Did I See God's Hand Today?

Happy Mother's Day

Welcome to 1984!

Thomas L. Friedman, in “The World is Flat” makes this statement: “My trip to Beijing described earlier fell right after the fifteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, which happened on June 4, 1898, that is, 6/4/89. My colleagues at the Times bureau informed me that on the day the Chinese government censors were blocking SMS messages on cell phones that contained any reference to Tiananmen Square or even the numbers 6 and 4. So if you happened to be dialing the phone number 664-6464, or sending a message in which you told someone you would meet at 6 p.m. on the 4th floor, the Chinese censors blocked it using their jamming technology.”

This caught my attention and I filed it away in the back of my mind, yesterday. So imagine my surprise when I checked my email today and found today’s column by Chuck Baldwin entitled, “A Culture of Surveillance” in which he describes the attempts underway by the Obama Administration to seize the political and technological power to shut down the Internet in the event of an actual or perceived “cyber-security emergency” . He quotes the Ecommerce Journal’s report on The Cyber Security Act of 2009: "If the President so chooses, he can call a 'cyber-security emergency' and shut down or limit any 'net traffic or a 'critical' network 'in the name of national security,' though the bill fails to provide concrete definitions on what is 'critical' or what constitutes an 'emergency.'"

If any one doubts that it is possible, I refer you again to my opening paragraph. It is worthwhile to read Chuck Baldwin’s entire column, found at this link: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090428.html. Welcome to 1984.

The Savior: None Were With Him

Create

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE GLOBAL MARKET-STATE, AND THE FUTURE

(Quotes are from “Shield of Achilles” by Phillip Bobbitt, unless otherwise noted)

“The ‘modalities’ of American constitutional law are the ways in which we characterize a proposition of that law as true or false.” Mr. Bobbitt lists six modalities of “constitutional interpretation”:

1. Historical, that is, the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers;
2. Textual, that is, how does ‘Joe the Plumber’ understand it;
3. Structural, that is, how the Constitution mandates the relationship between the branches of government;
4. Doctrinal, that is, rules set by precedence;
5. Ethical, that is, the ethos invoked by the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble, etc.
6. Prudential, that is, using a parameter outside of the Constitution to balance the costs and benefits of a particular rule.

Mr. Bobbitt then correlates these ‘modalities’ with the six philosophies of government that he previously identified:
1. Historical = Consensualism
2. Textual = Nominalist
3. Structural = Neo-Realist
4. Doctrinal = Legal Process
5. Ethical = New Haven School
6. Prudential = Perspectivist

Without going into detail on each of these philosophical approaches to government, one can readily see that the good of each of them is already embodied in the Constitutional Republic designed by the Founding Fathers under inspiration from God. Why mess with a good thing? The minor errors, already corrected by the Amendment process, were errors of comprise of the Original Ethic—compromising the basic principle of “All Men Are Created Equal” by lessening the humanity of the First Nations People, and by continuing the enslavement of descendants of African slaves.

When listening to Prime Minister Brown of Britain speak before a joint session of the United States Congress, I was amazed at how well received his proposal that we do away with borders in all aspects of life—banking, commerce, law, science, etc., in favor of a global community of nations who globally work to solve global problems like climate change, poverty, economy, every aspect of life be changed into a global market-state. It is a good goal to eliminate want and deprivation, to have a clean environment, but it is the method which reveals the madness. Whenever bureaucratic government is proposed as the solution of our problems, whenever top down management is proposed, we know there is trouble on the way, for the man who has never farmed does not know farming, the woman who has never been a fulltime homemaker and mother cannot know what is best for another woman’s home and children. In time, after much trial and tribulation before us, Mankind will return to an understanding of simplicity—that the best government is the government that governs least. Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said it best when asked why the city of Nauvoo (Illinois), which he founded, was so clean and the jail was empty, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” That is our answer.

Phillip Bobbitt quotes Graham Greene, “Once in a while a door opens and lets the future in.” Mr. Bobbitt sees this as being the New World Order of the global Market-State. Mr. Brown of Britain would agree with him. I say, we are the future, family by family, community by community, refusing to partake in a system designed to turn us into good little consumers and placated worker bees, placated with PlayStations and IPods, placated with satellite television and cell phones, placated from thoughtful independent thinkers into mindless drones responding without will to subliminal advertising and mind manipulation into ever buying and never knowing satisfaction. Just say NO!

THE CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE

(Quotes are from “Shield of Achilles” by Phillip Bobbitt, unless otherwise noted)

While discussing the philosophy of Neo-Realism, the doctrine of Dean Acheson, Mr. Bobbitt says “…international law is created by a society of states that draws its constitutional power from its constituent members, and thus cannot impose rules that undermine the constitutional vitality and survival of the states themselves.” Also “a state always has the right to act on behalf of its vital interests”. He defines “vital interest” as that “without which [the state] would cease to be able to perpetuate its society’s way of life.” What does that mean to me, the sovereign citizen?

Let us look at the United States of America first. It would appear that, as a sovereign state, the United States of America has a pre-existent right to self-defense. It can take action to prevent attacks upon its people, its infrastructure, and its sovereignty. That action can include a myriad of actions including sanctions, tariffs, border control, and military action, just to name a few. But the key is self-defense, not annihilation of another State. Indeed self-defense is a sacred right which is embodied in the Oath of Office administered to its leadership and military members, an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Therefore every State MUST provide for its self-defense or it ceases to be a State. The question must be asked, is warring in foreign nations self-defense or self-deception? Are open borders self-defense or self-destruction? To answer these questions we must ask a third, since the United States government exists as a Sovereign State because its sovereign citizens created and perpetuate it, granting it only the rights they wished to grant it, self-defense being the number one reason for government, to protect life—does that State cease to exist when it fails to fulfill its sacred duty?

Self-defense, Gun Control and the Second Amendment
We have now established that a State has the right to self-defense, recognized by international law. It logically follows that the sovereign citizens of that state who have granted that State the right to self-defense on their behalf, must first have had a pre-existent unalienable right to self-defense. Whether that right is perceived to be God-given or nature-given, it exists independent of any political structures created by Man. One can defend one’s life because one lives. Mr. Bobbitt’s statement above could be paraphrased thusly “an individual (or his duly and freely elected representatives) cannot impose rules that undermine the survival of the [sovereign citizen himself].” Under this theory, it could be posited that gun control laws violate the basis for international law—that is, the right of self-defense. A sovereign State cannot remain sovereign if its individuals are not sovereign. If a State, or an international body of States , seeks to destroy the right of self-defense within any given state, it is not a collection of sovereign States working together to solves international disputes, it is a dictatorship seeking to disarm sovereign citizens so they are unable to defend themselves against the tyranny. It is the entire point of the Second Amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with self-defense against tyranny. I refer you again to the Declaration of Independence. Read it slowly and thoughtfully. You will be amazed at the correlation to the situation in which we find ourselves today. Think hard and think twice before you vote for another candidate that believes in gun control and open borders. He or she is not interested in personal or State self-defense.
Declaration of Independence (1776): www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm.