I have been watching this ‘debate’ over discrimination with great amusement.  First of all, I shouldn’t call it a debate.  In reality, it is bullying, but not by the people discriminating, but by the people who claim to be trying to stop discrimination.  Their hypocrisy is endless.  How can they not see that by forcing their views onto others — even in the supposed name of ending ‘unfairness’ — they are discriminating, themselves.  This notion that you can right a wrong with another wrong is irrational, but — sadly — it is what has come to pass for reason in our dysfunctional society.  The truth is, if we still understood the principles underlying this issue, we would understand that we all have a Natural Right to discriminate.  This right is even protected in the Constitution.  This means that the people trying to use government force to end discrimination are violating the individual rights of every American citizen who refuses to submit to their tyranny and I — for one — have had about enough of these mindless drones.

Continue reading FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: We have a Natural Right to Discriminate →

It is time to restrict the right to vote!  There is no such thing as a Natural Right to vote!  There is a Natural Right to contract, but the right to vote is a civil construct, therefore, it is not a Natural Right.  This is true by both definition as well as logical extension.  In fact, the notions of voting and democracy are synonymous with tyranny.  Democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the masses.  This means it is — again, by definition — the negation of Natural Law.  The truth is simple: it is possible to construct a Social Contract that is in perfect agreement with Natural Law without the people ever being afforded a vote in any part of their government.  I believe the time has finally come to give serious consideration to doing exactly this: re-writing the U.S. Constitution so that the civil right to vote is either severely restricted or eliminated all together.

First, you need to be aware that the U.S. Constitution was originally written so that the influence of popular voting by the masses was severely restricted.  In fact, the people only had a direct vote for their member of the House of Representatives.  The States were supposed to elect their own Senators, as well as the President.  This was just another aspect of the checks-and-balances our framers built into our system to protect the people from tyranny.  This is also why the Progressives attacked these protections first.  They did this by pushing the notion of ‘fairness’ cloaked in the emotional camouflage of ‘democracy.’  This is how and why we came to elect our Senators, as well as the President.  It is also the primary reason the Progressives were able to destroy the Federal system our founders built and replace it with a National system which is much more powerful than ever intended, and much more easily controlled by those who manage to gain power.  I propose we end this by eliminating the right to vote.

We can do this by simply remembering what the Constitution was designed to do: protect and preserve individual Natural Rights.  Since there is no Natural Right to vote, we do not have to include voting in the re-write of our Constitution.  All we need to do is make sure the new Constitution conforms to the principles and ideals of Natural Law.

STEP ONE: Eliminate all bureaucracies.  They are extra-constitutional.  This means they violate the Social Contract, which in turn means they violate Natural Law.  They need to be ended and all legislative power returned to the Congress.

STEP TWO: Return the balance of power by returning the States to their proper positions as sovereign nations.  We do this by returning the election of the Senators to the State governments.  We also return the election of the President to the States — and we do so in the manner originally defined in the Constitution.  Each of the States representatives to the Congressional Congress will cast two votes for President.  At least one of these votes must be for a person outside of their own State.  This will yield one hundred votes.  they will be tallied and the winner becomes President.  The runner up becomes Vice President.  This is all because the Federal government actually exists to arbitrate between and on behalf of the States — not the people in general.  This is the meaning of ‘federal,’ and it needs to be re-instated.

STEP THREE: Eliminate the election of Representatives to the House.  Replace it with a lottery system.  It could operate similar to the way jury members are selected, only it will not be something a person can opt out of without extraordinary circumstances.  If the person selected is of sound mind and physically capable of doing the job, they will not be allowed to decline service.  This will create a system much akin to appointing “the first one  hundred names from the phone book” to the House of Representatives.

IF it is deemed unacceptable to remove all voting from the system, then I would propose the right to vote be limited only to those citizens who own real property and/or have seen combat in the defense of this nation.  This is not ‘unfair.’  In fact, it is imminently fair.  As voting is a civil construction, and it should be seen as a duty which carries grave responsibility, it should be limited to those members of society who have — by their actions — demonstrated both an understanding as well as a willingness to accept those responsibilities in the execution of this duty.

STEP FOUR: Establish a set limit on the total number of years a person can spend in public service in any capacity.  I am including the military and law enforcement.  Personally, I think twelve years total service is more than enough time for anyone to be allowed so close to such powerful positions.  Eight might actually be a better number, but it can be argued later.  I just would not agree to anything more than twelve years.

Now, look at a partial list of problems that have just been solved (in no rank order):

–Checks-and-balances are restored

— No need for term limits.

— Lobbyists have been eliminated.

— No more campaign spending issues.

— Bad judges are removed after the set limit on their total years of service.

— Because anyone can be chosen for government service, public education will have to be reformed so that students are taught how to think instead of what to think

— Without the bureaucracies, Congress will no longer have time to meddle in State affairs.

— The United States will have to return to the militia system.

— This will keep the u.S. from meddling in world affairs where we do not have a legitimate claim based in our Natural Rights.

— Government will have to return to localized control, as the national system will be destroyed.

— The control of the government will finally be restored to the People, where it rightfully belongs.

These would be my suggestions.  I make them because, if the goal is actually for a free and self-governing society based upon the principles of protecting and preserving individual rights and liberty, then these suggestions will work.  Furthermore, I would submit that anyone who objects to the general concept in this post does so not out of concern for this nation, its people or the preservation of individual rights and liberty, but out of a desire to preserve a path toward seizing power and control over them for themselves.

If you embrace the notions of individual rights and liberty and self-governance, then you must embrace and protect the principles and ideals of Natural Law.  This is because these things come only from Natural Law and not from man.  They can never come from man.  By logical extension, this means that we cannot compromise on matters of principle.  If we do, we actually negate that principle; and if you negate Natural Law, you negate the notion of individual rights and liberty and of self-rule.  In this sense, it is a matter of Natural Law that compromise negates principle.  Now, I’d like to illustrate how this works by answering a question Glenn Beck asked his audience today (and I hope this answer somehow finds its way to him).  Mr. Beck, follow the advice of Mr. Beck: always place principle over interest.

During his radio show today, Beck informed his audience that Grover Norquist is an ‘agent of influence’ for the Muslim Brotherhood.  This has troubled Beck because Norquist — who is currently on the board of the NRA — is running for re-election and Beck does not know what he should do if Norquist is re-elected.  Sadly, the answer to his dilemma should be obvious.

For some time now, Beck has been telling people that our nation has created problems through a foreign policy that favors national interests over national principles.  He is correct about this.  Our leaders have been making the world less stable for decades because they have been compromising the principles and ideals upon which the nation was founded.  By doing so, they have negated those principles and — in the process – they have erased the moral high ground upon which this nation once stood.

Applying this line of reasoning to his political affiliations, Beck has told his audience he is done supporting the Republican Party.  In fact, Beck has called for his audience to help de-fund the GOP.  Once again, Beck is correct.  The GOP has lied to its constituents and has been working against the Constitution.  There is little difference between the Republican Party agenda and that of the Democrat Party.  Since Beck rightly understands the Democrat agenda to be subversive, and he has correctly deduced that the Republican agenda is equally subversive, Beck has chosen principle over interest and withdrawn his support for the GOP.  He did something similar with GM when it took government money in the auto bailouts.  So Beck has the idea and has shown a willingness to ‘walk the walk’ — until it came to the NRA and Norquist.

The problem for Beck is what he should do if Norquist is re-elected.  Norquist is a problem because he is working for the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a problem because they are a known terrorist organization that has openly stated its goal is to destroy the Constitution and replace it with Shari’a law.  This makes the Muslim Brotherhood a subversive organization that has also declared war on the Constitution.  However, Beck is torn between what he knows he should do and the consequences it would have on the NRA and — by extension — the Second Amendment.  He is waffling because he thinks preserving the Second Amendment is more important than taking a stand over the election of a subversive agent to the organization trying to protect the Constitution.

There should be no question as to what a principled man should do in such a case.  If you compromise on principle, you negate that principle.  Period!  So, if you compromise on the protection of the Constitution, you negate the Constitution.  This makes Beck’s decision pretty simple: Norquist gets re-elected, Beck resigns and tells his audience.  To do anything else is to — in principle — do the very same thing Beck has attacked others for doing: ‘joining them to defeat them.’  This is fornication for chastity (I know it is a crude analogy, but it is effective because it drives the point home).  It is no different than choosing the lesser of two evils.  The very phrase openly admits you are choosing evil.

When it comes to matters of Natural Law, right and wrong works the same way as it does with morality:

Right and wrong is always black and white — there is never any gray.  If you are seeing gray, that is a sure sign you are on the wrong side of right.

Politics will tell you to compromise to win, but that voice whispering to you about the need to compromise on matters of principle is the voice of the serpent in the garden.  It usually sounds true, but it never is.  It always twists things just enough to convince you to compromise on right and wrong, and once you start down that path, the next step becomes easier, and the next, and the next until — eventually — you find you are standing with the serpent and not the Light.

Have you heard?  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it is ‘Constitutional’ for our schools to teach Christianity to students.  They are not just teaching about the religion; they are teaching the religion.  The Court even ruled that it is ‘Constitutional’ for our schools to force students to dress as first century Christians, take on Christian names, pray to Yahweh and generally act like first century Christians for two full weeks.  What’s more, schools do not have to tell the parents, and parents cannot ‘opt their children out’ of the course.  This ruling goes so far as to protect the schools teaching students that Yahweh is not only real, He is the One True God.  But here is the biggest shocker: the ACLU has been totally silent on this matter!  This is the joining of Church and State, and with its ruling, the Ninth Court of Appeals has destroyed the First Amendment.  Oh!  There’s just one catch to this story: it wasn’t Christianity, it was Islam!

That is correct.  The Ninth Circuit ruled the following:

But this is not the only report on this matter.  Here is a story containing a video clip of a local California News station reporting on it:

LA Public School: Teaching Kids “Allah is the One True God” (VIDEO)

And the problem goes further than this.  Here is a partial list of the pro-Islam indoctrination taking place in our schools.

This is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and of Natural Law.  It violates both civil and Natural Law in that it breaks the restraints placed on our schools by the First Amendment and Federal government, as well as the Natural Law prohibiting the use of force on another person’s conscience.  It is — in simple terms — lawlessness.

But it is lawlessness on another point.  If the true history of Islam is to be taught, then the schools should be teaching that Muhammad failed to convince the local Jews and Christians that he was the final prophet of the Bible, so when the pagans of his home town drove him out of Mecca, Muhammad turned his ‘religion’ into a cult of bloodshed.  Before he was pushed out of Mecca, he had managed between 150 and 300 followers in some 7+ years.  But after he was banished and started to use violence and buy followers by allowing them to keep 4/5 of everything they took — including women and slaves — Muhammad managed some 10,000 followers in less than 2 years.  In the process, Muhammad indoctrinated and inoculated his followers from outside influences that might have helped them see they were being used — just as all cults do.  In fact, Islam is a classic study of how a cult works.

To teach otherwise is to violate Natural Law.  Natural Law prohibits a person knowingly and intentionally telling a lie so as to deceive another — especially when the other person can be harmed by that deception.  In the case of Islam, a person can be harmed both Spiritually and physically.  But it goes further than this.  Islam is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, the fifty State Constitutions or the U.S. system of law and governance.  For the schools to teach Islam is no different than teaching subversion, and this is against both our civil laws, as well as Natural Law.

So, any way we want to look at this, we have Court-sponsored lawlessness in our nation.  And when the Courts sponsor lawlessness, they have ceded their authority to rule over the People and must be replaced.  If the people fail to do so, then they not only break the law, they violate their Natural Law duty to their neighbors, thus ceding their right to claim any protections from society under the Social Contract.  In short, unless we replace the Courts and the government officials which appoint and support them, we have entered back into a state of nature (i.e. war) with each other.

Here’s a little test for you.  How many Natural Rights does the U.S. Constitution grant to every American citizen?

[Please post your answers in the comments section. Texas95: you are not allowed to play 😉 ]