When Maxine Waters called for people to “push back” on Trump Administration officials, she was not exercising free speech, she was openly advocating subversion!

Maxine Waters: “God Is On Our Side,” If You See A Member Of Trump Cabinet, “Push Back”

This is not ‘free speech.’  In spite of what so many believe, and what the courts have said, free speech has limits.  And some speech crosses the line between what is legal and what is not.  In this cases, Maxine Waters has not only crossed that line, she has declared war on this nation and its system of government.  What’s more, this can be proven.  That means it is fact, not my opinion.  If you will give me a few minutes, I will prove it to you.

First, whether the reader likes it or not, President Trump is the duly-elected Executive of the United States of America.  This means that his opponents have as much duty to support him in his official capacity as t5hey demanded from Obama’s opponents when Obama was President.  Any organized actions to hinder or prohibit the execution of the Presidents duties constitutes an attack on the Presidency and our system of government.  When this organization comes from inside the government, it is a clear act of subversion:

Definition of subversion

(Even Wikipedia gets this one right)

The act of calling for people to harass duly elected and/or appointed officials from performing their duties is a call for subversion.  As a member of the government, that makes this call ‘subversion’ — and it is subversion by definition!  Anything that is true by definition is a fact!  A fact is not opinion.  Therefore, this is not my ‘opinion,’ it is a fact!  Maxine Waters is openly calling for the subversion of the United States government.

[If the government were of the will, it could easily make a case against Waters under 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government.]

Now, I am fully aware that the courts have ruled that a person has a First Amendment  ‘right’ to openly call for sedition, but the courts are wrong!  We have to get past this notion that the courts are never wrong, or that they are the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional.  they are 1/5 of the Constitutional authority in this nation!  That’s right, 1/5!  They share 1/3 of the Federal power to interpret the Constitution, but the States and the People also have an equal authority to decide what is and is not Constitutional.  In fact, the ultimate authority lies with the People, and the Constitution even says so!  Therefore, when the courts are clearly wrong, their rulings must be reversed — like the SCOTUS reversed an old ruling connected to the Japanese interments in WW II today.

Now, back to the courts and their claim that a person is protected from subversion as long as their speech does not represent a clear and imminent threat.  Since Maxine Waters called for subversion against the Trump Administration, there have been at least 20 ‘credible threats’ against the DHS, ICE has been attacked and at least one location forced to close down and at least one agent has been injured.  Look it up, folks: these are just a few examples of what Waters’ supporters have been doing, and they all meet the definition of imminent threats.  What’s more, they can be directly connected to Maxine Waters’ call for subversion!  This means her words are creating an imminent threat and, therefore, are not ‘protected speech’ according to our rogue courts.

But let’s say that the reader rejects the claim that any of these are imminent threats or connected to Maxine Waters’ call for ‘push back’ against Trump and his Administration.  Her words still are not protected by the First Amendment as they constitute screaming “fire!” in a crowded theater.  Any reasonable person should expect that Maxine Waters’ words would be taken by some as a call to violence, especially in this current political environment.  This would exclude her speech from First Amendment protections for this reason, as well.

Finally, we need to return to the limitations of free speech.  We do have a right to speak our minds, but that does not mean we have a right to do it wherever or however we desire.  Nor do we have a right to be heard, or for anything we demand to be granted.  Additionally, we have a right to assembly and to redress grievances against the government.  However — and here is where Waters steps outside her Constitutional protections — there are procedures by which these things must be done.  A mob assembled to ‘push back’ against a government official — especially when on private property — is not an ‘assembly’ and, therefore, is not protected.  Nor is ‘push back’ a redress of grievances.  That would be petitioning, going to public hearings, publishing pamphlets or broadcast opinion pieces or otherwise attempting to sway government officials and fellow citizens to your political position.  What Maxine Waters did is none of this.  Her actions were lawless, and she should be prosecuted accordingly.

Now, hear me clearly on the rest of this.  I do not say these things lightly.  Our protection to protest and to petition for changes in our government is part of what makes this nation exceptional, and I am still under oath to defend these rights.  But it is in defense of these rights that I now call for Maxine Waters to be charged with and prosecuted for subversion.  If a person is allowed to incite violence than wash their hands of their guilt by claiming they did not use whatever specific language is demanded to ‘prove’ intent, then one will have a difficult time convicting anyone of anything — least of all our modern ‘hate’ crimes.  Most of those are not based on anything a person actually said, but on what they did and how a ‘reasonable’ person would interpret their actions.  This must be the standard in cases such as this.  Otherwise, we will have lawlessness that will devolve (if it hasn’t already) to the point where people are prosecuted selectively, based on political connections and affiliations.  At that point, the government will have been subverted, the rule of law destroyed and the nation will either fall into anarchy or tyranny.  Before the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let me remind the reader that they could be put in jail for making a YouTube video or donating too much to a friend’s election (both actually happened, neither had ever happened before, and both happened because Obama wanted to punish political opponents).  Oh, and if you happen to be in a political Party that opposes the current Administration, you could also find yourself the subject of an IRS attack and FBI investigation based on false charges brought by the current regime (again, all things that happened under Obama).

If this still isn’t enough to make my case with the reader, let us remember that our system of law and government is founded upon the Principles of Natural Law.  Under the Principles of Natural Law, every citizen who wishes to claim any benefit or protection from Society has a duty to uphold, defend and support the provisions of the Social Contract (in this case, the Constitution).  In all reality, this is the only point I should have to make to make my case against Maxine Waters as she has clearly violated her duty to support our duly elected President.  I did not like Obama, but I called for him to be handled legally, under our legal system and the Constitution.  Waters has that same duty toward Trump.  She does not have to like him, but — even is she sincerely believes Trump is a threat to the nation — she still has a duty to recognize, support and act within the confines of our system.  This means she has violated not only the laws of this nation, but also Natural Law (which happens to be part of God’s Law, in case she actually thinks God is on her side).

So I’ll say it again:

Maxine Waters has openly called for subversion!  She should be charged and prosecuted accordingly!  As should all those who have given her tangible aid in this case.

I’ll leave you with this one last thought:

Congress has admonished Waters’ for her language, but it has done nothing about her actions.  Words have consequences.  This is why we place such importance on the right of free speech: because they can lead to action.  But Congress has taken no action against her.  It is in Congress’s power to censure or even eject Maxine Waters, should they wish to do so (Section I, Article 5, U.S. Constitution).  But all they did is say “Bad girl!”  This means Congress — the whole of Congress — is just as corrupt and lawless as Waters.  they have a duty to protect this nation and its system of government, yet they are doing nothing while one of its own calls for the subversion of the very system they use to make themselves rich.  Think about that, and consider whether or not the rule of law actually exists in this country anymore or not…

 

[NOTE: When Waters claimed that “God is on our side,” she came close to — if not actually committed blasphemy.]

 

The next time I hear someone call these people ‘immigrants,’ I think I am going to have a Samuel Jackson — Pulp Fiction moment on them.  You know, something like this (the G rated version, anyway):

“Say immigrant one — more — time!  I dare you!  I double darn dare you!”

These people are not immigrants, and the dictionary can easily prove it.  I’ll show you.

Definition of immigrant

Now, if you are going to take up permanent residence in any country in this world, you need to get that country to recognize you.  That means you have to get legal permission to stay in that country.  This has been a matter of established law since the beginning of nations.  If you do not have legal residency, then you are an:

Definition of alien

Oh, look!  A person can be an alien and an immigrant at the same time!  (after all, that is what “alien resident” means: a person from one country who is living in another country).  That means — by definition — if you are in a country illegally (i.e. without permission), you are an illegal alien!

So, why do I stress “by definition?”  because — if logic matters to you at all — it means you cannot argue with the assertion.  This is because, if something is true “by definition,” it is true — period!  You cannot get around that: not rationally, anyway 🙂

Therefore, these people are not immigrants, they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Now, let’s look at something else.  If you come to a foreign country and you refuse to acknowledge or obey their laws, and you refuse to assimilate, or become a part of that country’s culture, then you are a subversive element within that nation.  What’s more, if you are receiving benefits from that society, from wages paid for labor to welfare or public services such as school or health care, then you are actually plundering that society.  Why do I say that?  Because you are wrongfully or illegally taking something of value from that country/society, and that is the definition of plunder:

Definition of plunder

Once more, if you are living in a country illegally (i.e. in violation of that nation’s laws), you are an illegal alien.  And if you are taking anything from that country — public services, welfare, even a job — you are plundering that nation.  This is because you are wrongfully taking something that does not belong to you and was not meant for you.  All of this is true, and it is true by definition!  Uh-oh!  Guess what it is called when you enter a nation illegally and start taking things that do not belong to you?

Definition of invasion

Now, before you dismiss this as an improper use of the definition of ‘invasion,’ look closely at the definition.  It says any act of invading.  Did you bother to click on the link to see what “invade’ means?

Definition of invade

Well, we have already shown that these illegal aliens are plundering our nation, but don’t stop there.  Keep clicking:

Definition of infringe

Go ahead, click on ‘encroach‘ to see what that means.  I’ll wait for you.

So, where are we now?  Right here — and all by definition (which means you cannot argue with this and still claim to be rational):

These ILLEGAL ALIENS are INVADERS!

This brings us to the main point of this post.

1 — The U.S. Constitution charges the Federal government with protecting the States from foreign invasion!

2 — Actively helping foreign invaders is an act of subversion (look it up if you do not believe me).

3 — This means anyone and everyone supporting these illegal invaders — in any way — is subverting the government of the United States!

4 — Subversion is illegal!

Now, I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions here.  I just want you to remember that all of this is by definition!

Oh!  One more thought.  The Obama Administration actually used U.S. tax-payer money to advertise for Central American parents to send their unaccompanied children to the U.S. so they could be used to help heir parents gain access to this country through a loop-hole (i.e. a back door designed to subvert the law).  By definition, this would also be subversion — by the U.S. President!  Heck, the Presdient’s most important job is to protect this nation from foreign invasion, not use public funds and assets to facilitate it!  So, if you think for one moment that the GOP is ever going to help us fix the mess we’re in, please tell me why they did not impeach and imprison Obama for this?

 

 

I was listening to talk radio again this morning.  I have had an increasingly difficult time doing so lately.  The more I learn about the past, the more I understand why things happen the way they do today — and the more my eyes open.  The more my eyes open, the less and less I trust the voices I once relied on to inform me, and this includes most of the people on the radio and all of those on the television.  Still, if you understand them and know how to listen to them, there are still a few voices on the radio who will bring some truth to you, and these are the few people to whom I still listen.  Unfortunately, though they are the ones who should know and understand better than most, even these people can miss the most important details.  So it was for me today.  I was listening to one of the few voices left for whom I have any trust.  This talk radio host calls himself a ‘Conservative/Libertarian” (it depends on the day).  Lately, he has been telling his audience that the problem with our nation is we keep finding ways to ignore, dismiss or violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Sadly, this is entirely wrong.  This person — one of the very few who should know better — shot for the stars, but he missed the entire sky.

I have written about this issue before, but it needs to be repeated.  In fact, it cannot be repeated too often — especially given the level of ignorance in our nation today.

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are just the ‘How” of America.  The “What” and the “Why” of this nation can only be found in The Declaration of Independence!

This is why the radio talk show host keeps getting things wrong: he keeps looking for the answer in the “how” and not in the “what” or “why.”  So, what do I mean by that?  Well, if I could, let me ask you to think back to your grade school days. How well did you understand and retain the information you were supposed to be learning when you actually studied the principles and events as opposed to just studying what was likely to be on the test?  For example: if you learned the foundations of math, you can probably still work some proofs that will help you derive an equation.  However, if all you did was study the equations so you could get past the test, you have most likely lost the majority of your command of math (I fall under this second category, myself).  Or, if you actually studied the people, places and events in history so that you could understand why things happened the way they did, you most likely still have a better understanding of history than those who studied just to get past the test (I fall in the first category here).  This is what I mean when I say there is a difference between the “what” and “why” of things as opposed to the “how.”  One leads to lasting understanding, the other just gets you past the test and is then ‘brain-dumped.’

The same principle applies to understanding why our society is in a state of decay: because we not only do not understand the “what” or the “why” of America, we’re not even studying the “how.” This particular talk show host should know better, especially since he is known for teaching history to his audience.  But he, like most, has identified a symptom and not the cause, so he has decided on a wrong solution rather than a course of action that might actually work.

The point here is simple, and we were warned by none other than John Adams:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

— John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798

In short, it is impossible for an immoral or even amoral people to obey the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights — period!  And, contrary to the opinion of anyone who may disagree, John Adams was correct.  He was correct because he was expressing an eternal and immutable principle of Natural Law.  But Adams does not stop here.  He explains the foundation of morality, as well:

“Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.”

— John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

In other words, without public virtue/morality — where people put society before themselves — there can be no liberty: and without personal, private virtue/morality, there can be no public virtue/morality.  So how does one acquire private virtue/morality?

“The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families…. How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?”

— John Adams, Diary, June 2, 1778

Notice that Adams has linked virtue/morality to religion.  Once again, this is an eternal and immutable principle of Natural Law.  But Adams did not stop here, leaving posterity to argue over which religion or no religion.  He goes on to tell us:

“The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite….And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”

— John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813

Finally, to those who would object, and demand that they can reject all belief in God and still be a ‘good’ or ‘virtuous/moral’ person, Adams says:

“The idea of infidelity cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason.”

The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed., (Cambridge: Belknap Press [Harvard University], 1977-89) vol. VI p 348 to James Warren on Aug. 4, 1778

Now, lest we think Adams is talking about adultery, or some other meaning for ‘infidelity,’ let me stop the reader right now.  In Adams’ day, the word, ‘infidelity,’ was used to describe those who had no religion or belief in God, or who denied that the Bible was the inspired Word of God.  Look for it and you will find this word used by other founders to describe such people.  And, if you look for it, you will find other founders who spoke out against those who do not believe in the God of the Bible, and in much harsher language.  So, what is Adams telling us?  In short, he was warning posterity that, if they ever left their Christian roots, they would lose their freedom!

Well, none of this is found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  It is all found in the Declaration — and my talk radio host should know this.  We should all know this — because these are eternal and immutable principles of Natural law!

BTW: My talk radio host should know and understand that the Bill of Rights cannot and will never stop people from harming each other.  However, if the whole of a society knows, understands and embraces the principles and ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, then they will have no need for a Bill of Rights — because they will naturally police themselves.  This is the difference between a virtuous and moral people and a people that has grown corrupt and lawless.

.

 

This may be from my blog dedicated to Scriptural World View, but it could just as easily have been posted here, under “Lessons in Logic,” or “Principles of Natural Law.”