If you find this post valuable to you in any way, Please share it on Face Book.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether or not there is a Constitutionally protected right to ‘gay’ marriage, but this is not what is actually being decided.  What is really being decided is whether or not rights can contradict.  The goal is to establish that rights can contradict because it opens the door for government to decide which rights take precedence over others.  I have already explained why rights cannot contradict and why.  This then begs the question as to why the Courts would even consider this case about ‘gay’ marriage.  The answer is simple: this is not about rights.  That claim is just propaganda aimed at creating an emotional appeal so you will not use reason to examine what is really happening.  However, if you can set the emotion aside and look at what is actually happening, you will quickly see that this is about giving the government a path to destroy the First Amendment!

The process is simple: if there is a ‘right’ to ‘gay’ marriage, then it suddenly becomes a ‘hate’ crime to oppose ‘gay’ marriage in any form.  This opens the door to the destruction of faith-based organizations.  It will not matter whether they are churches or businesses, they will have to comply with the government dictates or be shut down.  But it goes further than that.  If you are a doctor but disagree with homosexuality, you could lose your job.  Same for lawyers, firemen, police officers: anyone who disagrees with homosexuality will be at risk of government persecution.

You see, what the Supreme Court is actually about to rule on is whether or not the government has the authority to define bigotry and then use that as a justification to persecute anyone who has just been declared a bigot.  This is one of the reasons I write so much about language, both here, but especially on my other blog, The OYL.  If the government is allowed to redefine the meaning of words at will, then it does not matter what the law says: it will change according to the whims of the government.  This is the very definition of tyranny.  Yet, this is what the Supreme Court is about to decide: whether or not the government has dictatorial powers.

If you doubt me, consider this: what happens is someone you disagree with politically gets into power?  And once in power, that person reverses the definitions of words?  And hatred is suddenly defined as anyone who opposes Islam?  It may not bother you that Jews and Christians will still be persecuted, but now, so will homosexuals.  Yes, the court and law will still say you cannot ‘discriminate’ because of homosexuality, but the government will have just put the rights of Muslims over those of homosexuals.  So now, where the law will allow homosexuals to claim their rights over those of Christians, it will also support the rights of Muslims to exercise their rights over both homosexuals and Christians.  Now, just in case you do not understand what this means, I’ll explain: it means Christians will have to either convert to Islam, pay a punitive tax or die.  However, homosexuals only have one option — to die!

There are other scenarios that I could use to illustrate how this will work, but the point is this: it is not about ‘gay’ marriage, it is about opening a path to destroy the First Amendment.  It is about destroying the right to conscience, and by extension, freedom of expression. It is about the Supreme Court finally handing the government dictatorial powers as a matter of law.  But understand, if the Court does this, it will actually be destroying the law.  So this ruling is not about ‘gay’ rights: it is about the final destruction of the U.S. Constitution — period!

It is a fundamental principle of Natural Law that rights can intersect, but they cannot contradict each other.  Our society no longer understands this, and it has lead people to claim rights that do not exist while denying rights that are fundamental to the being of every human being.

First, rights can intersect.  My right to exercise my free will can overlap with your right to exercise your free will.  It is from this area — where our Natural Rights overlap — that morality is derived.  I have explained it here.  But this is the part where most people get confused.  Just because our rights overlap, this does not mean that they can negate the rights of another person.  The homosexual agenda is a perfect example of what I mean.

So long as we do not cause physical harm to another person, or trample on their ability to exercise their free will, you and I have a Natural Right to worship as we see fit.  It is inherent in the right to conscience.  Also inherent in this right is the right to actually live our lives according to our beliefs.  Again, so long as we are not sacrificing people, or enslaving them, we have a Natural Right to live our lives according to the principles of our faith.  So, in the case of the Christian bakery, that owner has a Natural Right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding.  At the same time, the homosexual couple does not have a right to force the bakery to do so.  In that case, the bakery owner would be forced to act against his or her will and his or her religious convictions.  This would be two violations of Natural Law, and it is the primary reason that we know the homosexual couple cannot claim a right to force the bakery to bake their cake.

Now, I understand there will be objections to this, but those objections are all based on attempts to rationalize the trampling of another person’s rights.  First, you and I do not have a Natural Right to force someone to pay us for permission to open a business.  Since we do not have a right to do so, we cannot grant to the power to do so to the State.  Therefore, the State cannot force a person to pay it to open a business.  This is inherent in the Social Contract.  However, when the government forces a person to buy a license so they may attempt to earn a living, this is exactly what the government is doing: it is trampling the Natural Right of the individual.  The government’s sole purpose is to protect those rights.  So, by forcing a person to get a business license before they can earn a living, the State violates the Social Contract and tramples the Natural Rights of the business owner.

Second, by making it mandatory that the business owner must serve any and all customers, the State violates the individual’s Natural Rights to Contract, Freedom of Association, Conscience and Free Will.  You and I cannot force another to work for us.  This is defined as slavery and/or indentured servitude.  These are both violations of Natural Law, and when the State commits them, they are still violations of Natural Law.

Finally, there is no harm done to the homosexual couple by the baker.  The couple is free to find another bakery.  Their free will has not been trampled.  All that has happened is the first baker has exercised his/her Natural Right to refuse association or to Contract with the homosexual couple.

There are many such confusions in our society today, and many of them are the result of ignorance in our society.  Had our schools done their job and taught people how to think (not what to think), and explained the principles by which Rights are derived, we would have far fewer problems today.  But then, the people who benefit from this confusion would have far less power, so I guess properly educating the masses just won’t do.

By the way: that is another violation of Natural Law — using the public schools to indoctrinate children instead of educating them.  And yes, this causes real tangible harm to both the taxpayer and the child.

I realize that I am using a controversial example to illustrate the point of this post, so let me start by making this perfectly clear: I oppose slavery — in every form!

That said, it is a matter of fact that the North was in the wrong, and the South was (is) justified to call it “The War of Northern Aggression.”  The right to secede from the Union was clearly stated by the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution.  But, because the South seceded over the issue of slavery, the issue has become so clouded by emotion that no one can see that the Civil War really was about States’ rights.

Let us first understand that the founding fathers understood that the States were free to leave the Union:

If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation… to a continuance in union… I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’

–Thomas Jefferson

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution”

–James Madison

“If the States were not left to leave the Union when their rights were interfered with, the government would have been National, but the Convention refused to baptize it by that name.”

–Daniel Webster

Let us also understand that those who took the time to learn and understand the principles upon which this nation was originally founded also understood that the States had the right to secede:

“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.”

–Alexis de Tocqueville

This means that the Confederate States were exercising their Constitutional Right to leave the Union.  So, when the North attacked, it was in the wrong.  Yes, the South was wrong to cling to slavery.  This is because, at its core, slavery tramples individual free will.  However, if the People of the South vote to secede and the People of the North attack to prevent that, then the majority in the North is using government to trample the free will of the majority in the South.  That is a violation of the same principle the North claimed to be fighting to end: the trampling of individual free will.

But the North did something far worse than the South.  Had the South been left alone, Natural Law would have eventually corrected the moral crimes of slavery.  Industrialization of farming would have made slavery less efficient, and thus, too expensive to continue.  The issue would have been resolved by running its natural course.  But by forcing the South back into the Union, the ‘Union’ was destroyed.  Before the Civil War, the United States was a Federation.  Every State stayed in the Federation voluntarily.  This is in accordance with the Natural Right to Contract.  But after the Civil War, the States were not free to secede, which means the Federation was ended and a National Government was established — in direct defiance to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  In short, the North destroyed the Constitution as it was ratified.  This trampled the free will of the South and North, as it destroyed the Social Contract among all members of the United States — in the North and South.

Most of us do not realize that society is a fragile thing.  It does not take all that much to dissolve the glue that binds a people together.  This ‘glue’ is the sum of those Natural Laws upon which all societies are founded and sustain.  If we ignore these laws, then just as a building will eventually crumble if its foundation is ignored, then so will our society eventually crumble.  What are the Natural Laws governing society?  Well, they would include the need for shared faith, awareness of history, customs, social experiences and, a system of justice, but most important, a common language.  Unless a society shares a common language, all else is moot, for what good are other commonalities if we do not know they are shared because we cannot communicate with one another? This is one of the primary lessons in the Tower of Babel: that a society without a common language cannot be sustained.  Lest anyone doubt that this is the primary Natural Law governing society, let them look at American society today.  The effects of what has been the intentional destruction of our language can be seen in almost every aspect of our daily lives.  The question now is not whether or not there is such a thing as Natural Law governing society, but how much longer does our society have, and is it too late to correct the decay?

To understand what has been done to America, we must understand the thinking which motivates the people who have done it.  This starts by understanding that there is such thing as an objective reality.  By that, I mean there is a reality that exists outside of men.  If we could remove every person from the face of the planet, then send one explorer back in a hundred years, that person would still find the continent of North America. That is because North America exists whether there are people on earth or not.  It is part of objective reality. The existence of the continent of North America is absolutely independent of the perception of men.  So, if we send back a robot to explore instead of a person, that robot will still find the continent of North America.

Now, this may seem obvious to some, but I assure you, there are many to whom this is not so obvious.  In fact, there are people who would argue that the continent of North America only exists in the mind of the individual, and then, only in so much as they have a word by which to describe it.  In the minds of these people, if you do not have a word to assign to and with which to discuss a thing or idea, then that thing or idea does not exist. Until a word is assigned, it is only a vague notion in your mind — nothing more. Even then, if you have a word to describe a thing or idea, these same people believe you can change the nature of that thing or idea by changing the word you use to think about it and describe it.  In short, they believe reality is the creation of how we think, and how we think is controlled by our words — by language.  If you doubt this, read George Orwell’s book, “1984.”  It is the primary theme of the novel, and it describes how those who believe language controls thought have tried to implement their ideas to control our society.  The only thing Orwell got wrong was the year:

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.”

In other words: if the world exists only in your mind, then those who can control the way you think by controlling the language can also control you and what you believe.  This is how we end up with people not only believing, but arguing that this is true:

The truth — the objective reality — is that a thing or idea is defined by its form and function, not the word we assign to represent it.  That is why we can call a book by many different words in many different languages, yet all those words will still describe the same idea: that being the form and function of a book.  Yes, there are different kinds of books, and different words to describe them, and that is why I chose the word ‘book’ instead of encyclopedia — because most people understand it is a generic term describing a bound collection of printed pages.  This is one of the primary Natural Laws governing language: form and function define, not the word.  But the people who believe reality exists only in the mind do not believe this.  They believe that the thing is defined by the word.  How do we know this to be true?  Because they said so:

“Every one has experienced how learning an appropriate name for what was dim and vague cleared up and crystallized the whole matter. Some meaning seems distinct almost within reach, but is elusive; it refuses to condense into definite form; the attaching of a word somehow (just how, it is almost impossible to say) puts limits around the meaning, draws it out from the void, makes it stand out as an entity on its own account.”

John Dewey, father of Modern Public Education in America, and the Kindergarten system

Dewey is thought of as the only real philosopher to ever come out of America.  He is highly regarded by the people who think reality is created in our minds and that our perception of reality is controlled by language.  These people will still argue that Dewey is correct, but I can easily prove he is not.  Let’s return to our example of the explorer returning to earth one hundred years from now.  When our explorer finds the continent of North America, he or she may have a ‘dim or vague‘ notion of what they have found, but it will not be made clear and solid by telling them they have found ‘North America.’  All that was ‘dim and vague’ was what word the former inhabitants had assigned to the continent.  But our explorer will have no confusion as to the nature of what he or she has found.  Our explorer may use different words, but he or she will understand that they have discovered a large land mass in the Norther Hemisphere of the planet earth.  This is because objective reality exists outside of our explorer’s mind.  It does not depend on his or her perception, or the words our explorer chooses to assign to things.  That’s because these things are subject to Natural Law, and — whether we recognize it or not — Natural Law is fixed and binding.

In Orwell’s book. “1984,” the language was controlled by the State.  It was called ‘Newspeak.’  Today, the State controls the language in America.  It is called ‘Political Correctness.’  Different names, same concept (remember, form and function define, and both Newspeak and Political Correctness are designed to limit what you can and cannot think or say).  The common theme is the quest to control all of society.  In both cases, “1984” and modern America, the State is trying to push its agenda by controlling the way people think and coercing them into accepting that resistance is futile.  The problem is, in every case in history where the people have given in to these tactics, great horrors have followed.  In German, the Holocaust; in Russia, the many purges; in China, the same; in Cambodia, the killing fields.  The list goes on to the sum of more than 95 MILLION in just the last Century alone.  So, the next time someone tries to tell you that a man is a woman, or taxes are charity, or a Caucasian is a Negro, or you abandon the free market to save the free market, or you ignore Constitutional rights to save our rights, or that a baby with its own DNA is the mother’s body, remember that, if you accept the lie, you are well on your way to accepting what comes next:

HOWEVER, if you resist and tell the truth, then understand that the system is going to hate you, but then, in a society where evil reigns, that is how you can tell whether or not you are still on the right side of wrong:

I understand that many are worried President Obama (and the Senate) will ratify treaties that will effectively amend the U.S. Constitution; and that Obama may do the same through Executive orders.  However, neither is possible.  True, the government may act as though both are possible, and the courts may even support this subversion, but that does not change the fact that the U.S. Constitution cannot be amended in this manner.  But to understand why this is true, we need to understand the relationship between the Natural Right to Contract and the Social Contract, as well as why we stress that form and function are what define a thing or idea.  If we understand these three things, we will understand why the President cannot amend the Constitution by treaty or decree, and why any government official who acts as though he can is guilty of subversion and should be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly.

First, we all have a Natural Right to willingly enter into agreements with each other.  So long as we do not demand or surrender anything that cannot be taken or given under Natural Law, such contracts are valid and binding on all Parties involved.  This same relationship extends to the whole of society when a government is formed.  However, as more Parties become subject to a contract, the fewer — not greater — number of stipulations, restrictions and duties can be placed on those Party to the terms of that contract.  This is simple logic: the more people involved, the less likely they will all agree.  Therefore, when we are dealing with something such as a government, there can only be a bare minimum of stipulations presented.  Otherwise, the contract will either be invalid, or it will run the risk of being too big to survive.  Future Parties to that Social Contract will reject it and the government will fail.

This is why the U.S. Constitution clearly defines the process by which it is to be amended.  The Constitution is the Social Contract which forms the United States and it requires that any changes to the contract be approved by the States.  This is a specific rejection of the assertion that amendments can be made by treaty or decree as neither is approved by the States.  Simply voting for the President and Senators is insufficient to meet the terms of the Constitutional process for amendment.  It is clearly stated that two-thirds of the States must ratify an amendment.  Nothing but this process can or does change the Constitution.

Now, the Progressive argument is that treaties are Constitutionally binding, therefore, if they are approved, that effectively amends the Constitution.  This is a false argument.  If a treaty will alter the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, then the Constitution must be properly amended before the treaty can be ratified, or the treaty is null and void.  Regardless of whether or not the Senate ratifies it, a treaty is meaningless if it amends the Constitution.  This is because the Constitution clearly stipulates that any substantive change must be made by amendment, and to be an amendment, the Constitutional process must be followed.  This is what we mean by form and function.  If a treaty changes the Constitution, it is not a treaty, it is an amendment.  If it is an amendment, it must follow a different process than treaty ratification.  Otherwise, the rights of the States under the Constitution have been violated.

When the Federal government violates the Constitution at this level, it has nullified the Constitution.  It would be like you refusing to pay the bank note on your mortgage, but telling the bank you still own the house because you modified the terms of your mortgage and the new terms say you no longer have an obligation to the bank.  If you did this, you would quickly discover you have surrendered your rights to your home.  It is no different when the government does something like this.  When this happens at the national level, the Federal government cedes any claim it has to its authority under the Constitution.  All power reverts back to the States and the Federal government is dissolved — whether it recognizes this or not.  The key is that the States must either realize this and take back their rights/authority or risk loosing them to what has ceased to be a legitimate government under a Social Contract and become a tyrant under the rules of brute force.  This is where we find ourselves today: with a national government that has ceded its Constitutional legitimacy in favor of the tyrannical use of brute force.  If you doubt my argument, I can prove my case with one question:

If Obama passed a treaty that declared all whites were now slaves of the UN, would you consider that ‘Constitutional?’

Now be careful with how you answer this question.  If you say yes, then you are telling us you not only support slavery, but you believe the President has dictator power to erase the 14th Amendment.  If you argue this is not the same thing or that there are ‘shades of grey,’ then you are admitting you support slavery and Presidential dictator powers, you just do not support this form of slavery or act of dictatorship.  This is because, inherent in the notion of ‘shades of grey’ is a subjective notion of what you ‘think’ is allowable and what is not.  There is no governing contract in such a subjective system as your personal belief.  That is why the Constitution was written: to establish a firm foundation by which society could claim protection of its rights.  No, the only correct answer is no, the President cannot do this.  So how can he force a change in Constitutionally protected rights such as free speech or the right to bear arms?  He can’t, and yet he has tried.

The solution here is simple: Obama should be impeached, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly.  The charge — in this case — is subversion/sedition.  Any Senator who ratified such a treaty should have to stand trial with him.  they are all guilty of crimes against the States and/or People of the United States.  Furthermore, everything they have done to this effect should be immediately nullified and any/all injured Parties made whole.  What’s more, the cost of making these Parties whole should be borne first by Obama and those Senators who committed these wrongs, then by their respective political Parties and donors and –finally — by assets in actual possession of the United States Federal government (i.e. lands and properties, as well as other financial assets).  The cost of wronging others is to be laid on the shoulders of the person who committed the crime.  The States and the People of the nation should in no way be made to pay damages for something they did not do.  It does not matter that they elected these people.  By swearing their oath of office, they released the People and willingly accepted the personal responsibility for their actions while in office.  Any law to the contrary is also null and void.  One cannot write a law to give themselves permission to break the law.  That is also a Principle of Natural Law.

It is time we either start demanding these people be made to pay the price for their lawlessness, or we accept the chains of our new masters.  Before you decide which you prefer, understand two things.  If you are not vocal and persistent in demanding justice, you support these people and their actions.  Second, if you support lawlessness, you have no grounds by which to claim or demand anything.  You have agreed to live as their slave, settling for whatever crumbs they decide to give you.