Things Set Right

Ever since the Covid-19 pandemic started there has been one serious issue unresolved, festering and begging to be set right. The politicians started it, setting in motion a ticking time bomb that if not disarmed could do damage unthinkable. The Congress sat silent pursuing worthless acts designed only to pander and placate malcontents, but avoided their responsibility and true purpose as legislators. The Courts are always slow and can do little until the people turn to them with complaints that can be adjudicated. 

Responsibility rests with the people of any country. They can fall into deception like the Russians who believed Karl Marx’s myth of communist socialism. They can be like the Italians who surrendered in fear to Mussolini’s fascism. They can be like the Germans who violated their conscience when confronted by the truth of Nazism. Today, the American people see and know that our politicians, governors and mayors, have exceeded their constitutional authority by closing businesses, ordering home isolation, requiring masks be worn and many other unauthorized edicts. If the people do not address this serious constitutional violation, it will lead to disaster. 

The enemy within, our deceitful media and biased press, have said nothing, nor raised one question of constitutionality, because they seek to destroy America and remake it into a humanist socialist state. The Constitution authorizes “The People” with ultimate authority, not by design, but recognizing the reality of human history, which is fraught with dictators, tyrant kings, and evil committees that subvert the will of the people. The enemy within is fomenting division, riots, disorder, malaise, fear and confusion in an attempt to overthrow the will of the people.

What is the will of the American people? Is it security and safety from this flu like disease? Is it government welfare for food, shelter and clothing? Is it the redress of grievances various groups perceive still exists today? Is it the removal of a duly elected President, utionDonald Trump, who threatens the enemy within by releasing the collective will of the people to live free with liberty and justice for all? 

There is still a massive majority who cling to liberty and will not go quietly into the dark night of Socialist Humanism. Our churches have been closed with our businesses; we took a two month home sabbatical, but our patience is wearing thin. We see and know what our enemy is attempting to do. When we do rise up it will make their purchased organized riots look like a speck on the wall. We will not destroy our country like unjust rioters, but we will take it back and lock up those who sought to take it away through deceit and unconstitutional means. Things will be set right.

Tyranny Today


What constitutes government tyranny to you? Arbitrary and/or unrestrained power is the hallmark of tyranny, but if the governed neither object nor recognize the abuse, it can be accepted. All around the world this is true. On several occasions Chinese groups have protested against communist tyranny and for liberty and one leader was crushed under a tank, the others disappeared in reeducation camps.  Today, States are telling citizens they cannot get closer than six feet at the beach or park. How is that arbitrary? Because it includes members of your own family who you touch each day and are clearly disease free. How is it unrestrained –  because it contradicts the free association clause in the Constitution and if they can demand this extent of control over us, they control anything, including attending a church service.

If you are excusing this tyranny as a reasonable response to an overestimated disease, then what remedy will be effective at the next overestimated crisis? Some in Congress are proposing a climate crisis that will destroy the world in a few decades, unless we let them have power to force us to stop driving or flying places, and more. Many have compared Covid-19 with the normal flu and there is great similarity, but there is no dispute that this crisis was/is overstated. Moreover, the proposed solution was to “flatten the curve”, which is an admission that the same number of people would still die, but they would die over a longer period, giving the hospitals time to prepare. The hospitals and available respirators were never close to a deficiency, even in hardest hit New York – It was all overestimated. However, the government overreach was not restrained and arbitrary in most respects. What is your freedom worth, beside the thousands upon thousands of military lives given up for it. Two idioms apply to this situation we face, “a day late and a dollar short” and “the ship has sailed.” This unprecedented action by our current government has prepared the way for a future fascist or socialist government to exercise a tyranny that you may not happily welcome. The Bible says a time is coming when no one can buy or sell unless they have a special mark upon their right hand or forehead. (Revelation 15: 13-18). How does that sound for tyranny?


The following is an interview with the Editor on the subject of Federalism:

Question – I don’t think it is taught or generally known that our “Federal” government refers to a unity or federation of independent sovereign states.  The tenth amendment to the Constitution provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”  This amendment embodies the general principles of Federalism in a republican form of government.  Is this still relevant in America today?

Answer – It is if you believe the Constitution is still our nations governing document.  Many today, including the liberal Supreme Court justices, believe the Constitution is a living document” open to reinterpretation with each new generation without going through the required procedure to amend.  This view effectively leaves it to nine justices of the Supreme Court to determine how the Constitution should be amended any time their folly decides it should be.  I believe the Constitution, as written and legally amended, is the law of the land.  That is why I have often called for the states to nullify (not abide by) any ruling of the Supreme Court that is clearly outside the law such as allowing abortions and homosexual marriage.  There is nothing in the Constitution about issues such as these and thus the Supreme Court has no authority under the Constitution to override State laws on these issues.  Really, even the Federal Government has no authority in these areas because it has not been granted to them.  

Question – In the origin of the United States did the concept of Federalism merely carryover from the thirteen original colonies or was it considered a value within itself, such that a majority among thirteen different points of view would reveal the best course?  Alternatively, was the intent to limit the power of a central government that could wield power over local matters traditionally reserved to the states?

Answer – Federalism does not involve anything about majoritiesbut rather that there is a dual role for a central Federal government and the States as outlined in the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment.  The original Colonies, operating under the Articles of Confederation, were Sovereign States and that remained so even after the Constitution was agreed to as shown in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  As there was no Federal government per se under the Articles of Confederation (although a Congress was put in place) Federalism would have started when the Constitution was created and a Federal government established.

Question – Most people may consider the Tenth Amendment to be defunct or at least suspended after the Civil War, but did Roosevelt’s “New Deal” actually give more free rein to an unlimited central government?  Marriage was defined for thousands of years as the union of one man and woman, but the Supreme Court changed this recently in spite of the fact that marriage licenses are issued by the separate states.  Is the Tenth Amendment relevant is such an issue?

Answer – The tenth amendment was never superseded, even by the Civil War, although Lincoln and the Federal Government of the time certainly trampled all over it by forcing sovereign states back in the Union against their will.  This included throwing half of the legislature of Maryland in jail so they would not vote to succeed.  As for Roosevelt, he certainly tried to ignore the Tenth Amendment and states rights in his New Deal legislation.  However, the Supreme Court of the time ruled against him in enough cases, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, that he tried to add two additional Supreme Court justices and pack the court.  For a long time after the Civil War a respect for states rights and the Tenth Amendment came back in favor in the courts and nation.  Only in more recent times has the Federal government gained more sympathy with the people and power over the States due to our poor educational system and changing national values of the people.  The people are increasingly looking for a more centralized power to take care of them and this has begun to thwart our decentralized form of government.  Even so, the Tenth Amendment is still regularly considered and sometimes even deployed by the courts so the principal is not completely dead.  However, unless the states rise up and assert their rights of nullification the danger grows of the Supreme Court (even more than the Federal government) ruling the land.

Question – Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and regards the heath, safety and morality of citizens of the state.  Many state legislatures are passing laws to either limit or expand abortion within their respective states.  Do they possess the right to do so under the constitution?  Various and different laws exist in the states regarding the right to bear arms.  How do such differences among state laws apply to issues such as abortion, when, where, under what circumstances it can be performed?

Answer – There in nothing in the Constitution on these issues, except on the right to bear arms and that to guarantee it, and thus the Supreme Court has no role or power over these issues except to interpret that any laws passed by the State or Federal (as long as they stay in their lane) governments are carried out faithfully.  States definitely have the right under the tenth amendment to rule on issues such as abortion, and rule in different ways from one another.  See discussion below.

Question – Is it possible to restrain the power of the central government or has the breach become too wide?  For example, the Constitution clearly grants to the Executive Branch/President power to administer border protection, as recently ruled in US vs Arizona, but now lower courts are overruling presidential actions with respect to border security. Must every action be sanctioned by nine members of the Supreme Court?

Answer – Yes through Nullification and reasserting of States sovereign rights.  Each state should be free to operate under its laws on matters not specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution. The precedent for nullification may have been set by the Sanctuary Cities” established (or at least allowed for) in some liberal states.  Although some believe immigration is a Federal area of authority, it is not clearly so under the Constitution.  I have no problem with states allowing illegal immigrants in their cities if they desire as long as we can restrict abortions and homosexual marriage and round up illegal immigrants in my state.  That is the way it should be, but alas, the more conservative states are loath to thwart the Federal rules because they are, well, conservative in nature.

Question – Where do you see these issues and their clash with states rights going in the  future?

Answer – Nowhere good.  The Federal government has already largely won as the States have little power except on issues that the Federal government does not care enough about to act against them.  The ironic thing is that, as the Federal Government usurps the States power, the Supreme Court, which has decided without authority that it can rule on the constitutionality of all things, will eventually rule over the Federal Government and then the Constitution will be fully turned on its head.


Men Created Equal

These famous words from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America were written by Thomas Jefferson.  John Adams and others certainly had significant influence in its creation, but his choice of words stand upon a greater premise of the hand of Providence at work.  I watched part of Ken Burns film, “Thomas Jefferson”, wherein these words within the larger phrase beginning, “We bear these truths to be self-evident…” were repeated over and over and contrasted against Jefferson’s personal life, most particularly as a slave owner.  First Burns, through the mouths of various “historians”, says his life as a slave owner was a contradiction to the belief that all men are created equal, then describes it closer to hypocrisy and finally, after pointing out that Jefferson had drafted and sponsored over thirty bills in the Virginia legislature that would have done away with slavery, concludes he was too weak to act personally by freeing his own slaves. This characterization is very subtlety done in the film and in such a way as to ignore alternatives that might lead to other interpretations.  Yes, slavery is abhorrent, but is the topic linked directly to the proposition that all men are created equal as Burns suggests?

Do all men remain equal today, once born, following their own choices, and in light of God’s providence?  Isn’t the variety and diversity of culture, individual characteristics, and preference a virtue as to the whole of the human race?  Does God’s creative action compel the conclusion that all men will remain equal as Burn’s posits?  No, this declaration is about freedom and liberty from tyranny, despotism, and injustice by Government.  By parsing the phrases some might suggest that these words actually support the ideal that all people should remain equal, that the government should be the arbitrator and dispenser of education, healthcare, status, wealth, and whatever may be necessary to maintain equality among people.  This would appear to eliminate poverty; oppression of the poor by the rich, inequality between all the six or so genders recognized by some today; and sharing of the nation’s wealth among all.

Yeshua said, “You will always have the poor among you.” (John 12: 8).  Yet, He was always an advocate for the poor and gave away all He had to them, advising others to do likewise.  What is the cause of poverty: catastrophic events, circumstances, bad choices, bad behavior, poor education, innate character flaws, laziness, thieves, etc.  Inevitably there are distinctions among people and only a great fool would think these are subject to the control of man and only a wicked man would think they are subject to the control of government.  History has yet to finish the great experiment that is a representative republic by the people and for the people, but complete socialism has been shown to be an utter disaster full of tyranny, oppression, injustice, neediness, and captivity.  Many historians agree that the American experience is unique, not in its objective of liberty or goal for equality of justice for all, but by a people who subjected their will and government to the Creator God.

Alignment under God’s authority is a foundation of security.  Daniel, the Hebrew prophet saw it very clearly.  “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven.  He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 7: 13-14, see also Eph. 1: 18-23).

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  When humanists lay hold of our founding documents they only can pervert them, revise history, and separate the clear overriding importance of “one nation under God”.  As believers in God we maintain their right to free speech and offer tolerance, because the light of truth will reveal the folly of their aims, and in God’s abundant overflowing mercy they may yet come to faith.