I get by with a little help from my Friends — Thomas Weddle On Constitutionalism

Every so often I will run something here written by a friend. This piece is by Thomas Weddle. Here Thomas explains why the current Federal Government is illegitimate. By extension this reveals that when Americans obey the Federal Government they are disobeying Romans 13:1-2.

This piece will require one to think through a different prism then one is accustomed. Read through it a couple times. See if you understand the central point that he is making.

In terms of the Federal Government Rebellion is our problem – just obey the Constitutions and laws, that’s the only thing missing, that’s what people, as individuals, refuse to do.

I believe God will bless obedience, He promises to in Scripture, and He’s not a respecter of persons. Christians, as individuals, have no excuse for sustaining their involvement in the rebellion against the established and ordained Constitutions and laws. I know a lot of people don’t like the Federal Constitution so they license their rebellion against it in their minds, if they want to change it there is a lawful way to do so. Nowhere does God promise to give us everything we desire on our own terms at all times, rather He instructs us to do what is right, overcome evil with good, and suffer patiently wrongs – suffering for righteousness sake is what is acceptable to God not suffering for doing wrong.

This claim that people can’t do what is right unless it’s some democratic thing is just the inverse claim of going alone with doing wrong because everybody else is. “I would obey the law if everybody else would too” is not valid reasoning.

I believe God blesses obedience and He curses disobedience.

Here’s the problem:

The American people are not constituent members of the Constitutional system of government anymore and they can’t do anything until they are. Rather, they sustain their secession from the several states and Federal Constitution to take up their citizenship and nationality in the Federal government itself via their individual voluntary political consent to the unlawful 14th Amendment. Nobody forces them to do that. Even after Reconstruction individuals taking up citizenship and nationality of the Federal government was voluntary – nobody was forced to do that. Of course they encouraged everybody too, in their Expatriation Act, but it’s voluntary. Really it wasn’t until the New Deal that everybody did that.

The Federal government was never, nor is it today, one of the several states of the Federal union. The American people voluntarily and willing empower it, instead of their several states, as their national government contrary to its establishment and ordination as a Federal government.

The Federal Constitution was not intended, designed, established or ordained to be a National Constitution nor does it restrict the plenary powers of a national government. The people of Michigan formed a state there, they created a constitution and restricted their national government and also became members of a constitution creating a federal government between the several states for certain limited purposes. That has never been lawfully changed, rather the people of Michigan decided to enjoin and sustain a political rebellion, form the Federal government into their new national government abandoning Michigan and have it overthrow and suppress Michigan’s constitutions and laws while sustaining residence there as foreign nationals. That has to end. That rebellion has to end.

Americans have consolidated themselves within the Federal government itself in violation of law and formed it into their national government. Nobody forces them to do that, they choose to – they can pick up and emigrate to Canada if they want to at any time, or they can pick and emigrate back to Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia &c also. It’s one’s inalienable right to do so protected by the Constitutions and laws. Move to New Zealand if you want to, that’s your right; but combining with New Zealand to overthrow the government here is something else entirely, that’s sedition and treason. So is combining with domestic enemies within the Federal government to overthrow Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia &c too.

If you live in Michigan and wanted to claim the nationality of Tennessee you would need to move here, establish legitimacy as one of the people of Tennessee. Cutting a deal with Tennessee to invade and overthrow the state of Michigan and its laws so you can live there claiming the nationality of a Tennessean under its laws but residing in Michigan is rebellion and unlawful.

That is precisely what the people are doing with the Federal government though, that’s not lawful. They may not form an alliance with the Federal government itself to convert their right to emigrate into a letter a marque and reprisal to overthrow their several states impairing their Constitutions and laws (see Article 1 Section 10). The Federal Constitution only permits a Federal union of free and independent states, they may not secede to create a new confederation among them nor may they secede to convert the Federal government into a National Government over them.

Just because everyone else does that doesn’t mean we have to, we can choose to obey the Constitutions and laws as established and ordained. That is what God requires in Romans 13:1-2, He judges this rebellion against that establishment and ordination. He’s forgotten their children in abortion. He’s raised up women to rule over them. He’s made them servants of wickedness in this political economy. Most recently, He’s raised up the Sodomite amongst and over them. It’s time to repent, stop rebelling and start obeying – nobody else is, be different.

A state is people – there are hardly any people claiming their birthrights living in their respective countries. The several states (republican) are politically unpopulated – there’s not enough legitimate Michiganers, Indianans, Tennesseans, Virginian’s living in the several states whereby their Enabling Acts as republican states are even in force. Rather, their are foreign nationals residing there in puppet governments that are political sub-divisions of the Federal government. These are legal fiction “states wherein [federal citizens] reside,” while within the geographic territory of the several states in violation of Article 4 Section 3.

Americans will either awaken from this “state of denial” that they live in or they may find themselves floating on the USS State of Denial in international waters scratching their heads wondering what happened to them after they are deported.”

Supreme Court Definition of Marriage … An Examination

Yesterday on FOX roundtable format the questions discussed was perverted coupling.

Tony Perkins (taking the side of “no” to perverted coupling) questions Ted Olson

“What is the purpose of marriage?

Ted Olson (taking the side of “yes” to perverted coupling) responds,

“The purpose of marriage is what the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times. It is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition two twin brothers could marry each other. Indeed, by Olson’s definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover. Indeed, by Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.

We would also ask Olson, “By what standard or authority does Olson dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does Olson dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty? Olson must answer the basis of authority by which he limits marriage the way that he does.

Upon Olson’s and SCOTUS’s definition what prohibits necrophilia or bestiality? After all, animals are persons too by the lights of many egalitarian Unitarians.

I hope that people, who still have a smidgen of rationality left, can see that Olson’s putative reasoning is stemming from a Worldview that denies the reality of distinctions. This “reasoning,” is John Lennon’s “Imagine” incarnated

“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..”

How different is that sentiment then,

“Imagine there’s no distinctions
It isn’t hard to do
No sex organs to worry about
And no gender too
Imagine all the people
Living Transgendered lives”

2.) Notice that Olson invokes three of the three French Revolution slogan markers. The French Revolution geared up madame guillotine to support “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” Olson likewise invokes each one of these as the standard by which marriage must be allowed. The sodomite agenda is just the next extension of the French Revolution.

3.) Olson insists that perverted coupling is a “fundamental right.” Where does that right come from? Who has given that right? By what objective standard does one appeal to in order to find this right?

Machen On Education As The Most Important Part Of Human Life

“In the political and social discussions of the day, God’s law has ceased to be regarded as a factor that deserves to be reckoned with at all…[But] of one thing we can be sure—a nation that tramples thus upon the law of God…is headed for destruction” (140,141).

A “very ancient principle in the field of education…has been one of the chief enemies of human liberty for several thousand years—the principle, namely, that education is an affair essentially of the State, that education must be standardized for the welfare of the whole people and put under the control of government, that personal idiosyncrasies should be avoided…It is a very ancient thing—this notion that the children belong to the State, that their education must be provided for by the State in a way that makes for the State’s welfare. But that principle, I think you will find if you examine human history, is inimical at every step to liberty” (87,88).

“I hope therefore…that we may return to the principle of freedom for individual parents in the education of their children in accordance with their conscience…But let us be perfectly clear about one thing—if liberty is not maintained with regard to education, there is no use trying to maintain it in any other sphere. If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might just as well give them everything else…No, we do not want a Federal Department of Education and we do not want, in any form whatever, the slavery that a Federal Department of Education would bring” (98).

“Uniformity in education under central control it seems to me is the worst fate into which any country can fall…parents have a right to educate children as they please…education is essentially not a matter of the State at all” (100-102).

We “are dealing with the most important part of human life when we are dealing with education” (114).

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

Note, with the very last quote in this batch that Machen has said the Education is the most important part of human life. This is not a statement that is inconsistent with Christianity as the R2K boys might say. The R2K boys, given their beliefs about the dichotomous nature of reality, should be appalled that any Christian Theologian would say that, we “are dealing with the most important part of human life when we are dealing with education,” since for the R2K boys education belongs not to the grace realm (which would be their “most important”) but to the common realm.

This reveals, again, that Machen was R2K the way that Jeffery Dahmer was a chef.

Machen could say what he said because he realized, unlike the R2K boys, that education is primarily a religious enterprise. Machen understood that Education was definitely not a so called “common realm” concern. The education of children is driven by religious considerations and presuppositions and any Christian who says otherwise, may well be saved, but nevertheless remains a damn fool who shouldn’t be listened to on much of anything no matter how many degrees he has behind his names.

Also, we should zoom in on Machen’s statement here about the dangers of Christians giving over their children to the State for schooling. Machen realized that should we give up our children to the State then it will do little good to hold on to our guns, income, or anything else vis-a-vis the State. If the pagan State is the tutor and the “en locus parentis” of our children for upwards to 8 hours a day then Christians will not normatively keep our children for our undoubted catholic Christian faith. If you give your children to the State to be saturated, soaked, and marinated in a pagan worldview, via the government schools you can not expect the children to become anything but reflections of the religious pagan education in which they were saturated, soaked, and marinated. This is especially so when one adds to the the prison time government school influence upon God’s covenant seed the impact of a pagan culture.

When we baptize our children part of what parents hear in the Baptismal charge is that Baptism is not to be used as a superstition. Yet, when we baptize our children and then send them to Government schools what else can the practice of Baptism have been by the parents, but a superstition that was supposed to be a talisman to ward off the evil that comes from government school education?

Dr. J. Gresham Machen was a prophet who being now dead, still speaks.

Judicial Sodomy

“In the political and social discussions of the day, God’s law has ceased to be regarded as a factor that deserves to be reckoned with at all…[But] of one thing we can be sure—a nation that tramples thus upon the law of God…is headed for destruction.”

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State — pp. 140, 141
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

The ongoing imposition of the Sodomite agenda upon the American “nation” has been a top down political power grab that defies the whole concept of “we the people.” The laws that had prohibited same-sex marriage had all been enacted, in a way consistent with Republican forms of Government, either by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

What we have witnessed on this issue is nothing but Judicial Tyranny and Gubernatorial and Congressional Cowardice. The US Congress could have passed DOMA with a Constitutional provision that their ruling was outside the purview of the Courts but chose to decline.

You see, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by “knocking [federal courts]…out of the game.” This could have been done with the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) legislation but was not.

The Gubernatorial cowardice is seen in Governor’s refusing to declare SCOTUS decisions as void and without standing in their States. This is the old State’s rights argument.

Inasmuch as neither the US Congress nor State Governors refuse to stand up to Federal Judicial Tyranny, in that much they are just as responsible for the Sodomization of America as is the Federal Courts.

Since sodomy is intimately connected with a faith system that is pagan, what is happening now is the Judicially forced implementation of the yoke of a pagan religion upon the American people. Americans, may, because of their Christian faith, find the support of all things sodomite against their Christian ethical code but they are, by the working of Judicial fiat, being forced to embrace a new pagan ethic. That America is being forced to embrace a new ethic and so a new religion can be seen by a flurry of cases that the courts have ruled upon,

1.) Courts forcing Printer to make and sell sodomite T-shirts

Judge Wants To Force A Printer To Make Pro-Gay T-Shirts

2.) Courts forcing Owner of Venue to rent their barn for Lesbian pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:899DX0w0AyEJ:www.truthandaction.org/farmers-fined-13000-refusing-host-lesbian-wedding/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

3.) Courts forcing Bakers to make cakes to serve sodomite pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

Judge Orders Colorado Cake Maker To Serve Gay Couples

4.) Courts forcing photographers to serve at pseudo wedding.

NM Court Says Christian Photographers Must Compromise Beliefs

5.) Courts forcing florist to serve pseudo wedding.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

This action constitutes tyrannical action against the American people inasmuch as such judicial tyranny is aimed at something much larger than mainstreaming sodomy. What this action is aimed at is imposing a belief system and a religion upon the American people by the State. The American people are being told that their Christian religion is only valid insofar as it does not violate the public square religion of the State.

In brief, the US Courts are sodomizing the American people.

Psalm 58

Psalm 58 has historically been placed among the Psalms of lament. Such laments often contain within them portions of imprecation that are directed at God’s enemies.

As we approach this Psalm we remember the necessity to see Christ in the Psalms when Christ is there to be seen.

Certainly it is the mortal Psalmist who prays this proximately but ultimately we would insist that it is the Lord Christ who petitions the Father against His enemies here. This Psalm is the prayer of an innocent man and only the Lord Christ is the perfectly innocent man. It is true that David prayed this Psalm but we remember that David was the lesser son of God who pictured the coming Christ. It is Christ here who is bringing accusation against His enemies.

This bringing of accusation and the following of imprecation against enemies should be seen in light of our Lord Christ’s own words, when severely angry with Jewish scholars (especially Pharisees and scribes) by calling them “hypocrites”, “snakes”, “offspring of vipers”, “fools” etc in Matthew 23:13-36, Mark 7:6, etc.

We even see Jesus saying to Jews that their father is the devil (John 8:44).

And the Lord Christ speaks of a day when He will say to His enemies,

… depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!

Principle #1 — We perhaps should be slow and cautious to pray imprecatory prayers because like those of whom we might pray imprecatorily we also are sinners. We are likely not innocent of the very things that we are angry about, even if we have been practitioners only in a lesser degree. However, our Lord Christ was very man of very man and without sin and He is perfectly justified in praying against those who would oppose Him. And so we read David’s imprecatory prayers as ultimately coming in the voice of the greater David … the Lord Christ.

But we must not be over much righteous by not praying these Imprecatory prayers ourselves against those who are guilty of those very things the Psalmist speaks of. It is true that we are sinners but it is also true that we are sinners who have joyfully been made captive to God’s righteousness and so we desire to see the Kingdom of Christ advanced. When we pray for God’s Kingdom to come we are praying in general for what the Psalmist prays for with particularity in Psalm 58. We pray, “Thine Kingdom come.” We recognize that for God’s Kingdom to come then all other opposing Kingdoms must be brought low and utterly destroyed. The Psalmist here merely adds particularity to what is called “The Lord’s Prayer.”

Well, as we turn to the Psalm proper

I.) The Psalmist States The Problem (1-5)

vs. 1 refers to “the silent ones.” The word there translated “silent ones” resembles the Hebrew word for ‘gods.’ The word ‘gods’ was often used to refer to human judges (see Psalm 82:1). The reference here then could be a rhetorical question aimed at these wicked judges.

Alternately, the thrust with “silent ones,” when seen in the context of the later reference to judging, may be a statement that Magistrates charged with judging are remaining silent when they should be letting their voices be heard against oppression.

It is interesting that early Christian tradition associated this section of the Psalms with the high Priests and the Sanhedrin as they brought false judgment against the Lord Christ.

A.) What are the accusations brought against these wicked judges?

1.) The 1st accusation we mentioned already – Magistrates are silent against the pleas of the judicially innocent

“Do you indeed speak righteousness you silent ones.”

We might style this a passive complicity in wickedness.

The principle here is that the Magistrate who refrains from defending the cause of the judicially innocent by being passive and silent is himself an accomplice in the wrong. It will do no good for the wicked to plead innocence before God by asserting that they only tacitly consented to the persecution of the judicially innocent by their silence.

Martin Niemoller captures this in his famous poem about silence in Germany during the Nazi era,

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The problem that the Psalmist sees is silence in the face of the persecution of the judicially innocent. While it is true that we must remain circumspect about what we speak and the way we speak and when we speak, Christians dare not fall silent when it comes to wickedness being pursued.

2.) The second accusation — Active pursuit of wickedness (Responsible for violence and oppression)

Note that the actions of the wicked Tyrants was conceived in their inner most being before it was implemented in practice (vs. 2). This is but a reflection on the truth that what a man thinketh in his heart, so he is. The Tyrant ponders and plans these things and follows through.

In short the Psalmist understands that the wickedness of Tyrants is premeditated. They plan them carefully and thoughtfully. These are not what are styled “Crimes of passion” but cold calculating evil.

Spurgeon put it this way,

“They were deliberate sinners, cold, calculating villains. As righteous judges ponder the law, balance the evidence, and weigh the case, so the malicious dispense injustice with malice aforethought in cold blood.”

There are many many examples that we could adduce of cold, calculating villains planning and then executing their wickedness.

We will take the destruction of the Creation account in favor of Evolution. This has not happened by coincidence and chance but has been long planned and then executed. We have seen in our Sunday School class who the Scopes Monkey trial was pre-planned and arranged and the outcome known before the trial started. We have seen what the Chrsitless evolutionists have done in order to invent evidence that evolution is true. From the glued on Moths in industrial England to Haeckel’s gill charts to the manipulated pig and ape fossils the wicked have done just what Psalm 58:3 teaches. They worked out wickedness in their hearts and then weighed out the violence of their hands in the earth.

B.) That Which Explains the Wicked’s work

There is a change here from the wicked being addressed to the wicked being described.

1.) The problem is Original Sin

Sin Nature

Of course this reminds us that man is not basically good.

On President Reagan’s tombstone is inscribed just the opposite of what the Psalmist notes,

“ I know in my heart that man is good … ”

To the contrary the Scripture teaches us that man, left to himself is wicked. That I am wicked. David confirms this in Psalm 51:5 when he teaches that,

“Surely I have been a sinner from Birth; sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

What follows bridges a connection between the wicked and the great serpent dragon… the Satan.

They speak lies … the language of Hell

Jesus, speaking of the Devil said,

“When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.”

In vs. 5 they are even compared to referred to as a serpent who stops their ears against the Charmer.

Here we might remind ourselves that the only reason we are different from those wicked Tyrants described already is God’s grace. We are not smarter, better, then those who have gone astray from the womb. The only thing that differentiates us is God’s Grace in Christ. The fact that we also don’t conspire to do wicked has nothing to do with us and all to do with being brought from the dead and the love of conspiring against God by God providing Christ for us and pouring out the Holy Spirit to be our rescue.

II.) The Psalmist Offers Imprecatory Prayers (6-9)

vs. 6-8 seem startling at first blush. But what is required to rejoice in them is some understanding of wickedness.

If you read Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago or Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany,” or Bacque’s “Other Losses,” or Conquest’s “Harvest of Sorrow,” or any other book that deals honestly with the 20th century then one begins to relish these Imprecatory prayer requests. When one reads how the destruction of the family has been long long planned and then understands how that plan has been executed one begins to relish these imprecatory prayer requests.

When one reads of or sees the trauma of the judicially innocent visited upon them by wicked Tyrants then one longs for the justice of God. When one sees how the judicially innocent have been trampled upon then on longs for God to trample upon those who have visited such cruelty upon the judicially innocent.

The Psalmist longs for the venom of the wicked to be milked.

1.) Break their teeth in their mouth — (So they can do no harm)
2.) Waters that flow away — (No force in their pent up power)
3.) Arrows cut in pieces — (can do no harm)
4.) Snail melts as it goes — (dying in the son)
5.) Stillborn child — (If stillborn then can do no damage)

For simple and common people like myself praying in this way seems like the only recourse we have. The levers of human power are shut off from us by the wicked tyrants. We are mocked for our alleged “fundamentalist” Christianity by those who are practicing fundamentalist wickedness. We are shut up to the God of all the Universe asking for Him to Glorify Himself by defeating His enemies.

And yet as we pray the imprecatory prayers we are reminded that the only difference between ourselves and the wicked is God’s grace. We too are sinners. We too are wicked. And so in praying the imprecatory prayers we are once again filled with gratitude that God differentiated us by uniting us to Christ from eternity.

III.) The Psalmist Rejoices In God’s Vindication (10-11)

Dt. 32:43 “Rejoice, O ye nations, with His people; for He will avenge the blood of His servants, and will render vengeance to His adversaries, and will be merciful unto His land and to His people.”

Jer. 11:20 — But, O Lord of hosts, who judgest righteously, who triest the reins and the heart, let me see Thy vengeance on them, for unto Thee have I revealed my cause.

21 But God shall wound the head of His enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses. 22 The Lord said, “I will bring again from Bashan; I will bring My people again from the depths of the sea, 23 that thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongues of thy dogs in the same.”

Rev. 19:13, speaks of Christ,

“And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His name is called, The Word of God.”

One commentary offers,

“This is the blood of His enemies from His trampling them in the “winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Contemporary Theologian Jon Wenham has offered here,

“The enemies of God are implacable. It is necessary for the vindication of God’s authority and God’s goodness that just retribution should not long be delayed. He prays for it, not shutting his eyes to the horror which it involves. There is not sadistic pleasure in seeing his enemy suffer, no sense of getting his own back, but simply a deep desire that world might see that God is just.”

Edwards

There is an older Christianity that does not blush at this notion. For centuries the idea of rejoicing in the defeat of God’s enemies was common fare.

“The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.”

The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.

Jonathan Edwards
[“The Eternity of Hell Torments” (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]

Boston,

“God shall not pity them but laugh at their calamity. The righteous company in heaven shall rejoice in the execution of God’s judgment, and shall sing while the smoke riseth up for ever.”

Thomas Boston, Scottish preacher, 1732

Our forebears in the faith were different people then we tend to be. They understood that God is angular and will never be made smooth.