Is the "United States" a Christian "nation?"
Micah 7:
Woe is me! For I have become like one who, after the summer fruit has
been gathered, after the vintage has been gleaned, finds no cluster to
eat; there is no first-ripe fig for which I hunger. The faithful have
disappeared from the land, and there is no one left who is upright;
they all lie in wait for blood, and they hunt each other with nets.
Written in the real world by Marc Stevens
A popular myth is the "United States" is a "Christian nation"
or a "nation" founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is
actually two separate myths: 1) there is a "nation" and
2) it's founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.
The first myth, that there is a "nation," is proven to be a
myth by Judeo-Christian ethics themselves. As I will show,
a "nation," as we know it, cannot be founded on Judeo-Christian
ethics. This is based a simple truth: no service or product
should be provided at the barrel of a gun.
To unravel these myths, we must know what a "nation" such
as the so-called "United States" is, or is supposed to be.
As the name suggests, the "United States" is more than one
"state" joined together. What is a "state" though? We can
quickly dispel the political nonsense a "state" is a
geographic location such as "New York." If not, then
politicians should explain where the "State of New York"
was on July 3rd, 1776.
A "state" is defined as "A body politic, occupying a definite
territory, and politically organized under one government."
Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1210. The "United States"
is "A body politic and corporate." Ballentine's Law Dictionary,
page 1318. A "body politic" is "formed by a voluntary
association of individuals: it is a social compact." Preamble,
Massachusetts Constitution and Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113.
"Government" is alleged to be men and women providing the
service of protecting "Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness" to those men and women who "Consent" to such
service, Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776. In reality
though, "government" is one man controlling another man
without the latter's consent ostensibly for the
latter's own "good."
Knowing this, let's look at the facts. The "states" and the
"United States" were allegedly created by pieces of paper and
ink called "constitutions." Being nothing more than paper and
ink, "constitutions" are only obligatory on men and women as
contracts, agreements or compacts. After all, a "body politic"
is supposed to be a "voluntary association." I recommend
reading Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of
No Authority. As stated therein, the "constitution" is unsigned
and as such created nothing. Myth number one is dispelled on
that alone (there are other reasons not included herein): there
are no "states" and no "United States." In other words, there
is no "nation."
Let's look at just a few common Judeo-Christian ethics and
compare them with the real-life application of those four
pieces of paper and ink called the "constitution." The question
here is this: Is the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness" provided in a manner consistent with
Judeo-Christian ethics?
There are "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt
not bear false witness against thy neighbor." - Exodus 20:13,
15-16. And "This is my commandment, That ye love one another,
as I have
loved you." - John 15:12.
Are you free to accept and support the "constitution" (four
pieces of paper and ink) or not? Free means there are no strings
or conditions attached, such as being killed, robbed and lied
to if you don't accept. Do you have a choice to not accept the
wonderful "protection" (remember 9/11?) and other pretended
"services" offered by the "constitution?" If so, are you
obligated to pay for such services i.e., your "fair share of
taxes?" Can you decline paying "taxes" without being killed,
robbed or lied to by men and women claiming to be a "state?"
Let me first dispel the claim you can "just move to another
country." Such emotional claim is ridiculous because the
"United States" is not a geographic location but instead
ostensibly a "voluntary association of individuals." It also
supports the fact the "constitution" is not offered freely.
The "constitution" isn't offered freely on a take-it-or-leave
it basis like contracts or agreements. Remember, if not a
contract, the "constitution" binds no one and creates nothing
but is just four really old pieces of paper and ink. Those
"services" are provided and paid for on a compulsory basis;
your "Consent" has nothing to do with it.
So, to answer the question, NO; the service of protecting
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is NOT provided
in a manner consistent with the above Judeo-Christian ethics:
"Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth
a city by iniquity!" - Habakkuk 2:12.
The idea there's a "benefit" to people because a group of men
and women provide their "services" on a compulsory basis and
this so-called "benefit" then somehow "obligates" people to
pay "taxes" is preposterous. That's how the mob does business.
The "constitution" is offered on a compulsory or violent basis.
This contradicts "state constitutions" and the Declaration of
Independence that state it's "voluntary" and by "Consent."
This is inconsistent with Exodus 20:15 and John 15:12. What
if you refuse to "pay your fair share?" Refuse to "pay your
fair share" and you provide these valiant protectors of "Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" with an awesome
opportunity to contradict Exodus 20:13.
If you doubt application of the "constitution" contradicts
Exodus 20:13 and John 15:12, then go back into the "history"
books and refresh your memory about the "civil war." Read about
the slaughter of men, women and children because they decided
to leave the pretended "voluntary association of individuals."
So much for the asinine "if you don't like this country then
leave." If you still doubt this, read article 1 § 2 of the
Nevada "constitution." For those who are not faint of heart,
grow marijuana on land you are convinced you own. When the
men with machine guns show up, boldly tell them you have
no agreement or "social compact" with them and they should
get off your property immediately. When you say it make sure
your hands are empty and where the agriculture police can
see them.
Even if we assume there's a "nation," it was not based on
Judeo-Christian ethics because those so-called "services" are
paid for on a violent basis. The taking of property by force
or threats of force is called stealing. The act of stealing
and "taxation" are virtually identical. You don't have to take
my word for it either:
"tax. A forced burden. A tax is not regarded as a debt inthe ordinary sense of the term, for the reason that a tax
does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer."
Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255-56. Real customers,
voluntarily accepting real services, incur debts.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know and understand
"taxes" are based on violence. People pay to avoid the violence.
A clue to the quality of the "services" provided by the local
"state" is the fact that payment is compulsory. What kind of
people provide their "services" at the barrel of a gun? Why
would a "valuable service" everybody allegedly wants have to
be provided on a compulsory basis?
Oh yeah, what about the part in the Bible about Caesar? "Render
therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." -
Matthew 22:21. This is an absurd attempt to justify the violent
taking of property i.e., robbery. Caesar and his henchmen
conquered the Jews; he never claimed to be protecting them
with their consent as their servant. Do the people who make
this claim believe there was a "social compact" between Caesar
and the Jews?
And for those people reading this who need to divert attention
by making claims about being "free" in this "country," let me
point out just how "free" we are; that is just another myth
like the one there is a "country."
You are not "free" to post anything on the internet unless you
get permission first. Don't believe me? OK, don't pay the "tax"
your ISP collects for the "privilege" of doing business.
If you have a dial-up connection you better make sure all
those "communication taxes" are paid first.
You're free to be in any profession you want? Nonsense; better
go to those "state" approved "schools" first. Make sure you get
permission to work by getting a so-called "license." Oh, your
chosen profession isn't "required" to have a "license" just yet?
Make sure you fill in your "tax forms" before you start and
don't forget to report every single penny. Forget ten little
pennies and you are suddenly a felon and your home "seized"
to pay for your "trial."
Free to marry the person of your choice? Think again, you need
a so-called "license." Free to live with that significant other?
Sorry, that's a crime also. Think you can freely engage in
consensual sexual relations with another adult in the privacy
of that home you think you own? Think again.
Believe you're "free" to walk down the street? Too bad, better
have a "state" issued ID card or you'll be awarded six months
in a "state" jail if your friendly neighborhood "cop" decides
it's your lucky day to be "protected."
Freedom to say "No" to a service or product you don't want to
have? Yeah right, just say no to the IRS, DEA or the ATF?
Sorry, I want my head to stay on top of my neck.
And if you think you have property rights you are sadly mistaken
in the eyes of those men and women pretending to be a "state."
To these pretended "servants" individual men and women own
NOTHING: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the
State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of
Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use
must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the
necessities of the State." - Senate Resolution #62, from
April 1933.
I think the point is made.
There is no "nation." To be based on Judeo-Christian ethics,
the "nation" would have to be a "voluntary association." The
service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness" would have to be provided on a purely voluntary
basis and that means it's also paid for just like every
other service - voluntarily.
Because what is supposed to be a "nation" today was, and is,
based on violence, there is no "nation" because "nations" and
"states" are "voluntary." Go ahead and challenge this, keep
in mind the founding "constitutions" would then contradict
Exodus 20:13 i.e., a "body politic" is "formed by a voluntary
association of individuals: it is a social compact." Preamble,
Massachusetts Constitution and Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113.
This presents statists with a real problem: if "nations" are
NOT voluntary then that itself contradicts Judeo-Christian
ethics. It proves there is no "voluntary association" but a
violent one. If violent, then there is hardly freedom and
liberty let alone being founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.
There is no "nation" or pretended "state." Just a group of
men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun. As
Ernest Hancock says, "There are only two types of people;
those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave
them alone."
Wake up America: There is no "nation" and there never was.
Stop supporting unproductive anti-social individuals who won't
leave you alone.
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/
Secrecy costs rise, study says
BY Florence Olsen - Friday, September 17,
2004
Report on Secrecy in the US Administration
A study on secrecy in the US administration found that growth in
secrecy since 2001 caused federal government and private industry officials to
spend $6.5 billion on classifying government information in
fiscal 2003.
That amount represents a $1.8 billion, or 38 percent, increase,compared to the amount spent on classification in fiscal 2001.
The classification expenses were for maintaining secure information systems,
controlling physical access to buildings, training employees and providing
background checks for government and contractor employees.
The costs are cited in a recent study conducted by the House
Government Reform Committee's Minority Staff Special Investigations Division
at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking minority member.
The 81-page report, released Sept. 14, quotes experts who said the
government's policies on Freedom of Information Act requests have changed
under the Bush administration.
One of those experts, Meredith Fuchs, general counsel for the National
Security Archive at George Washington University, said in the report:
"The Bush administration started on a bad foot when Attorney General Ashcroft
introduced a policy that discouraged government agencies from releasing
records under FOIA, even when they have the discretion to release. It got
worse when they elevated privacy, corporate and other interests above any
public interest in information."
The report concludes that administration policies have undermined public
access to government information.