The people of California, through a direct vote made a law.  Judges of the California Supreme Court decided that the law violated the rights of a small minority.  (It is supposed that the California Constitution spells out what rights the people have, but I don’t know which of those rights were violated.)  The people of California were emphatic, embedding into the Constitution itself what their will is.

And those same “justices” are now going to determine whether the vote that declared their declaration of the law to be unconstitutional is now in the Constitution are going to decide whether or not the Constitution is constitutional.  Arg-g-gh!  Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

Read the rest of this entry »

There has been the suggestion that it may become necessary for Constitutional Americans to form a new government.  (See Joseph Farah’s column and my earlier post.)

With this in mind, I have updated the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  I have brought the language up to date from 18th century English and have modified it for present circumstances.  I am asking readers to help me complete the document.  This may be done in two ways:

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m reading a lot of columns that tell us how badly things would go for a lover of American style freedom under an Obama administration.

It is a good thing to try to frighten people about what an Obama administration would bring. The fact is that the possibility of a Socialist States of America is a very real possibility. Socialism lite is already a part of our governmental policy, even though it is unconstitutional.

The question is, “What are you going to do about it?” Bellyache? Cry? Some (including me) are talking about setting up a new national government — secession. I’ve seen a lot of naysayers who claim that it can’t be done. If you believe that something can’t be done, then you won’t try to do it or support those who are trying. So you are back to bellyaching.

Submit yourselves to God. Seek His will in every detail of your life. Then live your life in faith, not in fear. The Bible says that the fearful are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Then claim the freedom that God gives.

Kwitchurbellyachin!!

Michael Farris wrote in a column on World Net Daily:

There are only two meaningful ways to interpret the Constitution. The originalist theory is that the words mean the same thing today as they meant when they were written and ratified. This is an approach that is necessary if we believe in both self-government and the rule of law. Self-government requires us to accept the meaning from the elected officials who made the law. The rule of law requires us to accept the rules established by the law as fixed principles until such time as another law of equal rank formally amends the first law.

The other theory of constitutional interpretation is the “living Constitution,” which asserts that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time. Words no longer have a fixed meaning. They now mean whatever the judges of today think they should mean. This is the rule of men, not law.

Obama’s theological wanderings may be interesting, but we have all that we need to know for voting purposes by the revelation that he is unwilling to address or follow the original meaning of the Constitution.

If he is unwilling to following the original meaning of the Constitution on life and death, why would we think he will follow it on anything less important?

Mr Farris makes a valid point, but what he points out about Obama is also true of Mr. McCain. McCain may be more “constitutional” in some of his views, but that is only because the Constitution agrees with McCain, not because McCain agrees with the Constitution.  Where McCain disagrees with the Constitution, his voting record shows that he is willing to ignore the Document.

America is defined by the words of the Constitution.  Because the Constitution is being ignored in all three branches of our federal government, the America that our founding creationists gave us is dead.  The idea is still alive in the hearts of some people.

http://www.selfgovernment.us/aip

A while ago I wrote a blog post that posited that it was sinful for a Christian couple to decline to deliberately include God and His will into the fabric of their marriage.

In the responses to an article in World Net Daily, California bans ‘brides,’ ‘grooms’, about the fallout of a California Supreme Court decision wherein the Court made a law(!) that overturned the will of the people by legalizing sodomite marriage.

The story is about a couple being denied a marriage license under the new law because they wanted to be Bride and Groom instead of Party A and Party B.  Among the Digg comments about the story are two links that give information I wish that I had known many years ago.  They point out that the government has no legitimate role in a God ordained marriage; only in one that excludes God.  Here are the two links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiTGhQOYZv4

http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense …

In January, 2006, I moved from America, my home for over six decades, to Finland.  The reason was to marry the woman I love.  I link to that story here, but this story is to describe my impression of Finland’s economic system.  I think of it as “socialist”, but a Finnish friend took umbrage to my description of it as such.

Regardless of what it might be called, the economic policies of Finland’s government results in a different life experience for those who live under it.  Whether that’s good or bad depends upon one’s point of view.  America’s politics has moved her economic policies far from those established by our founding creationists in the Constitution.  This move is in the same direction as that in which Finland has gone.  An American friend has asked me what it’s like.  Here’s my answer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Joseph Farah advocates voting for “none of the above”.  He does not advocate not voting, but for rejecting the candidates of both of the major parties.  There is a loud chorus of those who say that a vote for McCain is required to keep Obama from being elected.  There is the assumption that the candidate of one of the two major parties will be elected. Do we remember the Whigs or the Federalists?  They were once major political parties in the United States.
Read the rest of this entry »

Voting for Obama is to vote for the destruction of America as we know it.  The America given to us by our Founding Creationists is long gone.  Christian, I implore you, Don’t vote out of fear.  Fear is Satan’s weapon.  To quote a preacher from the past, “It is never right to do wrong and it is never wrong to do right.”

If you think that a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama, then you should not do it.  I don’t think that how either you or I as individuals vote is going to turn the election one way or the other.  The issue is what our decision making process about this and many other issues says about our trust and reliance on God.  In the final analysis, He is the One Who will decide the election.  He has had His hand on America.  He still has His Almighty hand on America, either for blessing or for judgment.  We know what we deserve.  We know a little of His grace.  We don’t know how His plans for the introduction of His visible empire are going to play out.  Vote in faith, not in fear.  Rest in the confidence not that the best candidate will win, but that God’s will shall be done.

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”  — George Washington

http://www.selfgovernment.us/aip/

A sister in Christ wrote to me asking for my insight in America’s next elections.  Here is my reply, modified to make it more understandable to those who don’t know us personally.

I’d still prefer to vote for Alan Keyes, but you have to be able to think to want him in office.  I can only echo your words, “Why in Heaven’s name didn’t the Constitution Party nominate him?”

Read the rest of this entry »

One Nation Under God

There are those who write about America’s problems and bemoan things that we see going on around us. They like to tell us that we must do something, but they seldom have a specific answer. Many of those that want us to do something have in mind the support of a cause that seeks to restore or protect things that Americans once took for granted. These causes are usually narrow in scope and won’t fix the whole problem. In this document, I am not going to rehash all that is wrong. I will outline it only as necessary to make my point in a call to specific action.

Read the rest of this entry »