I look at the lawlessness in the U.S. today and I wonder whether or not we still understand the concept of ‘The Rule of Law?’  And, if we know what it is, do we still embrace it?  Or have we abandoned it for the rule of ‘kings?’  I ask these questions because, if we actually lived under “The Rule of Law,” there would be a great many people currently being trumpeted as heroes who would either be in jail or executed!  Yes, executed!  Well, I — for one — still believe in and embrace ‘The Rule of Law,’ and I would like to see our laws against treason, rebellion and sedition enforced.  Here are just a few examples of what this would mean today:

CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

§2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

I think this one is extremely serious, and that anyone in the highest levels of government found guilty of treason should be hung in short order — and hung publicly.  So, who might be guilty of treason?

Well, according to the law, anyone who gives aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States is guilty of treason.  The Muslim Brotherhood is such an enemy, and so are ISIS and Al Qaeda.  Then there is Iran, which is most definitely an enemy of the United States.  President Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, both gave aid and comfort to all of these enemies.  The evidence supporting my accusations is actually in the public record, so I do not want to hear anyone objecting to my assertions.  I have just stated a fact: legally speaking, both Obama and Hillary Clinton have committed treason against this nation and they should be charged, tried and — if convicted — executed for treason!

Then there are these next two laws, which are so similar that I will handle them together:

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

§2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Rebellion against U.S. authority or its laws…  Folks, this is talking about sanctuary cities, illegal alien voting and all the ANTIFA and ‘Occupy’ movements we have spreading throughout this nation, as well as every individual and organization supporting them.  These laws can and should see George Soros and all those like him who have been funding the illegal invasion of this nation in jail and fined into poverty.  But more than that, they should also be used against Google, Face Book, You Tube, Twitter and a host f other social media outlets that have proven they are giving material support to this lawlessness either by direct donation or by allowing them to use their platforms.

Now, I understand that there will be people who will claim that the riots are covered by the First Amendment, but they are not.  No act is covered by a protection of speech and press, nor does the First Amendment protect anyone who uses speech or the press to call for rebellion and/or sedition.  The same applies to those who would claim that there is no ‘use of force’ being applied in the prevention of the enforcement of U.S. law.  Here again, this objection would not apply:

Force

Power, violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing. Power dynamically considered, that is, in motion or in action; constraining power, compulsion; strength directed to an end. Commonly the word occurs in such connections as to show that unlawful or wrongful action is meant, e.g., forcible entry.

Power statically considered, that is, at rest, or latent, but capable of being called into activity upon occasion for its exercise. Efficacy; legal validity. This is the meaning when we say that a statute or a contract is in force.

Reasonable force is that degree of force that is appropriate and not inordinate in defending one’s person or property. A person who employs such force is justified in doing so and is neither criminally liable nor civilly liable in tort for the conduct.

Deadly Force is utilized when a person intends to cause death or serious bodily harm or when he or she recognizes personal involvement in the creation of a substantial risk that death or bodily harm will occur.

This is the legal definition of force, and the things we are seeing in our country most definitely meet the terms of this definition.  Therefore, everyone involved in the examples I listed (and many I did not) is guilty of either rebellion and/or sedition and should be charged and prosecuted accordingly.  This would include all high level political officials — elected or otherwise, as well as all members of any board of a guilty corporation and all members of any media organization involved in writing, editing, approving or delivering a story that promotes such actions.  And yes!  I understand that — at this point — I am talking about pretty much gutting the entire ‘main stream’ media.  But I would go one step further by invoking this law, as well:

§2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Let me make this one short and sweet: anyone and everyone who has had a hand in this with-hunt against President Trump is guilty of advocating the overthrow of a duly elected President.  Ergo, they are guilty of advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government — period!  And I do mean everyone.  Yes, this would pretty much include the entire elected branch of the Democrat Party, as well as everyone at the DNC.  It would also include the majority of the U.S. media.  But it would also apply to many people in the GOP, as well.  And I do not want to hear from anyone who is going to argue that Trump is guilty of collusion or obstruction of justice.

We know — as in it is an established and proven fact — that the entire ‘case’ against Trump was fabricated by people inside our government for the purposes of removing a duly elected President (this is the very definition of subversion), using a dossier known to not only be fake, but also to be the product of foreign intelligence operatives and to have been paid for by Hillary Clinton (again, the very definition of treason and subversion).  What’s more, there is sufficient evidence to implicate President Obama and several high level members of his Administration as well as high level people within the FBI, DOJ and U.S. Intelligence Community, as well.

I am on record as not being a fan of Trump.  I’m still not a supporter.  But I know that he is not guilty of the things he has been charged with , mostly because, if he were, he would have been impeached for them by now — and rightly so.  At the same time, I know — because even the corrupt media has printed the proof — that Hillary Clinton and a cabal of other people inside the U.S. government paid foreign intelligence operatives to create a fake report about Trump, which they then used to perpetrate a fraud upon the FISA Court so they could create the false accusations, which were then used to justify a fraudulent investigation lead by people who had clear biases that should have precluded them from ever participating in the investigation.  Therefore, no ‘obstruction of justice’ charge can legally be made to stick because the whole ‘investigation’ was fraudulent on its face.  One cannot obstruct justice when it is actually obstructing a criminal act masquerading as ‘justice.’

So, yes!  I would charge the entire elected Democrat body in Congress, everyone in the investigation, the media and a great many people in the GOP with subversion — possibly even treason (after all, this helps many enemies of the U.S. by weakening Trump and strengthening those enemies in other areas of the world).

Now, before I close, I acknowledge that there will be many who not only object, but who will dismiss my arguments.  They will think my call to enforce our laws too be too broad, politically motivated, or even illegal.  And all such people — no matter their intentions — will be furthering the destruction of what little ‘Rule of Law’ remains in this nation. You see, there is a legal way to advance everything these people want to do in this country.  They can push for laws to be passed — properly; they can propose amendments to the Constitution; and they can call for an Article V Convention, but they are not doing any of this.  Instead, they are violating U.S. law, and that cannot be allowed to go unpunished for, if the people who are doing all of this are not punished to the fullest extent of our laws, the message that will have been sent is that they never will be.  They will then conclude — and rightfully so — that they are above the law.  At that point, this nation will fall into dictatorship.  I know this as surely as I know the sun will rise tomorrow.  I know it because it has ever been the history of man. If there is nothing to stop ambitious people but the extent of their own ambition, they will exercise that ambition by taking everything they can possibly take.  And, in this case, if we show them they can get away with treason and an attempted coup, then they will do it again and again until — eventually — they establish a One-Party rule in the United States, and that, my dear reader, is a dictatorship in the same category as Hitler, Stalin and Mao — and it will have the same result, too.

This is one of three blogs that I maintain.  I maintain three blogs for the benefit of my readers.  Each blog focuses on a different subject.  This blog’s focus is on the principles of Liberty, as understood from the Scriptural position of Natural Law.  My first blog page, ‘The OYL,’ focuses on how I understand and try to live according to Scriptural teaching. Finally, my third blog,  ‘As Through Glass,’ is where I take my understanding of the principles from this page and ‘The OYL‘ and apply them to matters of culture, politics and current events. Essentially, you can think of ‘As Through Glass‘ as a political blog written from a Scriptural perspective.  In the past, I have refrained from connecting these three blogs.  I am ashamed to admit that this was done mostly out of fear.  From this point forward, however, I will not allow fear to muzzle me.  I will interconnect the different areas of larger issues by linking to any of my other blogs whenever I feel lead to do so.  As best I can understand it, the task I have been given is to just explain how I see and understand the Scriptures; what I have learned about the things that have been and are happening in the world around us; and how I see the ways they are all connected. If you find that anything I ever write helps you better understand the Scriptures or the world in which we live, I would humbly ask that you share those messages with others.  I will not be advertising or promoting any of my blogs in any way.  Again, as best as I can understand it, I have been told to leave the spread of my blogging efforts strictly up to those who read it.   I am not to help in any way.  Therefore, that is exactly what I am going to do: I will write, as much and as clearly as I can, then leave it to God — working through you — to put whichever of my messages need to be read before whomever needs to read them.  In this way, whatever good my blogs may achieve, it will be entirely by the hand of the Lord.  At least, this is my most sincere desire and prayer.

If you still follow this blog, you may have noticed that I have not been active for some time now.  There are several reasons for this.  One of them was hurricane Michael.  It damaged our home and severely damaged our community last October, and, as of yet, nothing in our lives around here has returned to anything resembling normal.  I also allowed myself to become distracted by Face Book.  I thought I could do better by reaching more people on that medium rather than with my blogging.  I was wrong.  But the real reason I stopped blogging is even more difficult to explain;  mostly because I do not know how to explain it without sounding arrogant, self-centered or conceited.  Still, if you are still out there, I owe it to you to try to explain.

I started blogging close to fifteen years ago.  At that time, I thought I had something to say that others simply had to hear.  I was wrong  I was doing it because I liked the sound of my own voice, the attention it got me and the conflict it generated.  In short, when I started blogging, I was part of the problem.  Along the way, I started trying to actually live my faith.  Looking back, I can see that, the better I got at walking according to Scripture, the more I drew back from expressing my thoughts and opinions.  Until, now, I not only do not think I have anything of any great value to share, I have no desire to share it.  Where blogging was once great fun to me, now, I count it nothing but drudgery.  I simply do not want to do it — not anymore.

This brings me to the reason for this post.  I have recently realized that I must stop with Face Book.  In fact, I must pull back from a great many of the things most of us have come to consider as just being a normal part of our daily lives.  Now, this is the part where I do not know how to explain what comes next without giving my readers the wrong impression — but I’ll try.  I must draw back from these things because they are poison.  At the same time, I must try to warn those who will listen.  The only way I can warn anyone and have any certainty that I have some degree of control over maintaining my message is to go back to blogging.  I own the domains — at least for the time being.  This means, the information I post remains under my control — again, for the time being.  This is quickly going to become absolutely crucial to anyone who seeks to learn or preserve the Truth.  I see a great evil coming.  In fact, I fear it is already upon us.  And I am compelled to explain what I have been shown to anyone with ears to hear.

This is why I am not only going to return to all three of my blogs, but I am going to be more active and write with much more purpose than I ever have.  But I am not doing so because I want to do so.  In fact, I want to avoid this more than ever, because — if I am correct about what is coming — my blogging may well seal my fate, and that of the ones I love most. No, I am going to return to my blogs because it is what I know I am supposed to be doing and because, more than anything, I wish to be obedient to He Who matters most.  At the same time, I wish my readers to know that I am no prophet, nor do I claim to be.  I have been given no special revelation.  In fact, I have no special gifts of any kind.  I am just a person who said, “Here I am, send me,” and He — in His great wisdom — sent me.  Now, I only pray I do not fail Him, or any of you who may read my words.  This will be my prayer from this point forward: this, and that my words will somehow help whomever they are meant to find.

[NOTE: In the next few days, I will write a post explaining my plans for all three of my blogs.  Please stay tuned.  I won’t be long in putting up my next post.]

THE FOLLOWING IS INTEND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING PUBLIC DEBATE

This post assumes the reader has some familiarity with Natural Law — specifically as I have addressed the issue on this blog.  It also assumes the reader knows that I know the following are just suggestions offered for the sake of starting a conversation and do not represent an exhaustive attempt at describing specific language.  This post will be and on-going effort and, as such, will be continuously updated as the discussion and my thinking evolves.

This nation is not and was never meant to be a ‘democracy.’  Democracies are a form of tyranny, and this nation was designed to protect the individual against tyranny.  This is why our Founders designed our system of government in the form of a republic.  The facts are: voting is not a Natural Right, and democracy is not essential to the preservation of individual rights.  This can be accomplished without anyone ever voting for their representatives, as I intend to demonstrate shortly.  First, however, we need to remember two more essential points.  Those are that the Federal government is not a national government.  With a few exceptions mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the Federal government’s authority is restricted to governing the States and the States alone — not the People as a whole.  This makes the United States a Federation, not a nation.  Finally, the Founders considered the Declaration of Independence to be the foundation upon which the Constitution was built and never intended for the two to ever be severed.  Therefore, we start by restoring the Declaration to its proper place, and once again making it the ‘what‘ and the ‘why‘ of America, and the Constitution merely the ‘how.’

With all this being stipulated, I hereby propose that we Amend the Constitution along the following lines:

THE PRESIDENT

Proposal: We return to allowing the States to elect the President — per original intent.  Every Presidential election, each State government will vote for two names: one from within their State and one from outside their State.  These names will be sent to the Electoral College and tabulated. The Vice President will be the first runner up in the vote tally.

Rational: The Federal government is meant to govern the States, not the People.  Therefore, it is the States who should be electing the President and not the People.

SENATORS

Proposal: Take the election of Senators back away from the People and return it to the States — as per original intention.

Rational: Same as for the President: the Senate was always intended to represent States’ interests in the Congress and, therefore, should be elected/appointed by the States.

REPRESENTATIVES

Proposal: That the direct election of Representatives be ended and representatives be appointed by random drawing from among all those registered voters who are of sound mind and body.  This would be mandatory service, the refusal of which would result in the permanent loss of all future voting rights.

Rational: By drawing from the registered voters who are of sound mind and body, the People would truly be represented.  Furthermore, Party politics would essentially be ended.  And, on top of all this, the use of public education as a means of furthering political agenda would have to end — especially since it would now be imperative that the largest possible part of the population be as well educated as possible as a safe-guard against the possibility of anyone among the citizenry being appointed to participate ion the Federal government.

VOTING REFORM

Proposal: We should make voting a privilege connected to ownership of real estate upon which the voter pays taxes, or military service during a time of war.

Rational: The intention is to restrict the vote to those who will actually pay for the consequences of public policy.  By doing so in this way, we can deal with the problems of voter manipulation and intimidation, as well as the tendency to bribe voters — all of which serve to undermine the moral fiber of the individual citizen for the political gain of a Party or individual politician while — at the same time — allowing multiple avenues by which individual citizens who are so inclined to accept the responsibility may obtain the civil right of voting.

TERM LIMITS

Proposal: All public administrative service shall be limited to no more than 12 years total, whether in local, State or Federal government.  This restriction would extend to all administrative positions — including the Judiciary!  This restriction would not apply to military, law enforcement, emergency service, education, etc..

Rational: The intention here is to maintain a citizen government where no one person is allowed to serve so long as to become a threat to the Federations, States or local regions.  Furthermore, by including administrative services under representative positions, it insures against the formation of a de facto governing body inside the staff of the representative services.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

Proposal: That donations should be unlimited, but can only be given to those candidates for whom the person giving the money can vote in the next election.

Rational: The purpose here is to eliminate meddling in elections where the meddler cannot vote.  Even if we are all American citizens, there is no difference — in principle — between being allowed to donate to an election in another State or district within our own State than there is in a foreign country donating to a U.S. candidate.  Furthermore, by restricting the civil right of voting to those people who can actually vote for the candidate, we eliminate PACs, corporate donations, lobbying, etc — all of which serve only to circumvent campaign finance laws and corrupt our system in general.

LEGISLATION

Proposal: All Bills must be written to address one single subject.  Furthermore, they must specifically sate which of the enumerated powers authorizes the law, as well as a rational arguing for how and why that enumerated power applies.

Rational: The purpose here is to restrict the Federal government by limiting its ability to enact laws to only those areas which the Constitution expressly authorizes the Federal government to act.  It also limits the Federal government’s ability to manipulate the passing of any law by bundling one or more laws into a single bill.  Furthermore,  the explanation as to which of the enumerated powers applies and why would provide the judiciary clear indication of intent in the case of Constitutional review.

Proposal: Every law must stipulate a termination date, upon which that law will become null-and-void.  Furthermore, no law may remain in force for more than 20 years.

Rational: This limits all laws to the generation that enacts them and prohibits the past from dictating to the present.

Proposal: Any vote to simply continue an existing law must be passed by a three-fourths majority of both Houses of Congress.

Rational: This is to insure against the practice of just voting to continue existing laws, thereby avoiding the spirit of the 20 year restriction on any given law.

MONETARY POLICIES

Proposal: The Federal Reserve will be immediately abolished and any attempt to return to it will be expressly prohibited by Amendment.

Rational: The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional in that this is a Federation and, therefore, does not need a central bank.  Neither is the establishment of a central bank within the authority of the Federal government.

Proposal: The nation will be returned to something akin to the gold standard, wherein the People’s money will have an intrinsic value that is not subject to manipulation by the banking system.

Rational: The purpose here is to prevent the People’s money from being artificially devalued, especially for purposes of control, manipulation or un-just gain by those who control the means of manipulating the monetary system.

TAXATION

Proposal: The Federal income tax will be immediately ended and permanently banned.  In its place, a per-capita tax will be levied against each State, and the States will be left to determine how each will raise the monies to pay their share of the Federal support.

Rational: The Federal government is a government of the States, and, therefore, has no authority nor should have authority to directly tax the citizens.  This is an encroachment upon the State’s authority.

Proposal: No tax shall be levied by the States or Federal government that benefits a person, company, class or other specific interest at the expense of another.

Rational: This is the same as the prohibition of forced or indentured servitude.  Any and all taxes that take from one citizen to give to another is essentially a violation of Amendments already in place.  This will just make this doubly clear.

NOTE: This would end Social Security and Welfare of all forms.

ESTATE AND INHERITANCE TAXES

Proposal: There will be no estate or inheritance tax.

Rational: Taxing either of these is double taxation, which is a direct assault on the fundamental principle of property rights.

ESTATE AND INHERITANCE LAWS

Proposal: All estates must be divided equally among all heirs in a person’s immediate family.

Rational: This is a return to original intent.  The purpose is to prevent the perpetuation of civil animosity through the distribution of a family’s estate.  It is also a Natural Rights means by which large estates are allowed to live or die according to the natural talents of all heirs within the family.  This serves as a safe-guard against the establishment of a ‘dynasty’ that can threaten the People or their governments.

LIVING TRUSTS

Proposal: There will be no such thing as a ‘living trust.’  All estates will be divided equally among immediate heirs.

Rational: Simple: the dead shall not dictate to the living — period!

CORPORATIONS

Proposal: The Corporate Structure will be permanently abolished and replaced by that of the Charter Company.  All Charter Companies must apply for the People’s permission.  They must be for a single purpose.  They cannot exist for more than 20 years and cannot — under any circumstances — be extended for longer than 20 years.  All share holders will collect cash payments based on the number of shares they hold.  Regardless of the number of shares they hold, all share holders will have 1 vote in corporate operations.  Any civil liabilities incurred by a corporation will be paid equally by all shareholders — personally; the cost is not to be spread according to the number of shares held.  Furthermore, the Charter structure cannot be used to shield any share holder or board members from criminal liability.  Any such person connected to the Charter who is found to have committed a crime in connection to the operation of the Charter is to be treated as a normal defendant regardless of their connection to the Charter.

Rational: As it stands today, the Corporate structure has been allowed to grow to the point where it represents a clear and present danger to the Federation as well as to the Natural Rights of every citizen.  These restrictions are intended to force a return to co-ops and to individual accountability of the ownership.  The primary goal is to provide equal representation for all share holders so that one person cannot act as a de facto dictator where the share holders serve no practical role other than to give money to and collect money from the Charter.  Furthermore, this suggestions is intended to end the practice of using the Charter (formerly Corporate) structure to escape personal responsibility by holding the Charter responsible for the actions of real people.

 

[NOTE: Most of this is all off the top of my head.  As of this point, I have not given this deep thought.  That said, all of what I have offered here is tied to the notion of Natural Rights and Natural Law — as I understand it (think John Lock with a bit more of the Apostle Paul in it)].

This post is a continuation of my previous post, EDITORIAL: Thoughts Whether Or Not We Are Virtuous.  Both my previous post and this one have been prompted by private conversations I have had in connection to my involvement with the Steve Nichols’ Morning Drive talk radio program last week.  To set the table for this post, I had another conversation with the same friend mentioned in my last post.  This time, we discussed the notion of ‘principles’ and how it is connected to the greater discussion of how rights, duty, virtue and morality are all connected.  Once again, I am going to try to keep my comments as neutral as possible and, where this is not possible, as far removed from the people and examples that prompted this private discussion.  I am trying to explain how I see these issues, and why I see them the way I do.  I have no desire to single out any one person or persons in the process.  That would defeat my point — especially given the discussion at hand.

So, the question came up as to what ‘principles’ are and how they work.  For me, they are very much like ‘virtue,’ but they work in a different way.  In the case of virtue, we are dealing with a quality inalienable from the individual and related to how a person acts.  A person is said to be virtuous if and only if they habitually do their duty of their own free will — not by being forced to do so.   Well, ‘principles’ are also inalienable to the individual.  They are — at least theoretically — the set of those things an individual believes that make up his moral perspective on the world.  In other words, ‘principles’ are supposed to be the set of rules governing right and wrong which govern the way a righteous person lives.  If a person has a personal morality, and they habitually live by the standard of their personal morality, they are said to be principled.

However, people often ignore their personal standards of right and wrong, much in the same way they try to push off their responsibilities on to other people.  And, just like those people who push off their duties on to others, the people who ignore or compromise their moral principles often believe they still deserve to be called a principled person.  Here again, I do not understand how people such as this arrive at this conclusion.  If I believe something is wrong but I ignore that belief, or worse, I willingly act in an opposite way, then I am not acting according to my principles.  How can I honestly expect people to then think of me as principled?  It would be like I were walking around naked, but expecting everyone to tell me how nice my new clothes are.

I suppose this should not surprise me.  I do it all the time, and I believe I know better.  Why should I expect others — who have never consciously considered such things — to be any better?  But I do expect them to know and act better — especially when they are in prominent positions of public trust.  One cannot claim to oppose something and then act in such a way that supports, defends or furthers that thing.  If I am against world hunger, but I act in a way that prevents aid from getting to a region suffering from famine, I can tell myself I am ‘principled’ all I want.  The truth remains: I am not acting in a principled manner in this case.  If I make this sort of thing a habit in my life, then I am not and can not be a ‘principled’ person until I change my ways.  It is that simple.

If we dig down to the absolute bedrock of this issue, I believe what we’ll find is the issue of moral compromise.  Principled people do not make moral compromises.  That is why they are said to be principled.  Unfortunately, being a morally principled person usually results in great personal cost — especially in a morally compromised world.  It can also be difficult to see when we are making moral compromises.  If we find ourselves in a position where we know we are being asked to compromise our principles, but it might cost us our job, we could easily convince ourselves that it would be more wrong to put ourselves in a position where we cannot provide for our family.  I only wish morality worked that way.  Then people like Bonhoeffer, Gandhi, and Dr. King could have made their principled stands without paying any penalties.  But that is often how we know we are making a moral stand, living a principled life: the world takes its pound of flesh from us in response to that stand.

Anyway, like I said: I know I am guilty of compromise.  But I try harder every day to look for and avoid them.  This is actually what Jesus was talking about in the passages about not judging.  He does not tell us not to judge.  Anyone who keeps reading that passage will see it ends by telling us the point is to learn how to judge correctly, righteously.  But this requires us to look inward first, so we can see ourselves and the way we live our own lives as we truly are — not as we think we are.  This is supposed to teach us to be sympathetic and charitable toward others, so that, when we judge their actions, we can put ourselves in their shoes.  Now, that does not mean we excuse wrong.  Too many among us have made that conclusion and it is wrong.  It leads directly to the slippery slope of ruin.  But it does mean we should be much more reserved about what we correct in others, and much more gentle in how we do it.  At least, that is how I have come to see this whole issue of rights, morality, duty, virtue and principles.