule (see
above).</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus
on Taxes: Nothing is (Rightly) Caesar's!</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The story of
Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Matt.
22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) is commonly misrepresented as
His commanding us to give to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e.,
to pay taxes to government) as--it is assumed--the denari are Caesar's,
being that they have Caesar's image and name on them. But Jesus never
said that this was so! What Jesus did say though was an ingenious case
of rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which
would have interfered with Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as
well as His own previous predictions of betrayal.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">When the
Pharisees asked Him whether or not it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar
they did so as a ruse in the hopes of being able to either have Him
arrested as a rebel by the Roman authorities or to have Him discredited
in the eyes of His followers. At this time in Israel's history it was an
occupied territory of the Roman Empire, and taxes--which were being
used to support this occupation--were much hated by the mass of the
common Jews. Thus, this question was a
clever Catch-22 posed to Jesus by the Pharisees: if Jesus answered that
it <i>is not</i> lawful then the Pharisees would have Him put away, but if He answered that it <i>is</i>
lawful then He would appear to be supporting the subjection of the
Jewish people by a foreign power. Luke 20:20 makes the Pharisees' intent
in asking this question quite clear:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So
they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that
they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and
the authority of the governor.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Thus, Jesus
was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Of the Scripture
prophecies which would have gone unfulfilled had He answered that it was
fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested because of it are the
betrayal by Judas (Psalm 41:9; Zech. 11:12,13), and His betrayer
replaced (Psalm 109:8--see Acts 1:20); see also Acts 1:15-26 and Psalm
69:25. Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"Men
and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit
spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide
to those who arrested Jesus."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In Matt.
26:54,56 and Mark 14:49 Jesus testifies to this exact same thing after
He was betrayed by Judas. As well, Jesus Himself twice foretold of His
betrayal before He was asked the question on taxes--see Matt. 17:22;
20:18; Mark 9:31; 10:33; and Luke 9:44; 19:31. See also John 13:18-30,
which testifies to the necessity of the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, as
Jesus here foretells of His betrayal by Judas.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In addition,
it appears that the only reason Jesus
paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) as told in Matt.
17:24-27 was so as not to stir up trouble which would have interfered
with the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and Jesus's previous
prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22--neither of which
would have been fulfilled had Jesus not
paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports
this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . ."
(NKJV), which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause
trouble" (CEV). He said this after in effect saying that those who pay
customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26)--yet one reason Jesus came was
to call us to liberty (Luke 4:18; Gal. 4:7; 5:1,13,14; 1 Cor. 7:23; 2
Cor. 3:17; James 1:25; 2:12).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It should be
remembered in all of this that it was Jesus Himself who told us
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be
wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16). Jesus was being
wise as a serpent as He never told us to pay taxes to Caesar, of which
He could have done and still fulfilled Scripture and His previous
predictions of betrayal. But the one thing He couldn't have told people
was that it was okay not to pay taxes as He would have been arrested on
the spot, and Scripture and His predictions of betrayal would have gone
unfulfilled. Yet the most important thing in all this is what Jesus <i>did not</i>
say. Jesus never said that all or any of the denari were Caesar's!
Jesus simply said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." But this just
begs the question, What is Caesar's? Simply because the denari have
Caesar's name and image on them no more make them his than one carving
their name into the back of a stolen TV set makes it
theirs. Yet everything Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion,
therefore nothing is rightly his.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Tax
Collectors are Sinners!</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">A further demonstration that Jesus considered the institution of taxation to be unjust is given in the below story:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
9:9-13: As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew
sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he arose
and followed Him. Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the
house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down
with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to
His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and
sinners?" When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well
have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn
what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come
to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (See also Mark
2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It's
important to point out here that Jesus actually made a stronger case
against the unrighteousness of tax collectors than the Pharisees
originally had in questioning Jesus's disciples about it: the Pharisees
actually separated the tax collectors from the sinners when they asked
"Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Yet when
Jesus heard this He answered the Pharisees by lumping the two groups
together under the category of sinners--thus: "For I did not come to
call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet since
this is the story of Matthew the tax collector being called to
repentance by Jesus we will do well to ask how it was that Matthew
obtained repentance. The answer: By first giving up tax collecting! And
from this beginning Matthew would thus go on to become one of Jesus's
twelve disciples.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">On Paul
and Romans 13 and Titus 3:1</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It is often
claimed that Christians are required to submit to government, as this is
supposedly what Paul commanded that we are supposed to do in Romans 13.
Thus:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Romans
13:1-7: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For
there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist
are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists
the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on
themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do
you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will
have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But
if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for
he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices
evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also
for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they
are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render
therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom
customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But in
actual fact Paul never does tell us in above excerpt from Romans 13 to
submit to government!--at least certainly not as they have existed on
Earth and are operated by men. In fact, Paul would be an outright,
boldfaced hypocrite were he to command anyone to do such a thing: for
Paul himself did not submit to government, and if he had then he would
not even have been alive to be able to write Romans 13. For Paul himself
disobeyed government, and it is a good thing that he did as we would
not even know of a Paul in the Bible had he not disobeyed government. As
when Paul was still only known as Saul he escaped from the city of
Damascus as he knew that the governor of that city, acting under the
authority of Aretas the king, was coming with a garrison to arrest him
in order that he be executed. This was right after Saul's conversion to
Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. The Jews in Damascus, hearing of
Sauls conversion, plotted to kill him as a traitor to their cause in
persecuting the Christians. Saul was let out of a window in the wall of
Damascus under cover of night by some fellow disciples in Christ (see
Acts 9:23-25). In none of Paul's later writings does he divest himself,
or disassociate himself, from these actions that he took in knowingly
and purposely disobeying government: in fact, this very event is one of
the things that he later cites in demonstration of his unwavering
commitment to Christ (see 2
Cor. 12:22-33)!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Indeed, ever
since Paul's conversion to Jesus Christ, he spent the rest of his
entire life in rebellion against mortal governments, and would at
last--just as with Jesus before him--be executed by government, in this
case by having his head chopped off. Paul was continuously in and out of
prisons throughout his entire ministry for preaching the gospel of
Christ; he was lashed with stripes 39 times by the "authorities" for
preaching Christ; he was beaten with rods by the "authorities" for
preaching Christ; and none of these rebellions of his did he ever
disavow: indeed he cited them all as evidence of his commitment to Jesus
(again, see 2
Cor. 12:22-33)!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But even
more importantly, if Paul is saying in Romans 13 what many people have
said he meant, i.e., that people should obey mortal, Earthly
governments, then it is questionable whether Paul could even be a
genuine Christian. For as was pointed out above, Jesus would not even
have existed as we know of today had it not been for Joseph and Mary
intentionally disobeying king Herod the Great and escaping from his
reach when they knew that Herod desired to destroy baby Jesus (see Matt.
2:13,14). Thus, if indeed Paul meant in Romans 13 that we are to obey
Earthly governments then this would mean that Paul would rather have
Joseph and Mary obey king Herod the Great and turn baby Jesus over to be
killed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So what in the world is going on here with Paul and Romans 13? Is Paul a hypocrite? Is Paul being contradictory? Actually, <i>No</i>
to both. Once again, as with Jesus's answer to the question on taxes,
this is another ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection. Paul was
counting on the fact that most people who would be hostile to the
Christian church--the Roman "authorities" in particular--would, upon
reading Romans 13, naturally interpret it from the point of view of
legal positivism: i.e., that such people would take for granted that the
"governing authorities" and "rulers" spoken of must refer to the men
who operate the governments on Earth. But never does Paul anywhere say
that this is so! (<i>Legal positivism</i> is the doctrine that whichever
gang is best able to overpower others with arms and might and thereby
subjugate the populace and who then proceed to proclaim themselves the
"authority" are on that account the rightful "Authority.")</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But before
proceeding with the above analysis, what would the motive be for Paul to
include such rhetorical misdirection in his letter to the people at the
church of Rome? In answering this, it must be remembered that just as
with Jesus, Paul was not free to say just anything that he wanted. The
early Christians were a persecuted minority under the close surveillance
of the Roman government as a possible threat to its power. Here is
Biblical proof of this assertion written by Paul himself:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Galatians
2:4,5: And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in
(who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield
submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue
with you.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Paul never
intended that his letter to the Roman church be kept secret, and he knew
that it would be copied and distributed amongst the populace, and thus
inevitably it would fall into the hands of the Roman government,
especially considering that this letter was going directly into the
belly of the beast itself: the city of Rome. Thus by including this in
the letter to the church at Rome he would help put at ease the fears of
the Roman government so that the persecution of the Christians would not
be as severe and so that the more important task of the Church, that of
saving people's souls, could more easily continue unimpeded. But Paul
wrote it in such a way that a truly knowledgeable Christian at the time
would have no doubt as to what was actually meant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The Church
leaders at the time would have known that Paul obviously couldn't have
meant the people who control the mortal governments as they exist on
Earth when he referred to the "governing authorities" and "rulers" in
Romans 13, for that would have made Paul a shameless hypocrite and also
meant that he would desire that baby Jesus had been killed (for surely
the histories of Paul and Jesus's lives would have been fresh on their
minds). The only answer that can make any sense of this seeming riddle
is that one doesn't actually become a <i>true</i> "governing authority"
or "ruler" simply because one has managed by way of deception, terror,
murder and might to subjugate a certain population and then proceed to
thereby proclaim oneself the "King" or the "Authority" or the "Ruler."
Instead, what Paul is saying is that the only <i>true</i> and <i>real</i> authorities are only those that God appoints, i.e., one cannot become a <i>real</i>
authority or ruler in the eyes of God simply because through force of
arms one has managed to subjugate a population and then proclaim oneself
the potentate. Thus, by saying this Paul was actually rebuking the
supposed authority of the mortal governments as they exist on Earth and
are operated by men!</span> <br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"Let every
soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority
except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."
(Rom. 13:1.) leaves wide open the possibility that those who control the
mortal governments on Earth are not true authorities as appointed by
God. The fallacy most people make when encountering a statement such as
this is to unthinkingly and automatically assume that Paul must be
referring to the people in control of the mortal governments that exist
on Earth--for after all, don't these people who run these Earthly
governments call themselves the "governing authorities"? Do they not
teach their subjects from birth that they are the "rulers" and the
"authorities"? But when we factor in the life history of both Jesus and
Paul, then it can leave no room for doubt: Paul most certainly could not
have been referring in Romans 13 to the people who control the mortal
governments as they exist on Earth--otherwise Paul would be an outright
hypocrite as well as an advocate of deicide against baby Jesus. Indeed,
God Himself directly confirms this very thing:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But, some may inquire, what about Paul telling us to pay taxes in Romans 13:6-7? Thus:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Romans
13:6,7: For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's
ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to
all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs,
fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But does
Paul really tell us to pay taxes here? Again, just as with Jesus,
nowhere does Paul actually tell anyone to pay any taxes! Paul continues
with the rhetorical misdirection that he started in the beginning of
Romans 13, knowing--just as Jesus knew before him--that those who would
be hostile to the Christian church would automatically assume what they
are predisposed to assume: i.e., that the taxes and customs "due" are
due to those in control of the governments who levy them. But here Paul
was being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, as Paul never said
any such thing. For when Paul says "Render therefore to all their due:
taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs" this just begs the
question: to whom are taxes and customs due? The answer to which could
quite possibly be "No one." And this is precisely how Paul proceeds to
answer his own question-begging statement, in Romans 13:8-10:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Owe
no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another
has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit
adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not
bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other
commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love
your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore
love is the fulfillment of the law.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So there we
have it in no uncertain terms: Owe no one anything except to love one
another! Yet since when have taxes ever had the slightest thing to do
with love? As was explained above, all mortal governments throughout
history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which they call
"taxes," yet at the same time governments make it illegal for their
subjects to steal from each other or from the government. Thus in taxes
we see that historically all governments do to their subjects what they
outlaw their subjects to do to them. Thus, all Earthly, mortal
governments, by levying taxes, break the Golden Rule which Jesus
commanded everyone as the supreme law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In the
earlier discussion on Jesus and taxes we learned that when Jesus said
"Give on to Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the Lord that
which is the Lord's" he was, in effect, actually saying that one need
not give anything to Caesar: as nothing is rightly his, considering that
everything that Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And what of
Paul writing in Titus 3:1: "Remind them to be subject to rulers and
authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work"? As was clearly
demonstrated above, Paul was referring to the <i>true</i> higher
authorities as recognized by God, not to the diabolical, Satanic, mortal
governments as they have existed on Earth--as Paul spent his entire
ministry in rebellion against the Earth-bound, mortal "authorities," and
was at last put to death by them. (For other cases of righteous
disobedience to government in the Bible, see Exo. 1:15-2:3; 1 Sam.
19:10-18; Esther 4:16; Dan. 3:12-18; 6:10; Matt. 2:12-13; Acts 5:29;
9:25; 17:6-8; 2
Cor. 11:32,33.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And as
further proof of this, consider Paul's advice to Christians as regarding
being judged by what the government considers the "authority":</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1
Corinthians 6:1-8: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go
to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not
know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be
judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you
not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain
to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to
this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to
judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man
among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his
brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before
unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that
you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong?
Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do
wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Paul said
that the government judges "are least esteemed by the church to judge"!
It is clear that he considered them to be no authority at all!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But moreover, even Jesus didn't consider the Earthly, mortal "rulers" to be true rulers and authorities! Thus:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Mark
10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know
that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall
not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall
be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave
of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">By saying
this Jesus was in fact rebuking the supposed "authority" of the Earthly
"rulers"! Just because mortals on Earth may consider someone to be an
"authority" and "ruler" does not mean that God considers them to be so!</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">On Peter
and 1 Peter 2:13-18</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Another
Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists in an attempt to
demonstrate that people ought to submit to mortal government is 1 Peter
2:13-18:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Therefore
submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,
whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are
sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those
who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put
to silence the ignorance of foolish men--as free, yet not using liberty
as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love
the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be submissive to
your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to
the harsh.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But Peter
himself did not so submit! Peter and the apostles were arrested in
Jerusalem by the Sadducees for preaching the gospel of Jesus and brought
before the Sanhedrin court for questioning:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Acts
5:27-32: And when they had brought them, they set them before the
council. And the high priest asked them, saying, "Did we not strictly
command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled
Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on
us!" But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to
obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom
you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand
to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness
of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the
Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So here we
have it from Peter himself: We ought to obey God rather than men! Yet
Jesus already commanded that the ultimate Law is for everyone to treat
others as they themselves would want to be treated--therefore, according
to Peter, any command by men that are contrary to this ultimate Law are
automatically null and void.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Once again
one must consider that the Christians at this time were a persecuted
minority under the surveillance of the mortal "authorities" as possible
insurrectionists, and so statements like what is written in 1 Peter
2:13-18 were included to pacify such "authorities" so that the most
important task of saving people's souls could continue--yet, just as
Paul included an "escape clause" in Romans 13 ("Owe no one anything
except to love one another"), Peter also includes an escape clause
contained in 1 Peter 2:13-18, which is the 16th verse therein:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">For
this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the
ignorance of foolish men--[verse 16:] as free, yet not using liberty as a
cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The NIV
Bible translates verse 16 as "Live as free men, but do not use your
freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God." Most other
modern English Bible versions translate the beginning of this passage as
either "Live as free" or "Act as free." So in other words, when this is
combined with what Peter said in Acts 5:29, we can take the entire
passage of 1 Peter 2:13-18 to mean that we ought to obey all the
ordinances of men: except for all such ordinances that happen to
conflict with our God-given liberty and Jesus's ultimate
commandment--which is virtually every single one of them! But other than
that, do indeed obey every other ordinance of man, for in so doing one
will merely be obeying Jesus's commandment--in which case the ordinances
of man which one ought to obey are merely redundant!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Also, consider the following statement by Peter which some statists might try to construe in their favor:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">2
Peter 2:9,10: [...] then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of
temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of
judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the
lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous,
self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, [...]</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As has
already been pointed out, the statist fallacy when encountering such
statements is to automatically deem the "authorities" and "dignitaries"
spoken of in these cases as necessarily being the "authorities" and
"dignitaries" that the <i>positive law</i> (i.e., the government's law) so regards--but such cannot be the actual case, as it is written:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As well, Jesus Himself rebuked the supposed "authority" of the Earthly "rulers":</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Mark
10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know
that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall
not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall
be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave
of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many."</span>
</div>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The Ruler and
God of This World and Age which All Mortal Governments Worship is
Satan (A.K.A. Lucifer)</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The Bible is
quite explicit as to who it is that really controls all the mortal
governments on Earth, and which god is the god that the mortal rulers
worship:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Luke
4:4-8: Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all
the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to
Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has
been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if
You will worship before me, all will be Yours." And Jesus answered and
said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall
worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.' " (See also
Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This is one
of the offers Satan made to Christ during the forty days in which Satan
tempted Jesus, an event now sometimes referred to as the Temptation of
Christ. Satan wasn't lying when he made the above offer to Jesus: it was
an absolutely real offer that Satan would have delivered on. This is
necessarily the case, as Luke even writes in verse 2 of the above
chapter that here Jesus was "tempted for forty days by the devil"--thus,
this had to be a real offer or else it could hardly qualify as a real
temptation, as certainly Jesus would have known whether or not what
Satan said here was true: if what Satan was saying here were false then
Jesus would have already known that, and hence Satan's offer could not
have been the least bit tempting to Jesus.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">How true
indeed Satan was being when he said that all the kingdoms of the world
have been delivered to him, and that he gives them to whomever he
wishes: which are those who worship him as their God! All Earthly,
mortal potentates have quite literally made a pact with Satan!--every
last one of them has literally sold their soul to Satan in return for
Earthly power! As God spoke in Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings, but not by
Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And Jesus
later said on two separate occasions that Satan is the ruler of this
world--thus in John 12:31: "Now is the judgment of this world; now the
ruler of this world will be cast out." And in John 14:30: "I will no
longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he
has nothing in Me."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And Paul in two separate letters writes that Satan is the god and ruler of this age: </span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">2
Corinthians 4:3,4: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to
those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded,
who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine on them.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And in Ephesians 6:11,12:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Put
on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the
wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">All one has
to do to realize just how literal and true Satan, Jesus and Paul were
being when they made the above statements is to consider that more than
four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically
murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within
the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From
1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over
4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other
Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of
their own subjects since 1917. And Germany committed genocide against
some 16 million people--6 million of them Jews. (The preceding figures
are from Prof. R.J. Rummel's website: <a class="myStyle" href="http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills">http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills</a>.)
Over 800,000 Christian Tutsis in Rwanda were hacked to death with
machetes between April and July of 1994 by the Hutu-led military force
after the Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the early
1990s, of which disarmament decree the United Nations helped to enforce.
On several occasions, United Nations soldiers stationed in Rwanda
actually handed over helpless Tutsi Christians under their protection to
members of the Hutu military. They then stood by as their screaming
charges were unceremoniously hacked to pieces. This massacre happened
one year after the United Nations helped to put in a national ID card in
Rwanda, and it was that very national ID card system which the Hutus
used to track-down and identify the Christian Tutsis. Needless to say,
all of the subject populations of the above mass murders had been
disarmed beforehand.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The wars and
mass murders which the mortal governments routinely engage in are
literal human-sacrifice orgies that the Earthly rulers of those
governments offer up to appease their God Satan, a.k.a. Lucifer!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Government,
throughout all of recorded history, has been the most methodical and
efficient human-meat grinder to ever exist. It is a purely Satanical
machination masquerading as humanity's salvation, but has always
been--and forever will be so long as it exists--the scourge of mankind
and its decline.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus Defended
the Right to Freely Contract and Private Property Rights</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Besides the
Golden Rule which Jesus commanded as the ultimate social ethic, another
Biblical account of Jesus's teachings which clearly demonstrates His
attitude toward the institution of private property and the free and
voluntary trade thereof is given in His below Parable of the Workers in
the Vineyard:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
20:1-16: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out
early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had
agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his
vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing
idle in the marketplace, and said to them, 'You also go into the
vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Again he
went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And
about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and
said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?' They said
to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go into
the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.' So when evening
had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the
laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the
first.'
And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each
received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they
would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when
they had received it, they complained against the
landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you
made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the
day.' But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am doing you no
wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and
go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it
not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye
evil because I am good? So the last will be first, and the first last.
For many are called, but few chosen."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It never
ceases to amaze me when Socialists sometimes try to claim that Jesus was
some sort of proto-Socialist or Communist. Anyone who is the least bit
familiar with the Socialists' attitude toward such matters would know
that the typical Socialist response to such a landowner's actions
towards his workers would be to scream bloody murder! Of course, a
Socialist government's response to such a land owner would be to
exterminate him. Yet here Jesus
reinforces the correctness of the libertarian creed on the absoluteness
of lawfully being able to do what one wishes with their own possessions,
as well as being able to freely and voluntarily contract said
possessions as one sees fit--even if doing so greatly upsets others! So
long as one has kept one's word in the contracts in which one has agreed
to--and so long as one's actions pertain to their own property--then
the right of the individual to make decisions concerning their property
remains absolute!</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Greatness
is in Serving</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">One of the
things which most clearly demonstrates just how different Jesus's
Kingdom is to be from the mortal, Earthly kingdoms and governments--and
also why we should be very careful to never confuse the two together--is
given in the story of when the apostles James and John came to Jesus
asking if they may have the favor granted to them of being able to sit
on either side of Jesus's
throne, one to the right and the other to His left, and this is how
Jesus answered them:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Mark
10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know
that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall
not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall
be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave
of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many." (See also Matt. 18:4; 20:25-28
Mark 9:35; Luke 22:26.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">How
diametrically opposite the Kingdom of Christ is indeed from that of the
mortal, Earthly governments! Thus, when it is claimed herein that Jesus
is an "anarchist" it needs to be born in mind that this is in relation
to how all mortal governments on Earth have operated. If one wishes to
refer to the "Government of Christ" or the "Kingdom of Christ" this is
fine so long is one realizes that the Government of Christ will in no
sense be an actual government as they exist on Earth and are controlled
by mortals.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It needs to
also be pointed out here that above in Mark 10:42 Jesus rebukes the
supposed "authority" of the Earthly "rulers"! Thus He says of them "You
know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their great ones exercise authority over them"--here is clear
proof that just because mortals on Earth may consider someone to be a
"ruler" does not mean that God considers them to be genuine rulers! In
the eyes of God, those who are the greatest among men are those who seek
to serve their fellow men, not those who seek to be served by their
fellow men!</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Slaves
Obey Your Masters?</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">While although not directly related to the issue of the ethical status of government <i>per se,</i>
some individuals have asserted that certain statements in the New
Testament by Paul and Peter condone the institution of slavery, and for
this reason it is important as it concerns social relations in general.
Thus:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Ephesians
6:5-9: Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart,
as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants
of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing
service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good
anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a
slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up
threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there
is no partiality with Him.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Colossians
3:22-4:1: Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to
the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of
heart, fearing God. And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord
and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward
of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong
will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.
Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you
also have a Master in heaven.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1
Timothy 6:1,2: Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count
their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His
doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters,
let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve
them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach
and exhort these things.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Titus
2:9,10: Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be
well pleasing in all things, not answering back, not pilfering, but
showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our
Savior in all things.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1
Peter 2:18-25: Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear,
not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is
commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief,
suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for
your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if
you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you
were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example,
that you should follow His steps:</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"Who committed no sin,<br />
Nor was deceit found in His mouth";</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">who,
when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did
not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who
Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died
to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.
For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the
Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But to quote
the above passages as condoning the institution of slavery, one would
thereby be confusing the offering of pragmatic advice on how to best
handle a bad situation as granting the rightness of that situation. Yet
obviously Peter and Paul didn't so regard the institution of slavery as
being at all just, for then there would have been no cause for Peter
compare the slave's suffering to that of Jesus in 1 Peter 2:21-25--as
certainly any true Christian regards the scourging and execution of
Jesus to have been unjust, to say the very least. Thus the fact that
Peter did compare the slave's suffering to that of Jesus is by itself
enough to demonstrate that he considered it to be unjust.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So what of
the actual ethical status of the institution of slavery as it concerns
Jesus's own teachings? On this question there can be no doubt, as one of
the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty! Jesus said this
Himself as recorded in Luke 4:16-21:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So
He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom
was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to
read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had
opened the book, He found the place where it was written:</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,<br />
Because He has anointed Me<br />
To preach the gospel to the poor;<br />
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,<br />
To proclaim liberty to the captives<br />
And recovery of sight to the blind,<br />
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;<br />
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Then
He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And
the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He
began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your
hearing."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So here we have it: Jesus Himself said that He came to proclaim liberty to the captives and to set at liberty the oppressed!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The word "liberty" in Luke 4:18 is a translation of the Greek word <i>aphesis,</i>
and means: release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness or pardon,
i.e., remission of the penalty. Thus, it is a complete and absolute
negation of the condition of being a slave. And since there exists no
recorded instance of Jesus qualifying the above statement, it then
becomes quite clear that Jesus is very much against the institution of
slavery--besides of course slavery being totally incompatible with the
Golden Rule.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So how are
we to make better sense of Paul and Peter's above statements, since it
is clear that the institution of slavery is very anti-Christian in the
most literal sense of the word (i.e., as it concerns the actual doctrine
as preached by Jesus Christ)?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">One must
bear in mind that Paul and Peter knew better than most of the injustices
contained within this Satanic world system--Paul himself was
continuously in and out of prisons during his ministry, and would at
last be beheaded by government for preaching the gospel of Christ, just
as John the Baptist was beheaded by government before him for preaching
the same. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Paul clarifies his above statements
while at the same time declaring the absoluteness of his God-given
rightful liberty:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">For
though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all,
that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I
might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I
might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as
without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward
Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I
became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to
all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the
gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It is here
where the seeming contradiction of certain passages in the Bible whereby
Paul and Peter admonish slaves to "obey their masters" (see Eph. 6:5;
Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18) is cleared up. Such an
admonition is a pragmatic one, not an categorical moral one--as Paul
himself declared his absolute rightful freedom from all men (and also
called for people to "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ," 1 Cor.
11:1)! So rather than laying hands on one's Earthly "master," or trying
to run away--which in the end would probably only affect one's freedom
in a negative way--a much better and effective solution would be to
convert one's Earthly "master" to Jesus, and if one has truly succeeded
in doing so--i.e., whereby one's Earthly "master" becomes infilled with
the Holy Spirit--then one will have at once gained one's God-given
absolute liberty, at least in relation to what the positive law
considers one's "master." The reason that this is necessarily the case
is because Jesus commanded the absolute law as treating others as you
would want others to treat you (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31), yet the very
institution of slavery is founded upon the exact opposite principle, as
Abraham Lincoln pointed out (if only it had been that Lincoln himself
had bothered to follow the logic of his below argument!):</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">If
A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave
B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he
may enslave A?--</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is <i>color,</i>
then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care.
By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a
fairer skin than your own.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">You do not mean <i>color</i> exactly? You mean the whites are <i>intellectually</i>
the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave
them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first
man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But, say you, it is a question of <i>interest;</i> and, if you can make it your <i>interest;</i>
you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it
his interest, he has the right to enslave you. (Abraham Lincoln, <i>Fragments on Slavery,</i> c. April 1, 1854)</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In the above
discussion on the Golden Rule as commanded by Jesus it was pointed out
that to not follow the Golden Rule is to do the opposite of the Golden
Rule: i.e., to treat others as you would <i>not</i> want others to treat
you--of which ethic was termed the Luciferian Principle (see the above
discussion on this as to why such a designation logically follows). Yet
this is the very principle on which the institution of slavery
necessarily rests.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And in
further support of my contention that the conversion of a slave's
Earthly "master" to Jesus would be the most effective and practical
solution in obtaining one's God-given absolute liberty--at least in
relation to what the positive law considers one's "master"--consider
Paul's own words on this matter:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The word "liberty" in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a translation of the Greek noun <i>eleutheria</i>
and is completely congruent in meaning with the English word "liberty,"
i.e., as in "freedom from slavery," "independence," "absence of
external restraint," "a negation of control or domination," "freedom of
access," etc. Thus, it is the complete negation of a state of slavery.
But in fact, Paul even goes further than this in the very passages above
which some have contended condone the institution of slavery. Thus in
Ephesians 6:9 Paul writes:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And
you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening,
knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no
partiality with Him.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet it is plainly clear that if a slave's "master" were to actually and truly give up <i>threatening</i>--of
all things--then there can hardly even be said to exist a state of
slavery any more in relation to what the positive law considers the
"master" and the "slave," as the very institution of slavery is enforced
by the threat of either physical harm for non-compliance or recapture
in the case of escape. Thus, this passage is actually a case of
advocating the <i>de facto</i> abolition of slavery even while a state of <i>de jure</i> slavery--as considered by the positive law--may still be in place!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It is for
the above reasons why the above cited passages which some have contended
condone the institution of slavery can only make any sense within the
Christian point of view as pragmatic advice on how best to handle a bad
and unjust situation, and certainly cannot be regarded as commentary on
the ethical rightfulness of the institution of slavery; nor for that
matter as a categorical moral imperative as to how one is always to
conduct oneself--as Paul and Peter were often in rebellion to what the
positive law considered their "masters." Extreme problems arise for
those who would try and contend otherwise--for just one example of the
problems presented to those who would thus contend, consider the
following statement by Paul:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1 Timothy 5:23: No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet this
statement by Paul is completely unqualified, and far more direct than
his above advice to slaves. Thus, for those who would contend that Paul
was giving a categorical moral imperative as to how a slave is always to
conduct himself in relation to his "master"--as opposed to merely
offering advice as to the best and most practical way in which a slave
could go about obtaining his God-given liberty in relation to his
"master"--such individuals, if they are to be consistent, would also
have to contend that according to Paul it is a sin not to drink wine! In
fact the case for this contention would actually be much stronger than
in that of Paul's advice to slaves, for unlike in his advice to slaves
nowhere does Paul qualify the above statement! Yet obviously to make
such a contention would be absurd, as in both cases it would be
confusing pragmatic advice with a categorical moral imperative.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But moreover, here is what Jesus Himself had to say about the serving of masters:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
6:24: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one
and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the
other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (See also Luke 16:13.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet what in
the world is the institution of slavery if not mammon? If the
institution of slavery does not qualify as mammon then there is nothing
that possibly could! For it is a method of obtaining wealth that is a
complete and utter violation of Jesus's ultimate ethical commandment:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
7:12: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Thus it
becomes clear that the institution of slavery is just another product of
this sick Satanic world system--of which system Jesus is to ultimately
overthrow in the time of His Judgement. Mammon indeed!</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus
Supported the Collecting of Interest (Usury)</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">One of the
Socialists' great bugbears has been the institution of usury, or
otherwise the collecting of interest. Yet in the only instance in which
Jesus commented upon this He was clearly in favor of the concept, as is
given in His Parable of the Talents, in which a man traveling to a
far-away country leaves his three servants with some talents to make use
of in the best way they see fit while he is away--the first two
servants invest the talents and receive more talents from their initial
investment, and this makes the lord of the estate happy to hear this
upon his return; but here is what Jesus says of the third servant:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
25:24-27: "Then he who had received the one talent came and said,
'Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and
gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went
and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.'
But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant,
you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not
scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the
bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with
interest." (See also Luke 19:21-23.)</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Now
obviously this parable is a lesson on how Christians should be ever
vigilant in converting people to salvation in Christ, in that we should
not keep the Gospel of Christ to ourselves but always seek to increase
the number of Christians in the world. But even so, it nevertheless
demonstrates that Jesus was hardly hostile to the concept of the
collecting of interest, considering that this was his only commentary
given on the subject. But moreover, it ties in quite appropriately with
Jesus's attitude toward the absolute lawfulness of an individual doing
what they wish with their own property--including freely contracting
thereof--as told by Jesus in his Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
as recorded in Matthew 20:1-16.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The Cleansing
of the Temple: Righteous Libertarian Vigilantism</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The only recorded act of violence by Jesus was what is now known as "the cleansing of the temple":</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
21:12,13: Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all
those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of
the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to
them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but
you have made it a 'den of thieves.' " (See also Mark 11:15-17; Luke
19:45,46; John 2:14-17.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Now this
event is often misinterpreted as being some sort of revolt by Jesus on
the bad aesthetics of commerce being conducted inside of God's temple,
and so is given as anti-libertarian and free-market commentary. But if
that were really what this episode was about then there would have been
no cause for Jesus to accuse the priests of turning the temple into a
"den of thieves."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus was
being literal when he said that. To understand what Jesus was talking
about one has to understand the nature of what was being bought and sold
in the temple as well as the function of the "money changers." What was
being bought and sold in the temple were animals which were to be
sacrificed as a sin offering, and the function of the money changers was
to convert the Gentile Roman money into the Jewish money which would
then be suitable to present inside the temple for purchase of the
sacrificial animals. The people who bought these animals did not get to
take them home to eat--if they had then Jesus would have had no good
reason to object the commerce being conducted at the temple, and
certainly would have no grounds to accuse the priests of thievery.
Rather, the animals stayed in the temple to be sacrificed by the
Levitical priests, which by so doing would (as it was supposed) atone
for the sins of the purchaser of the sacrificed animal. So when Jesus
accused the priests who conducted this practice of being thieves what he
was saying was that the people who bought these animals to be
sacrificed to atone for their sins were being ripped-off--i.e., that the
animal sacrifices weren't doing anything for their sins. In other
words, the priests were selling religious snake-oil--misrepresenting
their product as curing something it couldn't cure; hence they were
committing fraud (per libertarian rights theory).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Now realize
what is at stake here: Jesus came to save people's very souls, and here
people are being deceived and defrauded into believing that sacrificing
these animals is setting their souls right with God. As it is written in
Hebrews 10:4-7:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">For
it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away
sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and
offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In
burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Then
I said, 'Behold, I have come--In the volume of the book it is written
of Me--To do Your will, O God.' " Previously saying, "Sacrifice and
offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor
had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law) [...]</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">If we assume
that Jesus is God's Messiah then He was in a particularly unique
position to accurately determine whether or not these animal sacrifices
were achieving what was being claimed for them, and having determined
that the priests were defrauding their patrons He took appropriate
libertarian action (per Rothbardian theory in particular) by using
retaliatory force against these thieves. It is important to point out
that it is only a true Messiah from God which could have rightly taken
such action, for any normal man would not have possessed the requisite
information in order to make that determination honestly. Thus, not only
was Jesus's only use of force quite libertarian, but it was also in a
situation which would have been inappropriate for most anyone else.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus on the War
on Drugs (and all Forms of Prohibition)</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In the
modern era one of the most virulent scourges which has plagued the
Western societies in particular is the so-called "drug problem," i.e.,
the use of, and combating the use of, illegal drugs. Yet, why has the
"drug problem" only become such a problem within, predominately, the
last century? What is the cause of this? But first, before we answer
this question, the more important issue from the Christian's viewpoint
is: what is Jesus's position on the so-called "drug problem," i.e.,
whether it is called "the War on Drugs" or "Prohibition"? More directly,
what does Jesus have to say about prohibiting by law the use of certain
drugs, or inebriants?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Most people at this point will probably be thinking that the issue only concerns <i>which</i>
drugs or inebriants ought to be prohibited and how severe the penalty
for their use should be--as those calling themselves Christians have
traditionally been at the forefront of not only the Prohibition of
alcohol during the '20s in the U.S., but so also with the continuing War
on Drugs. So, first of all, what does Jesus have to say about which
substances ought to be outlawed?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">On this
question Jesus is quite clear about it in no uncertain terms--although
the answer may come as a surprise to some: absolutely no law ought to
exist prohibiting the consumption of any substance whatsoever! Jesus
says quite clearly in the strongest of terms that there is no substance a
man can consume that could possibly defile him--thus we read in Mark
7:15-23:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"There
is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the
things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" When He had entered a house
away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So
He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not
perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him,
because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated,
thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that
defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil
thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness,
wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride,
foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
(See also Matt. 15:11, 17-20.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This is the
only directive that Jesus gives in the entire Bible as to what
substances should be, or should not be, prohibited. Some may claim that
Jesus was only talking about food in the above, and not psychotropic
drugs. Yet if this were truly the case then Jesus's above claim is a
false one: Jesus saying "There is nothing that enters a man from outside
which can defile him" would be wrong, for then there would indeed be
something which could thereby defile a man--namely: psychotropic drugs!
Yet Jesus is absolutely clear on this issue: there is no substance a
person can consume which could possibly defile them! Also, there is not
even any clear distinction between "drugs" and "food" in the first
place: just about any drug, in principle, can also be made into a
food--and traditionally often have been and continue to be: thus, the
drug ethanol is almost always consumed not by itself, but in combination
with non-inebriants as a drink; the drug caffeine is almost always
consumed as the beverage known as coffee; marijuana has often been
consumed as an edible baked into brownies; cocaine was once an
ingredient in the original formulation of the name-brand soft-drink
Coca-Cola; etc. If the modern-day Prohibitionists desire to maintain
that Jesus did not mean to include substances such as psychotropic drugs
when He gave this clear directive then the burden is on them to show
where in the Bible Jesus qualifies His above statement to include the
possibility that psychotropic drugs are an exception to His above
all-inclusive directive. But search the Bible high and low and no such
alternate, qualifying directive is anywhere to be found.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Some may be
quick to point out that the angel sent by Jesus to John the Reveler said
in Revelation 9:21 "And they did not repent of their murders or their
sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts" (see also Rev.
18:23; 22:15) and that the word that is here translated as "sorceries"
is in the original Greek <i>pharmakeia,</i> i.e., as in "pharmaceutical" or "drugs." But the original sense of this Greek word <i>pharmakeia</i>
meant the mixing of various ingredients for magical purposes, whether
or not they were actually ever intended to be consumed by anyone, or
whether or not they had what we would call today "pharmacological"
properties: in other words, it was for the most part pure
spell-casting--often black-magic in nature, such as casting hexes on
people. Thus, the most accurate translation of this word into modern
English is indeed "sorceries," and not "drugs"--and this is indeed how
almost all English Bible translations have handled this word: whether it
be the King James Version or almost all modern translations. But even
if such were not the case and one were to maintain that <i>pharmakeia</i> here really did mean "drugs" then this would present such a person with quite a serious problem: <i>which drugs?</i> If indeed one were to maintain that <i>pharmakeia</i>
here should be translated as "drugs" then one would logically have to
so also maintain that all drugs are thereby meant by it, irregardless of
whatever psychotropic properties they may or may not have--the reason
being is because no <i>type</i> of drug in particular would then be
specified in the above Bible passages. Thus, there would then be no
grounds for singling out psychotropic drugs such as ethanol over, say,
penicillin, or any other life-preserving medicine for that matter. To be
consistent, some may get around this problem by saying: very well, all
drugs, including medicine, are thereby meant by it. But to so maintain
this would just create an even bigger problem than the one it just
solved: for the Bible teaches that "A merry heart does good, like
medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones" (Prov. 17:22); and
Ezekiel, in the description of the Heaven on Earth that Jesus is to
establish after the Judgement, writes of it, in part:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Ezekiel
47:12: "Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow
all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and
their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because
their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and
their leaves for medicine."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So quite
simply put, if one were to so maintain that all drugs must be meant by
the above passages in Revelation then one would be going against
Biblical doctrine, as what little the Bible does have to say about
medicinal drugs it is nevertheless clear about: that curative drugs are a
good thing. Thus, if these passages in Revelation actually meant
"drugs" instead of "sorceries" then the Bible would be contradicting
itself here, as the passages in Revelation would thereby be inclusive of
<i>all</i> drugs, not just any kind in particular. But even if we were
to here grant for argument's sake that one could somehow narrow it down
to some sort of drug types in particular, one still would not be able to
derive that such drugs should therefore be outlawed, as nowhere would
these passages in Revelation then so much as even suggest that mortal
governments make any laws against such drugs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Thus, even
under the most favorable interpretation of the Bible--from the viewpoint
of modern-day Prohibitionists--Jesus's declaration that "There is
nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him" would still
stand--at least as it concerned all mortal, Earthly forms of judgement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Some
diligent readers may now say at this point, to the effect of: "Wait a
minute! The Mark of the Beast is an obvious exception to something which
possibly enters a man from the outside which can defile him!" (The King
James Version translates the Mark of the Beast as being "in" the hand
or forehead, while most modern versions translate it as being "on,"
although the original Greek can actually be accurately translated either
way. I suspect the reason most modern versions have preferred to
translate the Mark as being "on" the hand or forehead is because this
then, in almost all cases, covers both possibilities: as in almost all
cases, in order to put some identifying mark "in" the skin would require
that one also leave a mark "on" the skin.) But this would ignore
Jesus's follow-up elaboration about all such substances under discussion
eventually being "eliminated" from the body by its natural excretion
processes, as the Mark of the Beast is meant to be a life-long
identifier, and thus is not excreted by the body's natural processes, as
are eventually all foods and drugs. But if one still wants to persist
in this line of reasoning they may counter that indeed not all drugs are
eliminated by the body's natural excretion processes: of those who die
of drug over-doses, the drugs which thereby caused their deaths are not
then excreted by the body's natural processes. While although this is
quite true, one would still not be able to derive therefore from it that
there ought to be laws against certain drugs, as all drugs are capable
of causing death from over-dose; indeed, most lethal drug over-doses are
not caused by illegal psychotropic drugs, but legally used
medicines--and hence, one would be presented with the original problem
discussed above on this. And, it should be stated in passing, it would
also be completely nonsensical to make a law against taking a lethal
over-dose of a drug, as the penalty for taking a lethal dose of drugs
would be, by definition, an automatic death-penalty: therefore any such
law-breaker would automatically be out of the reach of any Earth-bound,
mortal law-enforcer.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Thus, any
which way one slices it, it is simply quite impossible to justify any
form of drug-prohibition whatsoever from a Biblical perspective. But
even far stronger than such drug-laws being merely unjustifiable from a
Biblical perspective, all such laws go directly against Jesus's clear
directive that all things which a person may consume cannot possibly
defile them! And thus, not only are all drug-laws extra-Biblical in
origin, they are all also extremely anti-Christian in the most literal
sense of the word! If there should be the slightest shred of doubt left
in one's mind as to the veracity of this, then hereby, once and for all,
let Paul slay that misplaced sense of doubt:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Colossians
2:20-23: Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles
of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject
yourselves to regulations--"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the
commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an
appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and
neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the
flesh. (See also Rom. 14:14.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So we see in
no uncertain terms that all forms of drug-prohibition are completely
unjustifiable from a Biblical viewpoint, and indeed anti-Christian. If
then such drug-laws are extra-Biblical and anti-Christian, how is it
that many self-professed Christians came to be on the forefront of all
the various forms of drug-prohibition within recent history? Quite
amazingly, this very question was already answered almost 2000 years ago
by Paul, and in shocking but no uncertain terms:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1
Timothy 4:1-5: Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some
will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and
doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own
conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding
to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving
by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is
good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As was
already pointed out above, there is no clear distinction, in principle,
between "drugs" and "food": just about any drug, in principle, can also
be made into a food--and traditionally often have been and continue to
be. Indeed, the first truly large-scale form of drug-prohibition in a
Western society in the modern era was what was known as simply
"Prohibition" in the U.S., which was the outlawing of consuming the drug
ethanol, i.e., "alcohol." Yet alcohol is consumed almost exclusively as
a food-stuff in mixture with non-inebriating potables! Indeed, strait
laboratory-grade ethanol is virtually inedible, if not actually quite
painful to so consume. So how very true and accurate Paul was when he
wrote the above words, as it was predominately self-professed Christians
who lead the movement to outlaw the food of alcoholic beverages! And to
grasp the awful extent that these self-professed Christians must have
been truly deceived by demons in order to prohibit the food of
alcoholic beverages, just consider that the first miracle recorded in
the Bible by Jesus was to turn water into wine during the wedding at
Cana (see John 2:9-11)! What absolute blasphemy for them to prohibit the
resultant product of the first miracle of their self-proclaimed God!
Deceived by demons indeed!! Truer words could not have been written by
Paul to describe such a perverted situation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Indeed, it
was Paul himself that counseled to "No longer drink only water, but use a
little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities" (1
Tim. 5:23). And Psalms 104:14,15 says of God: "He causes the grass to
grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may
bring forth food from the earth, And wine that makes glad the heart of
man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man's
heart." (See also Judges 9:13.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Many in the
Temperance movement responsible for Prohibition had falsely claimed that
these Biblical references to "wine" were in reality grape juice. But
the Greek word for wine in the New Testament, <i>oinos,</i> is a fermented drink, whereas the Greek word for fruitjuice is <i>khymos.</i>
And besides that, this claim demonstrates either an appalling ignorance
of Jesus's own parables or outright deceit, as Jesus even referred to
the fermenting of wine in one of his parables:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
9:16,17: "No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for
the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. Nor
do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break,
the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine
into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (See also Mark 2:22; Luke
5:37.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In ancient
times goatskins were used to hold wine. As the fresh grape juice
fermented, carbon dioxide would be generated by the living yeast's
metabolism, increasing the volume of gas contained in the wineskin, and
so the new wineskin would stretch. But a used wineskin, already
stretched, would break. Not only that, but before 1869 it was impossible
to store grape juice in temperate to hot climates (which are the
climates grapes grow in) without it either quickly going bad or becoming
wine. If grape juice is left exposed to the open air then it will
quickly go bad due to mold and bacteria--sealing grape juice from the
open air protects it from these aerobic microorganisms because the yeast
which is present naturally in the grapes creates an atmosphere of
carbon dioxide while at the same time making alcohol. Consequently,
storing non-alcoholic grape juice was an impossibility until 1869, when
Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch succeeded in applying the process of
pasteurization to freshly squeezed must. About the only people who may
have been drinking grape juice before 1869 were those who pressed the
freshly picked grapes themselves (without refrigeration grapes will
quickly go bad, unless they are dried into raisins). It is for this
reason that the suggestion that the fruit of the vine that Jesus and the
twelve disciples drank during the Last Supper on Passover (Mark
14:23-25) was grape juice is absurd, as the growing season for grapes in
Palestine is from April to October (the dry season), yet Passover
starts on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan (the actual Last Supper
occurred either on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, it's debatable which day
it actually was), which is a lunar month that roughly corresponds with
the latter part of March and the first part of April--so quite simply,
there would have existed no unfermented grape juice at this time, as no
grapes would have existed, since the growing season for them had just
started.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In the
beginning of this discussion on drugs, it was first inquired as to why
the "drug problem" has only become such a problem within, predominately,
the last century. The reason is precisely because of the very laws
against drugs! The government's War on Drugs has turned what once was an
individual problem into a social problem by inventing new make-believe
"crimes" that aggress against no one, while spawning a whole true crime
industry associated with it (just like during Prohibition). The effect
of libertarian legalization would be to make drugs an individual problem
again instead of the grave social problem that it is today. As they
say, we don't have a drug problem, we have a drug-problem problem. Were
it not for the government's War on Drugs, the gang turf-wars, theft, and
other various true crimes that are associated with the distribution of
drugs and the procurement of money in which to support habituations to
drugs, of which the price has been artificially inflated, would not
exist.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">How many liquor stores
have shoot-outs between each other? Yet when alcohol was illegal the
black-market distributors of alcohol found it necessary to have shoot-outs
and murders between each other on a regular basis. This was because,
being that their business was illegal, they did not have access to the
courts in which to settle their disputes; as well, because their business
was illegal, this raised the stakes of doing business, for if they got
caught then they would go to prison--thus it became profitable to resort
to murder in order to solve problems which would otherwise lead to prison.
And how many tobacco smokers resort to theft and prostitution in order
to support their habit? Yet clinical studies have shown that tobacco
is more habit forming than heroin. The reason you don't see tobacco
smokers doing such things is because tobacco addicts can afford to support
their habit. When Russia experienced an artificial shortage of cigarettes
over a decade ago due to its socialist economy, tobacco smokers took
to the streets <i>en masse</i> rioting--requiring emergency shipments
of Marlboros and other cigarette brands from the U.S. in order for it
to cease. If heroin or crack were legal it would cost no more (and probably
less) than a tobacco habit, and so heroin and crack addicts would be
able to support their habit by working at a regular job instead of resorting
to theft and prostitution. If one should doubt this last statement,
it should be born in mind that the original laws in the U.S. against
the use of opium were to punish the Chinese opium-smoking immigrants
in the early 1900s, who were so productive that they were taking railway
construction jobs away from native White Americans.</span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As a parting
note on this subject, I will leave you with what Peter counseled us:
"But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a
busybody in other people's matters" (1 Peter 4:15). How very much this
last admonition applies to all forms of drug-prohibition!</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Woe
to Lawyers!</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In Jesus's
day, as well as in modern times, lawyers have had quite a system worked
out for themselves. Not only are lawyers the ones that write the laws,
but they are also the ones who become rich in prosecuting and defending
people from those very laws that they or their colleagues have written
in the first place. As well, most politicians, especially in modern
times, are also lawyers. Thus, throughout history there has existed a
grotesque system whereby the very people responsible for the laws have a
perverse incentive in making sure that they are as arcane,
unintelligible, Byzantine and numerous as possible--hence, always
insuring a healthy demand for their services.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This fact was certainly not lost on Jesus, and He
made a point to warn lawyers that they are putting their very souls at stake in their chosen profession. Thus:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not
enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (NIV)</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Luke
11:46,52: And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with
burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with
one of your fingers. [...] [verse 52:] "Woe to you lawyers! For you have
taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and
those who were entering in you hindered."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This is not
to say that all lawyers throughout history are unrighteous. There has
existed and does exist a few principled lawyers who entered their
profession in order to defend righteous people from the unjust laws that
their colleagues are responsible for--but they are and have been quite a
minority indeed. The simple fact of the matter is that most lawyers are
simply in it for the money, and generally have shown little to no
interest in rolling back or defending against unjust laws if doing so
negatively affects their bottom line. Even the ones that often appear on
the surface to be fighting against bad laws are usually being paid
quite handsomely in doing so (think ACLU), or are loyal opposition and
have already been bought and paid for to purposely
lose the case in order to generate bad legal precedent in the case law,
etc., etc.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So a
"Christian lawyer" is not an absolute contradiction in terms, it's just
exceedingly rare--and to the extent that such rare individuals do exist
God has
undoubtedly blessed them for their work in protecting His children
against this Satanic world system. But in the main, how true indeed
Jesus was being when He warned lawyers that they were jeopardizing their
very souls in practicing the profession that they have chosen! Woe to
lawyers indeed!
</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus
on Government Courts: Avoid Them!</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Another
thing which is quite congruent with Jesus's above warning to lawyers is
Jesus's advice for the faithful to avoid the government's courts if at
all possible:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
5:25,26: "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way
with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand
you over to the officer, and you be
thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get
out of there till you have paid the last penny."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Luke
12:57-59: "Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is
right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every
effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge,
the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into
prison. I tell you, you shall not depart from there till you have paid
the very last mite."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Needless to
say, government judges are also lawyers, so Jesus's advice here fits in
with His warning to lawyers. It also completely demolishes the notion
that Jesus considers what the government's positive law regards as
"authorities" to be <i>true</i> authorities--or otherwise Jesus would
have no problem with such government judges resolving disputes among the
faithful. In fact, Paul absolutely confirms this notion in 1
Corinthians 6:1-8:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Dare
any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the
unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints
will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you
unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall
judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then
you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you
appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this
to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not
even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother
goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore,
it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one
another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let
yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do
these things to your brethren!</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And this
also conclusively demonstrates that the "authorities" that Paul spoke of
in Romans 13 could not possibly have been the "authorities" as so
regarded by the government--as Paul said that the government judges "are
least esteemed by the church to judge"! Thus it is clear that he
considered them to be no authority at all!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And so also James writes in James 2:6:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It needs to
be pointed out that most of the rich in the days in which the above
passage was written were rich due to grants of privilege by the
government--particularly that of collecting taxes. Thus when James
writes in the above of the rich oppressing the faithful and dragging
them into the courts he is speaking of actual violations of individuals'
just property rights, and not of individuals reneging on voluntary
contracts in which they had entered into. And this brings us naturally
to the next point which needs to be made:</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus
on the Rich</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus had this to say about the rich:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Luke
18:18-30: Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you
call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the
commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,'
"Do not bear false witness,' "Honor your father and your mother."' And
he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." So when Jesus
heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all
that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he heard this, he became very
sorrowful, for he was very rich. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And
when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard it is
for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of God." And those who heard it said, "Who then can be
saved?" But He said, "The things which are impossible with men are
possible with God." Then Peter said, "See, we have left all and followed
You." So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who
has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake
of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this
present time, and in the age to come eternal life." (See also Matt.
19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Some have
given this as anti-libertarian commentary. But first of all, in
analyzing this statement by Jesus it needs to be pointed out that it is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for any person
whatsoever to enter the Kingdom of God. But Jesus also said that "The
things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (verse 27).
It is standard Christian doctrine that it is impossible for anyone to
enter the Kingdom of God on their own--that the only way in which anyone
enters the Kingdom of God is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ
alone (see John 14:6). Thus, the rich are by no means unique in this
particular aspect. And so also, from this alone it cannot be claimed
that Jesus had it in for rich people <i>per se</i> more than any other group.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Second, when
Jesus counseled this particular rich person to sell all that he had and
distribute the proceeds to the poor, this was in fact an exceedingly
libertarian thing for Jesus to advise this person. For this was not just
any kind of rich person--this was a rich person of a particular type: a
<i>ruler,</i> i.e., one who has some variety of command over an
Earthly, mortal government. And thus, the riches that this particular
rich person was in possession of had been obtained through extortion and
theft, i.e., by the threat and force of arms and might--this particular
ruler's opinion to the contrary (verse 21) not withstanding scrutiny:
almost no rulers throughout history have ever regarded their wealth as
having been obtained through stealing:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Justice
being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what
are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made
up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together
by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed
on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a
degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities,
and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom,
because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the
removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that
was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a
pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he
meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold
pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do
it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with
a great fleet art styled emperor." (St. Augustine, Book 4, Chapter 4 of
<i>The City of God.</i>)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Thus, when
Jesus offered this counsel to this particular rich person, He was merely
telling this person what any good libertarian would have said in the
same situation--particularly a natural-rights libertarian such as a
Rothbardian. </span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus Engaged
in Conspicuous Consumption when He Could have Provided for the Poor
Instead</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Some have
maintained--usually in an effort to make some larger political
point--that Jesus was some sort of ascetic who was against individuals
having material riches, especially when those material goods could be
used to provide for the poor instead. Yet Jesus Himself engaged in
conspicuous consumption when He could have provided for the poor
instead:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Matthew
26:6-13: And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant
oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. But when His
disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For this
fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor." But
when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, "Why do you trouble the
woman? For she has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with
you always, but Me you do not have always. For in pouring this fragrant
oil on My body, she did it for My burial. Assuredly, I say to you,
wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has
done will also be told as a memorial to her." (See also Mark 14:3-9;
Luke 7:37,38; John 12:1-8.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet here in
this case of luxurious consumption on the part of Jesus is purely of
ornamental value, i.e., of a purely aesthetic value--and a fleeting one
at that! When Jesus's disciples complained about this "waste" Jesus told
His disciples to stop bothering the woman about it! At the very least,
this demonstrates the notion that Jesus was some sort of austere,
principled ascetic to be an untenable one--and thus also, any attempt to
make some larger political point out of such a notion is automatically
moot.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As well, Paul had this to say as to one's ultimate responsibility in providing for others:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.</span>
</div>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus Has Called
us to Liberty--Yet Those Who Pay Taxes are not Free!</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Another
Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists to supposedly
demonstrate that Jesus supported the paying of taxes--but which in
actuality demonstrates the exact opposite--is in Matthew 17:24-27:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">When
they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to
Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?"; he said,
"Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him,
saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth
take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" Peter said to
Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and
take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth,
you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and
you."</span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But it
appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by
supernatural means at that) as told above in Matt. 17:24-27 was so as
not to stir up trouble which would have interfered with the necessary
fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture (see Psalm 41:9; 69:25; 109:8;
Zech. 11:12,13--see also Matt. 26:54,56; Mark 14:49; John 13:18-30; Acts
1:15-26) and Jesus's previous prediction of His betrayal as told in
Matt. 17:22--neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus not
paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports
this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . .,"
which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause trouble"
(CEV)--at any rate, this comment by itself clearly demonstrates that
Jesus was hardly enthusiastic about the prospect of paying taxes.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But
moreover, Jesus said this after in effect saying that those who pay
customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26). This is the necessary
implication of this passage, for if the sons of the kings on Earth are
free because they are exempt from paying taxes then this certainly
implies that those who are required to pay taxes are therefore <i>not</i>
free on that account--either that or Jesus was merely being insipid
when He said this (which at least from the Christian's viewpoint is
certainly not something Jesus was ever known for). Yet the fact that
Jesus considers those who are required to pay taxes as being unfree is
enough to conclusively demonstrate that Jesus is necessarily against
taxes, as one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty!
Jesus said this Himself as recorded in Luke 4:16-21:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So
He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom
was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to
read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had
opened the book, He found the place where it was written:</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,<br />
Because He has anointed Me<br />
To preach the gospel to the poor;<br />
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,<br />
To proclaim liberty to the captives<br />
And recovery of sight to the blind,<br />
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;<br />
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Then
He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And
the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He
began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your
hearing."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">So here we
have it: Jesus Himself said that He came to proclaim liberty to the
captives and to set at liberty the oppressed--and yet Jesus also said
that those who are required to pay taxes are not free!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Some may
attempt to get around this glaring fact by pointing out that the word
"free" in Matthew 17:26 is a translation of the Greek word <i>eleutheros</i>, whereas the word "liberty" in Luke 4:18 is a translation of the Greek word <i>aphesis.</i> But <i>eleutheros</i> is the adjective form of the noun <i>eleutheria,</i>
and means: freeborn, i.e., in a civil sense, one who is not a slave, or
of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted; or at liberty,
free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation--and <i>aphesis</i>
means: release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness or pardon,
i.e., remission of the penalty. Thus, when used in the context above
these two words are completely congruent in meaning with each other. As
well, if one desires to go back further to the original Hebrew of Isaiah
61:1 which Luke 4:18 is quoting from, the word <i>aphesis</i> is a translation of the Hebrew word <i>rwrd</i>
(which roughly transliterates as "darowr") which is a noun that means: a
flowing (as of myrrh), free run, or liberty. And so this word, too, is
completely congruent in meaning with <i>eleutheros</i> when used in the above context. Indeed, the Greek Septuagint translates this Hebrew word in the above passage as <i>aphesis.</i>
Thus it cannot be honestly maintained that Jesus had in mind two
separate meanings when he spoke the above words, as the only sensible
meaning of these separate words are completely congruent with one
another when used in their above context.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It might be pointed out by some that the New International Version translates the Greek word <i>eleutheros</i>
in Matthew 17:26 as "exempt." But this is a damning example of how some
modern Bible translations have been Bowdlerized in order to avoid
inconvenient facts--particularly political ones--that are often found in
the Bible. As was mentioned before, if indeed this were assumed to be
the correct translation of this word, then for Jesus to make such an
utterly pointless and vapid comment would have been totally insipid on
His part--again, not something Jesus was ever known for, at least from
the true Christian's perspective. The only meaning in which this comment
by Jesus can be taken which actually makes any point whatsoever and
avoids meaningless, inane and idle talk on His part is for the Greek
word <i>eleutheros</i> in Matthew 17:26 to be translated as "free" (or
otherwise "at liberty," etc.)--which is precisely how the King James
Version and most other English Bible translations have handled this
passage. Again, trying to avoid this most obvious and direct translation
renders Jesus's comment here absolutely irrelevant and inane.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As well, Paul and the original apostles understood that one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty. Thus:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1 Corinthians 7:23: You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1 Corinthians 9:19-23: For though I am free [<i>eleutheros</i>]
from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the
more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to
those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those
who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not
being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I
might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I
might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might
by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may
be partaker of it with you.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty [<i>eleutheria</i>].</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Galatians
4:6,7: And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His
Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" Therefore you are no
longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through
Christ.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Galatians 5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty [<i>eleutheria</i>] by which Christ has made us free [<i>eleutheros</i>], and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Galatians 5:13,14: For you, brethren, have been called to liberty [<i>eleutheria</i>]; only do not use liberty [<i>eleutheria</i>]
as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love
your neighbor as yourself."</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">James 1:25: But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty [<i>eleutheria</i>] and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">James 2:12: So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty [<i>eleutheria</i>].</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1 Peter 2:16: Live as free [<i>eleutheros</i>] men, yet without using your freedom [<i>eleutheria</i>] as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. (RSV.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It needs to be pointed out that the Greek noun <i>eleutheria</i>
is completely congruent in meaning with the English word "liberty,"
i.e., as in "freedom from slavery," "independence," "absence of external
restraint," "a negation of control or domination," "freedom of access,"
etc. Some have contended that any demarcation of property "restricts
liberty," i.e., the liberty of others to use these resources, and so
have maintained that the very concept of "total liberty" for everyone is
an untenable one. But as Prof. Murray N. Rothbard has pointed out in <i><a class="myStyle" href="http://www.laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=MR8199&aid=10141">Power and Market</a></i> (pg. 242):</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This
criticism misuses the term "liberty." Obviously, any property right
infringes on others' "freedom to steal." But we do not even need
property rights to establish this "limitation"; the existence of another
person, under a regime of liberty, restricts the "liberty" of others to
assault him. Yet, by definition, liberty cannot be restricted thereby,
because liberty is defined as freedom to control what one owns without
molestation by others. "Freedom to steal or assault" would permit
someone--the victim of stealth or assault--to be forcibly or
fraudulently deprived of his person or property and would therefore
violate the clause of total liberty: that every man be free to do what
he wills with his own. Doing what one wills with someone else's own
impairs the other person's liberty.</span>
</div>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Jesus Will Overthrow
All the Governments of the World and Punish All the Rulers in the
Time of His Judgement (i.e., His Second Coming)</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In the above
it was clearly demonstrated that the Earthly, mortal governments are
firmly under the control of Satan--that it is Satan who is the true god
and ruler over this perverted governmental world system wherein
power-mad psychotics rule over our existence and exempt themselves from
every standard of decency which people would otherwise expect from any
common stranger. Yet this diabolical, demonically-controlled government
system is not to last forever. The Bible is quite clear and explicit in
many passages as to what God's Judgement--i.e., the Second Coming of
Christ--is to be about.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Lucifer's
false Christ--i.e., the Anti-Christ--will come to strengthen and empower
government during the last days: cementing together for the first time
in human history a world government--of which God will allow to continue
for a short time (Rev. 17:9-18). This world government will be the
ultimate culmination of the very essence of everything which government
represents: in short, it will be the most diabolical government which
has ever existed, with mass murder of the righteous on a massive scale
(Rev. 20:4). All the rulers of the Earth will whore themselves with this
world government and be aligned against Jesus Christ during the final
battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16:14; 17:2; 18:3,9; 19:19).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet the
coming of God's true Christ--Jesus Christ--is to be the exact opposite
of Satan's Christ! Instead of strengthening government, Jesus Christ
will come to abolish and utterly annihilate all the governments of the
world: including all the rulers of those governments along with them!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As it is written in the Old Testament concerning the End-Times Judgement of God, i.e., Jesus's Second Coming:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Psalms
110:5,6: The Lord is at Your right hand; He shall execute kings in the
day of His wrath. He shall judge among the nations, He shall fill the
places with dead bodies, He shall execute the heads of many countries.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And the above prophecy is also mirrored by the prophet Isaiah:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Isaiah
24:21,22: It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord will punish
on high the host of exalted ones, And on the earth the kings of the
earth. They will be gathered together, As prisoners are gathered in the
pit, And will be shut up in the prison; After many days they will be
punished.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This is
quite amazing indeed when one realizes that the prophet Ezekiel foresaw
this exact thing concerning God's End-Time Judgement--this time as it
specifically concerned the rulers over Israel:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Ezekiel
34:1-10: And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Son of man,
prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them,
'Thus says the Lord GOD to the shepherds: "Woe to the shepherds of
Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the
fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not
strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the
broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost;
but with force and cruelty you have ruled them. So they were scattered
because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the beasts
of the field when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the
mountains, and on every high hill; yes, My flock was scattered over the
whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them."
'Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: "As I live," says
the Lord GOD, "surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock
became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd,
nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed
themselves and did not feed My flock"--therefore, O shepherds, hear the
word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against the
shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them
to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no
more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no
longer be food for them."</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Now
obviously when God, speaking here to Ezekiel, refers to "shepherds," He
is using this as a metaphor for rulers, just as "flock" is a metaphor
for the masses of people. Consider also the following passage by the
prophet Zechariah concerning God's End-Times Judgement:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Zechariah 10:3: "My anger is kindled against the shepherds, And I will punish the goatherds. [...]"</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Now
obviously again, God, speaking here to Zechariah--just as Ezekiel before
him--is not talking about literal shepherds and goatherds, but is using
these expressions as metaphors for rulers--indeed, this is how the NRSV
translates it: "My anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will
punish the leaders. [...]"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Thus, there
is an amazing continuity within the Old Testament prophecies as to what
God's End-Times Judgement is, at least in part, to consist of: the
punishment of all the Earthly rulers and the abolition of all mortal
rulerships! Can there be any doubt left in an honest, true Christian's
mind as to just how much Jesus absolutely abhors and detests government?
If there should be the slightest shred of doubt left in one's mind,
then please, choose to walk in the clear light of Liberty and let Paul
slay--once and for all--that last misplaced sense of doubt!:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1Corinthians
15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits,
afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when
He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all
rule and all authority and power.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">How could it
possibly be stated any clearer?! The governments of the Earth are not
of God, they are of Satan, and Jesus will come to utterly destroy them <i>ALL</i> during His Judgement!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">As it is written:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Revelation
19:19-21: And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their
armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse
and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the
false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived
those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his
image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with
brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from
the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled
with their flesh.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In the above
passage from Revelation, the "rest" referred to being "killed with the
sword which proceeded from the mouth" of Jesus in verse 21 are "the
kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war
against Him who sat on the horse and against His army," which was
previously referred to in verse 19.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And so it is
found that from the Old Testament through the New Testament that there
is a remarkable continuity and agreement as to what the fate of the
Earthly governments shall be during God's Judgement. And so also, this
all demonstrates unmistakably just how much God is opposed to the
ghastly, Satanical machination called government!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">There can be no honest doubt: Jesus is an anarchist!</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">God's People are
to be Volunteers and Self-Rulers in the Kingdom of Christ</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Some may
object to the designation of Jesus as an anarchist--as some may counter,
What about the Kingdom of Christ that is to be established after the
Judgement? But as was pointed out in several places above, the "Kingdom
of Christ" will in no sense be an actual government as they have existed
on Earth and operated by mortals. For the Kingdom of Christ is to be
the diametrically functional opposite of any government which has ever
existed on Earth before. Thus, it is perfectly fine to refer to the
"Kingdom of Christ" so long as one bears in mind that it has nothing
whatsoever to do with any historical government that has ever existed.
And so when it is said herein that "Jesus is an anarchist," this is
merely an objective designation as it refers to all Earthly, mortal
governments, and all governments of their kind. People have been trained
from birth by the Satanic, mortal governments to fear this word and to
recoil from it, but it is used here only in its most objective sense.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It has been
said above that the Kingdom of Christ is to be the functional opposite
of any government which has ever existed before. What exactly is meant
by this?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Well, to
begin with, unlike all mortal governments, which compel people to
support them whether they want to or not--in the form of taxes,
etc.--the only thing which anyone can give to God which He does not
already have is their voluntary love. God gives to all their very life,
and God sustains all (Job 34:14,15; Acts 17:25). The seeking of material
possessions means nothing to God as He is what makes their very
existence possible. Therefore taxes and their like will have no place in
God's Kingdom, as God has no need for such material support, as do the
mortal governments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But God is
always seeking our love: but true love cannot be forced from someone,
real love can only be a voluntary process. Therefore there will be no
compulsion on the part of God. As it is written in Psalm 110:3
concerning the establishment of Jesus's Kingdom:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Your people shall be volunteers<br />
In the day of Your power;<br />
In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning,<br />
You have the dew of Your youth.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Thus the
people of God's Kingdom shall be volunteers! How different indeed from
all the mortal governments which compel people to support them through
theft and extortion!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And in further elaboration of this, let us consider the following passage from Revelation:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Revelation
5:8-10: Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and
the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp,
and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
And they sang a new song, saying:</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"You are worthy to take the scroll,<br />
And to open its seals;<br />
For You were slain,<br />
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood<br />
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,<br />
[verse 10:] And have made us kings and priests to our God;<br />
And we shall reign on the earth." (See also Rev. 1:6.)</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Yet what
exactly is verse 10 in the above passage talking about? If we righteous
shall all be volunteers and all the workers of iniquity have been cast
into Hell, then who exactly is left for us to be king over and what
exactly shall we be reigning over? Each other? Does that make any sense?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Obviously the only <i>who</i> for us to be kings over is our own persons and the only <i>what</i>
for us to reign over shall be our own domain. For the first time in
history mankind will truly be free from the yolk of bondage--that
Satanic world system of servitude in all of its many guises. For the
first time ever we will be self-rulers and our homes truly will be our
castles! We shall be complete and absolute sovereigns over our own
lives!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Because it
very much bears repeating, I will leave this section by citing what Paul
had to say on this matter one more time, for he said it as well and as
plainly as it could possibly be stated:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">1
Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the
firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes
the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an
end to all rule and all authority and power.</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Amen.</span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In Closing</span></h3>
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"The
Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found
difficult, and left untried."--Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Part I,
Chapter 5, "The Unfinished Temple," in <i>What's Wrong with the World.</i></span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">In all of my
research into Jesus Christ I have discovered that He is nothing if not a
perfectly consistent libertarian, at least as it concerns His political
ethic. I could come across not one instance of Him contradicting this
position, either in word or in action. I can't say that I was really
surprised by this, although I suppose to many it may be surprising to
learn this. For one thing, when Jesus gave the Golden Rule as the
ultimate social ethic (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31), it's clear that He
actually meant it. Yet, as was demonstrated above, this ethic is just a
different formulation of the libertarian
Non-Aggression Principle, at least as a political ethic. As a strictly
political ethic it is
actually completely congruent with the libertarian
Non-Aggression Principle, in that as political ethics they actually
prohibit the same activity: i.e., aggression against people's just
property--and ultimately <i>all</i> just property titles can be traced
back by way of voluntary transactions (which would thus be consistent
with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unused resources; or (2) in
the case in which such resources were expropriated from a just owner
and the just owner or his heir(s) can no longer be identified or are
deceased, where the first
non-aggressor possesses the resource (which can then be considered
another form of homesteading).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">What I have
shown above is that Jesus has called us to liberty, and that liberty and
Christ's message are incompatible with government. Indeed, governments
throughout history have been the most demonic force to ever exist on
Earth. We need not lament their passing, but instead look forward to it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Before I
leave you, there exists a couple of other points that need to be
mentioned as to what the importance of this message is:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">To start
with, as Christians how can we be attentive to the cries of the
oppressed if we don't even recognize the oppressor? How can we comfort
and give aid to someone if we don't even recognize them as a victim? We
are liable to be obtuse and uncaring to those who have been unjustly
wronged by this Satanic world system if we don't even recognize the main
instrument of Satan's power on this Earth. So that is first and
foremost: by realizing and understanding the truth as to the diabolical
origin of government one will thereby have gained back part of one's
humanity which this Satanic world system has worked so hard in making
people oblivious to. One need only watch some of the old Nazi propaganda
films of thousands of German youths goose-stepping in unison to realize
just how effective this demonic world system can sometimes be in
striping people of their humanity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Second,
according to the Bible, it makes a difference as to when Jesus's Second
Coming will occur depending on our actions in being able to raise the
awareness of the world's population. While although I mentioned Étienne
de la Boétie in the introduction and pointed out that if a critical mass
of the population could come to understand and accept the truth as to
the true nature of governments that it would be enough to topple them,
this is ultimately true because it would in this case hasten the coming
of Jesus Christ! Thus Peter wrote about Christians being able to hasten
the coming of Christ:</span>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5 in; margin-right: .5 in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">2
Peter 3:11,12: Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved,
what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which
the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will
melt with fervent heat?</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And another
extremely important reason for this message presented herein has already
been touched on in one of the above sections. The Bible tells of a
massive End-Times deception perpetrated by Lucifer upon the masses in
the form of the Anti-Christ. Although if one understands what the coming
of God's real Christ is to be about--as Paul puts it "Then comes the
end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end
to all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor. 15:24)--then it will
be impossible for one to be deceived by the Anti-Christ, as the
Anti-Christ will come to strengthen government, not to abolish it. Some
Christians mistakenly believe that so long as one accepts a person
called "Jesus" as their Lord and Savior then they will have eternal
salvation. Yet there will be many people in the End-Times Judgement who
will consider themselves to be good Christians worshiping the true
Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and yet in doing so they will have
condemned themselves to Hell! The Anti-Christ will present himself as
being the Second Coming of Jesus! But Jesus said, "I am the way, the
truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John
14:6)! Thus if one worships a lie in place of the truth then the fact
that one will have called this lie by the name of "Jesus" will be of no
help! In fact, to do so is blasphemy! In order for one to really worship
Jesus one first has to know what the truth of Jesus is about. And that,
my friends, is the ultimate purpose of this document: that people may
come to know the real Jesus. And what Jesus is about is liberty--at
least as politics is concerned.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">But lastly,
many unjust government actions have been supported by self-professed
Christians, such as with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, even though
such unjust laws are completely unjustifiable from a Biblical
perspective and indeed very anti-Christian in the most literal sense of
the word. As well, such government actions as taxes are also completely
anti-Christian. Thus, in clearly demonstrating how Jesus was nothing if
not a perfectly consistent libertarian--at least as it concerned His
political ethic--from this Christians can get a clear picture as to what
their objectives should be as it concerns such matters, instead of
"giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons" as Paul put
it (1 Tim. 4:1). I dread to think how many young men have been raped in
the U.S. prison system because they had violated some make-believe
"crime" against using or selling certain pharmaceuticals--that aggresses
against no one--which people calling themselves Christians had
supported. As Christians, we need to be aware of the tricks Satan has
used throughout history to get people to support his empowerment. We
need to be above all the pettiness and walk in the clear light of
liberty which Jesus commanded us and declare everyone to be a sovereign
over their own domain, unless they should violate another's right of the
same.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: news gothic mt, verdana;">**********</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Appendix: Articles Everyone Should be Familiar With:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The Anatomy of the State<br />
by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:</span><br />
<a class="myStyle" href="http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Defense Services on the Free Market<br />
by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:</span><br />
<a class="myStyle" href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The Private Production of Defense<br />
by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:</span><br />
<a class="myStyle" href="http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_ 1/14_1_2.pdf</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">or:</span><br />
<a class="myStyle" href="http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/ Hoppe.pdf</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">and:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security<br />
by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:</span><br />
<a class="myStyle" href="http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9 _1_2.pdf</span>
</a>
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
<span style="font-family: news gothic mt, verdana;">
<br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">December
1</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">9,
2001</span></span></span> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-89443739438168046552012-06-22T14:48:00.000-07:002012-11-13T12:23:50.786-08:00Modern Christianity is a mental disorder<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmX7x1x4baIWPNzJ6K-zYuro5P7LpFGqvwAPgc9XCczRvH1a6haGGWBhkH1T3WL5-dCs9cmTOAqA8Eee9cOrcYjkjvUD-tMKBI8RWGFOmcmMMN2uG4aYz5S9Q_21EDNiXThdm_N4CdD1rV/s1600/church.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmX7x1x4baIWPNzJ6K-zYuro5P7LpFGqvwAPgc9XCczRvH1a6haGGWBhkH1T3WL5-dCs9cmTOAqA8Eee9cOrcYjkjvUD-tMKBI8RWGFOmcmMMN2uG4aYz5S9Q_21EDNiXThdm_N4CdD1rV/s320/church.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<h2>
After a long vacation from church I reluctantly paid a visit to a local church to see if anything had changed.</h2>
<br />
It went as I expected. The cult indoctrination began at once. You see no one is allowed in modern churches to have beliefs that differ from others in the church. To have a brain is a sin. To have your own ideas, however well reasoned out, or closely held, is sacrilegious. You are cajoled, arm twisted, brow beat, and ridiculed, until you accept their interpretation of scripture. Or you are run off... There are no other acceptable outcomes.<br />
<br />
Is this not the very definition of a cult? Are not most all modern Christian
churches cults? I think you can guess my position on this question. <br />
<br />
You are told that scripture is the absolute word of God, and not to question it at all. <b>Want to see the results of that?</b> The Christian sect <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity" target="_blank">Christian Identity</a> believes that black people are the spawn of Satan. There are Christian sects that believe that they are going to get beamed up to Heaven a-la, a Star Trek transporter beam right before TSHTF. And most Christians interpret Romans 13 to mean that your government can never be wrong, and to follow it into the pits of hell. That was what Hitler taught the German people, and this is what the vast majority of American Christians believe today, in large part because you can not question what you read in scripture.<br />
<br />
I have been told over, and over, and over never to question what you read in scripture. <b>Really?</b> So if I read the scriptures to mean that blacks are the spawn of satin (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity" target="_blank">Christian Identity</a> does) then I dare not question this at all? I can not use the reasoning brain that God gave me? The king James bible says "thou shalt not kill. " Well should all be pacifists then? And then we have the problem of other bibles saying "thou shall not murder." How can you have conflicting words of God? Is that not a contradiction in terms? Could we have a translation problems? And my guess is if you have one translation problem you have dozens. Oops I'm questioning... I'm sorry, and a blasphemous heathen. I really didn't mean to use the brain God gave me. I am being so un-cult like.<br />
<br />
If I interpret that scripture tells us to do absolutely everything the government tells us to do, I should not question that either. People get these differing interpretations, yet most Christians say that you should not question what you read in scripture, UNLESS it disagrees with THEIR interpretations. Then they question it. <span style="color: orange;">Have you ever seen a more absurd, circular argument?</span> Never question anything unless it disagrees with what I get out of scripture.<br />
<br />
I have not figured this all out as of yet, but I do know that not questioning what you think scripture is saying, Romans 13 in particular, has caused more evil to take hold in this country than any 10 other causes put together. Is that not the ultimate of ironic statements? That in a manner of speaking that a verse of scripture is responsible for most of the evil in this country.<br />
<br />
Call me a heathen, or whatever other derogatory term you want to use, but for the life of me scripture looks like a math book where after reading it one person thinks 1+1=4, and the next person that reads it thinks 1+1=6, and IMHO questioning is in order. <br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<h2>
<b>Getting back to church....</b></h2>
To the people that I talked with that Sunday, my problems were my fault , or God was punishing me because of this or that. Never mind that most of them have participated in the destruction of our country, it's economy, it's freedoms, and it's moral character mainly through their vote, and their refusal to get seriously involved in keeping an eye on the psychopaths and sociopaths that call themselves politicians and public servants. A few months back I could not get a single member of this church to begin <a href="https://thingsyourlocalpaperwillnevertellyou.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">attending local government meetings.</a><br />
<br />
No - it is their childish, irresponsible behavior that lies at the root of not only many of my problems, but the problems that most of us face.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://thingsyourlocalpaperwillnevertellyou.wordpress.com/" target="_blank"></a><br />
Here is another example: Almost to the man, they have by their actions, or their inaction's, supported the dental and medical monopolies. Yet the fact that I am mercury toxic to them is my fault because that is the kind of God they see. A God that destroys your life if you somehow slight him. <b>They live in a world with no personal responsibility whatsoever. They vote for people that openly proclaim that they are thieves, and then when the actions of their elected thieves hurt someone, it is not their fault for voting the thieves in. No, it is the fault of the victim.</b> The victim must have pissed God off somehow and they are suffering because of that. <br />
<br />
The evil that Christians support is boundless. They openly worship Caesar more than God. They will certainly not hold Caesar accountable for his actions. They seem to think this would somehow be blasphemous as Caesar is a deity to them.<br />
<br />
Here is a thought experiment for you: If a Christian see's a woman being raped, he goes to her aide. Right? But if the same Christian see's a government agent raping, stealing, or murdering someone, they do nothing. Often they will even justify the action. Christians take little or no responsibility for the state of the
world, nor do they try to change things. They attribute every evil thing to
the will of God, rather than their own poorly thought out actions, and their worship and approval of Caesar. <br />
<div style="color: orange;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: orange;">
As I said at the beginning: modern Christianity is a mental disorder.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="background-color: black; color: white;">
RESOURCES:</h2>
<span style="color: black;"><br /><a href="ftp://anondata:Anon2256@tittiger.com/Chuck%20Baldwin/" target="_blank">Pastor Chuck Baldwins 4 sermons on Romans 13</a><br /> </span><br />
<br />
<div style="color: white;">
<span style="background-color: black;"> "Government is how we choose to treat our fellow man. Nothing more nothing less. Hence government is how we choose either to love our brothers or rape them. Unfortunately most Christians have chosen the latter." ~ Joe Tittiger</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: black;">"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" ~Ben Franklin</span></div>
<div style="background-color: black;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Required reading: </span> <a href="http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/ruwart_all.html" target="_blank">Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle </a></span></div>
InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-74943323842220007372012-06-07T10:43:00.002-07:002012-06-07T10:43:49.077-07:00An un-salted church is not healthy<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://durablefaith.com/2012/05/31/unsalted-church/#comment-2127">http://durablefaith.com/2012/05/31/unsalted-church/#comment-2127</a></span><br />
<br />
Today America is circling the drain of moral decay and economic
decline. The church at large has nothing to say about tyranny,
complicity with evil, preparedness, or resistance. The 501c3 and fear of
audits has most churches self-censoring on a wide range of issues
including abortion, homosexuality, spanking, and conscientous resistance
to evil government orders. The church is carrying on with its meetings
and activities trying to win a soul here and a soul there, meanwhile she
is losing relevance and credibility with entire generations over her
offensive silence on the ethical issues of our day.<br />
There are timely moral issues that people are desparate to
learn about but the church has decided they are not spiritual issues
(even though Jesus’s teaching apply to these issues). Meanwhile, most
college students wont take up a seat at church but when seats aren’t
available, they will <a href="http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/urban-game-changer/2012/apr/7/ucla-students-hang-trees-ron-paul/" target="_blank">climbing trees</a> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019:1-19:10&version=KJV" target="_blank">like zaccheus</a> trying to hear Jesus) to get a chance to hear Ron Paul speak about topics the church wont dare to speak about.<br />
When the church limits its role in the world to only evangelism, when
it declares that the only things that matter are the eternal
destination of souls and the continued preaching of the gospel, when the
church has lost its saltiness, it should be no suprise that many are
lining up to trample it underfoot.<br />
<strong>If the youth group is worldly and is sleeping around, its ok, there is forgiveness at the cross.<br />
</strong><strong>If the parents curse and shout at home and put on
church faces and church clothes on sunday, its ok, they’re not perfect,
just forgiven.<br />
</strong><strong>If the eloquent pastor has areas of his life that are
simply out of control, it serves as a reminder to us all that God can
use broken people to preach the truth.<br />
If the government begins to intrude into the affairs of the church,
telling pastors what they can and can’t preach about sin,
convictions, and parenting…</strong><strong>its ok, as long as they don’t tell us not to preach the gospel…</strong><br />
Many believe that ‘the great commission’ formalized the commencement
of the ”era of the church” whose job was to preach and convert souls
until Christ returns. But where exactly do we find the biblical
directive to focus on evangelism (winning souls) as the key task of the
church?<br />
Let’s pause and consider what the ‘Great Commission’ actually says<br />
<blockquote>
Matthew 28 <sup>19 </sup>Therefore go and <strong>make disciples</strong> of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, <sup>20 </sup>and <strong>teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you</strong>. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”</blockquote>
The world <strong>evangelism </strong>isn’t in the great
commission. I looked at the greek and its not there either. In fact, the
key focus in the original language of the great commission is <strong>discipleship</strong>. <a href="http://durablefaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/disciple.gif"><img alt="" class="alignright size-full wp-image-2057" src="http://durablefaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/disciple.gif?w=500" title="disciple" /></a>The phrase<strong> “make disciples” </strong>is translated from the greek <strong>Matheteuo </strong>which means:<strong> </strong>“Not only to learn, but to become <strong>attached</strong> to one’s teacher and to become his <strong>follower in doctrine and conduct</strong> of life.” It is quite distinct from the greek noun- <strong>Manthano</strong> which means “<strong>to increase one’s knowledge</strong>, to be increased in knowledge”.<br />
Discipleship is intentional relationship whose goal is to incrementally and in an ongoing process, <strong>transform lives into resembling Christlikeness</strong>.
Evangelism emphasizes preaching a message which requires intellectual
assent, repeating a prayer, and making a good confession that Christ
died and has risen. Discipleship emphasizes conformity of thinking and
lifestyle to the pattern of Christ. Evangelism emphasis has produced
churches which mirror their culture in every way including statistical
rates of substance abuse and divorce.<br />
<blockquote>
“The God of holiness and eternal majesty is hardly
mentioned these days. The preachers used to declare with holy boldness
to the pew dwellers, “You are lost.” Today it is, “You are loved.” It
takes living men to deliver the living Word. Unless the preachers walk
in the fear of the Lord and step out of eternity into the pulpits, the
spiritual life of the nation will continue in its descent to weakness
and finally apostasy.”<strong> Leonard Ravenhill</strong></blockquote>
There are other pragmatic differences as well. Evangelism focuses on
the moment when someone chooses to believe, but there is much work to be
done before and after that moment. If we are simply focused on the
moment of decision, who will befriend those who are hostile to the
gospel. Who will provide belonging before believing so that unbelievers
can taste christian community and kindness? What about after the
decision? If everyone is focused on preaching the gospel and evangelism,
who will mentor them and share the deeper truths about God’s
transformational power for sanctification? Who will go out on the
streets with them and provide on the job training for being ambassadors
for Christ?<br />
What if we could rediscover the biblical focus of discipleship and
holiness. If instead of (or in addition to) focusing on one time
decisions, the church were focused on relational and transformational
discipleship, perhaps:<br />
<strong>The youth groups would be distinctly different than their
secular peers and they would apply positive peer pressure (exhortation
unto sanctification) with each other in a subculture of Christian
community. <br />
The parents would personally train up their kids in the way they should
go instead of outsourcing their education and entertainment to a godless
society.<br />
The pastors would not be selected on the basis of their oratory skills,
but on their proven effectiveness in making disciples and training
leaders.<br />
If the government began to intrude into the affairs of the church,
telling pastors what they can and can’t preach about sin,
convictions, and parenting; the bold unashamed pastors would continue to
teach “whatsoever I have commanded you” and would defy the state’s
commands which run contrary to God’s commands and Christ’s teaching.</strong><br />
Perhaps the reason that the church can’t seem hang onto its young
people and can’t find its voice against a godless and tyrannical
government is because it has lost sight of its calling to discipleship
and life transformation.<br />
It’s time to show the world the roaring lion as well as the
meek lamb. its time to fulfill the great commission including “teaching
them to obey whatsoever I have commanded you”. We must stop the
self-censoring on ethical issues where the government is wrong. We must
overcome the fear of man and be faithful to the word. <br />
Let’s not forget that the same Jesus that called us to be the <a href="http://durablefaith.com/2011/05/23/salt-and-light/" target="_blank" title="salt and light, not salt or light">light of the world also called us to be the salt of the earth</a>.<br />
<blockquote>
<sup>MT 5: 13 </sup>“You are the salt of the earth. <strong>But
if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is
no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled
underfoot.</strong> <sup>14 </sup>“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. <sup>15 </sup>Neither
do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on
its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. <sup>16 </sup>In the same way, let your light shine before others,that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.</blockquote>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-63570720622713220752012-05-27T11:22:00.001-07:002012-05-27T11:23:46.722-07:00An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><i><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger187.html" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms </span></b></a></i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><i> </i><b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">by
<a href="mailto:jhornberger@fff.org">Jacob G. Hornberger</a><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.fff.org/"><i><b>Future
of Freedom Foundation</b></i></a></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Dear Troops:
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Yesterday
– Memorial Day – some people asserted, once again, that
you are “defending our freedoms” overseas. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Nothing could
be further from the truth. Those people are just repeating tired
old mantras. The reality is that you are not defending our freedoms
with your actions overseas. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Your
actions overseas are placing our freedoms here at home in ever-greater
jeopardy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Consider your
occupation of Iraq, a country that, as you know, never attacked
the United States, making it the defender in the war and the United
States the aggressor. Think about that: Every single person that
the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in Iraq had absolutely
nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Yet, the countless
victims of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have friends
and relatives, many of whom have become filled with anger and rage
and who now would stop at nothing to retaliate with terrorist attacks
against Americans. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Pray tell:
How does that constitute defending our freedoms? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> It was no
different prior to 9/11. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the
troops intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities
after a Pentagon study showed that this would help spread infectious
illnesses among the Iraqi people.</span><br />
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 135px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div align="right">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">It worked.
For 11 years after that, the troops enforced the cruel and brutal
<a href="http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/2004-02-09a.htm" target="new">sanctions
on Iraq</a> that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
(See “<a href="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1009f.asp" target="new">America’s
Peacetime Crimes against Iraq</a>” by Anthony Gregory.) You’ll
recall U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp" target="new">infamous
statement</a> that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from
the sanctions were “worth it.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> By “it”
she meant the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. You
will recall that he was a dictator who was the U.S. government’s
ally and partner during the 1980s, when the United States <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp" target="new">was
furnishing him</a> with those infamous WMDs that U.S. officials
later used to excite the American people into supporting your invasion
of Iraq. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> The truth
is that 9/11 furnished U.S. officials with the excuse to do what
their sanctions (and the deaths of all those Iraqi children) had
failed to accomplish: ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and replacing
him with a U.S-approved regime. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> That’s
what your post-9/11 invasion of Iraq was all about – to achieve
the regime change that the pre-9/11 deadly sanctions that killed
all those children had failed to achieve. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> No, not mushroom
clouds, not freedom, not democracy, and certainly not defending
our freedoms here at home. Just plain old regime change.</span><br />
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 135px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div align="right">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">In the process,
all that you – the troops – have done with your invasion
and occupation of Iraq is produce even more enmity toward the United
States by people in the Middle East, especially those Iraqis who
have lost loved ones or friends in the process or simply watched
their country be destroyed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">In principle,
it’s no different with Afghanistan. I’d estimate that
99 percent of the people the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured
in that country had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Why did you
invade Afghanistan or, more precisely, why did President Bush order
you to do so? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> No, not because
the Taliban participated in the 9/11 attacks and, no, not because
the Taliban were even aware that the attacks were going to take
place </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> President
Bush ordered the troops to invade Afghanistan – and, of course,
kill Afghan citizens in the process – because the Afghan government
– the Taliban – refused to comply with his unconditional extradition
demand. You will recall that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden
over to an independent tribunal to stand trial upon the receipt
of evidence from the United States indicating his complicity in
the 9/11 attacks. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Bush responded
to the Taliban’s offer by issuing his order to the troops to
invade Afghanistan, kill Afghans, and occupy the country. In the
process, U.S. officials installed one of the most crooked, corrupt,
and dictatorial rulers it could find to govern the country, one
who is so incompetent he cannot even hide the manifest fraud by
which he has supposedly been elected to office.</span><br />
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 135px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div align="right">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">In the process
of installing and defending the Karzai regime, the troops have killed
brides, grooms, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons,
daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and countrymen, most
of whom never attacked the United States on 9/11 or at any other
time. They simply became “collateral damage” or “bad
guys” for having the audacity to oppose the invasion and occupation
of their country by a foreign regime. (It should be noted for the
record that U.S. officials considered these types of “bad guys,”
as well as Osama bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslims, to
be “good guys” when they were trying to oust Soviet troops
from Afghanistan.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">Was there another
way to bring bin Laden to justice? Yes, the criminal-justice route,
which was the route used after the 1993 terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> That’s
right. Same target, different date. In fact, the accused terrorists
– Ramzi Yousef in 1993 and Osama bin Laden in 2001 – were
ultimately located in the same country, Pakistan. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> In Yousef’s
case, he was arrested some three years after the attack, brought
back to the United States, prosecuted, and convicted in federal
district court. He’s now serving a life sentence in a federal
penitentiary. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> No invasions,
no bombings, no occupations, no killing of countless innocent people,
no torture, no war on terrorism, and no anger and rage that such
actions inevitably would have produced among the victims, their
families, and friends.</span><br />
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 135px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div align="right">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">In bin Laden’s
case, we instead got a military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan,
where the troops have killed, maimed, tortured, and hurt countless
people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> How in the
world have your invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq
defended our freedoms here at home? Indeed, how have the assassinations
and bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else
defended our freedoms? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> All these
things have accomplished is keeping foreigners angry at us, thereby
subjecting us to the constant and ever-growing threat of terrorist
retaliation here at home. As I have <a href="http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-05-20.asp" target="new">pointed
out before</a>, the U.S. military – that is, you, the troops
– have become the biggest terrorist-producing machine in history.
Every time you kill some Iraqi or Afghan citizen, even when accidental,
ten more offer to take his place out of anger and rage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">That’s
the same thing that was happening prior to 9/11. In fact, there
were some, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation,
who were warning prior to 9/11 that unless the U.S. Empire stopped
what it was doing to people in the Middle East (including the deadly
sanctions on Iraq, the support of Middle East dictators, the stationing
of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional money
and armaments to the Israeli regime), Americans would be increasingly
subject to terrorist attacks. On 9/11, we were proven right, unfortunately.
(See <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805075593/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=lewrockwell&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0805075593&adid=0PR73RJ2TJ8H7HNRCMXJ&" target="new"><i>Blowback:
The Costs and Consequences of American Empire</i></a> by Chalmers
Johnson.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">How does the
constant threat of terrorist retaliation arising from your actions
in Iraq and Afghanistan make us freer here at home, especially when
you – the troops – are responsible for engendering the
anger and rage that culminates in such threats, owing to what you
are doing to people over there?</span><br />
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 135px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div align="right">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;">Consider also
what the U.S. government does to our freedoms here at home as a
direct consequence of the terrorist threat that you, the troops,
are producing over there. It uses that threat of terrorism to infringe
upon our freedoms here at home! You know what I mean – the
fondling at the airports, the 10-year-old Patriot Act, the illegal
spying on Americans, the indefinite detention, the torture, the
kangaroo tribunals, Gitmo, and the entire war on terrorism –
all necessary, they tell us, to keep us safe from the terrorists
– that is, the people you all are producing with your actions
over there. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> In other words,
if you all weren’t producing an endless stream of terrorists
with your invasions, occupations, torture, assassinations, bombings,
and Gitmo, the U.S. government – the entity you are working
for – would no longer have that excuse for taking away our
freedoms. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> This past
Sunday, the <i>Washington Post</i> carried an article about American
wives who were recently greeting their husbands on their return
from Afghanistan. Newlywed Anne Krolicki, 24, commented to her husband
on the death of one of her friends’ husband: “It’s
a pointless war,” she said. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> That lady
has her head on straight. She’s has a grip on reality, doesn’t
deal in tired old mantras, and speaks the truth. Every U.S. soldier
who dies in Iraq and Afghanistan dies for nothing, which was the
same thing that some 58,000 men of my generation died for in Vietnam.
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Please don’t
write me to tell me that you all are good people or that you’re
“patriots” for simply following whatever orders you are
given. All that is irrelevant. What matters is what you are doing
over there. And what you are doing is not defending our freedoms,
you are jeopardizing them </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Sincerely,
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"> Jacob G. Hornberger<br />
President<br />
The Future of Freedom Foundation</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><i>Reprinted
from <a href="http://www.fff.org/">The Future of Freedom Foundation</a>.</i></span><br />
<div align="right">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><i>June
1, 2011</i></span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><i>Jacob
Hornberger [<a href="mailto:jhornberger@fff.org">send him mail</a>]
is founder and president of <a href="http://www.fff.org/">The Future
of Freedom Foundation</a>.</i></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><i><b> </b></i></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: small;"><i> </i></span>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-7054858908232108922012-03-18T19:05:00.001-07:002012-10-01T11:51:52.233-07:00Are you a victim of Christian persecution?<div style="font-family: inherit;">
</div>
I bet you thought this piece was going to be about some societal bias against Christians......<br />
Well while that exists, I think that the Christian persecution of others is a much more serious problem. Yes you read that right.<br />
<br />
With 80% of the population claiming to be Christian, one must assume that Christians support everything that this government does. For they have the numbers to change things, and not acting to change something is supporting it.<br />
<br />
Go out and talk to Christians. Almost any Christian you talk to supports the 10 planks of the <a href="http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html" target="_blank">Communist Manifesto.</a><br />
<br />
They support building codes and zoning which is the first plank of the Communist Manifesto. The abolition of private property.<br />
<br />
They support a graduated income tax, the second plank.<br />
<br />
They support the inheritance tax because they fall for class warfare, the 3rd plank. <br />
<br />
They support the asset forfeiture laws the 4th plank.<br />
<br />
They support a national bank (The private Federal Reserve) the 5th plank.<br />
<br />
Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. The 6th plank exists as the FCC, DOT, and mandated drivers licenses.<br />
<br />
The 7th, 8th, and 9th I leave to you to look up as an exercise.<br />
<br />
And almost to a man, Christians love the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto - government schools and would fight to the death to keep them.<br />
<br />
I am not a scripture quoting Christian, or a bible thumping Christian, I have been know to drink to excess, and can swear like a sailor. However unlike most Christians, I know the difference between right and wrong. <br />
<br />
<b>Most of all, I find it very upsetting that almost all Christians support theft, murder, and rape.</b><br />
<br />
<b>They support theft to fund what they euphemistically call their public schools. They would never in a million years vote for a politician that did not promise to steal off of some group to give something to them. <b>And this is the primary reason we live in the screwed up world that we do.</b></b><br />
<br />
They support murder in our foreign policies and wars that kill millions of innocents. They support murder when they support victim disarmament laws.<br />
<br />
They support rape when the support victim disarmament laws. They support rape when they turn a blind eye to more men being raped each year in prison, than women being raped in total. And they continue to be "tough on crime" and vote for "tough on crime" candidates that keep this status quo. They also support the rape of the many children that are raped by the victims of prison rapes.<br />
<br />
Many Christians can quote scripture, and they go to church each Sunday, but have no capacity to think. (Perhaps because they joined a church to have a pastor to do their thinking for them.) This 80% of the population is what is wrong with America, and is the greatest threat to our liberties. <br />
<br />
Now answer honestly.... Does the above describe you? If so what are you going to do about it?<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">"Government is how we choose to treat our fellow man. Nothing more nothing less. Hence government is how we choose either to love our brothers or rape them. Unfortunately most Christians have chosen the latter." ~ Joe Tittiger </span><br />
<div style="color: red;">
<br />
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." ~Albert Einstein</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="color: black; font-family: inherit; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-36337533038113608072011-11-27T00:53:00.000-08:002011-11-27T00:53:42.221-08:00The Internet Nazi’s come to SeyourThis is going to be an on going story about how big business may be sniffing your Internet packets without a search warrant in violation of the 4th amendment. Their justification is that they claim to be protecting copyrights. The reason I am unsure about the packet sniffing is that you are not told who your accuser is nor do you have access to their supposed evidence. To get this info you have to open a can of worms that allows them with all of their resources to more easily take legal action against you, who most likely can not even afford an attorney. This whole thing reeks of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber">Star Chamber</a>.<br />
These people with money have had regulations written by the FCC that was never meant to write laws, that strong arms your ISP (Mediacom in this case) into shutting down your account for supposed copyright violations with no due process, again in violation of the Constitution. There are also laws written by congress (the real congress not the super congress) dealing with copyright infringement. But I think most of us know that the congress is owned bought and paid for by powerful special interests.<br />
To top it all off, the bottom line is that they want you to do this as there is an easy solution but they run from the solution, because the intent is to <a href="http://wp.me/P1OXpx-5I">stifle free speech</a> on the Internet. They want to strike terror in your heart every time that you download anything.<br />
Every aspect of this story does not pass the smell test. It’s complete lawlessness. Does that surprise you in a nation ruled by an illegal alien from Kenya?<br />
Stay tuned.<br />
One thing that I have learned is that there really is no proof as to wrongdoing and that it is machine generated. Someone (I do not even have the right to know who my accuser is) all they go on I understand is the file name. For instance I could have a home movie called “Star Wars” and based solely on the file name I could get flagged for copyright violation when in actuality the movie is one that I made and own. The only way to verify if this is their material is to look in the packets (without a warrant) and do what is known as a CRC check and I am fairly certain that they are not doing this. So in effect they have NO proof of a copyright infringement but they get your Internet shut down and can even get criminal convictions with no proof! It’s amazing what money can buy these criminal thugs! They don’t even need proof and they don’t have to give you any due process as guaranteed under the Constitution. It’s a case of guilty until found guilty because they have lots of money.<br />
This is a criminal gang, that has bought off our congress and has laws written for their special interests. In fact there is not even a law. It is my understanding that it is an alphabet soup agency such as the FCC that wrote the implementation of this “law” not congress as specified in the Constitution. Yes the more you dig the more it stinks.<br />
What really aggravates me is the fact that by default everything is copy written. So saying that someone downloaded copy written material is really a misnomer. What should be said is that they DL’ed material the the copyright owner wanted to be compensated for and was not. And how are you to determine this when you click on a file and DL it? How are you to read the copyright owners mind? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho">This file</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI">this file</a> are both copy written. The first file I happen to know the owner allows anyone to copy and distribute his work. The second I believe that is the case but am not sure. He has not made YouTube take it down at least. How about <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/150136/pirate-radio-usa">this movie</a> at HuLu? There is a FBI copyright notice. So by watching it are you DL’ing and breaking copyright law? DL <a href="http://freeviewdocumentaries.com/2011/10/07/forks-over-knives/">this one</a> however and you will get a notice from your ISP that you have DL’ed copywritten material and they may terminate your service. And you may even be criminally prosecuted. How is one to know? You don’t and they want to keep it that way! It looks to me that this is being used to <a href="http://wp.me/P1OXpx-5I">chill free speech</a> on the Internet.<br />
A solution to the problem would take maybe 8 hours of any competent programmers time. All that needs done is to write a Firefox plugin that when you start to DL a file that it would check against various databases to see if someone claims to have a copy right and also wants compensation, on that particular file. That would be too easy and put the companies that are paid by copyright holders out of business over night. It’s similar to expecting the cure for cancer from the American cancer society. It will never happen as that would put them out of business also. <strong>( I realize the pitfalls and false positives of this method but it happens the be the way the copyright violations are machine generated and your Internet is shut down. I don’t think the founders thought that machine generated accusations met the standard of due process. )</strong><br />
The last slap in the face is that you can not find out who your accuser is or see their so called “proof” without filling paperwork that allows the ISP to identify you and thus open you to prosecution (and they will convict you I am told) with very sketchy evidence to say the least. Usually all they have for “proof” of a torrent download is an IP address and a file name. Not proof of anything at all…. But then again those with lots of money can purchase your being found guilty. Our legal system and legislature are for sale to the highest bidder.<br />
There are several other scenarios where you can receive a false accusation of copyright infringement. One would be when an unauthorized person is using your network and another would be copyrighted material under the fair use law. If you would like to read more check out <a href="http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/faq.html">http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/faq.html</a> – and thanks to commenter Jody for this link.<br />
<strong>Enjoy the free Internet while you can. It is the plan of your government to change that fact as an educated electorate is dangerous to a criminal government.</strong>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-12764556887079669532011-11-27T00:51:00.001-08:002011-11-27T00:51:44.623-08:00CAFR’s and Ending Taxation<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3hUcmNDdA">Ending Taxation – “The Only Game in Town” The way our government can and should be.</a><br />
Have you ever heard of a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)? Watch the above film and start your education as to what governments are up to in the United States. You should be shocked.<br />
Alex Jones also released a great CAFR movie a few years ago that is a little easier to follow,<br />
perhaps this is the best one to watch first.<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFG9CW2RNkA&feature=related">Alex Jones Report on The CAFR </a><br />
<br />
<strong>In short this whole topic exposes the fact that governments have enough invested money that they do not have to collect taxes off of the citizens to pay the bills. They hide this fact by keeping a double set of books. Yes I know it sounds too far fetched to be true but so are many things that governments do. (This may not currently be true as most have lost much of this money due to poor investments in banker scams such as derivatives.)</strong>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-2884963809751704402011-11-27T00:49:00.000-08:002011-11-27T00:50:19.088-08:00Christians need to be responsible for their government.Christians need to be responsible for their actions, yet they are not at all. As a group they are among the most irresponsible group on the planet. Let me explain: My fellow Christians are very duped and confused. They still think that we have a Caesar and that we should do whatever this Caesar fellow tells us to do. Well I will give them that Obama <b>thinks</b> he is Caesar, but that's all I give them. He is not my Caesar nor my God.<br />
Christians are 2,000 years behind the times - as this is a Constitutional Republic that is founded upon the belief that we are Caesar, that we are the government. (See Locke, Paine, and Jefferson.) Yet Christians still recite their <a data-mce-href="http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/media/sermons/RomansPt1.mp3" href="http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/media/sermons/RomansPt1.mp3">Romans 13</a> (also <a data-mce-href="http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3146" href="http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3146">here</a>) mantra in a catatonic manner, as their eyes roll back in their heads. They watch the world go by as if we have a king, with divine rights, or a Caesar, as if they have not a thing to do with the sorry state of affairs in this country.<br />
<br />
<b>Well I hate to burst their bubble, but this government is a direct result of their actions, or their inaction's. And they are responsible for it's actions.</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Christians have created the government we have through their vote, and more importantly - through their silence.</b> They have created this government - arguably one of the most vile, enslaving, and evil institutions to walk the face of the earth, and then like immature children they refuse to take the responsibility of controlling the monster they have created by falling back on their mantra that "It is of God". They let this monster that they create and support - steal, rape, and plunder their fellow man and then acting like their reviled, Pontius Pilate - wash their hands of it.<br />
<br />
The land is filled with moronic pastors, many on the <a data-mce-href="http://www.infowars.com/church-organization-refuses-to-divulge-if-pastors-are-on-fema-payroll/" href="http://www.infowars.com/church-organization-refuses-to-divulge-if-pastors-are-on-fema-payroll/">FEMA payroll</a>, that tell them not to get involved in politics, to love Caesar, <a data-mce-href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis124.htm" href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis124.htm">and their servitude</a>, and the Christian sheeple almost to the man listen and heed this evil, ill advised advice. <a data-mce-href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis124.htm" href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis124.htm">George Orwell</a> would be proud.<br />
This is exactly the state of affairs, (Idiot pastors and gullible Christians) that allowed Adolph Hitler to steer the German Republic into evil. Christians had better take heed and learn some history as they are going down the same path here in the US.<br />
<br />
The situation of Christians creating this dangerous creature called government, and then refusing like immature children to police the monster they have created by doing things as simple as going to city council meetings, is similar to to parent that would hire a child molesting, pedophile, baby sitter to baby sit their children instead of doing due the diligence that would prevent this disaster. But that is OK, all they have to do is catatonicly chant the Romans 13 mantra and they are absolved of all responsitbilty for their actions.<br />
Yea right.....<br />
<br />
<b>Irresponsible Christians are the biggest threat to our liberties in this country today and have but all destroyed everything that once made this country great. Christians have become the engine of evil in this country.</b><br />
<b>Which side are you on? Do you sit silently, drinking the cool aide, condoning the evil? Or are you speaking up?</b><br />
----------------------------------<br />
<i>I offer 2 resources to the reader that would like to investigate the proper role of government the first is a <a data-mce-href="http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/media/sermons/RomansPt1.mp3" href="http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/media/sermons/RomansPt1.mp3">sermon on Romans 13</a> by Pastor Chuck Baldwin. The second the classic by Frédéric Bastiat "<a data-mce-href="http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf" href="http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf">The Law</a>" Both I think you will find extremely enlightening on this topic.</i><br />
"Anyone building a personal library of liberty must<br />
include in it a copy of Frédéric Bastiat’s classic<br />
essay, “The Law.” First published in 1850 by the<br />
great French economist and journalist, it is as clear a statement<br />
as has ever been made of the original American ideal<br />
of government, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence,<br />
that the main purpose of any government is the<br />
protection of the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens...."<br />
----------------------------------<br />
<i>“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” ~ Albert Einstein</i><br />
And just as applicable:<br />
<i>Thomas Jefferson’s seal said “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” but I think it is even better reversed: “Obedience to tyrants is rebellion to God.”<b> </b></i><br />
<i>Finally:</i><br />
<i>"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."<br />
-- John F. Kennedy </i>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-14569834940470839872011-11-08T12:10:00.000-08:002011-11-08T17:30:23.687-08:00The lefts Orwellian view of CapitalismOne of the lefts methodologies is an Orwellian attempt to redefine words. <br />
<br />
Check this out: Wikipedia is trying to redefine a word for which there is a definition:<br />
<br />
<i>"Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[1] There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category...."</i><br />
<br />
If the central thesis of an argument is to redefine words I just don't know how to respond to such a mentally defective belief system. The left is George Orwell's 1984 is at work: redefine words so that people can no longer reason and think.<br />
<br />
Fascism, and mercantilism, and socialism, communism, and criminal describe our economic system much better than capitalism. That is reality. Calling a dog a cat does not make it so. The left can not get over the fact that what we have is not capitalism. Not even close. The word "free market" economic is synonymous with the word capitalism. When is the left going to redefine that word also?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div id=":1id"><wbr></wbr>------------------------------<wbr></wbr>--------<br />
<br />
Remember: “War is Peace” Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.” <br />
<br />
<i>"These words are the official slogans of the Party, and are inscribed in massive letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth, as Winston observes in Book One, Chapter I. Because it is introduced so early in the novel, this creed serves as the reader’s first introduction to the idea of doublethink. By weakening the independence and strength of individuals’ minds and forcing them to live in a constant state of propaganda-induced fear, the Party is able to force its subjects to accept anything it decrees, even if it is entirely illogical—for instance, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of waging war, the Ministry of Love is in charge of political torture, and the Ministry of Truth is in charge of doctoring history books to reflect the Party’s ideology.</i><br />
<i> </i><i>That the national slogan of Oceania is equally contradictory is an important testament to the power of the Party’s mass campaign of psychological control. In theory, the Party is able to maintain that “War Is Peace” because having a common enemy keeps the people of Oceania united. “Freedom Is Slavery” because, according to the Party, the man who is independent is doomed to fail. By the same token, “Slavery Is Freedom,” because the man subjected to the collective will is free from danger and want. “Ignorance Is Strength” because the inability of the people to recognize these contradictions cements the power of the authoritarian regime."</i><br />
<br />
<b><i>THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE LEFT DOES ON MANY FRONTS. DOUBLESPEAK (cognitive dissonance)...THEY TOOK THEIR MODUS OPERANDI RIGHT OUT OF 1984. AND THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY THE THE BANKERS THE VERY PEOPLE THAT THEY CLAIM TO DESPISE. I HAVE SEEN IT AGAIN AND AGAIN......</i></b><br />
<b><i>The tax free foundations fund the environmental movement, the Rockefeller's funded the women's movement, the original occupy wall street was funded by the bankers as all of their demands benefited the bankers, the corporate person-hood movement seems to be banker run. The left consists of dupes and useful idiots. (The right also just a bit less so.)</i></b><br />
<br />
-------------------------------------- </div><div id=":1id"></div><div id=":1id"><wbr></wbr><br />
I really think that the left is beyond hope, they do not want to see what is going on because it would shatter their paradigm. Their irrational thought is ingrained into them, so deep that you can not get it out. This irrational thought IS the religion of the left. They will not let it go even with proof, logic, and facts, it is a matter of faith to the left. Government is the God of the left. That is how they try to impose their will on everyone.<br />
<br />
My experience is that when arguing against leftist dogma. Is that they confuse attacking a philosophy with a personal attack and thus avoid discussing anything. That reaction seems to be part of the leftist mental disorder. Some things are worth my effort some things are not. I am finding trying to reason with lefist dogma is about as productive as pissing on my own leg.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="color: orange;">What really matters is that one understands that what we have is not free market capitalism. </b>(We probably have never had that ever but we were a lot closer 150 years ago and the word did apply more or less.) <span style="color: orange;">T</span><b><span style="color: orange;">he second thing that really matters is that nothing is going to work, no amount of legislation aimed at whoever one thinks is the bad guy, when the government we have does not work, is corrupt and criminal to the core, and is run by a bunch of criminals. The government can not fix itself. </span>We need to fix it and maybe take it down and created a new one from scratch. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: orange;">The left says the bankers control our government, so they want the same owned/corrupt government to write laws to rectify the situation? (Remember that government is the lefts God.)</span></b></div><div id=":1id"><div style="color: orange;"><b> Anyone believing such bull shit belongs in a mental institution IMHO.</b></div><b><br />
</b>Have you ever read Boston T. Parties "Hologram of Liberty"? His thesis (and also that of Lysander Spooner) is that from the beginning the Constitution was created with enough loopholes to allow the federal government to become the monster that it has become. It was all done by design probably by agents of the banks such as Hamilton that was in on the Constitutional convention. He makes a very good case for this being so.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>So far I have only used the word leftist for this article there is a much more accurate term however for these people that hold these irrational, dangerous views. I think the term "Leftist Christians" is a much more accurate description as 80% of the American population identify with the Christian label and a huge percentage of Christians thanks to the negligent clergy also hold these leftists views. And the conundrum is that socialism is the antithesis of Christianity. Reality is stranger than fiction and most of your Christian brothers and sisters are very much your enemy.</b></div></div><div id=":1id" style="color: orange;"></div><div id=":1id" style="color: orange;"></div><div id=":1id" style="color: orange;"></div><div id=":1id" style="color: orange;"><b></b></div><div id=":1id"><b><br />
</b></div><div id=":1id"><b><br />
</b></div>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-1074143889781530262011-09-10T14:11:00.000-07:002011-09-28T12:16:08.033-07:00Lying CopsI just had a local cop harass me over providing my name while on my homes front porch and not being under investigation in the commission of a crime in any way shape or form.<br />
<br />
I was being nice and generous when this so called public servant asked me my name and I told him my first name. When he requested a last name I asked him if there was a Missouri law that required that I give him that information and that if there was would he please provide me with the the statue and then I would be more than happy to comply with the law.<br />
<br />
Instead he tried to intimidate me.(Which to me meant he was a liar.) Asking me if I was wanted. To which I responded to "are <b>you</b> wanted?". Then he tried the "if you have nothing to hide you should tell me" to which I asked him if he had nothing to hide would be OK if I went through his wife's underwear drawer illustrating that my stance was based on something probably foreign to him called privacy.<br />
(And what ever happened to the 4th and 5th amendment? Are they null and void in MO?)<br />
<br />
He keep threatening that there was such a law in Missouri, even thought he would not, or could not recite it.<br />
I told him, I hoped that, he being a public servant and my employee, would not lie to me and relented and gave him my last name. (Which shames me greatly that I caved in...) <br />
<br />
Anyhow if I lied to a cop I could be put in jail for a long time. I strongly believe that this cop (probably a Christian) lied to and manipulated me. And the sad part is that he will not go to jail like I would for a lie. (Note: Even if there is such a law I find it in conflict with natural law and thus null and void.)<br />
<br />
This officer later gave away to someone else that they know who I am (the confrontation was only about power as it usually is.) and that the police department in conjunction with the Feds and their drug money suspect that I grow marijuana because the plant lights are on garden plants till 1 am. I don't know about you, but I think we should pay more taxes to hire more of these public servants so that they can keep an eye on us tomato growers and write tickets for more brake lights being out rather that doing what they are supposed to be doing. (Protecting our God given Inalienable rights.)<br />
<br />
He also made a veiled threat as he walked off: "I know where to find you." Which was obvious -- and I could not construe as anything other than a threat from an out of control public servant that thought that I was the servant.<br />
<br />
I finally got an answer about the law from this cops supervisor. And the reply indicates to me that not only is this officer a liar and lacking in character, his boss lies and is lacking in character also. Why do we hire these kinds of people for these positions? It seem to be this way in every town across Amerika. Why do we live with people of such low character lording over us?<br />
<br />
Does this person really believe his own hyperbole?<br />
He contradicts himself in his own reply...<br />
Here is a snippet of the response that I indirectly got:<br />
<br />
<div>"Mr. XXXX was a witness to an event of yelling and screaming that was called in to the police by a resident of the same apartment building in which he lives. He was approached, not as a suspect, but rather as a witness to what happened."</div><div style="color: orange;"><b>He states once that I was not the suspect in a crime.</b></div><br />
<div><div>"Officer Wright noted in his report that he "did not have reasonable suspicion that [Mr. Tittiger] was involved" in the original altercation, so he did not press the matter further."</div><div style="color: orange;"><b>He states the second time that I was not the suspect in a crime.</b></div><div><br />
<br />
"As to the accusation that Officer XXXX "lied" to Mr. XXXX, he did not, in fact, do so. Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 84, Section 84.710 states, "[Police officers] shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad, and whither he is going."</div></div><b><br />
<span style="color: orange;">Then he quotes a law that requires me to be suspected of a crime to substantiate his officers actions!</span></b><br />
<br />
<div style="color: red;"><b>The fact still remains that this officer threatened to arrest me using a law that he could not quote and which after all did not apply to this situation. Shouldn't police know the law? And if they do not, should they go around badgering citizens with the intent of violating their rights by making up laws as they go?</b></div><br />
This incident has made me look into starting local online newspapers in conjunction with other people:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thingsyourlocalpaperwillnevertellyou.wordpress.com/%20">http://thingsyourlocalpaperwillnevertellyou.wordpress.com/ </a><br />
<br />
I have also discovered this great project that aims to hold police accountable for their behavior.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.copblock.org/">http://www.copblock.org/</a>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-44245048582607394592011-07-28T13:26:00.000-07:002011-07-30T18:50:03.126-07:00Conversation with a contemporary Christain concerning morality.<i><b>This back and forth originated in the comment section of a blog about the tyranny of the FDA over our food production. Here are the posts. I will let you draw your own conclusions.</b></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>Myself: </b></div><div class="comment-body">Nullify! nullify! nullify! and then make it a CAPITAL offense for federal agents to interfere with the right to grow and buy food in the State of Missouri!!<br />
Let’s quite playing games with peoples livelihoods and health.<br />
<a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="color: magenta;"><cite class="fn">Paula Hall</cite></b><span class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><b style="color: magenta;">:</b> </span> <br />
<div class="comment-body">There is also another TEN. The TEN COMMANDMENTS. And anyone who violates them will not be free from punishment. All the Dixons need to do is to be patient and these types of enemies ALWAYS succumb just as long as the Dixons don’t give up. When dealing with the travesties of justice you describe it is always like you say, deceive, push and impress. These are all designed to make people like the Dixons discouraged so they give up on their own. That is all the power these god-pretenders have. I pray the Dixons and everyone else to hang in there for the long run & then we will see who is victorious.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>Myself: </b></div><a class="url" href="http://jtittiger.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow"><b> </b></a><span class="comment-meta commentmetadata"> </span> <br />
<div class="comment-body">Unfortunately Christians are usually the biggest supporters of breaking the ten commandments, here in the “bible belt.” I meet few if any “Christians” that see a thing wrong with stealing off of their neighbors in order to send their kids to school. <br />
Or using the threat of death by government to regulate what his neighbor puts into his body. (They call it government protecting us.) <br />
“The government is of God” and can do no wrong the story often goes…. Despite how many people the government kills in the process.<br />
—————————————<br />
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson<br />
<br />
<b style="color: cyan;"><cite>Susan:</cite></b><br />
<div class="comment-body">Our government is not of God anymore, has not been for a long time. Not all Christians steal from others, that’s like saying all farmers own a John Deere. I think Christians as well as the rest of America needs to be more vocal about the crimes being waged by our government on small farms. We also need to capture the news media somehow, it fails to be news anymore it is censured watered down liberal crap that has too much political bias. We need to do all we can, call the new stations, call radio stations, make sure that everyone starts talking about this. We need to email our friends and neighbors, post on Facebook and tweet every chance we get. If we can somehow shine the light on the evil, it will slink back under the rock from whence it came.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>Myself: </b></div><div class="comment-body">I wish you luck Susan. I am frustrated to say the least.<br />
Most people both Christians and non-Christians are so brain dead that they think the purpose of government is to be our mommy and protect us. They are thus stuck in the trap of arguing for instance that Raw milk is safe and should be legal, Yadda yadda yadda…. <br />
WRONG ARGUMENT!<br />
We need to make the argument that USDA is unconstitutional and that any mandatory organization like it has to violate our inalienable rights by definition. I can decide what I put in my body thank you. Proper legitimate government should be protecting my inalienable right to make that choice, not criminally violating it.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>Myself: </b></div><div class="comment-body">I wish this forum were threaded as I would like to expound about Christians stealing as it is a pet peeve of mine and most Christians are so dumbed down they do not even know when they are stealing. Ponder what you are doing to your neighbor when you borrow money for a house and it is created out of thin air. Think hard and long.<br />
In hindsight perhaps this does relate to the food/milk issue as the same thing is happening when Christians again do not see the shocking immorality of deciding what their neighbor can or can not put into their body.<br />
Thank God for Amish neighbors and raw milk. <img alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://s2.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif?m=1293711006g" /><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: cyan;">Susan:</span> </b><br />
<div class="comment-body">I think it would be hard not to know when you are stealing, and I don’t know about Christians in your neck of the woods but speaking for myself, being a Christian does not mean we are perfect. In fact the very nature of being a Christian acknowledges the fact that we are not perfect and we do sin. I believe when you become a Christian you try to be a better person because Jesus died for us and did so because of the sin we commit. It is not a faith based on believing our good works get us to heaven but that God’s grace given through Jesus, saves us in spite of ourselves. Christians make mistakes, just like other people because we are just people, not smarter, not better, just people. Where is your condemnation for the people that have stolen that are not Christians? Stealing is wrong no matter if you are a Christian, a Buddhist, an atheist or just a plain ole John Smith that doesn’t know what he believes. <br />
I’m not really sure what being a Christian has to do with the topic of Government control over our food sources, but you are right, Joe, the issue is stopping the FDA and the USDA from the control they shouldn’t have. Big government is never the answer.<br />
P.S. The Amish are Christians too <img alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://s2.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif?m=1293711006g" /><br />
<br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>Myself:</b></div><div class="comment-body">Hi again Susan!<br />
My point has absolutely nothing to do with man’s imperfect sinful nature. It has to do with the fact that they don’t even recognize their actions as sinful in the first place. That is a HUGE point and difference IMHO.<br />
Most Christians do evil and do not have the analytical ability to recognize the fact, and that is what is happening with many peoples support of the FDA. i.e. If you can not figure out that stealing from your neighbor to send your kids to school is stealing. Or that delegating the job of stealing to a politician is still stealing. If they can’t recognize these “obvious” immoralities then how can they recognize some of the more subtle ones such as telling your neighbor that he can’t put certain things in his body or that borrowing money from fractional reserve bankers are both immoral acts also?<br />
For those of you that are wondering why borrowing money from a fractional reserve banker is unambiguously immoral, consider that the act of creating money out of nothing is the very definition of inflation. So if your borrowing causes your retired neighbors savings to go from being worth $200,000 to $100,000 over a ten year period, you have taken part in stealing his wealth just as surely as if you robbed him at gun point.<br />
This is undeniable truth yet I have never ever heard a another Christian bring up this point. They do not even realize what they are doing. Thank government schools I guess.<br />
Take care.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>Myself:</b></div><div class="comment-body">Susan said: <i>“Where is your condemnation for the people that have stolen that are not Christians?”</i><br />
———————-<br />
Susan, I condemn stealing or other immoralities no matter who the perpetrator may be. I just hold fellow Christians to a much higher standard. Especially when they willfully and forcefully demand the right to steal and threaten to kill their neighbors with the force of government if they are not allowed to continue stealing. <br />
When you get down to the final analysis that is what Christians in contemporary Ameika do for a living. They go to church on Sunday and then every day of the week they use every tool available to them including governmental threat of death to make sure they can violate every God given right they can of their fellow Christians.<br />
In my opinion they substantiate their evil by their misinterpretation of Romans 13 as meaning that no matter what kind of evil government that THEY create (there is no longer a Caesar) that it is of God and therefore it’s OK.<br />
Be blessed<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: cyan;"><b>Susan:</b></div><div class="comment-body">Wow it sounds like you have a whole lot going on where you are, I can’t answer for anyone else, but what I can answer for are my own actions. When it comes to other people’s sins and mistakes I think it is best to leave it up to God to convict people of what they are doing wrong. I can say that I believe something is wrong but there are many admonitions in the bible about looking at our own sins before pointing out the sins of others. In my own walk I have noticed that God works with each of us as individuals. He may be correcting me on a sin of my own, while working on my husband on a sin of his that is entirely different than mine. Thank God that he loves us enough to do this, but we can get so wrapped up in what He is now showing us that we decide everyone else needs to be straightened out as well. That is not our job. Our job is to be the best Christian we can be, try to lead by example, and when we stumble, ask for forgiveness, get up and try not to trip over the same sin again. How can we show God’s love when we are so angry over the injustices done to us by others real or imaginary? The greatest injustice was done to Christ, yet his words were “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” How can we not forgive our neighbor after so much forgiveness has been shown to us?<br />
I talk about the health benefits of raw milk and organics, I talk about the problems with the FDA and USDA, and most people look at me like I’m a little screwy. I just keep talking, I figure if I talk enough maybe someone will hear a blurb on the TV about Monsanto or run across something online and it will spark their interest enough to learn more about what that goofy girl was talking about. Ask someone if they know what a GMO is, most people will look at you with the deer in the headlight look, they have no clue. We can’t fault them if they don’t know……..we have to just keep talking.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: orange;"><b>Myself: </b></div></div>Susan I can not address the whole thing but I will address a few points:<br />
You said: <i>“When it comes to other people’s sins and mistakes I think it is best to leave it up to God to convict people of what they are doing wrong.”</i><br />
So Susan if I heard you right, and correct me if I am wrong, you think that courts should be abolished and all laws for crimes ranging from burglary to rape should be taken off the books because this is Gods job not mans “to convict people of what they are doing wrong.” And if this is not what you meant I fail to see how I am supposed to differentiate between an individual stealing from me at gun point and someone using the violence of government to steal from me? Is every evil done by government immune from being judged as wrong in your world view?<br />
What about Stalin starving 30 million Christians in the Ukraine? Was that OK because a government did it? I suppose we should not have had the Holocaust war trials because a government gassed the Jews so it was OK and we should have left the judgement up to God. <br />
I am not being flippant I really do not follow or understand your logic at all.<br />
<br />
You also said:<br />
<i>“How can we show God’s love when we are so angry over the injustices done to us by others real or imaginary? The greatest injustice was done to Christ, yet his words were “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” How can we not forgive our neighbor after so much forgiveness has been shown to us?”</i><br />
<br />
Susan forgiveness does not absolve the perpetrator of evil from justice. Again in addition to forgiveness do you want to get rid of all criminal laws? Even with God’s forgiveness for us he still holds us accountable for what we do. Civilized man has done this through out history. <br />
My point is that just because you call yourself government should not absolve you from justice. Nor should something being “legal” absolve an individual or government from justice, it that act is wrong. Did you know that every act that Hitler committed in Germany, including gassing the Jews, was legal? <br />
In the same way my neighbors stealing from me to educate their children is wrong regardless of it’s being legal. It most certainly is not lawful. Do you understand the difference between legal and lawful?<br />
The FDA arresting people for dealing in milk is wrong regardless of the law says. It may be legal but it is not lawful.<br />
<br />
I hope this makes some sense to you. I am not the most articulate person all the time but I am much clearer in writing than verbally.<br />
<br />
This may be redundant but I see the act of Christians turning a blind eye to the evil of stealing of their neighbors assets to educate their children as no different than if they turned a blind eye to a child molester loose in the neighborhood. As I have asserted before most people these days can not even reason logically.<br />
Be blessed Susan<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="border-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.7em; outline-width: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: cyan;">Susan:</span> <br />
I do believe people should be held accountable for their actions, I believe in capitol punishment (now to open a huge can of worms,lol)<br />
Let me give you a for instance so you can understand what I am trying to say. If someone broke into my house and killed my husband. I would want to see them brought to justice. I would go to the trial and hope that he were found guilty. I would however try my best to someday forgive the person that did that. Not for him, for me, for my own peace. The government has passed a law making abortion legal right? I don’t believe in it. I think it is morally wrong and will do what I have within my power to do (vote, pray, speak out etc…) to try to get that law repealed. If my neighbor is an abortion doctor I would probably have many discussions trying to dissuade him. He would know my opinion, but I will not condemn him for it is God’s place to judge him, not mine. If he needs a loaf of bread I will give it to him.</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: small; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Bitstream Charter',serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23px;"></span></span><br />
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The command God gave us to forgive others benefits us more than the ones we are to forgive.</div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.7em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">May I ask, because I don’t understand what you are talking about when you keep saying that your neighbors are stealing from you to educate their children.<br />
Susan</div><br />
<br />
<span style="color: orange;">Myself:</span><br />
Hi again Susan we have to quite meeting like this, :-)<br />
<br />
Let me regress a bit. When this country was founded we had something like a 95% literacy rate (the highest the world has ever known) and it cost money to educate your children if you sent them to a real school. The literacy rate has never again reached this high level.<br />
<br />
Around 1850 the industrial revolution was getting started and factories needed workers who would sit in one place all day long and do as they were told. (Exactly the opposite of your average rural person at the time.) So to solve this problem, powerful people such as the Rockefeller family copied the Prussian educational model and brought it to America. The entire purpose of the Prussian educational model was to get people to do as they were told and not to ask questions - it did that very well and it has worked very well to that end in America also. So the powers that be, got mandatory educational laws passed. The main reasoning for them was so that they would have an army of robotic people to staff their factories.<br />
<br />
How to pay for these mandatory schools? Well the way it has worked out in America is that they instituted the property tax.<br />
<br />
One thing this did was bring about the first plank of the communist manifesto - the abolition of private property. If you have to pay rent on your property and can loose it if you don't pay the rent then there is really no such thing as owning property. Right? <br />
<br />
This is where Christians get lost. They attend churches where the pastor tells them that anything government does is OK. Well since when is stealing off if your neighbor to educate your kids OK with God? It sure was not when this country was founded. If this is OK then having the property tax pay for $50,000 college educations of everyone's children would also be OK. Right? What's the difference?<br />
<br />
How about taxing everyone's property so that every child also gets a first car and a first home? Are you getting the idea? The end does NOT and never will justify the means. It is not my legal duty to educate your child or buy him food or clothes, or cars or homes. It may be my moral duty to help the less fortunate but that is not what we are talking about here.<br />
<br />
Here are some resources for you.<br />
It was serendipity that Reverend Chuck Baldwin wrote a column about Christians following the evils of the State this week:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3798">http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3798</a><br />
<br />
It is also possible today to get a much much better education than offered in any government school and even on most colleges for under $500 a year. Yes per year. And you can educate a dozen of your kids for this same low price.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p655.htm">http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p655.htm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.khanacademy.org/">http://www.khanacademy.org/ </a><br />
<br />
Take a look at "Healing our world" by Doctor Mary Ruwart. She discuses liberty from a Christian perspective and it's free.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/">http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/</a><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: small; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Bitstream Charter',serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23px;">Good talking with you. I hope this has helped.</span></span> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</div><b> </b> </div><br />
</div></div></div><br />
</div>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-44158853392734808472011-05-11T19:24:00.000-07:002011-05-13T13:40:04.560-07:00Bankster of America alertI do not know if you have ever heard stories of ATM machines shorting people with the usual ending being that there is no recourse. I have avoided ATM machines like the plague for this very reason. I have had a Walmart electronic checkout try to short me one time but that did not fly as there were too many people around for them not to rectify the situation. I had an ATM in a Walmart short me severely once but when they opened the machine (They had had this happen before.) they found the money jammed in the internal pathways.<br />
<br />
Now it seems like they have a new angle of stealing from customers. ( As if the double $30 bounce fees that are calculated with software to create the maximum amount of bounces are not enough.) Now they just create an amount that you did not withdraw and you are not aware until later when they say you withdrew a different amount. <br />
<br />
I know for a fact I did not withdraw what they said I withdrew because I was trying to pay my rent without driving into Springfield MO and the machine would not let me withdraw the amount of my rent, so I withdrew less. However tonight checking my bank statement it says I withdrew the amount that I was refused.<br />
<br />
I am going to try and find some recourse and I doubt if I find any. <br />
<br />
Please let me know if you have heard of this happening before or know of any recourse.<br />
<br />
It seems like the pit of vipers is not content with merely counter-fitting money and charging interest on it. Now that they have electronic everything all they have to do is to falsify some numbers and they can steal even more off of you. <i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>** I thought I was done when I just discovered that BOA is now charging you $2 to use other banks ATM's in addition to the fees that the other bank charges.</i><br />
<br />
<b>I suggest the movie <a href="http://freeviewdocumentaries.com/2010/02/27/the-money-masters/">the money masters</a> if you do not yet know how evile these people are. </b><i><br />
</i>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-83628984910193660352011-04-05T12:56:00.000-07:002011-05-11T14:26:08.521-07:00The traditions of men - State MarriagesThe message at church this Sunday was that we should NOT follow the "Traditions of Men."<br />
<br />
Put another way: <br />
<b>"If you <span class="il">dance</span> <span class="il">with</span> the devil you won't change him. He will change you."</b><br />
<br />
During communion this message led to the following thought: <br />
<br />
Why did not everyone clamor for a real communion?<br />
After all The State did not sanction it so it could not have been a real and valid communion could it? I mean there is not a record of it in the court house. <br />
You did not make sure <span class="il">with</span> Caesar that it was OK for you to receive communion. <br />
What if it was not OK <span class="il">with</span> Caesar?<br />
Did you receive the proper counseling, pay the proper fees, fill out the proper paper work, are you of the proper age, have the proper criminal record, don't owe any back taxes or child support?..... ad infinitum. <br />
<br />
You probably agree <span class="il">with</span> me that the above is crazy and you would not stand for it. Yet almost every Christian that I know will clamor for Caesars approval of their marriage. <br />
Why is that? You do know why Caesar started State marriages in this country don't you? <br />
<b><br />
</b>Another strange thing that Christians do is want approval of their church by Caesar. They want it to be a 501c3.<br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Christians are a peculiar breed many of them know scripture inside and out but once their nose is out of the good book they have no clue as how to apply what they have read.</b><br />
<br />
For instance: Christians have no problem stealing from their neighbor to run the Marxist local guberment school system. Nor do they have any problem having the bankers counterfeit the money for their home loans and thus stealing it, by way of inflation from their neighbors just as surely as if they had used a gun to rob them. In my lifetime there has never been a war of aggression where we murder people that never have posed a threat to us and most Christians offer weekly prayers for the safety of the murders. (Soldiers) They almost always vote for a political party that promise to steal off of some group to give to another. They ask Caesar for pemission to work, they ask Caesar for permission build their houses, they ask Caesar for permission to marry. <br />
<br />
Back to the topic of Christians asking Caesar for their God given rights, none that I know have the slightest moral issue with groveling before Caesar for permission to carry a concealed weapon. I do not claim to know the creators mind but it seems to me to be very disrespectful to the creator of the universe not to acknowledge that this right came from him and to seek permission from man as if they were the ones and not God that granted us this right. The Christians that go to Caesar for this God given right also sell out their brethren that can not afford this permission or choose not to seek it for moral reasons. By seeking Caesars permission they admit that Caesar falsely has jurisdiction in this matter and that is OK to lock their brethern in cages or even kill those that do not go along. Just another example of Pastor Martin <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6">Niemöllers poem</a> where Christians do not get involved because they think they do not have a dog in that particular fight. They are of course following the Traditions of Men.<br />
<br />
Would Christians act this same way if Caesar demanded a license to own a bible? Would most get the permission slip and stand by as those that did not get permission were arrested, tortured, and killed? I believe beyond a shadow of doubt that they would. They have shown their heart and character when I comes to lesser issues, such as concealed carry and they would do it with a bible license also. They think: " I paid the fee. I have no dog in this fight."<br />
<br />
<br />
Christians are also very strange about the way they treat God's temple, their bodies. Very simply put they do not take care of it. They shove all sorts of poisons into it 24/7 without a second thought. Suicide is a sin of course but death by food seems to be a Christian virtue.<br />
<br />
<b>Christians in short are good at reading scripture and piss poor at living it. </b><br />
<br />
Can I point you to the chapter and verse where it says it is wrong to do any of these things? No I can not. Unlike many Christians I rely on the brain and the intelligence that God gave me to figure out what is right and wrong. This may shock you but I think that the blind unquestioning following of scripture is the genesis of most of the evil in this country. When I look at the Christian community in this country I see interpretations of scripture that span the breadth of my imagination. Therefore like I just said I use the brain that God gave me to filter out what I have read. I am not one that if scripture says that the Sun rises in the West that would believe it without further investigation.<br />
<br />
Their is a verse in the bible where a vast majority of Christians just accept what they read without using a lick of the intelligence that God gave them to think about or question it, and IMHO the interpretation of this passage as I alluded to is the root of the great evil that pervades this country.<br />
<br />
The particular part of scripture is Romans 13. And after a lifetime of talking to other Christians I am certain that even if Caesar had horns and a tail that most would follow him into the pits of hell and dine on the bodies of their children. Look at the Christian nation of Nazi Germany. Most all of them did exactly as they were told. Look at our own troops when it comes to war. Young men will go to any country in the world and murder people that are not a threat to them in the least when told to do so. While back at home the preachers will take time to "pray for the troops".<br />
<br />
<br />
I am far from perfect. In some cases unless I wish to become incarcerated or killed by Caesar I must follow the Traditions of Men. Not only on the issues that I mentioned, but literally dozens of other issues that most Christians do not even consider.<br />
<br />
That is not the choice that the Apostle Paul made. The older I get the more certain I am that this waffling by myself and others is the root of most of the problems that we have in the world today.<br />
<br />
* If you would like to hear my take on Romans 13, I suggest listening to the 4 sermons that Reverend and and Patriot Chuck Baldwin has posted as "The True Meaning of Romans 13 " part 1-4, right <a href="http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><br />
</b>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-12904368393740925292011-02-19T20:22:00.000-08:002011-03-25T15:03:06.684-07:00The Unholy trinity: DentistsIf you have been following the alternative health movement you will have read that the federal government has after years of denial finally admitted that fluoride is not good for people. Even Wally-world has it seems curtailed the sale of fluoride enhanced baby water guaranteed to lower your child's IQ significantly with continued use. Watch <a href="http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=42652E035A1B1BAAAE1F340B54694975">this short video</a> by Mike Adams the "Health Ranger."<br />
<br />
Mercury is being recognized as having a strong connection to ADD --> Aspergers --> Autism<br />
They tell us that their is now no thimiseral in vaccines and dentists are covertly pushing non-mercury fillings.<br />
<br />
You would think that this dental monopoly could not have done any more damage than they have by pushing mercury and fluoride on the unsuspecting public but they have. But they have done much much more damage to the public's health. And I may add the sheeple deserve it in a way by trusting in government to protect them when if they were students of history they would see the fallacy of this blind trust. While they may deserve their comeuppance I certainly did not but yet the sheeple were not satisfied to make these poor choices for themselves they also with the barrel of a gun (Through their support of licensing laws) forced these choices upon me.<br />
<br />
The latest incident of victimization from my fellow man and the dental monopoly involves the loss of fillings that the dentist refuse to put back in and since I am not one of the priesthood I can not even get an intelligible answer as to the reason why. What I do know for sure however is that in the very act of drilling that dentists do immense and irreparable damage to your teeth. They do not know that there are ways to re-enamel teeth through diet without drilling. They are so uneducated in fact that they do not even understand the connection between diet and dental health. I will not go into detail in this article as how to accomplish this. I just wanted to make people aware of the great and very real damage that dentists do to people under the auspices of a monopoly that will kill or imprison those that dare to question them and try to do different. Look for an expansion on these thoughts in the future.<br />
<br />
** The title Unholy Trinity refers to an earlier<a href="http://jtittiger.blogspot.com/2010/03/unholy-trinity-doctors-dentist-and.html"> post. </a>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-3932693973960853602011-01-17T22:06:00.000-08:002011-01-17T22:10:26.637-08:00Does this describe your Sheriff? If so be scared.... VERY scared.These convictions were reinforced by a news article that I read tonight at McDonald's. It was about so called drug raids by the country Sheriffs department. (Do not misconstrue my words as being supportive of drug abuse. But drugs are a medical issue and not a legal one. Actions, not things, should be outlawed.)<br />
<br />
Anyhow coming from a guy that purports to support the Constitution these are very strange actions. A guy that does things like this would be open to doing the same thing to people that put other things in their body that Caesar tells him to arrest. Perhaps he would be open to doing the same thing to people who put raw milk in their bodies? His actions indicate to me that he is either not very bright or that to him the end justifies the means and who know where else he may compromise what little integrity that he has. I am of the opinion that he has none. <br />
<br />
<b>There are just no excuses for imprisoning, killing, destroying lives, and families of someone that has not done a single thing to harm another human being no matter how detestable you might find their actions. He is in a way implementing a theocracy and enforcing his view of morality even though he is himself a sinner and should likewise be imprisoned for his trespasses if he is to <br />
be intellectually consistent.</b><br />
<br />
Do you believe in the butterfly effect? The law of unintended consequences? I do, very much so.<br />
<br />
And I am sure that this sheriffs actions have influenced wives whose husbands were ripped away by him to either abort their child, or to have children that grow up in abject poverty and abuse because of his actions. Even if his actions were not to cause the preceding, I consider his destroying lives, families, and marriages right up there on the scale of evil with abortion. I have not even gotten into the invasion and loss of rights that this war, that he is waging against fellow Christians, inflicts upon every single person in this country. Not to mention the money they steal at gun point to help them wage it from every single person in this county.<br />
<br />
As you can tell I am passionate about this. I do not see "his side" or have any excuse for people that act in this manner. It is in my book as bad as if this guy ran an abortion mill. He has no integrity <i></i>and does not respect the God given rights of his fellow man.<br />
<br />
<b>This is not a temporary slip in judgment on his part - this is an integral part of his world view and character. </b><b>This goes way beyond acceptable human fallibility in my book</b>. In a perfect world he would be tried for his very clear and blatant treasonous actions and suffer the possible consequences.<br />
<br />
I would urge caution in dealing with this kind of evil person. Maybe he is the lesser of two evils but he is still evil. Unfortunately good men with integrity are almost an extinct breed. However much he talks the talk he does not walk the walk. <br />
<br />
<b>He is responsible for destroying thousand upon thousands of lives.</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://jtittiger.blogspot.com/2010/01/good-cops-and-other-urban-legends.html" target="_blank">Good Cops and other urban legends. </a><br />
<br />
I am off my soap box for the evening. Thanks for listening.<br />
Thom<br />
JeffersonInalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-61618348013663636742011-01-13T22:55:00.000-08:002011-01-17T22:01:12.065-08:00Misguided Christians: Do you have your church license?Imagine that next year that Caesar (your owners) or whatever you wish to call the criminal tyrants that pose as legitimate government these days, institute a license for you to attend church and it is going to cost $1,000 a year for this license. Caesar justifies this even though the Constitution explicitly prohibits them from doing so, arguing that some people abuse religion to harm others. Look at Jim Jones, and David Koresh. Look at the religious people that attack and heckle gay people. I mean you don't support Jim Jones, David Koresh or gay haters do you?<br />
<br />
<br />
Most of the Church people are not concerned about this licensing. After all they are already licensed as <a href="http://hushmoney.org/">501c3 churches</a> and this slippery slope is not even noticed by any of them. After all does not scripture tell us to give unto Caesar and that government was put there by God?<br />
<br />
It turns out that a full 50% of the towns inhabitants can not afford this onerous licensing fee. It does not bother the people that can afford the fee. They do not consider their compliance as legitimizing the actions of Caesar. They do not see that their compliance makes it difficult for those that can't afford the license to buck the system. Those brethren that choose to attend church without the license will just have to pay the consequences for disobeying the authorities, if their lives and the lives of their families are destroyed or even forfeited that is what they deserve for not respecting the Lords representatives on this earth.<br />
<br />
There are another 25% of the towns people that do not qualify for the license. They are called "prohibited possessors". They have committed some offense on a long, arbitrary, and growing list that excludes them from buying their right to attend church. Things that preclude people from being church licensed include such things as ever being in an argument with your spouse, (Or just not being able to afford an attorney and having to cop a plea.) as violent people are more likely to abuse religion. If you have ever been committed even against your will you most defiantly can not hold a church license, think how dangerous that would be. If you are on the arbitrary no fly list you also can not have the license. We certainly do not want to promote terroristic christian churches. Lastly what ever new thing of the day that Caesar decides to call a felony can also keep one from holding the license. They don't call them God given/inalienable for nothing. Caesar as Gods representative has every right to take them away.<br />
<br />
There are only 25% of the people that can get the church license left. Every year there become fewer and fewer because the fees continue to go up and the "prohibited possessor" list gets more and more inclusive. This 25% never considered it their duty to join with the other 75% and tell Caesar what to do with his licensing. If they had the tyranny would have been stopped.<br />
Eventually everyone lost their so called right to a church license.<br />
This is classical example of Reverend Martin <a href="http://remember.org/witness/links.let.niem.html">Niemöller's Poem</a>.<br />
<br />
And if you have not figured it out yet this is not about church licenses. This is about gun laws. Concealed carry permits in particular. Christians going along with Caesar, taking the God given rights of other Christians, for any reason, under any circumstances, is to my way of thinking an abomination to God. He gives us gifts and his people help Caesar take this rights from their brethren. The record of Christian defense of their God given rights is abysmal at the very best. They have always drawn their line in the sand and have always redrawn it when Caesar crosses it. They are about to be backed over a cliff from this backing down. <br />
<br />
The few that do have an immovable line in the sand often say that it is their Religious freedom is the immovable line in the sand. I submit to you that this is the wrong one. You can worship even if Caesar burns your bible, and bulldozes you church. You can only be prevented from worshiping by death. One of the lines in the sand that you should never back down from should be any and every aspect of self defense because without self defense every other right WILL be taken from you. <br />
<br />
There is an abundance of dumbed down Christians these days. Help educate them as to the consequences of their actions before it is too late. <br />
<br />
Please spread the word.<br />
Be Blessed<br />
Thom JeffersonInalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-82871217460581138572010-12-24T03:04:00.001-08:002010-12-24T03:47:52.039-08:00Vermont nulifies s510 the "food safety bill"<div style="font-family: inherit;">The state of Vermont has drafted legislation that nullifies the "Patriot act of food" - the United Nations Codex Alimentarius, a preview of what the New World order has in store for us.<i></i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><i>I ask ....What</i> <i>the heck is wrong with the incompetent bums in Jefferson city? Do they think that God given agricultural freedoms are unimportant in a state that has more farms than any other state in the union? Do these guys live on another planet or what? </i><em>Are they just going to sit on their overpaid posteriors and let this United Nations dictated abomination enslave the people of Missouri?</em></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br />
</i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Also what is wrong with the press in this state? Their job historically has not been to lie in bed with politicians but rather to hold their feet to the fire. As far as I can see the newspapers here are only useful for what the Soviet citizens delegated issues of Pravda for. It is ironic that today that Pravda does a much better job of reporting than the Missouri media. Have you read it lately? <a href="http://english.pravda.ru/" rel="nofollow">http://english.pravda.ru/</a><br />
It's quite good if you want to find out what is happening in Amerika.</i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Why don't we have a plethora of online newspapers filling this gap and dereliction of duty of the Missouri press? Has everyone but myself taken the blue pill?</i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">What stance has your local sheriff and his merry band of men taken on this abomination called s510?</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Does he even have the intelligence and gonads to realise that the FDA can not operate in his county without his permission? He is after all the highest law enforcement officer in the country and can arrest any federal agent violating citizens rights in his county. <a href="http://sheriffmack.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://sheriffmack.com/</a> If your sheriff is not even educated as to the powers and responsibilities of the office I suggest you elect another one that does. Is there a way to recall treasonous sheriffs?</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Get on the ball sheeple of Amerika. Politics is not and never ever will be a spectators sport.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">And if you think voting or pleading with politicians will ever change anything I have an ocean front property in Niagua for sale. Politicains are your empolyees and your servants and it's about time that you let them all know in uncertain terms that you understand this relationship and if they do not that they had better find other employment.<br />
<br />
Lastly educate yourself check out Sherrif Macks site and the 10th amendment center: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/030827_food_sovereignty_Vermont.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.naturalnews.com/030827_food_sovereignty_Vermont.html</a></div>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-34427507918351789962010-12-24T00:33:00.000-08:002011-01-11T20:18:39.655-08:00Laws do not give us back our rights!<b>When it comes to rectifying lost rights,</b><br />
<b>More laws ARE NOT THE ANSWER! </b><br />
<b><br />
For one it means that we have to wait sometimes years for justice. <br />
And then we depend on the idiots that created the problem in the first place so solve it.<br />
Does that make any sense?<br />
This approach also infers that government through legislation gives us rights. We are born with all rights! A law can only impinge upon rights so let's reject the idiotic idea of laws to give us back what we already posses.</b><b> If you buy into the idea that government can give you back a right, then you also buy into the idea that they can take rights away. Are we really that stupid and gullible? Obviously so.<br />
</b><br />
<b> <br />
</b><b>A major flaw in the US Constitution is that it depends on Government branches to regulate the misdeeds of other branches. This is a flawed view of how things really work. I think the real answer is to institute control of government by the people into the Constitution.</b><b> </b><br />
<b>I would like to see the institution of citizen grand juries created, that are able to indite ANYONE what violates an Americans Inalienable rights. The right of Jury nullification should also be ensured at the Constitutional level along with making it a crime to selectively pick a jury. (They call it Voir Dire - I call it jury tampering.) <br />
<br />
We also need to get rid of many so called civil matters. For instance: In family matters unelected bureaucrats can come and take your child with no due process or trial. We need to insure in stronger language that everyone is entitled to a jury trial in EVERY matter. <br />
<br />
In my world view CPS workers that take children with no due process should be indicted by civilian grand juries on treason charges with the possibility upon conviction of execution. In my world view most government officials if they did not change their present behaviour would face a similar fate.</b><br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<b>In the near term nullification by your county sheriff and state legislature may be a good way to mitigate the tyranny coming out of the District of Criminals. Make your voices heard. But please do anything other than clamouring for your owners to give you back a right. It's not very dignified to say the least.</b><br />
<b><br />
<br />
In Liberty<br />
Thom Jefferson</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>resources:</b><br />
<a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/"><b>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/</b></a><br />
<b><a href="http://sheriffmack.com/">http://sheriffmack.com/</a><br />
</b>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-69079490316458064502010-12-14T13:06:00.000-08:002011-01-11T20:22:38.011-08:00Response to a Child Protective Services lover....<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Bills comment:</b></span> I see this a little differently I guess. I see a worker doing her job. She asked and received all the right questions and the case was disposed of. Like the man says it was a friend of his that made the complaint there must have been something in the fathers behaviour that made the complainant think he was some type of nut. The law states that once a complaint is made (any complaint)it must be investigated. In recent past if child protective services had done their job as well as this lady did a child would have been spared years of sexual abuse by kidnappers. <br />
<br />
<b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Inalienable rights responded:</span></b><br />
<br />
Well I see this differently also Bill.<br />
It's apparent to me at least, that the controlled media and government schools have made sure that most people just accept what they are told. i.e. CPS is good - end of story<br />
<br />
Just doing your job is the excuse the guards used at Auschwitz to justify what they had done. It is no excuse when what you are doing is wrong. Everything that Hiltler, Stalin, and Mao did was legal and "the law" in their countries.<br />
<br />
We have something in this country called the 4th amendment that protects against unreasonable searches.<br />
Is the hear say word of a neighbour saying someone has a bug out bag probable cause that a crime has been committed? No way in hell! I have family that fought and died for that 4th amendment and trampling it in the dirt like this is very disturbing! A thing about rights... you use them or lose them.<br />
<br />
The Constitution also guarantees us trial by jury. But guess what? When the government wants to mess with your most precious possession - your children, unelected bureaucrats without any due process act like our gods and just take them with no Constitutional due process at all. In the "land of the free" you can get a jury trial for a speeding ticket but not if the state decides to kidnap your children!<br />
<br />
I will keep the rest short but I suggest that you do your due diligence on the following:<br />
<br />
A book "the Franklin cover-up" <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Cover-Up-Satanism-Murder-Nebraska/dp/0963215809">http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Cover-Up-Satanism-Murder-Nebraska/dp/0963215809</a><br />
<br />
Links organised child abuse right to the steps of our capital and was written by former US senator.<br />
<br />
<br />
A movie about this was made and scheduled to air on the Discovery channel and right before it was to air pressure from Washington caused them to cancel it and destroy most copies of the show.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://freeviewdocumentaries.com/2010/03/08/conspiracy-of-silence-the-franklin-cover-up/">http://freeviewdocumentaries.com/2010/03/08/conspiracy-of-silence-the-franklin-cover-up/</a><br />
<br />
Here is a YouTube of a retired FBI agent testifying to this fact:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXuOlDNZJis">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXuOlDNZJis</a><br />
<br />
A US defence contractor in eastern Europe, DynCorp - had it's employees caught owning young girls as sex slaves. Guess what DynCorp is up to these days?<br />
<br />
They are private contractors that run CPS in many states.<br />
<br />
One last obser<span style="font-family: inherit;">v</span>ation. I have know 4 women that were taken into state CPS custody in their youth. Every single one of them was raped while in state custody!<br />
Another inexcusable th<span style="font-family: inherit;">i<span style="font-family: inherit;">ng that they do is to put an inordinate number of children in their custody on </span></span><i style="font-family: inherit;">psychotropic drugs. </i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If all of this is not frightening enough these organisation just "lose" hundreds of children on a regular basis and there is no accountability. In one infamous incident Florida DCF lost 3,000 children one year. Can you imagine this happening to you? Just losing your child with no questions asked?</span></span><br />
<br />
I urge all reading this to quit drinking the cool aide and to start thinking for yourself.<br />
<br />
Blessings<br />
Inalienable RightsInalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2358167576939557819.post-90099185812984411702010-11-18T11:17:00.000-08:002011-11-12T12:45:36.545-08:00Why does law enforcement in Marshfied MO make itself our enemy?It used to be that law enforcement in this country was looked up to and respected. Seems like forever does it not? There was also a time when we the people were law enforcement. How is that you ask? Is that not Vigilantism?<br />
LOL ----- Hell no!<br />
<br />
Well where do you think law enforcement gets it's powers? Is it not from "We the people" delegating certain powers that WE HAVE to government? Most people have been brain washed in government schools and by the controlled media to think other wise. The truth is that "We the people" are sovereign and that any power that government claims to have, has to first be one that "We the people" have, and secondly it has to be explicitly delegated to government by us for government to posses that power.<br />
<br />
Where am I going with this?<br />
I am going to relate a few recent incidents where local Webster County Missouri law enforcement were the criminals instead of being the protectors of my rights as they were created to do. (And also swore an oath to God and the Constitution to uphold.)<br />
<br />
You can search an earlier post of mine for more details but the combined police and sheriffs department here a few months back executed an illegal, false felony arrest on me. They pointed a shot gun and an AR15 at my head. (Not to mention other officers with service revolvers.) What would have happened to them if they had shot and killed me? You read the press.... Nothing other than a few days of paid leave until their own biased department cleared them.<br />
<br />
What the cops failed to do was due diligence. A week earlier I had called "Americas Most Wanted" and cleared up the fact that I was not Paul Merhige<a href="http://www.usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/merhige/merhige.htm"><br />
http://www.usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/merhige/merhige.htm</a><br />
I am 20 years older than him and look nothing like him. The bottom line being that anyone other than employees of an incompetent government agency would face severe civil and possibly criminal penalties for not doing due diligence and finding out the APB was null and void. Nor should the civil penalties be paid by you the tax payer. They should be paid by the officer who committed the offence. In other words these law enforcement people should be broke, out of a job, and homeless on the street. This would not even begin to compensate me for the nightmares and sleepless nights that this incident has caused me.<br />
<br />
Last month I caught a person in the act of letting air out of my tires in this same town. The local police refused to press any charges stating that they would not know what to charge them with. This same Cop however informed me that he would arrest me if I let the air out of his cruisers tires. It seems like there is one set of laws for the slaves and another for our masters.<br />
<br />
Very recently I was moving out of a place where I rented a room. The room mate became violent and I called 911. I told the officer (and it is in the police report) that I said much of my belongings were still in the house and that I wanted to remove them. The room mate told them that I had removed everything. Is this not the crime of theft that should be investigated?<br />
Hell no according to the people that we pay to protect our rights! All the room mate had to say was that I owed him money and all of a sudden this theft became civil. The police would do nothing and told me that I had to pursue "civil" action, which I could neither afford nor was there any resolution there.<br />
<br />
I have 2 very real problems with the above scenario. One is that I could have went right back into that house since it takes 30 days to evict someone for non-payment of rent. Are they telling me then that my room-mate without any due process could have taken my tooth brush, all of my clothes, my food, my bibles, even my bed and let me sleep on the floor al because he alleges that I owe him money? The second huge problem I have is that even if this money were owed, it was not past due. In fact I had always paid rent on the 4th and this was the 3rd. Even on the 4th it would not be past due until the 5th! In effect this criminal cop (And the criminal DA that backed him up.) aided and abetted in the theft of my personal property for an alleged debt BEFORE the debt even became due! This cop and this DA IMHO belong in jail as they are no different than the street thugs that hold you up or break into your home to steal in the middle of the night!<br />
<br />
In another incident the same room-mate committed criminal assault on me. He threatened to break my jaw and I got the incident recorded on my cell phone. The police had to be badgered to even take a report and then they would only agree to charge him with disturbing the peace. A far far cry from misdemeanor or felony assault. To add insult to injury it seems that they are not going to serve this person at all. Because I am just your average Joe and not someone politically connected in this town. The cop did talk down to me and asked if I were not the homeless guy that had lived in a storage locker!<br />
<br />
*UPDATE on the above assault charges: They finally decided to press some very much less serious charges. The astonishing (well maybe not - this is government after all) thing was the threatening letter from the Marshfield Police department, that if I, the injured party, did not show up for their kangaroo court that a warrant would be issued for my arrest. Let that sink in for a moment!<br />
<br />
I also spoke with a detective in town about the selling and buying of stolen goods in the home that I had just vacated. What did this protector of my liberties then do? He went right to them exposing that I had talked to him and putting my life and property in danger. Words can not convey my loathing for this so called public servant.<br />
<br />
This was not just one isolated incident of law enforcement making an honest mistake. No I have related 5 separate incidences of these so called peace officers spitting on the Constitution and my rights. This is business as usual and the MO for these criminals with badges. How many more hundreds or even thousands of times have they done the same to others?<br />
<br />
To wrap it up I feel violated. I feel raped and the rapist was so called law enforcement. I am not sure who to despise more - so called law enforcement or the criminals.<br />
<br />
In Liberty!<br />
Thom Jefferson<br />
<br />
FYI if you see criminal police behaviour report it here:<br />
<a href="http://www.copblock.org/">http://www.copblock.org/ </a><br />
<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-arch.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-arch.html </a><br />
<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert16.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert16.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.policecrimes.org/">http://www.policecrimes.org</a>InalienableWrightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02108700971976990644noreply@blogger.com0