Many of you may have read those words before, but have you ever read the greater context of the quote from which they come?
What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
It’s true: free men must ever be ready to take up arms in defense of their liberty — especially against their own government. However, this does not mean we can start the shooting. Our founders did not start the shooting in the American Revolution. The truth is, many Patriots died before the first Red Coat was killed, and when it happened, it was clearly an act of self-defense. This is because our founders understood Natural Law. So, in waking and preparing ourselves for what must soon come to America once again, we must also remind ourselves that the cause of righteousness can never initiate the use force, it can only resort to it as a means of self-defense — and even then, only as a last resort.
When you start the war, the world will see you as the aggressor — because you are. This is why those who call the Civil War the War of Norther Aggression are correct: the North started the hostilities — not the South. Natural Law dictates that all who seek the use of force to win their cause will fall to those who hold the same world view. It is what these words actually mean:
“If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.”
This is because those who use force are saying that ‘might makes right.’ If you believe might makes right, you will always find someone who is either stronger than you or more clever in his application of force. They will defeat you. So this means that those who believe might makes right reject the notion of a lasting idea of what is right and what is wrong. For them, right and wrong change according to whoever has the ability to force their will on others. Civilized people call this by many names, but the two most prominent are slavery and tyranny.
But for those who build their case on the cause of righteousness, no matter what happens to them, they can always appeal their case to the Source of all righteousness. And the Source of all righteousness, the same Source that tells us we must not live by the sword, is also the Source who told His apostles to sell their cloak and buy a sword at the Last Supper. But note: when He was told that the apostles had two swords, Christ said they were enough. This tells us that we can sometimes justify defending ourselves, but we can never justify attacking others first. The righteous use of force must always be in self-defense.
So, to all of you I hear calling for Patriots to take up arms against our government, please, hear me. You must not call for the side of righteousness to take the first shot. If you do, you will destroy our cause before it begins. If you are a Patriot, and you truly believe in the cause, then you must follow Christ’s example; the example of His early disciples; the example of Gandhi and MLK. You must speak out and tell the tyrant he is wrong, even if he jails or kills you. Yes, you can justify defending yourselves, but only after you have completely exhausted all peaceful recourse, and even then, only after the tyrant starts shooting first. This is what the founders did at Concord: they simply stood in the way of the tyrant and waited, offering themselves as sacrifices in a greater battle. That’s because they understood they were not playing their role for men, but for the Supreme Judge of this universe. If we wish to restore the promise and blessings of this land, then we must follow the founders example now.
So, do not call for and do not allow anyone calling themselves a Patriot to fire the first shot. So long as we have any peaceful means of resistance available to us, and we are not openly being slaughtered in the streets, do not let anyone use force against the tyrants. Do everything you can to stop them. Remember, and teach others, that we are not trying to serve ourselves, or act for the sake of men. We are trying to serve the Creator of this universe, so we must act to gain His approval. Play your role in this great play with this in mind. For it is only if and when we behave in this manner, which will require a humble and contrite heart, that we stand any chance of succeeding in restoring liberty to this great land.
48 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: The Initiation Of Force Is Never Justified!”
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line.
Is such self defense not already justified since tyrants are daily using their enforcers to infringe and violate Constitutional and Natural Laws all over America?
They are not shooting peaceful citizens in the streets just yet, so no. And these cases the media push as police gunning people down are NOT what I mean — because the stories are not accurate or reflecting what really happened. They are trying to push us to shoot first, which then JUSTIFIES THEIR USE OF FORCE IN RETURN!
This is simple: the one who shoots first is ALWAYS the one who is wrong.
Can you articulate more regarding what would constitute self defense?
In Freddie Grey (Baltimore) they chased, captured, then murdered an American for daring to walk away from them. How is that not ‘…shooting peaceful citizens in the street…” and violating multiple Constitutional and Natural Laws? They routinely infringe and violate Constitutional and Natural Laws for man-made diktats such as weed – flash-banging babies in their cribs as a byproduct.
Is it necessary to wait until they begin going house-to-house or until they willfully murder a room filled with Republicans?
You are required to submit to their demands. If you resist and they shoot you, that is YOUR fault. If they stop you, YES, it MAY be an unjust violation, but so was what they did to MLK and his people. They did not refuse to obey and resist arrest the way you are using as your example; they went to jail. THAT is what earned them the sympathy of the masses — because people will see it and understand it is unjust. But when you ignore the police, all they will see is YOU violating the law. It does not matter if you actually are. Remember, you are playing to the visual, not the actual.
As for your reference to Republicans: I am going to tell you straight-out that your attitude is EXACTLY what ‘they’ want from you — because you WILL justify their crack-down. You see, this is NOT about D’s and R’s, it is about right and wrong, and it is still wrong to ACTIVELY disregard the law. You still have to submit to unjust laws IF THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS! And so long as we are still allowed to speak, blog, broadcast and vote, there are other options.
BTW: I am very well aware that what I am advocating is not easy. In fact, as someone who has been there, I can tell you that, in many ways, it is harder than combat. But it is STILL the way we have to go if we want to have any chance to succeed. Anything else — ANYTHING — will result in the loss of man’s liberty forever. With the state of technology now, if we lose our liberty now, there will NEVER be another time when we regain it. it will be gone forever.
Thanks for the discussion. I used the Republicans only as a label – I could have just as easily used Ds, Libertarians, old blue-hairs playing Bridge, etc.
We disagree as to the need to further submit, but disagreement is not the worst of things.
You, too 🙂
Just a quick question for you Black if you would of been Jewish back in the 1930 in Germany when would you have resisted…Also your whoever shoots first argument is naive at best and just plain evil at worst…Seriously when they have you bent over ready to rape you are you still in the wrong for shooting first…Your theory needs a little work…
No, my theory is fine: your attempt to justify the aggressor is where you go wrong. You see, by YOUR argument, Hitler was justified in what he did as he was just ‘getting the Jews before they got him.’ The only reason you look back and say he was evil now is because he lost. But I’ll ask you, since the U.S. knew what was happening to the Jews and would neither take refugees before the war nor try to stop the Holocaust after getting into it, how are they any less guilty — saved they won and got to write the history books?
The TRUTH remains: whoever uses force fist is the one who does the first wrong — period! And that actually DOES address your ‘bent over and about to rape you’ scenario — for an actual rape. But, in this case — where we still have peaceful, legal means available — it does NOT justify force against the government. It’s just an excuse to be as lawless as the government and make yourself out to be righteous for it at the same time. So you are just the flip side of the same coin, you just can’t see it.
Let’s see you didn’t answer my question you just went to ranting about your assumptions about me…That right there tells me a lot about your character ..I noticed how you switched your vocab to whoever uses force first from whoever shoots first kinda like the left does when they are questioned…Love how you go off and on a tangent about the US being the one to blame which had nothing to do with anything I stated…I would ask you other questions and try to understand how you can think the way you do but since it’s impossible for you to do that well then like K said we will just agree to disagree…Sad because you might of been an ally but by the way you responded not so much…
First, I did answer your question. You just do not see or refuse to accept the answer.
Second, I did not ‘assume,’ as you claim: I extrapolated the logical conclusions of your actual words.
Next, trying to confuse the issue between using force and shooting is not going to work. My original post is very clear as to my meaning.
As for your attempts to smear me by implying I am using ‘Leftist’ tactics: they won’t work, either. That’s an ad hominem attack and it is fallacious. Fallacious reasoning is dismissed here.
As to the U.S. and the Holocaust: it DOES apply. What is actually interesting is that you do not see this.
I know you think I am inconsistent, but it is not I who hold an inconsistent position. I am defending a principle of Natural law. You are seeking to excuse the violation of that law. I know you think you have been victimized by our government, and that you are justified in starting a war against it, but you are not — not in either case. So long as there remains the ability to seek correction of government abuse through legal and peaceful means, you and I are NOT justified in resorting to violence. And if you ever thought I would be an ally in an unlawful cause, then you are correct: we stand in opposition o each other. I am trying to save man’s liberty: you are trying to justify a course of action which will destroy it.
Let’s put it this way…You won’t be welcome at my fire and leave it at that…
My comment from OYL.
So if Obamy and crew want to “fire the first shot” do it now …..
You are correct. A last resort but ready to respond should the need arise.
In reality, anyone that would destroy his own acolytes to bring about the destruction of his enemy is a coward. Whether is was Mao, Hitler, Stalin or Obama now it is a trait I could subscribe to all of them.
Enlist others to do their dirty work by using lies and deceit so they can make the claim they had no responsibility in the act. All one has to do is look back at the last 6+ years of Obamas rule. Not responsible for anything.
Works well with a the state sponsored news outlets we have today. Bought off by the sole privilege of having their nose’s up someones backside.
My how history always repeats itself.
As usual, I see you understand the issue at hand 🙂
If Ghandi had gone up against Hitler instead of the British, he would have been shot , buried, and forgotten. Playing the “Principled Resistance” against unprincipled barbarity is a loosing proposition.
So the British Empire didn’t shoot the Colonists?
I think you are trying to justify a short game rather than trying to understand the long game to which I am pointing. I just hope you understand that the short game ends the same way as your scenario with Gandhi and Hitler.
OH, and NO! Had Gandhi gone up against Hitler in 1933-34, it is NOT a given that he would have lost as you say. There is a chance the German people could have still seen Hitler for what he was — especially had he been held up against the example of Gandhi.
Black3, you are making an awful lot of assumptions you have no basis to make. The state controlled media of 33-34 Germany would not have given Ghandi the air-time or ink for the people of Germany to decide, much less to know. I will repeat my thesis… Principled resistance against unprincipled barbarity is a losing proposition. Gen. George Patton said “I intend to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of damage on the enemy in the shortest amount of time.”
Then please explain how the Christian church converted Rome.
I think you are looking at the short game: through the eyes of a man. natural law is about the long game and is seen through the eyes of the Creator. Our founders understood this. You’ll find it all through their writing. But we no longer understand or adhere to it. We see only the here-and-now, and it is one of the primary reasons those on the side of liberty are being defeated. Our opponent understands the long game, he is just on the other side of the Creator; in opposition to Him.
The bad guys have already started shooting. So it is way too late for us to start it. (Except in the eyes of those who are deep into the cult of “authority” belief.)
However, shooting someone who isn’t right this moment initiating force or violating private property isn’t really self defense- it is revenge. I understand revenge, but think it is wrong.
That being said, I will not criticize those who do step off the porch after being pushed too far. It isn’t yet “Claire Wolfe Time”, but those who snap will be the way to know when it is. They are the canaries in the coal mine. Pay attention to what they are showing you.
Reblogged this on Giftoftruth United and commented:
To add a few maxims of law:
The greatest enemies to peace are force and wrong;
Force and wrong are greatly contrary to peace;
Force is inimical to the laws;
In peace, bt
Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.
Agree….. for the most part. As long as your message it not MISunderstood. The commenters here have very good points.
The Rev. Jonas Clark had prepared the militia just as you describe. They Knew the Righteous way. Thus after Lexington and the first Blood shed by the Colonists ….. “Concord” mustered and knew what they had to do and that they had Natural Law behind them.
But the issue of Confiscation of Firearms is tied very closely with “first blood” legitimation. Because we know what Confiscation is always a precursor to. Thus to stand by while confiscation takes place is to abet murder by the State really. And although the Play has not presented itself in exactly the “blocking” you would envision…… that being “in the streets”, I would say as “K” above said, that the Shooting has already started.
I understand though that the “optics” have to be much “clearer” and to an extent “bigger” in order for the Low-info to “get it”. Just as the usurping of the Colonists freedoms and Lives were going on for years before 1775-76. The Boston Massacre in 1770 for instance.
Nevertheless we have to be mindful that they can play a game of silence until all means of protest are extinguished. At Lexington they said NO to the Confiscation of arms ….. by standing themselves with arms. The rest is history. But if they hadn’t gone and stood in the manor they did……it would have been over for Freedom. There is more than just one lesson in Lexington.
But in essence I understand and agree with the basics of your post.
the other commentators mean well — I know this. But they do not seem to hold the depth of understanding you do. For example: if I try to explain to the average person that there is a difference between firing on the government when it is trying to unjustly arrest a single citizen and firing on them AFTER they shoot at a body that has been duly appointed to represent the people, I do not believe they would understand. You KNOW that the militia on Lexington Greene held a different status than you and I would if we got together on our own and decided to act in the name of the whole community. THAT is the difference here: the difference between the government using force on a single citizen and declaring war on the People, themselves.
WHEN — not IF, but WHEN that happens, Don, I trust you know where I’ll be standing — but not until that time. And our commenters do not understand that THAT time has not yet come. We are still on he road to Concord: we are not yet on Lexington Greene.
I don’t want to be polyanna-ish .
But I think what we have is quasi-1770 Boston types of things happening. Only they are predominantly being perpetrated by “The Administration’s” proxy army made up of Occupy/Ferguson Mobs, Knock-out Squads, snipers and others who have taken out Police in Mo. NY and New Orleans to name just a few. In that set I would include the Illegal Alien “battalions” enabled by the Establishment. They are wreaking increasing havoc in every State, socially but increasingly with capitol crime too.
So Citizens are already dying all over the country in what appears officially to be “social unrest”, but is really something else. And I think the Commenters here know this too and/or sense it deeply. Thus a situation already exists which could never get to the scenario you are ( Correctly) referring to because these Proxy armed militia are doing the work FOR the Administration. And they are doing it without the optics of the admin being identified with it in the same way as say the recent events in Kiev which led to the overthrow of their Corrupt gov’t and the eventual invasion by Putin.
The game is being played differently this time. So the question on many American’s minds becomes how many deaths, ( how many new style Boston Massacres) do we allow before appropriate pushback? And tied to this is the question ….. how moral are we to KNOW this is the game and to allow it to continue until the “right” Street scene unfolds. I think many are wondering if a different kind of Concord needs to be strategized given that the redcoats this time are wearing sneakers and street clothes ( at least their advance units are).
I have never denied what you say. In fact, YOU know I have been explaining — in great detail — not only that this is happening, but who is behind it and where they have explained their plans. However, the difference here is that we still have State governments to deal with criminal violations. So we need to pressure the States to do their jobs.
I am not blind or deaf to what you are saying. It is actually the point of my post on the top of The OYL right now (www.theoyl.com). But we cannot deal lawlessly with lawless people. Maybe we could start getting the States to stop feeding these combatants by ending State welfare? I don’t know.
Now, if and when the States fold or cave or go rogue… Well, then — and not until then — but when that finally happens, you will not only find me standing on Lexington Greene, but leading whoever will follow.
I was trying to articulate, with current references, the situation that many many Good people are seeing and keying into. I don’t quite agree with Chhelo’s division of 50/50. I think it closer to 60/40 in our favor….maybe higher. What ever the ratio many are awakening to this being very different than the 1960s.
I think you are on the correct path wrt States. But correct action by the States will probably entail them going rogue actually. A sense of push-back though of individuals and especially Organized individuals and Local Communities I think will be necessary in order to “motivate” the States to act Constitutionally. Thus my referencing being poly-anna about this. Because I think the truth with respect to action and outcome lies somewhere in the middle. In order that the “Truth” play out. If that makes sense ?
The States do not have to ‘go rogue.’ The Fed has violated the Social Contract, so the States can legally re-claim their independence from it. The States made the Fed, so they remain in control over it. HOWEVER — and this is the thing I fear — if the States surrender to the Fed, and the People allow it, then we have a situation for which I see no remedy. If both the Fed and States turn lawless, then the People can resist, but who and where are the leaders who will keep them from turning lawless in turn?
The Federal gov’t is already Lawless. If the States also turn lawless and the people resist as you say. Then the People are not acting lawlessly.
Otherwise you imply that all authority lies with the State, and if it goes lawless then that’s it, there’s nothing to do except go to the Fema camps and accept execution and reeducation. Which I don’t think you agree with ( at least I hope I haven’t been mislead). This is what the commenters here are getting at. That there is absolutely NO point at which you see the People legitimately resisting….that all authority lies with the State, Which is the Progressive and RINO establishment view BTW.
The scenario you posit is a complete redo of Lexington as the only legitimate start of resistance, which in the modern context, with modern weapons and technology translates into a MASS execution of countless US Citizens. And the preparation for this would of course be the removal of Christians and Constitutionalists and Confiscation of weapons. Which would eliminate any form of resistance. At that point your scenario seems to be that in a 1000 years Christ will right the bucket.
The commenters here I think aren’t willing to sacrifice their families so that over the period of centuries the world would see that those murdered were right and the gov’t goons were wrong.
if the people do not FIRST form a new State government, then yes, they are acting lawlessly if/when they resist with force. So, I disagree that I am saying we MUST re-do Lexington. What I am saying is we must follow the EXAMPLE set by our founders. So, if the PEOPLE of a State decide their State govt. is rogue, then let them form another State government. They have this right under Natural law. It is what the Declaration is all about. Anything less than this is lawlessness.
As for Christ: I think the Church might need to re-read its prophecy. You will not have to wait 1,000 years. You may not have to wait much more than the next 2 months to 4 years — depending on how the Fall Feasts of the Lord are actually meant to play out in the Lord’s plan.
It’s hard to figure out if I’m responding to right comment… LOL.
Anyway, given that I have the right thought thread ….. yes We BOTH agree that the Example of Lexington is paramount. The issue I think is the strategy wrt the Times. And the division within the population. So If Chhelo is correct at 50/50 or 60/40 as I feel, creating a new State gov’t appears to be almost impossible given that the distribution of those ratios exist in each State. Not with equal distribution mind you….but you get what I’m getting at.
SO ….. even this tacticof either a NEW State gov’t, or an Emboldened State gov’t needs to be updated in some way. Which is why I seethat things like Bundy, and Civil Disobedience and other actions might be necessary to help “motivate” the States in the direction you say.
AH! Progress (in the positive sense). Have you read my post on the OYL about the second American Civil War and my suggestion for how to fight it? I directly address this issue. It may be that I had assumed you read it and thus, were already aware that I have answered the question of what we do.
Anyway, to answer directly here:
We move to those States where the proportions are already high, and we push those States to secede or — if necessary — form new governments and then secede. We also ‘suggest’ — lawfully — that all modern Torres ‘relocate’ themselves or starve — as the new Union will not feed or support them in any way. In short, we do to them what they have been doing to us: we create the populations we need in sufficiently dense enough regions to affect our will through legal means.
But, as I have also said,m this is the rub: too few claiming they want liberty are ready to follow the founders’ example and give up their property for that goal. I will. Already told my wife so and she agreed to follow me if we do so. But how many reading along here are ready to leave everything and move to Texas or Alabama or one of these Southern States where the ground is still ripe enough to allow the tree of liberty to grow?
Wait one second, do you not realize you made the argument that the citizens have been facing the force of arms of a government ruling in obstruction of Natural Law from the time of Ft. Sumter up to and including today. That “those who initiate force will fall”. That “the North initiated force”. Those two statements, following your reasoning indicate to me that the North is still in control today and that from cessation of hostilities through today the country has been in existence perpendicular to Natural Law. That there is just cause for the North as it exists today,”to die by the sword”. Remember Natural Law is the Word of our Creator, existing in direct opposition to said word forfeits any benefit of the law. At this point is judgement, and the Creator uses both the just and unjust to ensure his will is done.
YES! EXACTLY! I DO realize this, and you are 100% correct — save for one thing. The South surrendered, and in so doing, they submitted to the tyranny of the North. To take back arms now would be a violation of the same Natural Law. Two wrongs do not make a right.
That said, if the South were to secede AGAIN, then it would not only be in the right under Natural and Constitutional Law, if the North fired on it again, it would then be justified in reverting to force to defend itself once more.
I understand that many will not see the distinctions here, but it is because they have been taught to feel and not to think. There is nothing inconsistent in what I am arguing. This is part of the problem: for those who feel instead of think, consistency often appears to make no sense — because it often goes against desire. HOWEVER, though I may be wrong, I think you, Suspect 1, may well understand the differences. In fact, I suspect you may even understand that I am not advocating surrender, but showing the path to freedom. At least, I hope this is the case 🙂
What you are stating is that secession is an individuals, community’s, county’s, state’s, region’s natural right? Would the entire Confederacy have to secede, or an individual representative? I do myself believe that Union at all cost was the 1 degree bump off the course, no maybe the step onto a path in a slightly divergent direction, intention being the difference, that separated the outcome 100 plus years down the road.
I believe that it is incumbent on the Patriot Community, The 3%, The Righteous to act in defense, to state what they will defend, and if the enemies of liberty will rise to the challenge, then to be willing to shed blood where they stand. They must be willing to step into the gap in opposition to those who meant be master, with the promise that victory would not elevate their position in society.
There are multiple infringements daily, on what the blood of our kin purchased, the difficult part is for the whole to shed ego, as the serpent sheds it’s skin, so that there is no dirt and we can once again be the pride of His Creation.
A complete answer to the points you raise actually deserves and even requires a new post. I’ll write it later tonight, but the short answer here is this: the authority must continue to fall back on the next legitimate branch of government in line. If the Federal goes rogue, then the people should turn to the States and so on until we are left to resort to our own individual communities. The essential point that we must cling to is the law. Whether civil or Natural, we must never turn from following the law. He is perfect justice first and foremost, and He cannot and will not sanction lawlessness no matter what our intentions. From what you have said, I believe you understand this 🙂
Sir, I do, and the fear I cannot shake is that the burden will fall on the shoulders of my children even though I could clearly see the evil every day of my adult life. Respectfully, I would have to say the point at which we may disagree, any civil law not in alignment with natural law should be both disobeyed and challenged. It does not matter if it is on the family level, neighborhood level, NWO global government level (I know we are not there yet, but closer every day). If a father makes a rule in his house that any woman in that house shall know his bed, it is the responsibility of the mother to protect the daughter, and responsibility of the eldest daughter to protect the youngest, not by enduring repeated nights of fathers rule, but by taking away his ability to rule.
No, sir, we agree: any civil law which conflicts with Natural Law is not law at all and is to be disobeyed — but in the most peaceful means necessary. This is the whole point of Romans 13. Submitting to civil authority does not mean you obey it. If this were the case, the Christian faith would have died when Caesar told the early Church to renounce Christ. The Church refused, but they did not rebel. Instead, they willingly submitted to the law — even though it meant their deaths. Now, for those individuals, the price was high, but look at what happened. Eventually, even the blood-thirsty Roman society said it was too much and was repulsed. As a result, Western Civilization was born, which — eventually — lead to the first time man has ever known freedom.
THIS — the example of the early Church — is adherence to Natural Law — just as Paul explained it in Romans 1-2.
We all know and understand less than .00001% are the megalomaniacs that run this show called Obama. 315 million controlled by the efforts of less than 3,000 (best guess but likely even less that know the total game plan) committed to the cause or enslaveing their fellow (inferior) Americans.
The reason they can do this? No morals stand in their way.
Now, let’s assume Suspect 1’s 3% with Godly rightguousness is correct.
Who wins considering the other 96% are split 50/50?
If those ‘good’ people do nothing…?
I look forward to your next post, and agree that not all slights against the whole call for martial defense (of self or country). My understanding is that when the stakes become high enough that capitulation or withdrawal will lead to a loss in souls, life, knowledge, love, peace opportunity, individuality, understanding or any other metric greater than what would be lost if the individual, group or society stood their ground, then it has been written that anyone who see’s the imbalance and does not step up in defense is as wrong as those who lead the fight to slay the truth.
I have just put up a new post about lawlessness. It is in direct response to questions you raised in your comments here. I look forward to hearing what you have to say after you have had time to read it.
This is what I was getting at in my second response to Black above. I agree with you. Otherwise Lexington and Concord meant …. ??
Yes, wool being pulled over ones eyes, encouraging people who would otherwise stand against to tepidly or fully support………communism. An ideology that is an affront to, to, to… Men being men, bending to natural selection, going the direction of ease (according to my brothers who see truth without faith), or accepting that God is wrong, and there is no original sin (if they believe but have been deceived). In my mind you have to accept that whether there is or isn’t a creator, that our country has enemies who have a long range plan, that liberty cannot be accepted in a world bent on greed. 1776 and the preceding 10 or so years were amazing in that the faithful, and those who would only believe the seen, provable truth, decided to join hands, suspend ego, write truth they saw, and defend with blood. It has been under attack ever since.
You are speaking Truth to evil. The joining of which you speak, the Faithful with the secular to overcome Tyranny and forge a society based on Natural Law truly was God inspired.
It gladdens my heart to see someone else link Communism with greed. This one truth if correctly and widely understood by our youth would go lengths to turning the ship around.
EXACTLY! Suspect 1 is re-stating the foundation of all liberty — the belief in God! I have written about this many times. Our founders succeeded because and ONLY because they recognized and adhered to God and God’s Law. No attempt by man based on man’s reasoning can or will ever work. This is the flaw in Rand’s philosophy and in the Libertarian ideal. I have written about that, too.
BUT, but, but — as I said in an earlier comment, even the Creator, in the form of Christ, even He submitted to civil law. What the Pharisees did was lawless — even by the Law of Moses. What the Romans did was lawless, even by Pilot’s own admission. Yet, Christ submitted, and because the whole world saw and understood the injustice, those who would answer the call of God learned. The result was the Western world and — eventually — this United States and the liberty man had never known.
The LONG game, my friends 🙂