US Constitution Series 11: Liberty of the People vs. Government Force

US Constitution Series 11:

The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

key“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~Thomas Jefferson

It is important to note that our Constitutional republic does not need to be changed. Congress has 2 duties assigned to accomplish the restraint or removal of a tyrant: 1) impeachment 2) Using the power of the purse to withhold funding from tyrannical actions.

When Congress fails in its duties, the tenth amendment still gives power to the states and the people. We do not have a majority of Constitutionalists in Congress, and the majority of the voters lack the wisdom and understanding needed to fix this from Washington. Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation. ~C.A. Davidson

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

5000leapFrom The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The Founders were well acquainted with the vexations resulting from an abusive, autocratic government which had imposed injuries on the American colonists for thirteen years in violation of the English constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s word in the Declaration of Independence therefore emphasized the feelings of the American people when he wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.


John Locke

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they [the government officials] forfeit the power the people had put into their hands …and it devolves to the people, who have a reight to resume their original liberty, and provide for their own safety and security. (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 75-76, emphasis added.)

Power Rests in the Majority

However, it is important to recognize that the “government” was established by the Majority of the people, and only a majority of the people can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. (Skousen, 149)

No Right of Revolt in a Minority

When the Founders altered the British government, they got the consensus of the majority of the American people. The abuses of Americans were perpetrated by a minority—the British monarchy. Comparing this history to today, we have abuses heaped upon us again by a minority—Obama and his army of unelected bureaucrats. ~C.D.

. . .it [is] impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it …

johnlockeBut if either these illegal acts have extended to the MAJORITY of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has light [struck] only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to THREATEN ALL, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, HOW THEY WILL BE HINDERED FROM RESISTING ILLEGAL FORCE USED AGAINST THEM, I cannot tell. (John Locke, Ibid., p. 73 208-9; emphasis added.)

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people …And that, when any government shall be MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added.)

So, granted that the people are sovereign and the majority of them can take over whenever necessary to restructure the political machinery and restore liberty, what is likely to be the best form of government which will preserve liberty? The answer to this question was a favorite theme of the American nation-builders.


Principle 12: The United States of America Shall be a Republic

US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control



US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control

US Constitution Series 10: The God-given Right to Government is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People

keyThere was no place for the idea of a divine right of kings in the thinking of the American Founders. They subscribed to the concept that rulers are servants of the people and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people.

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

From The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The God-given Right to Govern is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People

There was no place for the idea of a divine right of kings in the thinking of the American Founders. They subscribed to the concept that rulers are servants of the people and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people.


King Charles II beheaded Algernon Sidney in 1683 for saying that there is no divine right of kings to rule over the people. That same year, John Locke fled from England to Holland, where he could say the same thing Sidney did, but from a safer distance. (Skousen, 141,142)

View of the American Founders

signers3There was no place for the idea of a divine right of kings in the thinking of the American Founders. They subscribed to the concept that rulers are servants of the people and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people. They pointed out how this had been so with the Anglo-Saxons from the beginning.

Dr. Lovell describes how the tribal council, consisting of the entire body of freemen, would meet each month to discuss their problems and seek a solution through consensus. The chief or king (taken from the Anglo-Saxon world cyning—chief of the kinsmen) was only one among equals:

The chief owed his office to the tribal assembly, which selected and could also depose him. His authority was limited at every turn, and though he no doubt commanded respect, his opinion carried no more weight in the debates of the assembly than that of any freeman. (Lovell, English Constitutional and Legal History, 5)

Alexander Hamilton

It is a maxim that in every government, there must exist, somewhere, a supreme, sovereign, absolute, and uncontrollable power; but this power resides always in the BODY OF THE PEOPLE; and it never was, or can be, delegated to one man, or a few; the great Creator has never given to men a right to vest others with authority over them, unlimited either in duration or degree. (Albert Long, Your American Yardstick, 167)

madisontyrannydefineJames Madison

The ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE. (Federalist Papers, No. 46, p. 294, emphasis added)


But even if it is acknowledged that the PEOPLE are divinely endowed with the sovereign power to govern, what happens if elected or appointed officials usurp the authority of the people to impose a dictatorship or some form of abusive government on them? (Skousen, 144-145)



Principle 11: The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

US Constitution Series 9: Divine Law vs. Big Government

Young People Stand for Faith, Moral Standard

Standing Up for What We Believe

keyWe live in a world where many see evil as good and good as evil, and we must take a stand for good. Following are testimonies from young people who stood up for what they believe—their faith and their moral standard. They did not argue or react with anger or unkindness. They showed “both courage and courtesy”1 and, as a result, strengthened others (see 3 Nephi 12:44–45).

My Brother Refused to Drink Champagne

liquorrefusewine-glasses-roseslIn France, military service is obligatory. My 20-year-old younger brother, Loïc, decided to go to reserve officers’ school to become a lieutenant. At the end of his schooling, there was a swearing-in ceremony for new officers. Each in turn is to recite the regimental slogan. Then he is to drink a glass of champagne containing a rose—consuming both. This tradition started with Napoléon Bonaparte, and no officer since then had failed to participate.

Loïc told the colonel that his religious principles did not allow him to drink alcohol. An icy silence followed Loïc’s request for an exemption. The colonel stood up. Instead of forcing Loïc to drink the champagne, he congratulated him for keeping his principles despite the pressure, saying he was proud to welcome this man of integrity into his regiment. They replaced the champagne, and Loïc participated in the swearing-in ceremony.

Pierre Anthian, France

I Was Invited to a Wild Party

After college my sister Grace and I worked for a company with several other Latter-day Saints. Our employers were not members of the Church. When my sister became engaged, our employer planned a surprise bridal shower for her. I hoped she would respect our standards, but instead she ordered liquor, a male dancer, and a scandalous video.

Before the bridal shower, I felt the whispering of the Holy Ghost within me encouraging me to remind my boss of our standards. I grasped my Young Women medallion and thought of all the effort and sacrifices I had made when I was in Young Women to complete my Personal Progress. I prayed that I would be guided to stand a little taller at this time. I texted my employer my concerns, thinking that she might become offended. Nevertheless, my greatest desire was to please Heavenly Father.

When the party began, my boss didn’t talk to me or even smile at me. However, she did cancel the dancer and the video.

In the days following the party, my boss didn’t talk and laugh with me like she had before the party. However, I felt comfortable because I knew God was pleased with what I had done. About a week later, my relationship with my boss went back to normal. I know God softened her heart and helped her realize that I lived what I believed.

Lemy Labitag, Cagayan Valley, Philippines

I Heard Offensive Language in Class

high-school-sewing-class-young-women_When I was about 18, I took a sewing class. One day three girls a few feet away from me started using offensive language. I didn’t know if I should ignore them to avoid a conflict or if I should stand up for my standards and ask them to stop. Eventually, I said as nicely as possible, “Excuse me, but could you please watch your language?”

The biggest of the girls glared at me and said, “We’ll talk however we want.”

I said, “But do you really have to swear? It really offends me.”

She said, “Then just don’t listen.”

I was starting to get upset and said, “It’s hard not to listen when you’re talking so loudly.”

She said, “Get over it.”

I gave up. I was frustrated with the girls, but even more frustrated with myself. I couldn’t believe I’d let my tone get confrontational. The girls were still swearing, and now we were all angry.

After I’d calmed down, I saw that the girls were having trouble with their sewing machine. I knew what was wrong because I’d had the same problem earlier. So I showed them how to fix it. I saw the expression change on the biggest girl’s face. “Hey,” she said, “we’re sorry.” I couldn’t believe it—she was apologizing. “I’m sorry too,” I told her. “I shouldn’t have gotten angry like that.”

I went back to my sewing machine and didn’t hear another swear word. That experience taught me that our words might not change others’ attitudes, but kindness and service often can.

Katie Pike, Utah, USA

I Defended Serving a Mission

I joined the Church when I was 19, the second of three sons and the only Latter-day Saint in my family. Shortly after being baptized, I began to feel the desire to serve a mission. After a year, the Spirit told me I should go. I talked with my mother, who felt it was not right that I go. I deferred for another year, but the desire to serve a mission never left me. During that year, I studied the scriptures, saved my money, prepared my papers, had all the medical exams, and—after everything else was completed—I waited on the Lord. Before long, I received a call to serve in the Brazil Campinas Mission.

My parents were still opposed. I fasted and prayed openly, telling Heavenly Father about all my fears. I asked Him to touch the heart of my earthly father. He did. To my surprise, my father attended the farewell party that my friends had prepared for me on the Saturday prior to my departure. And that Monday, my dad took me to the airport.

During my mission, I felt the love of God as I preached the gospel. My mom did not stop being a mother, and when I returned home, she was the first person to hug me.

I learned that serving a mission is much more than a duty; it is a privilege and a marvelous time of growth and learning.

Cleison Wellington Amorim Brito, Paraíba, Brazil

I Bore Testimony of God

godwitnessinclassAs a freshman in our country’s best university, I felt pressure to do my best. Persecution came, and I started to question my belief in the gospel as many of my professors expounded on what they professed to be “reality.” Many of my classmates were affected. This environment made it difficult to uphold Christian values. I thought of quitting but decided it was better to stay. I reasoned that if there were only a few who qualified to enter this university, and among those few were only a few Latter-day Saints, then I should stay and stand for truth.

My biology professor, a self-professed atheist, taught science without any belief in a Supreme Creator. Yet the more I heard, the more it reinforced to me that there is a Supreme Being—God, our Father—who created all these things. Others argued that this idea didn’t make any sense. Our discussions got more intense. I was anxious to raise my hand and explain I believe in God as the Creator.

The time came to give comments. At my school, it was normal for people to applaud, yell, or boo at those who presented their ideas. I stood boldly and said plainly to the opposing side: “Believing in God may not make any sense to you at the moment, but the day will come when it will all make sense to you as clearly as it does to me now.”

Since that time, I’ve never received any boos when standing up for my beliefs. From that time forward, I progressed academically, socially, and spiritually. I started to become active in student activities, and I was elected to several school offices.

I learned that standing for truth even once greatly affects our future decisions.

Vince A. Molejan Jr., Mindanao, Philippines

Discover ways you can stand up for your beliefs:

Science and History: Are People not as Smart now?

We Now Have Scientific Proof That People Are Getting Stupider

keyYou don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading. ~Ray Bradbury

Some people are blaming the environment! They’re not even smart to figure out the cause of this problem. It just shows what the corruption of the school system has done to our country. ~C.D.


Michael Snyder

characteredAre people dumber than they used to be?  Were previous generations mentally sharper than us?  You may have suspected that people are getting stupider for quite some time, but now we actually have scientific evidence that this is the case.  As you will read about below, average IQs are dropping all over the globe, SAT scores in the U.S. have been declining for decades, and scientists have even discovered that our brains have been getting smaller over time.  So if it seems on some days like you woke up in the middle of the movie Idiocracy, you might not be too far off.  Much of the stuff that they put in our junk food is not good for brain development, our education system is a total joke and most Americans are absolutely addicted to mindless entertainment.  Fortunately, we have a lot of technology that does much of our thinking for us these days, because if we had to depend on our own mental capabilities, most of us would be in a tremendous amount of trouble.
Most of us today just assume that people are smarter than they ever have been before.

SAT-ScoreMost of us today look down on our ancestors and mock them for being so primitive.

But the truth is that if we had to go up head to head against them in mental challenges, we might find ourselves greatly humbled.

At the end of this article, I have posted an eighth-grade exam from 1912 that was donated to the Bullitt County History Museum in Kentucky.

As you can see, it is far more difficult than anything that eighth-grade students have to do today.  In fact, most eighth-grade students today are doing pretty good if they can point out the United States on a map of the world and can string a few sentences together.

EIGHTH-GRADE-EXAM-facebookI should know – for a short period of time I once taught eighth-grade students.

So when I first came across the exam posted below, I was amazed at how difficult it was.

Could you pass such an exam?

I don’t know if I could.

But these are the kinds of questions that eighth-grade students were expected to be able to answer back in 1912…

-Through which waters would a vessel pass in going from England through the Suez Canal to Manila?

-How does the liver compare in size with other glands in the human body?

-How long of a rope is required to reach from the top of a building 40 feet high to the ground 30 feet from the base of a building?

-Compare arteries and veins as to function. Where is the blood carried to be purified?

-During which wars were the following battles fought: Brandywine, Great Meadows, Lundy’s Lane, Antietam, Buena Vista?

A full copy of the exam is posted below.  Please notice the absence of multiple choice questions where a student can guess by circling an answer.  In the old days, kids were actually expected to be able to think and to be able to write…



Youtube video: Hollywood Movie People support Israel, Condemn Muslim Terror

Hollywood Movie People condemn Muslim prophet Muhammad; defend Israel

keyThis is a good thing. We need cultural icons standing for what is right.

David Wood


Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone pose on the red carpet for the premiere of their movie “The Expendables 3” in Macau, China, Friday, Aug. 22, 2014. The two are among 187 signatories on a new letter slamming Hamas. (photo credit: AP Photo/Kin Cheung)



israel_flagNearly 200 people from the entertainment industry (including Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many others) have signed a statement condemning the seventh article of the charter of Hamas as an “ideology of hatred and genocide.” The statement reads:

We, the undersigned, are saddened by the devastating loss of life endured by Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza. We are pained by the suffering on both sides of the conflict and hope for a solution that brings peace to the region. 

While we stand firm in our commitment to peace and justice, we must also stand firm against ideologies of hatred and genocide which are reflected in Hamas’ charter, Article 7 of which reads, “There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” The son of a Hamas founder has also commented about the true nature of Hamas. 

Hamas cannot be allowed to rain rockets on Israeli cities, nor can it be allowed to hold its own people hostage. Hospitals are for healing, not for hiding weapons. Schools are for learning, not for launching missiles. Children are our hope, not our human shields

We join together in support of the democratic values we all cherish and in the hope that the healing and transformative power of the arts can be used to build bridges of peace.

Interestingly, the quotation from article seven was taken directly from Muhammad himself. Hence, all of these entertainers have condemned Muhammad, Islam, and the Quran. For a complete list of signers, click here.


And here are the sources cited in the video:

MuslimWarriorQur’an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . (See also 23:1-6; 33:50; 70:22-30.)

This verse isn’t entirely clear, until we examine the historical background:

Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. 

Qur’an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures. 

Sahih Muslim 6985—Allah’s Messenger said: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

For more on Hollywood’s condemnation of Hamas (and Muhammad), see the following articles:

“Stallone, Schwarzenegger Lead Hollywood Assault on Hamas”
“More Than 190 Hollywood Notables Sign Pro-Israel Statement Criticizing Hamas”

People and Law: Government Force or Liberty of Opportunity?

Egalitarianism: Is it Equality of Opportunity or Government Forcing Everyone to be the Same?

Month-Defining Moment

Defining Moment: What is Egalitarianism?

keyIf we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion. ~Friedrich August von Hayek

Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality – an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order. ~Friedrich August von Hayek

We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice. ~Friedrich August von Hayek

Rousseau’s Error

John Adams was in France when Jean Jacques Rousseau was teaching that all men were designed to be equal in every way. Adams wrote:


johnadams2That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has …But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, …or by the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution.


The answer is that everyone’s individual differences should be accepted, but be treated as equals as human beings. Constitutional writer Clarence Carson describes two ways all persons should have their equality guaranteed:

1) Equality before the law. This means that every man’s case is tried by the same law governing any particular case. Practically, it means that there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men [as there were in ancient times]. The definition of premeditated murder is the same for the millionaire as for the tramp. A corollary of this is that no classes are created or recognized by law.

2) Each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other.


Related Posts

US Constitution Series 7: The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not provide Equal Things

US Constitution Series 7: Liberty, Enterprise vs. Free Stuff

procrustesWhat happens when you have Government enforced “equality?” An analogy

Censorship, Politics, and Freedom of Speech


Obama: The Best Crony Capitalist Since Mussolini

“Barack Obama has wrapped himself in egalitarianism all his political career and now that dissatisfaction with his goal of ‘transforming’ America …

Rush Limbaugh

fascismwndRUSH:  Well, that’s what some of them want.  Obama wants to be the dictator; the people on Wall Street want to be the subjects.  Some of these people on Wall Street actually want that.  Some of these protesters, the Occupy Wall Street Now, some of them actually want that.  Some of them actually want to be serfs.  That’s how they look at freedom and equality, and egalitarianism and so forth.  That’s what some of them want.  That’s what they’ve been taught, and it’s superior, it’s fairer, it’s better for everybody.  A lot of them are saying, “Look, go ahead and stay in business, we love what you make, just don’t make a profit.  Why can’t you make iPhones and just break even?  Why do you have to show a profit?”

That’s their mentality.  Why can’t you provide us what we want but why do you have to make a profit in the process?  That’s objectifying us, that’s taking advantage of people, that’s overcharging people, that’s just unfair, why don’t you just do what you do — this is a very naive thought, but many people have it, particularly young, idealistic people.  Why don’t you make that car and sell it to us for no more than what it cost you and then everybody would be happy. You’ll make the cars, we’ll buy the cars, we’ll be able to buy the cars at a much cheaper price and then everybody will be able to afford one.  But the minute people start putting profit into it, that’s where we have problems because that’s exploitation and unfairness.  That’s what they’re taught.  Some people are just oriented toward being slaves, natural born subservient people, and they will give away their freedom as fast as they can, at the same time trying to get you to do the same thing.


Did Christianity give us gay marriage?

By Alex McFarland

As long as God keeps making human beings and the Holy Spirit works among them in this world, that which is false cannot ultimately prevail.


bible1An editorial by religion writer Damon Linker asserts that the current push for gay marriage is really an inevitable outgrowth of … Christianity. He attempts to support this unlikely conclusion in several ways, invoking the Bible (as he understands it) and American history.

Linker insinuates that evangelicals – the prime supporters of “traditional” marriage in the U.S. at least – should not be surprised that homosexuals want to marry and are being successful in their demands to do so. After all, he reasons, Christianity (and America) are about equality.

But I find at least four things wrong with such a line of thought. These are:

1. Mischaracterization of the Bible’s concept of equality. Egalitarianism (which Linker attributes to Scripture) says that there are no inherent differences between men and women. By this definition, all social constructs related to the sexes (such as marriage and gender roles) should not be defended as unique in any way. In an egalitarian world, no social order should be preferred above another.

But this is not what the Bible teaches. The truly Christian position on men and women, gender roles, human sexuality and marriage is one of complementariansim. Men and women are complementary. Definitely equals in the sense of being made in God’s image, having equal worth, value, dignity and purpose. However, men and women are clearly unique in functions, in strengths, in abilities and in areas of interest.

2. Linker interprets advances of the gay agenda in a positive light, and supports this by referencing Alexis de Tocqueville. But to do this, he misrepresents Tocqueville’s writings that deal with American equality.

Tocqueville spoke of Christianity’s influence in America with a clarity that is hard to miss. Tocqueville does write about “the march of equality,” but this march is able to take place because of the Judeo-Christian backdrop before which America stands. A slight (and often fluctuating) equalization between the rich and poor is not the same as a deconstruction of that most fundamental human institution, the home.

America has changed the social order of millions in an economic sense, but it does not follow that a new order must (or should) come in a moral sense. Linker certainly stretches things in trying to sanction the modern gay agenda by invoking Democracy In America (Vols. I and II, 1835 and 1840, respectively).

Sermon_on_the_Mount0063. Like many today Linker invokes what I call “a Bible without boundaries.” He defends radical egalitarianism by referencing Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. Christ’s words as found in Matthew 5-7 are a favorite text of defenders of homosexuality, relativism, religious pluralism, leftism and many other “isms.” Those who see Jesus as the ultimate egalitarian will often support their position by reminding people of the unlimited love and grace of God.

Yes, God is love (I John 4:8). And His grace has been offered to all men (Titus 3:5). God’s love prompted Him to come to earth, die, rise and make it possible for humans to be saved from their sins (John 3:16). And speaking of sin, Scripture teaches that our guilt before God is a gravely serious matter. The Bible even lists a whole bunch of sins that, if not repented of, will keep a person out of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

4. Linker’s article opens by calling widespread embrace of gay marriage “all but assured.” For about four decades now, the gay agenda has been marketed to the American people. Pro-gay messaging has been subtly introduced through entertainment, postured in scholarly terms for the classroom, and railroaded in through politics.

Fortuitous timing for the gay movement, it arose after much of the religious establishment of the West had spent a century being infected with liberal thought and Darwinian social theory. By the dawn of the 1970s, lobbyists for homosexuality were not strongly opposed by clergy whose job it was to stand for the Bible.

But let me encourage all who believe that God’s design for marriage and morality is still true and relevant. That which is morally right and factually true has a way of prevailing – even to the point of trumping propaganda campaigns that are well organized, well funded and nearly unrelenting. History has shown us this.

As long as God keeps making human beings and the Holy Spirit works among them in this world, that which is false cannot ultimately prevail.

– See more at:

Government Control vs. People’s Law

Dinner Topics for Monday

Month-Defining Moment

keyToday it is popular in the classroom as well as the press to refer to “Communism on the left,” and “Fascism on the right.”

These terms actually refer to the manner in which the various parties are seated in the parliaments of Europe. The radical revolutionaries (usually the Communists) occupy the far left and the military dictatorships (such as the Fascists) are on the far right. However, Communism and Fascism have turned out to be different names for the same thing—the police state.


Excerpts from W. Cleon Skousen: The 5000 Year Leap

seal-of-the-united-states-originalIt was the original intent of the Founders to have both the ancient Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons represented on the official seal of the United States. The members of the committee were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. They recommended that one side of the seal show an Anglo-Saxon profile, and the other side a portrayal of ancient Israel going through the wilderness led by God’s pillar of Fire. This turned out to be too complicated, so a simpler design was adopted. Obviously, this is a segment of America’s rich heritage of the past which has disappeared from most history books.

Political Party platforms change from one generation to another, so it doesn’t work to measure people’s ideas based on political parties.

Government is defined in the dictionary as “a system of ruling or controlling,” and therefore the American Founders measured political systems in terms of the amount of force or control a government imposes over its people.

 Three Heads of the Eagle

Three separate branches of Government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial


Left and Right: the Two Wings of the Eagle


Left: the Problem-Solving Wing

This wing dreams of elaborate plans to solve problems.


Right: the Conservation Wing

This wing has the responsibility of conserving the nation’s resources and the people’s freedom.


If both of these wings fulfill their assigned function, the American eagle will fly straighter and higher than any civilization in the history of the world. But if either of these wings goes to sleep on the job, the American eagle will drift toward anarchy or tyranny. (Skousen, 25-26)


The Founders measured types of government not by political parties, but political power.

W. Cleon Skousen, The 5,000 Year Leap, pp.9-10

Ruler’s Law

As Defined by the Founders


  1. Authority under Ruler’s Law is nearly always established by force, violence, and conquest.
  2. Therefore, all sovereign power is considered to be in the conqueror or his descendants.
  3. The people are not equal, but are divided into classes and are all looked upon as “subjects” of the king.
  4. The entire country is considered to be the property of the ruler. He speaks of it as his “realm.”
  5. The thrust of governmental power is from the top down, not from the people upward.
  6. The people have no unalienable rights; the “king giveth and the king taketh away.”
  7. Government is by the whims of men, not by the fixed rule of law.
  8. The ruler issues edicts which are called “the law.” he then interprets the law and enforces it, thus maintaining tyrannical control over the people.
  9. Under Ruler’s Law, problems are always solved by issuing more edicts or laws, setting up more bureaus, harassing the people with more regulators, and charging the people for these “services” by continually adding to their burden of taxes.
  10. Freedom is never looked upon as a viable solution to anything.
  11. The long history of Ruler’s Law is one of blood and terror, both anciently and in modern times. Under it the people are stratified into an aristocracy of the ruler’s retinue while the lot of the common people is one of perpetual poverty, excessive taxation, stringent regulations, and a continuous existence of misery.

W. Cleon Skousen, The 5,000 Year Leap, pp.11-12


People’s Law

(Characteristics based on Anglo-Saxon or Common Law)

  1. The considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.
  2. All decisions and selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people.
  3. The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation.
  4. Power was dispersed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. Even in time of war, the authority granted to the leaders was temporary and the power of the people to remove them was direct and simple.
  5. Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first of all with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally, the nation.
  6. They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote. They divided the people into units of families, ten families, fifty, hundred, and thousand families, respectively; each unit voting for a leader.
  7. They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges.
  8. The system of justice was structured on the basis of severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had been wronged. There were only four “crimes” against the whole people: treason, by betraying own people; failure to defend country; desertion; and sexual perversion. These were considered capital offenses. All others required reparation to the person who had been wronged.
  9. They always attempted to solve problems on the level where the problem originated. If this was impossible they went no higher than was absolutely necessary to get a remedy. Usually only the most complex problems involving …the whole people, ever went to the leaders for solution. (Skousen, 13-14)


Contrast between Ruler’s Law (all power in the ruler) and People’s Law (all power in the people)