The Eclipse of the American Idea

The legacy of the Declaration of Independence is well over two hundred years old, but the American idea has never been in greater danger.

First, the idea that the individual has been endowed by his Creator with the sovereign right to a government that works for him has been eroded by a hundred years of creeping socialism, but recently matters have become much worse. The most enduring legacy of our Constitution, a liberty that has stood unscathed, suddenly lies in smoking ruin. America’s religious liberties are gone. Their light has been eclipsed.

In deciding to make homosexual marriage the law of the land, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, made homosexuality a protected civil rights class like race, religion, and gender. They have done so without a constitutional amendment or any attempt to solicit the will of the people. That they could do this shows how far gone our Constitutional liberties already were, but the court has made matters much worse.

The proof that the Supreme Court of the United States has unlawfully rewritten the United States Constitution is that our religious liberties are no more. The self-evident proof that our religious liberties are gone is in the desperate and pathetic attempts of some conservatives to produce bills downloadprotecting what has now been ripped, in practice, from the U.S. Constitution.

Our laws protecting religious liberty from government, a model that has spread world wide, have been twisted into a weapon to affect the very persecutions they were once written to end. For instance, as a Christian, I may not agree with other Christian florists and bakers who refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding. Indeed, I might make points about Christian charity and its power to change lives. Nevertheless, my brothers and sisters are under no legal obligation to agree with me. That’s the American way. That’s freedom of religion and of speech.

When the courts add homosexuality as a protected class, the American tradition of no government involvement in religion is utterly undermined. In practical effect, a church that espouses Christian charity for bakers, tailors, photographers, and florists is favored by government while Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish religions that begin to perform marriages for same sex couples would be even more highly favored. Ultimately, churches that refuse to self-edit their Bibles concerning homosexuality will come in conflict with the force of anti-discrimination laws once written to protect their liberties. Whether they use this authority or not, our government has now been granted the ability to establish a religion or to persecute a religion over its views on homosexuality. Oh, by the way, you can bet they’ll use it.

constantine swordThe sword Constantine the Great drew in the house of God, Thomas Jefferson sheathed in our founding documents. Constantine did not mark the birth of Christianity, but he marked the birth of Christendom in the West. From that day until our founders took their stand, by special endowment or by the use of military force, European governments sponsored teachings and leaders in Christian organizations. More blood ran from Constantine’s sword over the course of European history than from the Black Plague. Once the New World was discovered, courageous people couldn’t get away from Europe fast enough. The Supreme Court has drawn the sword of Constantine again. America’s Copernican shift in the view of the relationship between good people and their government has been shrouded in medievalism.

A Tyranny of Judicial Madness Continues in Oklahoma

Recently, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled that a statue of the Ten Commandments on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds was contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution because, the court held, the Ten Commandments jack-nicholson-the-shiningbenefited a religion. Which religion it was that benefited from the monument is apparently a somewhat abstract concept to the Oklahoma court. Nevertheless, even though the monument doesn’t benefit any certain religion, it must be damned because it is part of Jewish and Christian faiths. Logic is blind to its assumptions. In Oklahoma insane assumptions about religion have led to a judicial tyranny that history will characterize as madness.

Simply, a faith is not necessarily a religion. One may have a faith in a Just and Orderly Creator and seek Him by way of a variety of religions. One may even believe in the Christian Messiah and seek him in by way of variety of Christian denominations. Indeed, this last scenario was the one that the founding fathers were most concerned about. The great variety of Christian faiths that arose after the Protestant Reformation were welcomed without governmental judgment in the New World. Jefferson sheathed the sword first wielded among Christians by Constantine the Great.

A lie believed is a tyranny of the soul. A lie enforced by a government is grounds for its abolition. Legislators in Oklahoma are calling for the impeachment of all seven justices who can’t see beyond their highly elevated noses. That’s not enough. The Oklahoma legislators are also calling for judicial reformation, a reformation that bars the state bar from monopolizing judicial appointments. That might go far enough, but it’s still an open question. Attorney General Scott Pruitt spent far too much time emphasizing that the monument was historical in nature.

Arguing that the Ten Commandments are of historic importance to our legal system, a systemTen-Commandments-statue-JPG that has now ‘evolved,’ is simply inadequate to reformation. Tell the truth: the monuments to the Ten Commandments are a symbol of our common faith that a Just God rules; that from Him all justice proceeds and before Him all our human justice will be judged. This is not a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Classical Reform Judaism is a religion.

For a century, Americans and their justices have been fed on the fat of the lie that governments can exist without a soul and, like the dust beneath our feet, continue objectively on. It’s just not true. If our government loses its soul, its humanity, we, as a nation, lose ours. Every key idea from how the value of humanity contrasts with the animal kingdom, to the meaning of nature’s voice in the relationship between the genders in marriage requires a primary axiom for logical conclusions to foster laws. All of these matters require and depend on a faith that a just Creator, the God of Nature, is out there somewhere. This is not a religion. When it concerns matters of jurisprudence, it’s a philosophy. The founders called their version of this philosophy Deism.

The Deism of some of the founders was an Enlightenment view of the Divine Right of the individual and of the Creator’s limits on the rights of collective society, of government. When this faith or belief that a Just Creator is ‘out there somewhere’ changes into a belief about how people should seek Him, the faith can be named religious. Otherwise, a faith that a Just Creator reigns is the philosophic foundation for the panoply of all religions. (When Deism moves from its rational, philosophic, intelligent design ideas to worship of some sort, it, too, can be called religious; however, it is generally too disorganized to make it as a formal religion.)

For instance, apparently, the highly intelligent and well-educated Oklahoma justices ignored the claim Islam makes on the Ten Commandments. The claim is somewhat tenuous and is perhaps made by some for less than forthright TJFlag-ForceCannotDisjoinreasons, but, because of the claim on the commandments made by others in Islam, it can be fairly argued that also among Muslims, the role of the Creator as a lawgiver, One Who governs in the affairs of all people, is understood.

Apparently, a satanic church, in the firm belief that equality of outcomes is the same thing as justice, petitioned to have an idol placed along side the monument to the Ten Commandments. That idol is a summons to worship while the Ten Commandments forbid anyone from worshiping any stone monument. Hence, as a summons to worship, it does profit a religious viewpoint. Most importantly, a free people dedicated to laws and justice has no need to give equal time to a self-proclaimed god of lawlessness and evil.

Likewise, a Hindu group also wanted to place a symbol of its worship on the capitol’s grounds. If that symbol is not a call to worship, and if it is a symbol of the belief that a Creator somewhere rules and gives laws to people, put it to a vote. The Ten Commandments are genuinely elegant in appearance, eloquent in letter, and inspiring in content. Those are plenty of reasons for the electorate to favor one monument and not another. In any case, put it to the public, not to un-elected, poorly educated, elitist, shriveled heads with gavels for brains.

To make a long story short: A Hindu, a satanist, and an American walked before the bar. None got justice, but they all heard the insane laughter of evil men howling as they butchered a free nation.

The Defamation of Marriage and the Rise of Totalitarianism

To abandon celebrating the self-evident truths of what a marriage is, is to abandon reason itself, for reason tells us that the oaths of marriage are abiding in their humanity. The abiding meaning of these oaths to the human spirit flow from their relationship to the commitment to others demanded by every biological union of man and Cer4F0TWQAEspsJwoman. The oaths of marriage are not for self.  The oaths of marriage begin with self, but they are in exchange for something higher in people than their personal desire. The exchange of vows is about far more than joint financial agreements that mutually benefit each ‘partner.’ Marriage oaths are selfless commitments made because of each individual’s honesty with reality.

In all of this “marriage equality” legalese is a kind of bitterness, a jealously that requires the defamation of marriage from personal spite. Only the strain-at-a-gnat, most superficial things that can, by arcane, nonsensical sophistry be associated with marriage, are of interest to modern “justice.” Under the guise of the misguided pursuit of the jurisprudence of equal outcomes as justice, the courts claim the state has no interest in the human part of marriage. Such courts and such laws must ignore liberty because liberty is a human thing. Only human hearts can see the bars that hold living things in prisons for what they truly are. 

It’s a hardness of heart, not justice, that shuts out human concerns, loves, and, finally, liberty in the name of equality.

Cer4FzQXEAQh1eDNo rational system of law can survive an arrogance so blinding it cannot see the purpose of the sacred promises of marriage, vows that are far above a desire for financial and social advantage or “equality.” No civilization can endure a foolishness so malignant that it would deny the reality, reason, and the nature of these vows. The alternatives are the savagery of totalitarian tyranny and mob rule. Vows like those that are part of marriage bring out the best, most humane in mankind. A nation that would ignore these values is inhuman and very dangerous.

Consider as an example of our national vulgarity, the legal corruption surrounding the trial of California’s Proposition 8, a trial that ended a voter initiated amendment to California’s constitution defining marriage. The definition of marriage the voters chose was, obviously, the definition of marriage already embodied in California’s constitution and family law.

Because the monkey trial atmosphere surrounding California’s Proposition 8 so reeked of corruption, it marriageis very difficult to tell from the edited version of the “Proponents Defense of Proposition 8″ (Walker’s ruling p. 6) how well ProtectMarriage.com defended that crazy California proposition that marriage is between a man and a woman. For instance, Proposition 8 is, first about preserving the definition of marriage in our laws. A marriage is a marriage and always will be a marriage despite the judicial travesty of putting marriage on trial for inequality. However, in protecting the definition of marriage, Proposition 8 is foremost a defense of the ‘right to marry’ enshrined in federal and state law. Neither the plaintiffs, the majority of voters, nor the judiciary have any authority to infringe upon this natural right of a man and a woman to join in marriage. Tragically, it has been the courts that have led the charge, not to preserve the right to marry, but to deprive the people of the legal recognition of this right. This is prima facie evidence that the bow of our constitutional government is sinking, and, like the stern of the Titanic, an American totalitarianism rises.

What was born in the darkness of California’s corrupt judicial proceedings, proceedings that showed a profound hatred of our constitutional law, can only bring deep evil to our society and culture.

Plainly some of ProtectMarriage.com’s arguments sounded like they were the wrong ones for this particular California judge. For instance, arguing that “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok…” (p. 7) is like arguing natural rights before a hereditary monarch. This is the blindness that passes for light in the dim and reeking recesses of our national “jurisprudence.”

Judge Walker sought to undermine a sound premise argued by ProtectMarriage. Judge Walker’s summary of this part of the argument reads, “…If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage” (p.7). Walker emphasized “could” to emphasize that the gay community repeatedly denied that teaching gay marriage to kindergartners was on the agenda. Apparently, the good judge felt it was time to refight the campaign, not in the public square where the brainless, dirty masses have the right and power to disagree. Instead, he chose to bolster its wijudgesdom by refighting the campaign in the sanctity of his safely elite, intellectually pure, courtroom. He didn’t argue the law. He argued words spoken in campaign literature. About this though, he was, as about everything else, wrong and deceitfully wrong. California history has shown conclusively that now that the Supreme Court of the United States has made dehumanized marriage the law of the land, our government schools will immediately become sexual “reeducation camps” from the earliest years.

Additionally, based on Judge Walker’s conclusion that asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman “targets gay and lesbians specifically due to sex (p.120),” he seems to have surprised everyone by taking the words “no difference” to mean no “qualitative” difference. In other words, he indicated that all who say that marriage is between a man and a woman intend to teach that same sex couples cannot be successful parents or that their commitment to each other is in some way inferior to that of heterosexual couples. He took, apparently without asking clear follow up questions, the plaintiff’s position that those who espouse the outrageous claim that marriage is between a man and a woman do so to intentionally disparage same sex couples. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone recognizes that the differences that sane people wish to preserve between same sex unions and marriage are factual, biological, and historic.  If there is scientific evidence that children raised by same sex couples do not fare well, that is a matter for science and law. Courts have no more business legislating this that they do in devising the means of conducting open heart surgery.

ProtectMarriage explained that the plaintiffs give no alternative definition of marriage and send, therefore, every branch of family law into an endless morass of absurdity. Their words fell on deaf, callous ears.

It is, nevertheless, apparent that ProtectMarriage made a sound and vigorous defense of the benefits of kidsmarriage to children and for the state’s profound interest in the weakest among us. This is a sound argument, and in happier days such words would never have fallen unheeded to the ground. But these are perilous times. These are the days of a social obsession with an equality of outcomes so complete and total that no aspect of civil life is spared it’s intrusion. Instead of showing the natural compassion for the weak that must be part of a judicial temperament, Judge Walker fixated on bizarre celestial visions of equal protection. Instead of erring on the side of caution, Judge Walker put the state’s interest in assuring the will of the people with regards to the welfare of their children aside. As a result, one who seems unfit for the judgments of law has set himself up as the final authority and arbiter of the benefits of family to children. Judge Walker accepted novel studies over the proven wisdom of the ages. He did this because, in American society today, this is true enlightenment.

The defamation of marriage is the consequence of an idolatrous blindness and an ascending American totalitarianism.

These are the days of the leveling of our land. There can be no excellence because there can be no failure. It does not matter whether you study hard and become an outstanding physician who is able to help people in ways no one had ever thought about before; your outcome must be the same as your neighbor’s. It does not matter whether you’ve chosen to do drugs all through high school, the state must provide for your college education and the best health care that everyone else’s money can buy. Likewise, if you are a homosexual it is just not fair that you can’t be married like everyone else, even though it is physically impossible.

We have been making excuses for everyone in society.  It is not compassion but an obsessive craving for a self-deceptive, idolatrous ideal that thrives on its own relativistic madness. A fear of the truth, like the Tower of Babel, is being, block by block, lifted from the cheering masses of smug, useless “intellectuals” that populate the sterile hopeless corridors of our universities. Only the rise of a totalitarian state could defy the natural light of liberty completely enough to satisfy craving for self importance.

Most of the working people in America could care less about this new religion of egalitarianism. However, the elite of our educational institutions know this idol and have bowed before its golden horns.the-golden-calf

Western society’s “new” ideology, its “new” religion, is one so psychotic it can tolerate none other. Its first creed is that “all truth is relative.” Hence its others: “all choices are virtue,” “all choices are equal,” and, therefore “no choice has a consequence.” This is not a happy time in California where the merit of the family is not in the state interest. This is not a happy time in the United States when “equal protection” is exalted above sanity in a farce beyond historic parallel. The notion that some choices are a blessing to the individual and to his country is a notion that can no longer be tolerated. Such a conclusion is unacceptable, so no fact that leads to such conclusions can, ipso facto, be valid. Today we are closer to the days of the monkey-courts of the French Revolution than we were last week. An American totalitarianism is rising.

A Declaration of Independence from Judicial Tyranny

c2dc1f723d791ab0369b9fdaec38e810When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to reform the political institutions which have sought to enslave them and to resume, among the Branches of government, the free and independent station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions the electorate requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to effect this great reformation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

  • That all men are created equal in their access to Supreme justice,
    • That in this equality they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
      • that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (a state of wise and self adequate independence from servitude to any).
      • That to secure these rights (from murderers, oppressors, and tyranny) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
      • That whenever any Form of Government, including an oligarchy of the judiciary, becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and the Duty of the People to alter, or reform it, and to institute such reforms, on such principles and to reorganize its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; however, a the courts’ encroachment upon liberty is less than a century old and should not be called long established. However experience still shows, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Nevertheless, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to 5577442_f260reinstitute the ancient Guards of their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of the citizens of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains her to alter and restore their Systems of Government to their previous glory. The history of the federal judiciary since the Warren Court is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the rights of citizens to defend their lives from enemies foreign and domestic, over their exercise of conscience in religious liberty, and over of the free disposition of their own property.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid electorate:.

  • The federal judiciary has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, finding imaginary rights for gay marriage inCalifornia.
  • The federal judiciary has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, such as California Proposition 187, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • The federal judiciary has refused to recognize other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, insisting that those people relinquish the right of Representation in their civil, state, and federal Legislatures, refusing them the right to prayer in public places, and the right to join, despite religion, in reading of a common Bible, these rights to representation and community deliberation on matters of conscience for their childrens welfare are rights inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • The federal judiciary has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of allowing minority elitist groups such as the ACLU to fatigue the people into compliance with their measures that seek toremove crosses and memorials to the ten commandments from public view.
  • The federal judiciary has repeatedly disparaged and politically threatened the Representative Houses of state legislators, for opposing with manly firmness its invasions of the rights of the people to assure security in their elections, their public institutions, and their persons from foreign peoples and powers.
  • The federal judiciary has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to permit the tentative enforcement of such laws written by the people; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • The federal judiciary has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; by removing the authority over abortion from the people and bybelittling the natural communication within the nuclear family; and by raising the conditions for parental consent for abortions.
  • The federal judiciary has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by removing from the people its right to Assent to clear evidence for establishing the guilt and punishment of predatory criminals.
  • The federal judiciary has made law enforcement dependent on its Will alone, for the definition of their offices, and the requirements of their services.
  • The federal judiciary has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.
  • The federal judiciary has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies of federal agents without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • The federal judiciary has affected to render itself independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
  • The federal judiciary has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to its own Acts of legislation:
    • For quartering large bodies of federal agents among us:
    • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any injustice which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    • For cutting off our Trade by pernicious regulation from all parts of the world:
    • For imposing costs on us without our Consent:
    • For depriving us, in many tax cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
    • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    • For overturning our Constitutions, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    • For suspending the works of our Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • The federal judiciary has abdicated Government here, by declaring us as unworthy of Protection under our own laws and actively waging War against them.
  • The federal judiciary has plundered our seas denying the states its riches, ravaged our Coasts through the commerce clause, burnt our towns over Delta Smelt, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • The federal judiciary is at this time permitted to consider transporting large armies of foreign forces of law by way which it may overturn DOMA, demand that homosexuals and homosexuals alone be permitted to inject sexuality into the military and civilian workplace, and to insist that oureducational systems teach that heterosexuals dare not distinguish their institutions and lifestyles from that which is in kind, origin, and consequence utterly different. In this way it will have compleated the works of libertys death, and reduced these citizens to the desolation of tyranny, in which words and contracts have no meaning, in which we will become entirely subject to the whims and circumstances of arbitrary Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the judiciary of a civilized nation.
  • The federal judiciary has expanded ancient and settled law to constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive through their own errors to push theirpersonal liabilities against their own employees, and to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren.
  • The federal judiciary has encouraged domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the members of our military, merciless and idolatrous savages, whose known rule of conduct, is an undisguised barbarity towards those of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress according to the unspoken rules of Mulberry vs. Chase: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Judiciary, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Democratic brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their appointees to extend an unconstitutional jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the contractual nature of our constitution and representation of contractual obligation according to intent. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably corrupt the rule of law and, hence, our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as they hold us, Enemies in Politics, but in personal liberty, Friends.

cartoonWe, therefore, the citizens of the United States of America, in general outrage, Assembled, and online, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, That the legislative and executive institutions of these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent branches; that each is Absolved from all elements of Judicial Supremacy, and that all political decisions hitherto outlined as based on the federal judiciary as the Supreme Arbiter of the constitution between is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent citizens, we the people have the full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which and Independent people may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes (before taxes) and our sacred Honor.

Notes:

Some may consider this work itself to be a form of flag desecration. Pass a law, but it is not the business of the courts. The idea that our nation needs to get so energized about our national symbol that we would pass a constitutional amendment to protect our flag seems absurd. Yet that is exactly the point. The courts have left us no choice or an absurd choice. This has happened in every category of American life. Enough.

Likewise, while many of the above links are to well-known examples of judicial overreach and activism, many will favor a variety of the outcomes. However, it is the right of the people to self-government that is at stake. The ends dont justify the means. An unbridled judicial tyranny can never set a nation at liberty.

When a Tax is Not a Tax and a Marriage is not a Marriage

When the “congress of one,” Justice Roberts, voted with four other “judges” for the most massive takeover of the private economy ever, his reasoning pivoted on a lie. Not only did Roberts change the spelling of fine to ‘t-a-xroberts,’ but he also rewrote the U. S Constitution: no constitutional tax can arise from the Senate, even in a budget reconciliation conference.

Far worse, however, is the implementation of the first “tax” in history based on what a person doesn’t do. We are taxed on income we earn only because we work. When we pay a sales tax, we are taxed on what we choose to buy. Even the inheritance tax is based on the act of bequeathing one’s wealth. But the Obamacare “tax” is not like any other; it’s a tax on what we don’t do. The Obamacare tax is a singular monstrosity because a fine masquerading as  a a tax is another legalized lie.

The gospel of relativism has again led to lawlessness. Our laws, our constitutional system is now meanObamacare (1)ingless when it comes to federal power over our lives. From law is liberty. From relativism: tyranny.

Relativism’s gospel: “Oh, don’t worry yourselves over the details. Thinking is too much trouble. Everything will be fine. Just follow along”; then the cuffs are on, the door is latched, and the last light of liberty is gone.

The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the power to tax us if we don’t buy yogurt. We wouldn’t have to eat the yogurt, but we would have to buy it. The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the right to tax us if we don’t go to a privately operated fitness center. We don’t have to do anything once we get there, but we do have to report and sit around for three hours a week. If we don’t, we pay a tax.

America has surrendered a series of natural rights to its courts recently. For instance, we have a right to secure our own borders, but the courts just told Arizona that they must give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. We have a natural right to marry as we choose, but in several states, like the word “tax” the word “marriage” has been destroyed. If a marriage is not a marriage, then, like “tax,” it is whatever the government says it is.

If a marriage is not a sacred contract between two people based on the natural right and ability to form a sexual union, then what is it? It’s whatever the nice government tells us it is. Maybe, since a real marriage is just about love, a marriage is only a marriage if the members of the compact are loving enough to enroll in the gold health care helpprogram, a very special program that has clear dietary regulations and aerobic achievement goals. It is certain that since a real marriage is “love” that no legally sanctioned marriage would ever use the terms “husband” and “wife” because that is so insensitive.

Natural rights are part of who we are has humans. They’ve existed before governments and empires. They exist as great civilizations fall into ruin and as others arise. Governments can’t take them away. Tyrannies can only go to war against our humanity. Our natural rights are like life and conscience. They are each person’s privilege. They are everyone’s responsibility.  What is far worse and far more dangerous than that we’ve allowed ourselves to be dehumanized by surrendering a host of natural rights over the last decade is this: our government has sought to take those rights away. Any government that wants to take such liberty from its citizens has aligned itself against the will of the Creator Himself who designed all mankind with the liberty to seek Him freely and enjoy His gifts.

When a tax is Not a tax and a marriage is not a marriage, it’s tyranny.

Marx’s Plot to Destroy the Nuclear Family More Horrible than his Economics

Spreading the wealth around is an idea at least as old as Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program in which he wrote: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” To Marx this notion was a transitional principle leading to the workers’ paradise. His economic ideas are utterly nonsensical and have caused poverty and slavery wherever they’ve been tried. Even more sinister than an “economic system” based on lies that appeal to human jealousy and greed was Marx’s methods and plans for dismembering the hub of economic liberty: the nuclear family. As wicked as Marx’s appeal to the masses of the “downtrodden” were, even more base was his appeal for “a community of women.”

As part of the “dictatorship of the working class,” Marx desired that there would be no wealth to spread around. Marx wanted to abolish “capital.” That is, Marx envisioned abolishing the means to relate to others in terms of employer and wage earner.

marx

It was an idea that never worked very well. Why? Have you noticed the flaw in Marxist logic? If there is no capital, there can be no wage earners, or, in other words, no jobs. Therefore, Marxism leads to the absence of wealth!

Oddly, illogical notions don’t work in the real world. Because of the failure of these Marxist ideas in practice (as well as on the drawing board), one almost suspects the motivation of anyone in any government who proposes them.

On one level the motivation seems plain. The appeal of Marxism can be outwardly pleasant. When we humans don’t get what they want, it feels very unfair to us. It is easy to demand fairness instead of responsibility. It’s even easier to promise to make things fair by making a gift of someone else’s property to those who desire “fairness.” Nevertheless, considering how little clear thinking it takes to recognize the absurdity of Marxism, one must wonder about the cynicism of its proponents.

Marx also had some interesting notions about marriage. The Manifesto reads: “Bourgeois marriage is (because of rampant infidelity), in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed (system of free love), an openly legalized community of women.”

For Marx any force that disrupted one’s marriage was part of the plan for a worker’s paradise. The nuclear family appeared to be a threat to the communist theorist. Again the manifesto reads: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”  At any rate, once capital had been destroyed, of nature the workers RedWhiteparadise would feature no mothers and no fathers. In addition to the revolutionary party’s “community of women” Marx felt that public schools were the key to destroying the nuclear family. He was almost right about this, but marriage proved tougher than he thought. Since marriage exists prior to governments, it will endure when governments fail. Government schools can resist marriage, but cannot prevail against this God-given human ability because it is part of what people are.

Although Marx claimed that “the bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation,” he was wrong about that as well. No, it would be a hundred and fifty years before the Supreme Court of the United States did this. Although married folk pay SCOTUS no mind, it begs the question: what kind of judicial system is it that wants to reduce marriage to a definition only ever imagined by Karl Marx? What kind of “justice” system hates what we are as people to such a fanatical degree?

A careful read of the Communist Manifesto will reveal its ambitious aims to amass the power of the state in the hands of the few. This, not a workers’ paradise, is what it has always achieved for those who have used its perverse arguments to their advantage. If you wonder why America has struggled since the late fifties, consider some of the other preconditions for Marxist communism that he first set out in 1847. Precondition #2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Precondition #3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Precondition #10: Free education for all children in public schools.

By the way, some wondered whether the United States bank bailout plan would work. It did, but not, of course as wealth of nationsadvertised. Interestingly, here is the fifth of the ten Marxist preconditions for a workers paradise first outlined in the Communist Manifesto: “Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” It all depends on what one means by “work.” Anyone who knew the history and failures of Marxist theory, would have been certain that the bailout plan would not produce wealth. However, if one hates the United States because of its international prestige, its great abundance, and its liberties, and, as a student of Marxism, has been awaiting a crisis of capital to forward the communist agenda for the express purpose of ruining the wealth of nations, this bailout worked perfectly. Small investors cannot earn interest. Centralized banks make trillions by simply recycling Federal Reserve green backs.

Marx’s opposition to The Wealth of Nations is plain. Poverty is the inevitable result of his precepts. His ideas about family are equally astute.