Fisking Wolfe on His Appeal to Classical Natural Law Theory to Overturn R2K

What follows beneath the article is a brief running fisk critique of Stephen Wolfe’s offering. Needless to say, I am not impressed at this attempt to resurrect Natural law theory as a replacement for Theonomy.

Stephen Wolfe and the rest of the Natural Law lovers have to learn at some point that the only reason appeal to Natural Law could work once upon a time in the West is because the West already was a largely Christian civilization. The appeal to Natural Law could work in 1500 or 1100 because Europe already had a Christian consensus and so the appeal to a Natural law that supported the already existing Christian consensus could win the day. However, we no longer live in a Western Civilization where there is a Christian consensus therefore appeals to Natural Law are never going to work since a pagan and un-Christian people are never going to agree that Natural Law teaches a Christian law order.

Natural law is a myth in terms of its inability to govern a social order in a Christian direction when the social order is manned by pagans.

Classical Reformed Theonomy

“The natural law is an ordering of reason, consisting of moral principles that are innate in rational creatures, given by God, who is the author of nature.”

Stephen Wolfe

1.) Natural law cannot serve as a mechanism for building social orders because nature, like man’s reason, is fallen.

2.) As the Belgic confession Article 14 teaches Natural law is limited in what it can and cannot accomplish:

“For the commandment of life which he (man) had received,5 he

transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God6 who was his true life, having corrupted his whole nature,7 whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death.8 And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God9 and only retained a few remains thereof,10 which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse;11 for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness,12 as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth13 it not; where St. John calleth men darkness.”

3.) Moral principles, to be sure, are innate in fallen man, however those who champion Natural Law as a mechanism whereby social orders can be organized do not seem to understand that fallen man suppresses what is innate to him in unrighteousness (see Romans 1).

____

“Laws are just only if they command what proceeds from God’s natural law.”

Stephen Wolfe

1.) You mean a law isn’t just if it proceeds from God’s special Revelation?

2.) Where do we find this consensus on what God’s natural law teaches? What library book contains that information?

3.) Does Wolf realize how many versions of Natural law exists? Will it be Natural Law that teaches us which version of Natural law is correct?

____

” In this way, the magistrate mediates divine civil rule, as the one who determines appropriate action from natural law principles.”

Stephen Wolfe

I guarantee I never voted for anyone upon the idea that they had the capacity to determine appropriate action from natural law principles.

When will our eggheads ever realize that Natural Law is a thin reed to lean on in times that find us being ruled by anti-Christ pagans? No Mao, or Stalin, or Bite-Me is ever going to change their ruling based on our appeal to Natural law. Better to appeal to God’s revealed law in Scripture so that the refusal of Magistrates to yield to God’s law will be seen for what it is — defiance of the God of the Bible.

______

“A Christian commonwealth is an entity that acts upon civil society via civil law for the people’s earthly and heavenly good.”

Stephen Wolfe

No, rather a Christian commonwealth is an entity that acts upon civil society via civil law for God’s glory — which will then result in people’s earthly and heavenly good.

Wolfe’s definition puts man at the center so is just another form of humanism.

____

“Not every particular civil law of a Christian civil government is distinctively Christian. Indeed, most are simply human; they concern human things.”

Stephen Wolfe

But how can we know what “human” is unless we presuppose Christianity? Therefore I must contend that any law that is genuinely human must at the same time be Christian since only Christianity gives us a basis wherein we can define human.

_____

“Since Scripture contains the natural law (in inscripturated form), Scripture can and ought to inform our understanding of the natural law, the common good, proper determinations for civil law, and the means to heavenly life.”

Stephen Wolfe

If Scripture contains natural law why do we need natural law? Why not just appeal to Scripture?

_______

“No civil law can be fundamentally derived from a supernatural principle.”

Stephen Wolfe

Now, that one is a mouthful.

If something is in the Bible does that make it a supernatural principle? After all, the whole bible is a supernaturally inspired book. If the Bible tells me that a man shall not lie with a man is it wrong to make a civil law based on that since, per Wolfe, no civil law can be fundamentally derived from a supernatural principle?

______

Although the Mosaic law is of divine origin, the law in itself, in substance, shares the same classification as other examples of civil law—it is one possible body of law that “proceed[s] from the immovable principles and general conclusion” of the natural law. The Mosaic law is not above natural law; it is a perfect application of it.

Stephen Wolfe

But Stephen, other examples of civil law cannot claim to have been given by God for man’s good ordering. As such, the Mosaic Law cannot be set in the same level as all other law orders that deviate from the Mosaic law.

Any changes in civil law orders have to come, not by an appeal to Natural law, but by an appeal to the reality that certain laws in the Mosaic order are not part of the general equity.

Wolfe schematic puts the Mosaic law on the same level as other Christian law orders that deviated from the Mosaic law. It also makes the mistake of lifting Natural Law over God’s revealed law when it comes to how civil law in Christian law orders should be arrived at. Wolfes schematic is inherently humanistic.

________

But (the Mosaic Law) is not thereby a suitable body of law for all nations, for every nation’s circumstances are different; it would not be good for every nation. For this reason, as the Reformed tradition has almost universally affirmed, the Mosaic law, taken as a whole, is not binding on all nations, even Christian nations. Yet because the Mosaic law perfectly follows from the natural law (albeit suited for a certain people), it can serve as a guide or source of law for all nations. The Mosaic law, therefore, remains relevant to all civil polities.

Stephen Wolfe

1.) The Reformed tradition has indeed affirmed that the Mosaic law taken as a whole, is not binding on all other nations — even Christian nations but it affirmed this not by appealing to the kind of Natural law that Wolfe is appealing to but did so by insisting on the reality of general equity. In other words if a civil law order was to negate some aspect of the Mosaic civil code it had to do so by arguing that the general equity did not apply and so some law belonging to the Mosaic should not be enforced by a contemporary civil law order.

2.) In this paragraph above Wolfe lifts Natural law (an unstated amorphous reality) above God’s special revelation so that special revelation has to serve Natural law. In such a situation is God really God?

_______

The “ancient” division (as Calvin called it) of the Mosaic Law divides it into moral, ceremonial, and civil (or political) law. The moral law refers to “nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men.”

Stephen Wolfe

1.) The problem here though is that the civil law was the incarnation of the Moral law as applied to specific instances. The civil law was the instantiation of the Moral law as teased out with specificity.

2.) There is nothing in Scripture that requires me to read the Moral law as being merely the testimony of natural law. If God had wanted to say that He could have easily said just that. Wolfe is adding a layer to God’s Word regarding the character and nature of the Moral law.

3.) Even the three-fold distinction (which I embrace) is not per Scriptural Revelation. It likewise is forced upon the Scripture. The law can just as easily be argued to be one law without these subdivisions. We know that the ceremonial law has since been altered because the Scripture comments so. However, the Scripture if anything reinforces the ongoing validity of God’s moral/civil law.

Conclusion

Stephen Wolfe tries to cloak is standard Natural Law theory in theonomic jargon in order to peel off weak theonomists from theonomy. Wolfe calls his Natural Law theory, “classical Reformed theonomy.”

Classical Reformed theonomy my arse. Wolfe offers this up as a half-way house between R2K theorizing and Bahnsenian Theonomy. It is a half way house no theonomist worth his salt is ever going to consider taking up residence.

Certainly Wolfe’s arrangement is far superior to R2K (which he is fighting against) but at the end of the day it remains laced with the same kind of subjectivity wherein R2k is laced.

Bottom Up or Top Down?

Many are the Christians who will state that which I heard on a “conservative” Christian podcast today; “The change we need has to start from the bottom up.”

I do not agree with this. At least I do not agree that the change we need has to start solely from the bottom up. The premise behind the idea is that change has to come as from the hoi polloi before it can take hold among the leadership so that the leadership implements the change from the top down that is already existent from the bottom up.

It is my conviction rather that change in a Biblical direction has to be both bottom up and top down at the same time. Indeed, change in any direction has to be both bottom up, top down, and inside out simultaneously. It really isn’t the case that one can divide this all out and say it has to start as a grass roots movement alone before it can take hold among the intelligentsia and the elite. Throughout history there have been numerous occasions where the change was top down and bottom up simultaneously. Often God ordains that the man, the movement, and the moment rise together.

Think of Cromwell overthrowing King Charles II. That was not solely a bottom up movement. Think of Charlemagne Christianizing his Kingdom. Think of Alfred the Great and his book of doom. In all these case one can easily argue that top down and bottom up occurred simultaneously.

If Christian leadership waits for bottom up alone before it presses the Crown Rights of King Jesus in the halls of power those rights will never be pressed. Change has to come bottom up, down down and inside out concurrently. If we wait for any one to lead without the others I suspect the end result will be defeat.

Independence Day Potpourri

The Original Independence Spirit

1.) King George III called the American war for Independence;

“A Presbyterian rebellion.”

2.) “There is no good crying about the matter,” Horace Walpole told the House of Commons when news of the American Revolution arrived in England. “Cousin America has run off with the Presbyterian parson (Witherspoon), and that is the end of it.”

3.) “I fix all the blame of these extraordinary American proceedings upon them (Presbyterians) …. The Presbyterians have been the chief and principle instruments in all these flaming measures; and they always do and ever will act against government, from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchical spirit which has always distinguished them.”

A letter from a Tory by the name of Galloway

4.) “Call this war my dearest friend, by whatsoever name you may, only call it not an American Rebellion, it is nothing more or less than an Irish-Scotch Presbyterian revolt.”

Captain Johann Heinrichs
Member of Hessian Jager Corps

Letter

5.) “The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure.  It was a natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.”

Historian George Bancroft

Bancroft elsewhere listed Calvin as the, “the father of America.” Continuing by noting; “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty,”

The Reformed Clergy then drove the rank and file Colonialists to fight for freedom from British Tyranny.

The original Independence Day Spirit exhibited by American Clergy;

“Thou profane, wicked monster of falsehood and perfidy… your late infamous proclamation is as full of notorious lies, as a toad or rattle-snake of deadly poison — you are an abandoned wretch…. Without speedy repentance, you will have an aggravated damnation in hell you are not only a robber, a murderer, and usurper, but a wicked Rebel: A rebel against the authority of truth, law, equity, the English Constitution of government, these colony states and humanity itself.”

Rev. John Cleveland of Ipswich Massachusetts addressing British Gen. Thomas Gage as published in the Essex Gazette on 13 July, 1775.

“Let none be disheartened from the prospect of the expense; though it should be to the half, or even the whole of our estates. Compared with the prize at stake, our liberty, the liberty of our country, of mankind, and of millions yet unborn, it would be lighter than the dust on the balance: for if we submit, adieu forever; adieu to property, for liberty will be lost, our only capacity of acquiring and holding property.”

Rev. Moses Mather

1775 Sermon

“The ministers of the Revolution were, like their Puritan predecessors, bold and fearless in the cause of their country. No class of men contributed more to carry forward the Revolution and to achieve our independence than did the ministers… By their prayers, patriotic sermons, and services they rendered the highest assistance to the civil government, the army, and the country.”

B. F. Morris

The Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the US

And here we are with a world full of clergy effeminates.

How did Presbyterians go from the Black Robed Regiment to the Pink Panty Brigade in 247 years?

Rev. John Adams of Durham, New Hampshire… traveled to the fort at Newcastle, New Haven to move the supplies stored there to a more secure and accessible place in the event of a British attack. It is believed that Rev. Adams stored the gunpowder taken from the fort under his pulpit. This undoubtedly aided in Rev. Adams giving explosive sermons.

Dan Fisher
Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment — p. 78

And today? The conservative Presbyterians can barely keep the sodomite out of their pulpits.

__________

The humanist pagan historians desire to give Thomas Paine all the props for energizing the American mind when it came to the necessary rebellion against the Crown but the Biblical Christian knows that the real literary work that shaped the Colonial mind on this subject was Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos by authors anonymous though history points to Huguenots Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) and Hubert Languet (1518-1581).

John Adams said this book was “as prevalent and important as Thomas Paine.” It certainly had far more appeal to the Christian population. The point to keep in mind though is that Paine was writing out of a Atheist Christ hating worldview while the authors of the Vindiciae were writing out of a Christian worldview. Paine belonged to the French Revolution while the authors of the Vindiciae belonged to Christian counter-Revolution. The argument in the Vindiciae is grounded in scripture, articulate, and thorough, though even today the pacifist Reformed types curl up into a fetal position when its ideas are promulgated by someone from the pulpit.

One can be sure that there would have been no American Revolution were it not for that famous and now unknown Vindiciae Contra Tyrannnos (Vindication against Tyrants).

___

Keep in mind during our celebration of Independence day that this could never have happened in America were it not for those damn Calvinists and their clergy. It was the black robed regiment that rang the tocsin for freedom across the land at that time. In their sermons they rallied the people to the battle against English tyranny. It was the Reformed pulpits that kept the rank and file informed about the Usurpations of the British parliament against colonial rule. It was Presbyterian and Congregational clergy up and down the coast and into the hinterlands that informed their congregants that rules must conform themselves to God’s higher law and if those rulers did not then they were not to be counted rulers.

There could not have been a 1776 if not for John Calvin. World renowned German Historian Leopold Van Ranke could write,

“John Calvin was virtually the founder of America.”

Which explains why I hate today’s Reformed clergy so thoroughly.

___

The War for American Independence was never really a Revolution. It was to be more precise a counter-revolution. It was a completely different creature than the French Revolution pursued a few years later. The American Revolution was premised upon the Christian principles associated with the understanding that when a Covenant Head (King George III) violates covenant then the partner to the covenant (the Colonies) are no longer obligated to obey and have the place to throw off their former covenant partner (King George III). The rebellion of the American colonies was a Christian rebellion based on Reformational political covenantalism. The French Revolution on the other hand was based on Atheistic principles and was in pursuit of throwing off God.

This is seen in the various watchwords of the two Revolutions.

In the colonies there were mottoes like; “No King, but King Jesus,” and “Obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.”

In the French Revolution the mottoes were; “No God, No King,” and “We will not be satisfied until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

There were two very different types of Revolutions. The American Revolution was in pursuit of restored Christian order whereas the French Revolution was in pursuit of a humanist order.

____

The War for American Independence was never really a Revolution. It was to be more precise a counter-revolution. It was a completely different creature than the French Revolution pursued a few years later. The American Revolution was premised upon the Christian principles associated with the understanding that when a Covenant Head (King George III) violates covenant then the partner to the covenant (the Colonies) are no longer obligated to obey and have the place to throw off their former covenant partner (King George III). The rebellion of the American colonies was a Christian rebellion based on political covenantalism. The French Revolution on the other hand was based on Atheistic principles and was in pursuit of throwing off God.

____

Gary T. Amos in his book, “Defending the Declaration” argues that the Declaration of Independence was a supremely Christian document. He makes a convincing case. You should give that book a read and see why the idea that the Declaration of Independence was an Enlightenment document is pure myth.

___

Ephraim Brevard was the author of the Mecklenburg Declaration of 1775. When Thomas Jefferson sat down and penned the “Declaration of Independence” there is little doubt that Jefferson did so with Brevard’s Mecklenburg Declaration at his right hand lifting whole phrases from the Mecklenburg Declaration and putting them into the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, it is no stretch in the least to say that Jefferson plagiarized Brevard in much of the Declaration of Independence. Compare to the two documents if you doubt me.

Now, the interesting thing about Brevard is that he was a Presbyterian deacon and the interesting thing about the Mecklenburg Declaration is that a large percentage who signed that document were Presbyterians.

So… all this calls into question the idea that the Declaration of Independence is an “Enlightenment document” that is dependent upon the ideological world of the rationalist thinkers.

There is more Presbyterianism in the Declaration of Independence than anyone wants to admit?

Doubt me? Read Gary T. Amos’ “Defending the Declaration.”

___

When the Declaration of Independence spoke about “All men being created equal,” the notion of equality there was not a philosophical abstraction. The sentiment was not that of the later French Revolution that all men were or should be of the same status and ability. The idea that Jefferson was communicating was that all Englishmen were created equal with the implication being that one set of Englishmen (those in England) could not dictatorially rule over another set of Englishmen (those in the Colonies). Jefferson was communicating one of the main beefs of the Colonialists and that was that the Colonialist were not being treated as those who has the same rights and privileges as other Englishmen.

How do I know this?

Well, one hint to this is found in the Declaration of Independence itself where Jefferson complains of the King;

 

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Note the word “savages” above. If Jefferson was really using the idea of “equality” there the way that the WOKE crowd use “equality” today do you think he would have referred to his equals as “savages?”

Obviously Jefferson did not believe that the Indian savages were his equal.

Equality in the Declaration of Independence referred to only the idea that all Englishmen were equal.

Jefferson himself wrote a treatise on Natural Aristocracy where he argued  for a hypothetical political elite that derives its power from talent and virtue (or merit).

(1) No legislation without representation.

The colonists insisted that they could be governed only by the colonial legislatures. The British Parliament had other ideas. The colonialists insisted that the British Parliament had no authority over them since there charters were with the King and not Parliament. You will notice in the Declaration of Independence there is no mention of Parliament but only complaints against the King. This was because the colonies did not recognize the jurisdiction of the British Parliament over the colonies.

So, one key principle of the war for American Independence was the principle of self-government. This is was a key foundation in the American War for Independence. This same issue came up again in the War of Northern Aggression as the Southern States argued for the same principle for which their Colonial Fathers had argued.

2) Contrary to the modern Western view of the state that it must be considered one and indivisible, the colonists believed that a smaller unit may withdraw from a larger one. The American War for Independence then was about the ability to politically secede. The colonialist depending of the Reformed theory of Political Covenantalism believed they had that right since King George III as their partner to the political covenants and charters had violated his responsibilities. King George III had broken covenant and so secession was an option. Again, this issue came up in 1861 when Southerners insisted they had the same right of secession as their colonial forbears.

Today we are supposed to consider this so unthinkable that we put it in the mouths of our children when they say the “Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.” They recite “One Nation Under God, Indivisible.”

That line is hogwash. The Nation was never meant to be indivisible and that is just one of the reasons  that I don’t stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

To support the idea that the Nation was never considered Indivisible by its founders we turn to

“I have endeavored to show, in the preceding part of this review, that the people of the several States, while in a colonial condition, were not “one people” in any political sense of the terms; that they did not become so by the Declaration of Independence, but that each State became a complete and perfect sovereignty within its own limits; that the revolutionary government, prior to the establishment of the confederation, was, emphatically, a government of the States as such, through Congress, as their common agent and representative, and that by the Articles of Confederation, each State expressly reserved its entire sovereignty and independence. In no one of the various conditions, through which we have hitherto traced them, do we perceive any feature of consolidation; but their character as distinct and sovereign States is always carefully and jealously preserved. We are, then, to contemplate them as sovereign States, when the first movements towards the formation of the present Constitution were made.”

Abel Parker Upshur
Our Federal Government; Its True Nature and Character – p.90

 

___

The American war for Independence was in all actuality a war for Independence on the behalf of 13 separate sovereign Colonies. The Colonists at the time looked upon one another as foreigners. The Virginians did not think of those living in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania as fellow countrymen and vice-versus.

____

When the Crown brought English troops to the Colonies the custom was to quarter troops in the houses of the Colonialists upon demand. There was no negotiating. If the Crown put a couple soldiers in your home you were responsible to provide room and board for that soldier. Also, that soldier was obviously untouchable and the result of their status meant that many a Colonialist head of household had his wife and/or daughters molested by the quartered English troops. This issue was so important that it was included in the reasons listed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence as to a reason why Independence was being declared and explains the third amendment in the Bill of Rights.

___

On this Independence Day do try to keep in mind that these united States won Independence from Britain in 1776 only to have their Independence taken away in 1865. You must understand that the “United States” as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and the Radical Republicans and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861—1865 and at the expense of enslaving white and black men together to the FEDS.

In this vein this is why as combined with the greater reason that they surrendered on the 4th of July, 1863 that the residents of Vicksburg, Mississippi did not celebrate Independence day for 80 years until 1944.

____

“In all there were three periods of drastic communal upheaval and sudden changes of fortune in the extended Calvinistic Anglo-Saxon Revolution. There was the Cromwell uprising leading to the short-lived English Republic. This was followed by the conclusive disruption of the Stuart dynasty, leading to the enthronement of William and Mary, succeeded by the Hanoverians. Finally there was the American War of Independence.”

 

W. A. de Klerk
The Puritans in Africa; The Story of Afrikanerdom – p. 154

 

Americas separation from England was a separation inspired by the ideology of John Calvin. The theology of Calvin rippled through English-American history and was exhibited in political theology by the rise of Cromwell, the ascension of William & Mary and the overthrow of King George III. Though these events were separated by more than 100 years they were each driven by the same Calvinistic theology.

___

The Declaration of Independence should be taken as little more than a press release to the Western world that America was its own entity. It was never intended to be a governing document and we would be better off without taking that way.

____

The non-Christian can not know liberty. He will say he knows liberty but what he is calling liberty is just some form of licentiousness. The non-Christian can not know liberty because he is a man in bondage to his sin and as being in bondage to his sin all he will create in the name of liberty are social order institutions that reflect his bondage to sin.

Only the Christian who has been set free from the bondage of sin by the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross can talk sanely about freedom, liberty, and independence. That is because they understand that their freedom, liberty, and independence means a freedom to obey Christ which they could never do before, a liberty to walk in righteousness which they could never do before, and a independence from the bondage which was characteristic of their life outside of Christ.

There is no social order Liberty that can long be maintained by a people who have abjured Christ and foresworn Christianity. No social order freedom to be had by a Church which disconnects the lifeline between freedom from sin and freedom from wicked governments and magistrates.

Social order liberty is the God-given inheritance bequeathed to a people set free from sin and gathered in resolve to incarnate that liberty in all their social order institutions.

A post-Christian world that blathers on about “liberty,” “freedom,” and “independence,” don’t know what they are talking about.

___

“Unlike every other nation on Earth, we were founded based on an idea.”

Pederast Joe Bite-me

Independence Day speech

This is a damnable lie. It is the lie that insists that America is a propositional nation. It is not true. America was not founded based on an idea. That nonsense didn’t rise till Lincoln sold it in his Gettysburg Address. America, like all nations, was based on descent from common ancestors (blood and soil). The fact that America was founded upon blood and soil is seen in the preamble to the US Constitution where the founders write that;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

___

On this Independence Day we have to realize that while there definitely were Christian influences operating there were also deep state influences operating. The whole “Norvus Seculam Ordo,” BS on our money is one sign of that as well as the whole pyramid and eye of Horus thing.

___

FOn this Independence Day learn that it was the Reformed Clergy in America that inspired the Colonialists to take up arms against the Tyrannical Parliament in Britain. If we had today’s R2K clergy back in 1175 forward we would have put up with the King George refusing to interpose on the Parliaments tyrannical violating of the original Colonial Charters.

Reformed Clergy had steel in their spines in those days unlike the effeminate clergy claptrap today who kisses the arse of every estrogen-filled pajama boy civil magistrate who shows up with some kind of threat.

___

“Very important for people to realize that while the founding fathers their achievement was not because they were male but they transcended their sex. They weren’t just chauvinists or racists. They created ideas out of the enlightenment that meant that you would have woman’s suffrage, that you would have civil rights because that was the logic of “all men are created equal.” They didn’t have to do that. There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions race or gender so that they were male is incidental.”

Victor Davis Hanson

On Tucker Carlson show

 

1.) The founding father’s transcended their sex? What does even mean?

2.) While they were chauvinists and racists they weren’t JUST chauvinists and racists. Well, that is a relief to know.

3.) I guran-damn-tee you that very very few, in any of those founding fathers would have supported women’s suffrage or civil rights.

4.) The majority of the founding fathers were not operating out of an Enlightenment worldview.

5.) The founding fathers did not believe that all men were created equal in the modern egalitarian sense. They believed all Englishmen were equal. That was the issue at hand. Whether Englishmen in the colonies were equal to Englishman in England. The fact that they did not believe that all men were created equal in the modern egalitarian sense is seen in the fact that in the Declaration of Independence they refer to the Indians as “savages.” An odd thing to say if you believe all men are created equal in the sense that Hanson is using it.

6.) I suppose that they were white is incidental as well. I mean, just as women could have as easily produced the same document (after all the men transcended their gender) so nonwhite men could likewise have produced that same document since race and gender are incidental.

What a maroon.

___

“America’s original sin is rebellion.”

Rev. Brian Lee

United Reformed Church Ministerial Idiot

 

The only thing this quote tells me is that Rev. Lee has never studied American History. The Colonists did not rebel against the Crown but rather drew a line in the sand regarding the Crown’s violating their Charters (Political Covenants) with the Crown. If anyone was rebelling in the run-up to the American war for Independence it was the English Crown. The English Crown was rebelling against the Political Covenants that spelled out the responsibilities and privileges of both sides entering into political covenant via the Colonial charters. This is why, in the Declaration of Independence, the list of grievances is present. The Colonialists were saying to the Crown, “You have rebelled against our Political Covenants and because of your rebellion and breaking of the covenants we no longer, as before God, required to keep our commitments to the covenant documents.

Of course, Lee doesn’t know this, and just like all bottom feeders he sees America’s original sin as being rebellion and goes on to warn against our rebelling against the Masked, and social distanced mandates and pleads with Christians everywhere to kiss the arse of all wicked magistrates as they require us to break the 6th and 9th commandment. (And often the 8th).

It is interesting that Lee would do this, since as an R2K lover, he is of a crowd who is forever saying that, “Ministers need to stay in their lanes.” This means that Minister, per the R2K crowd, shouldn’t talk about history (among other things) since that is not their lane. But here is Brian Lee doing just that — recklessly careening into the lane of Historians and writing about something he doesn’t know Jack Squat about.

Lee may intend well (who doesn’t?) but his theology at this point is uninformed (see, I can be polite).

____

“I have endeavored to show, in the preceding part of this review, that the people of the several States, while in a colonial condition, were not “one people” in any political sense of the terms; that they did not become so by the Declaration of Independence, but that each State became a complete and perfect sovereignty within its own limits; that the revolutionary government, prior to the establishment of the confederation, was, emphatically, a government of the States as such, through Congress, as their common agent and representative, and that by the Articles of Confederation, each State expressly reserved its entire sovereignty and independence. In no one of the various conditions, through which we have hitherto traced them, do we perceive any feature of consolidation; but their character as distinct and sovereign States is always carefully and jealously preserved. We are, then, to contemplate them as sovereign States, when the first movements towards the formation of the present Constitution were made.”

Abel Parker Upshur
Our Federal Government; Its True Nature and Character – p.90

Independence Day Reading List

There are a plethora books on subjects surrounding America’s founding. This list is only comprised of books that I have read on the subject. I am confident there may be finer books one could read but these are some of the one’s I have read and found quite delightful. I will be adding to this list over the next few days as I have books in my head but I can’t remember the author. One should not conclude that I agree with everything in every book. I try to be a discerning reader. However there are times in reading when a author can get something wrong in such a way that it can help the reader get it right in his own head.

1.) Mitre & Sceptre — Carl Bridenbaugh

2.) This Independent Republic — RJR
3.) The Nature of the American System — RJR
4.) Theological Interpretation of American History — Singer
5.) Our Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character —
Abel Parker Upshur
6.) Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence — Gary T. Amos
7.) From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition
by Clyde N. Wilson and Joseph R. Stromberg
8.) Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment Vol. I & II — Dan Peters
9.) The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates
10.) A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution — by M. E. Bradford
11.) A Better Guide Than Reason: Federalists and Anti-federalists (The Library of Conservative Thought) — M. E. Bradford
12.) Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution — M. E. Bradford
13.) The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding — David W. Hall
14.) The Roots of the American Republic — Rev. E. C. Wines
15.) The Federalist Papers — Hamilton, Madison, Jay
16.) The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution — Bernard Bailyn
17.) George Washington; Sacred Fire — Pete Lillback
18.)Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution — Forrest MacDonald
19.) Fountainhead of Federalism — Charles McCoy

 

1964 Civil Rights Bill; The Warnings Issued Then and the Reality Now

“Two former Presidents of the American Bar Association, Lloyd Wright, and John C. Satterfield, candidly described the 1964 Civil Rights Bill — now Public Law 88-351 as it neared the end of Congressional debate, they said,

 

‘If it is enacted the states will be little more than local government agencies existing as appendages of the central government and largely subject to its control. The legislation assumes a totally powerful national government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships in accordance with the judgment of government personnel.

It is impossible to prevent Federal intervention from becoming an institutionalization of special privileges for political pressure groups. This must lead eventually not to greater freedom, but to ever diminishing freedom.

The civil rights aspect of this legislation is but a cloak; uncontrolled Federal executive power is the body.'”

Kent Steffgen

The Bondage of the Free — p. 4

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave us a new de facto Constitution and we have since the passage of that law seen the Federal Government incrementally gain ever more power and control over the people in their respective states gathered. We are seeing this power now being exercised not only in the name of racial minorities but now we are seeing this Federal Power acting in order to give both racial minorities and sexually perverted minorities special privileges Vis-à-vis white heterosexual Christians.

The new gun laws just passed and signed into law are a example of what Lloyd Wright and John C. Satterfield warned about in the day. In that law we see again a totally powerful national government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships (ownership of firearms) in accordance with the judgment of government personnel. The diminished freedom that they warned against has been routinely seen in the recent masks mandate and Feds arm twisting in relation to vaccines.

We are living under tyranny and there will  be on end to the expansion of that tyranny until the Federal Government is smacked on the snout and told to get out of the private citizens business.