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.”

From the Mailbag — Pastor I’m For Open Borders … Why Aren’t You?

Dear Pastor,

I ran across this quote from R. J. Rushdoony and I’m pretty sure you would support it,

We must render honor and justice to all men wherever due, but we have a particular responsibility to care for our own. This means first of all our families. . . . Biblical conduct is regulated by relationship, and to subvert this is to lead directly into welfare economics and socialism. If a man must exercise towards all men the same care, oversight, and charity he does towards his own family, then an impossible burden is placed on him. . . . Every system of ‘universal’ ethics is at one and the same time a system of universal slavery.”

R. J. Rushdoony
On illegal immigration and Amnesty
“Politics of Guilt and Pity”, p. 248

Pastor, I see this quote not as an argument for regulation of immigration, walls, and border patrols but rather as an argument against welfare. I do not see how the need to take care of my own family necessitates that I have a government that prohibits an individual from crossing an imaginary line in say Arizona. This is not logical. Furthermore, to construe this to mean that Rushdoony supported immigration laws is not honest. Could you help me see what I’m not seeing?

Lovey Jardine

Dear Lovey,

Thank you for writing. First let’s consider the RJR quote itself to see if it speaks to immigration. RJR says,

“If a man must exercise towards all men the same care, oversight, and charity he does towards his own family, then an impossible burden is placed on him…”

I would say that this indeed is an argument for regulation of immigration, walls, and border patrols as well as an argument against welfare. So, I do believe you misinterpreting the quote when you say it is not about immigration at all. To hopefully help you see where the relation is between “imaginary lines” and taking care of your family, allow me to offer,

1.) The need to take care of our own families includes the idea of having a stable culture and economy. The flooding of our nation with people of a different religion and culture means your family will not be taken care of because the consequence of such policy means the balkanization of this Nation into hostile religion, ethnic, and economic enclaves which demands a Centralized tyrannical Government can keep in order. One reason the FEDS are following this policy Lovey is that it creates a need for their presence since only a strong handed Government can mediate the hostilities that will arise from the policies of purposeful balkanization that they are pursuing.

2.) The depression of wages resulting in the destruction of the middle class is assured by the current immigration policy. This likewise will eventuate in the voiding of care for our current families. Harvard Professor and Immigration expert George Borjas has analyzed the effects of immigration on the middle class and the conclusion is that this immigrations redistributes capital upwards with the consequence that the mega-Rich get richer and the middle class are increasingly impoverished so that what is created by this policy is a have vs. have not social order. I’m sure you’ll agree with me Lovey that impoverishing your children in order to enrich the Mega-Rich Corporatism class, via this immigration policy, is not taking care of your family.

3.) This quote clearly advances the idea that RJR supported immigration laws when the consequence of them meant the voiding of the care, oversight and charity towards one’s own family. The current status quo does just that. Here is another quote from Rushdoony that communicates much the same idea that Scriptures do call for the extension of hospitality and justice, but not an open-borders re-ordering of social life.

“To call for the modern, humanistic society with an open relationship to all men would have appeared to the Israelites as the ultimate tyranny. The law did not require any such a re-ordering of any man’s private life: It simply required justice in dealing with all men.”

Highest Regards Lovey,

Pastor

______________________________
Lovey wrote back,

Dear Pastor,

Part of your answer was that “immigration “brings down wages”? So we should keep wages artificially high by regulating the number of people that can live or move through a particular area? I guess we not thinking in terms of a free market economy.

When Rushdoony said we need to “take care of our own families” I am sure you are right an he meant extending more power to the government to interfere with the natural right of individuals to move about freely. Yep, that sounds like something Rushdoony would say.

Lovey Jardine

Dear Lovey,

Thank you for writing back. Let’s see if we can tease this out for you.

First, I am not the kind of Libertarian that you seem to be. I do not support this free market economy that you are championing because it is most certainly not a Free Market economy. What you are supporting is the Corporatism wherein the Mega-Corporations are in bed with the Mega-Government to the end of turning the rest of the citizenry into slaves for their pleasure and use. This current immigration “policy” enriches the Mega-rich class and destroys the middle class. Statistics (See George Borjas’ work)

National Data | Economic Impact of Mass Immigration Worse than We Thought

clearly show that current policy means a transfer of wealth from the Middle class to the Mega Rich who are in bed with the Government class. I’m all for free markets when they are fair Markets but the game is rigged right now and I do not support a policy which destroys the infrastructure of the middle class in order to worship at the feet of Austrian Economics while at the same time serving the ends of creating a Globalist New World Order.

Second, per RJR, he was not the Libertarian that North is. North has been destroyed by his worshiping at the feet of Austrian economics.

Thirdly, I would challenge you on your individual natural rights language which is straight out of Enlightenment Humanism. Strictly speaking individuals have no natural rights. As Christians, we have duties. Only God has rights. In this case, per the first RJR quote, my duty and responsibility to care for my own is my particular responsibility. Since Biblical conduct is regulated by relationship my duty as a Christian to my family outstrips your Humanist idea of individual rights. I have already demonstrated in the first response how all of this impinges upon my duty to my family.

A good book to help you think through your whole “Individual Natural Rights” language is,

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-wrong-rights-Robert-Ingram/dp/B0006CZ1R4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1406212559&sr=8-2&keywords=T.+Robert+Ingram

Fourth, you warn about artificially high wages but I hardly believe that anybody would make the case that we are currently living in a time where artificially high wages is a problem for our families which reflect the middle class. The real problem here is the artificially low wages that would result were we to turn this country into a huge sweatshop. Also, I would repudiate the idea that immigration restrictions necessarily lead to extending more power to the Government especially when the policies you are advocating concerning immigration works to the end of setting in concrete a Tyrannical state. The immigrants we are speaking of here are a natural constituency for the Marxist (Democratic) party. That party will use the votes of the immigration pattern to grow the Government into a centralized top down Usurping State. So, you chastise me for my alleged support of larger government because I want it to “provide for the common defense and yet your support of the current immigration imbroglio assures the rise of the totalitarian state. I fear you have not calculated the impact of Corporatism enough in your thinking Lovey. I also think that you need to listen to the RJR lectures where he points out that Libertarianism and Marxism are two sides of the same coin.

All the Best,

Pastor

With Obama-Care The State Is Making A Claim Of Ownership Over The Citizenry

There is a State
It is alive
In it we live
And we survive

The fiat State
Determines Man
It is our God
The great I AM
(The great I AM)

The New Version of the Old Hymn
Our God, He Is Alive

All insurance is a claim of ownership. People who own goods insure those owned goods to protect their investment.

For example, minimum car coverage is required to insure OTHERS against your negligence. But minimum insurance does not require you to cover the cost of fixing your own car in case of an accident. As the owner you can determine that yourself. This requirement of minimum car coverage is within the Constitutional bounds of government since it requires us to protect others from our own dangerous (read driving) actions. In the same way a person is responsible for visitors hurt on their property by negligence to safety. (Research Biblical law of building a parapet on your roof).

If you buy a car on a loan and so have to make payments, the true owner (the company you make payments to) requires you to have full coverage because they own the car, not you. They have a right to insure their investment and so in owning the car they have the right to force you to pay for Insurance. Their requiring you to have insurance is a proclamation that they own the vehicle.

Home owners insurance protects a persons investment in their home, property or personal belongings. Insurance on the home is a claim of ownership on the home by you as the individual who owns the home.

Similarly, Life insurance protects a person (specifically their posterity) from the loss of life. So when I have life insurance it is to protect my family or my business or my children’s future, etc.. Taking out a life insurance policy on myself reflects that I own my life.

Similarly, Mortgage insurance protects the mortgage company’s investment in case of your failure to pay a mortgage. The Mortgage company owns the house and their requirement that the loan-ee purchase mortgage insurance is a claim of ownership by the Mortgage company.

Health insurance protects you, your future health, and your future earnings potential. If you owned your own health you could determine yourself whether or not to purchase health insurance and the unforced private purchasing of health insurance would indicate that you do own yourself.

All these insurances protect the owner of the investment. The owner decides whether or not to have insurance. The cost of insurance is paid by the owner. And the owner is the one guaranteed payment in case of loss.

When anyone demands for us, upon pain of penalty, to have health insurance they are claiming a right of ownership over us and over our income. I am not opting to pay insurance – I am being forced to purchase insurance by the entity (The FEDS) who considers itself my owner or I pay a penalty. If I buy a vehicle with a loan and don’t purchase full coverage auto insurance I will be penalized by the owner of the vehicle by the vehicle being reclaimed. If I buy a house with a loan and don’t purchase mortgage insurance I will be penalized by the owner of the house, by the house being foreclosed on. And now, if I don’t purchase health insurance I am, in the same way, being penalized by having to pay a tax for not purchasing health insurance, by the entity who insists it is my owner, and this demand is being made by the entity (the State) who has made a claim to owning my health (and by extension myself) by demanding that I have health insurance to begin with.

Now this claim of ownership by the State over the citizenry, via the requirement of health insurance, is made doubly clear when we realize the State will be the one who determines who will and will not be allowed to have certain medical procedures. This is especially so when we consider the death panels that are written into the Obama-care legislation. The State, being the owner of the citizenry, will determine who live and who dies by means of determine who receives certain medical care and who does not.

The government is essentially playing the mobster enforcer who makes us pay to guarantee our safety. The State, by requiring health insurance, is communicating that they are the ones who own us.

In all this the State is claiming to be that entity in which we live, and move and have our being. In all this the State is taking up the prerogative of God and claiming to be God walking on the Earth. In all this we are being required to find our identity in the State.

Hat Tip — Jeramiah Townsend, Ed Waverly

Federal Government At War Against The Working Middle Class

1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoWlJ77pMyg

In this 27 minute video Senator. Ted Cruz explains, from the well of the Senate, how it is the case that the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that has passed the US Senate (S-744) will redistribute wealth and opportunity away from Americans and legal immigrants towards envisioned newly Amnestied immigrants since the employment of newly amnestied immigrants means that the employer doesn’t have to pay Obamacare taxes given the provision of the passed Senate Bill — S-744. This bill provides overwhelming incentive for employers with over 50 employees to hire newly amnestied immigrants over American citizens and legal immigrants. Further, the bill provides incentive to even exchange one’s American workforce with newly amnestied immigrants since every exchanged American employee for a amnestied immigrant means a potential $5000.00 profit in the pocket of the employer. Put briefly, if an employer with over 50 employees hires a US citizen over one of the new 11 million amnestied immigrants the employer (the business owner) will be penalized $5000 per head!

2.) http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-02-19.html

Obamacare premiums are set by your age, not your health. The older you are the more you pay in premiums. It doesn’t matter if you never go to the doctor. Obamacare punishes you for having a healthy lifestyle. The Obamacare tax is a massively regressive poll tax on the middle-aged and the middle class.

Once again, this is a redistribution of wealth away from the Middle-aged and middle class towards both the Lower class and the upper Class. The wealthy do pay the tax but because it is a regressive tax it represents a much less significant portion of their income. The lower class do not pay the tax because they don’t meet the income requirements. The people taking it on the chin are the Middle aged and the middle class.

So, the Obamacrare tax does a couple of things.

A.) It works to reduce the middle class so that we have an increasingly “have vs. have not” society.

B.) Depending on whether there is a profile of the typical people who disproportionately represent the middle aged and the working middle class in this country we would be seeing an attack on the people group who might hypothetically meet the profile of your average middle aged and working middle class.

Smith & McAtee On Corporatism

I have said the blockquote below forever, to anybody who would listen that deficits in the budget of the Federal Government is not paid either by the Uber-Rich, nor by the poor, but it is paid by the middle-class. It is in the Middle Class where all the money is and so despite the lies about how the “rich are going to be made to pay their fair share,” it is always the middle class folks that are the ones that foot the bill. People have known this for decades.

I will even go so far as to insist that our current tax system is NOT a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor but rather it is a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the uber-wealthy. Every tax policy that is pursued in Washington is pursued in favor of taking from the middle class and giving to the uber-wealthy. They lie about that. They masquerade and cloak that. They compliment themselves on how noble they are for doing that. However, in the end the tax policy is to enrich the uber-wealthy and their political bag men and enforcer thugs. This is the essence of the Corporatism that we are currently living under where mega government and mega Corporations are in bed together to enrich themselves at the cost of the rank and file middle class.

What is most frustrating though is when the middle class is too stupid to figure this shell game out, and as such keeps pulling levers for both Democrats and Republicans who both are part of the crony capitalism that is Corporatism. Our ignorance is killing us.

But enough of me … consider how Al Smith put it clear back in 1936,

“Now here is something that I want to say to the rank and file. There are three classes of people in this country; there are the poor and the rich, and in between the two is what has often been referred to as the great backbone of America, that is the plain fellow.

That is the fellow that makes from one hundred dollars a month up to the man that draws down five or six thousand dollars a year.

Now, there is a great big army. Forget the rich; they can’t pay this debt. If you took everything they have away from them, they couldn’t pay it; they ain’t got enough. There is no use talking about the poor; they will never pay it, because they have nothing.

This debt is going to be paid by that great big middle class that we refer to as the backbone and the rank and file, and the sin of it is they ain’t going to know that they are paying it.It is going to come to them in the form of indirect and hidden taxation. It will come to them in the cost of living, in the cost of clothing, in the cost of every activity that they enter into, and because it is not a direct tax, they won’t think they’re paying, but, take it from me, they are going to pay it!”

Gov. Al Smith — 1928 Democratic Presidential Standard Bearer
1936 Speech — Betrayal of the Democratic Party