Often I espouse some principle that is a basic truth of Christianity and a basic truth of America’s founding and people oppose it outright and call me a liberal, even those who are in Facebook TEA Party groups who are supposed to be fans of America’s founding. I can assure you I’m not a liberal. Here is a quick list of some of America’s founding principles and the implications that “conservatives” hate.
1. Rights come from God.
Hated implication A: Immigrants have the same rights as Americans. How can you abuse immigrants or even joke about killing them at the border as I’ve seen many people do? (And I actually don’t think they were joking.) Hated implication B: If you reject God, there is no basis for rights at all. Any rights you may have could only come from men. In reality, our rights are to do whatever is not a sin (Romans 13:3-4).
2. Government is subject to the law.
Hated implication A: Cops are not above the law. Cops have to obey the law. Hated implication B: You better know the law and your rights because men have died for those rights and surrendering your rights is disrespecting their sacrifice. Stop licking boots.
3. Liberty is more important than life.
Hated implication A: Freedom is worth dying for. Ben Franklin said those who would give up freedom for security are worthy of neither. Hated implication B: If people doing legal activities make you mad, sorry, but life is tough.
4. Killing tyrants is perfectly acceptable.
Hated implication: You realize that the founding fathers were killing police, right?
5. People are to keep government accountable and within the bounds of the Constitution.
Hated implication: How in the world could we expect children who are educated by the government to keep government accountable? Don’t send your kids to public school.
I know people who don’t celebrate Christmas because they think Christmas trees and other Christmas traditions are pagan–same thing with Easter. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t celebrate Independence Day/Fourth of July. Of course, that is the date the Declaration of Independence was signed. That is, political leaders in the 13 colonies told the existing government that they were no longer going to submit to them. They were forming their own new government. They were no longer going to obey the King and his laws or pay their taxes to Britain. In fact, they ended up killing British government agents and soldiers.
The patriots wrote eloquently about resisting tyranny and the God-given rights of men. The king was abusive, but only a fraction as abusive as today’s U.S. government. He charged a very small, yet still unjust tax, a fraction of what we pay today, and the colonists revolted. The way the vast majority of Americans twist Romans 13 into teaching nearly blind obedience to government would indicate that the founding fathers were in grave sin. Yet I know of zero conservative Christian Americans who aren’t proud Americans who celebrate Independence Day with vim and vigor.
When I point out that inland immigration checkpoints are wicked, and police are an unamerican, socialist institution, public schools are funded by the most evil form of taxation–property taxes, and so forth, conservatives get mad at me and say I’m the unamerican one and I should leave the country. But who is really unamerican? What is the definition of what America is and what it ought to be? Is it defined by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible? Or is it defined by proudly pledging allegiance to whatever it is now? If what defines a good American is how proud you are of what America currently is and saying the pledge of allegiance, then I guess they’re right. I’m unamerican. I’m not pledging my allegiance to a country that has betrayed its founding values. I’m not pledging allegiance to a country that has allowed the murder of 60 million babies and takes 50% or more of our income through all forms of taxation or that stops people as they travel through the southern U.S. to ask them what their citizenship is. By that definition I’m definitely unamerican and so are the founding fathers. However, I think the Bible, the Declaration and to a lesser extent, the Constitution define what a true American is and I’m, unfortunately one of the few true Americans left.
I don’t believe anything the government says. They may be right on some things or tell the truth sometimes, so you have to verify everything they say. Reagan said we would trust the Soviets, but verify. I say we don’t trust the U.S. government but verify.
We ought to be able to read the Constitution and have a good understanding of what the laws should be. It’s not written for dummies, but generally, someone with some effort should be able to generally apply it and come to an understanding of what their rights are. One principle is that the federal government is limited to powers that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Of course, the government and liberals hate that. It turns out conservatives hate it as well.
One way they’ve gotten around that, rather than amending the Constitution is to warp and bend the foreign commerce clause. That clause is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 and gives Congress the right “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes…” That seems quite clear.
Do you see anywhere where that clause gives Congress the ability to deal with individuals? If a foreigner were to arrive at a port or cross the border and look for a job, what does that have to do with a foreign nation, much less commerce? You’d have to really disrespect the Constitution to say that applies to individuals crossing a border. In conservative parlance, that sounds like a libtard interpretation of the Constitution. Conservatives would never put up with such foolishness when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
But, that is the exact basis that the Supreme Court cites to give Congress power to regulate immigration. In Fong Yue Ting v. The United States (1893), the Supreme Court ruled that Chinese immigrants can be deported because of that clause that says nothing about individuals or immigration.
Samuel Nelson, Supreme Court Justice from 1845-1872 stated: “No direct authority over aliens has been delegated to Congress by the Constitution.”
In reality, the Supreme Court has twisted and judged incorrectly time and again. They’ve ruled that babies can be murdered in the womb; black people aren’t fully human and on and on. I use their decisions when they suit me and reject them when they are clearly wrong. They aren’t to be trusted. They’re not an authority on anything without threats of violence. They’re nothing more than pedophiles in weird black dresses.
Americans are steeped in socialism and statism. That definitely includes Republicans and conservatives and even those who hate socialism. They have socialist presuppositions and positions. Someone who hates socialism, but supports police is actually a socialist. Someone who hates socialist healthcare but supports the military is actually a socialist. Someone who hates socialism but wants the government to vet immigrants and travelers is actually a socialist.
The common analogy that socialists who don’t realize they’re socialists use is comparing the border to your house. They say, “You control who comes and goes from your house, so the government should also control who comes and goes from the country.” This belief reeks of socialist presuppositions. Here’s a response I posted, and I’m posting it here so I can come back and don’t have to retype it.
———————————————————————————————— You’re comparing the country to your home. Your home is private property. You have the right to control who comes and goes. Private property is a capitalist (and also biblical) idea that is incompatible with socialism, right?
To say that the government can control who comes and goes from the country is to say that the government or the commune has some kind of ownership over the country as a whole. That is a socialist belief. The government shouldn’t be allowed to control who comes and goes, because it doesn’t own the country. If you believe the government owns the country, you at least have some socialist presuppositions, whether you realize it or not.
The Bible teaches that the government should have zero control over someone who isn’t a criminal. Traveling or working in a foreign country is not a sin, therefore it’s none of the government’s business. ————————————————————————————————
The found fathers listed immigration restrictions as a grievance against the King George in the Declaration of Independence. They wanted open borders.
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”
Someone pointed out to me that this isn’t necessarily saying they wanted open borders, just that they didn’t like the British hindering immigration; maybe they just wanted to limit immigration as they saw fit. I would agree that it’s not giving a lot of detail on what they wanted, but we can see what they wanted after they came to power. Not only did they keep the borders wide open, but they didn’t even give the federal government the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution. The U.S. had open borders until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and almost completely open borders until the 1920s, and open enough for most people to come in even until 9/11.
My friend recommended I watch “Uncle Tom” on Amazon Prime. It makes a lot of good points, and some that I disagree with. I think Larry Elder misses the point and isn’t thinking clearly on some things.
Before that, I will say, I love Herman Cain and his attitude and stories. If someone is a racist, that is their problem. It sucks and I acknowledge that it can and has been costly to people, but we are all responsible to God for what we do with our lives. America has a lot of problems, but there are still a lot of opportunities.
Larry Elder, just to give an example of his erroneous thinking, talks about how immigration should be controlled by government, because immigrants shouldn’t be getting welfare. So, without realizing it, he’s defending the integrity of the welfare system of a nearly-bankrupt, evil government. Why not let the government and the unbiblical welfare system die? He ends up advocating unjust, unamerican, big-government, socialist border policies to protect the unjust, unamerican, big-government, socialist welfare system. Retarded.
But that was all just an aside to the point of the movie. At one point, a guy points out that cops are more likely to kill black people. Elder spouts off a bunch of statistics that were beside the point. Police are a big-government, standing army, funded by socialism. They should be opposed by all conservatives. You can disagree over whether police are systemically racist, but don’t pretend to be a conservative and support the existence of police. Larry Elder repeatedly shows himself to be a fake conservative.
The solution is not to lecture people about racism like liberals, or defend cops at all costs like conservatives, but to end all socialist programs (like police) and let the free market dole out consequences to racists. The color that speaks in the free market is green.
Here’s Bojidar Marinov’s explanation of how individual cops may not be racist while still taking part in a racist system. The rest of this post is his words.
Most people, especially white people, do not understand how institutional (systemic) racism works. They think it is white cops hating black men. But that would be individual, not institutional racism. Institutional/systemic is when the very institution/system is geared so that it targets certain racial group.
Here’s how it works:
All government agencies are under constant pressure to justify their existence and budgets. They need to show some activity that the majority of constituents would deem “necessary.” Police is not an exception. They need to show arrests. More precisely, a GROWING number of arrests to justify their growing force and budgets. But in a world of declining crime figures, that is a challenge.
It is an even greater challenge in a society of increasing wealth, where more and more people can afford good lawyers. Especially in the white neighborhoods or in white-collar areas like Downtown Manhattan. The cost of making arrests there is too high.
Where the cost is low is the black neighborhoods. The probability of a black man to be well-connected and affluent enough to cause legal trouble is very low. Thus, patrolling black neighborhoods is like shooting fish in a barrel for cops. They can make their quotas easily, at a low cost, without any hate to any black man. (That includes black cops.) And indeed, there have been multiple testimonies by cops themselves that this is a regular policy.
There’s something more, and this is the really inconvenient truth: This practice is encouraged by racism in the general public that is not self-conscious but still real. Most people react differently to a white man being arrested and a black man being arrested. And in the latter, it is always assumed that he must have done something. That’s why Chauvin was not concerned that he was on camera; in his eyes, he was doing a service to the society. That has always been the perception. The black man must have done something, and the cop is there to protect us all. He meets his quota, and the society has a “proof” that police protects us against dangerous criminals.
Thus, in order to have institutional/systemic racism, you don’t have to prove that any particular cop is necessarily a racist. You just need to understand how the institution/system works.
And if you want an analogy, no socialist self-consciously hates successful people. It’s when the system is applied, it destroys success by its own operation. Same with systemic racism.
That’s why police needs to go. It will always target the weakest minorities in order to justify its existence. The only solution to it is a return to an America without a standing army on home soil.
“Many of the same people who today complain about vaccination passports are also the kind of people who would complain about “illegal” immigrants, insisting that everyone must go through the government process of getting a visa.”
“Ironically, however, an immigration visa is, among other things, also a vaccination passport itself. One can’t apply for it unless they present a proof of having been vaccinated. We are talking about 6 to 10 different mandatory vaccines, depending on the country of origin. That is a mandatory part of the legal immigration process.”
“I have said it many times before: Whatever you want the government to do to the stranger, it will eventually do it to you. There is no escape from this rule.”
“Enjoy your vaccination passports. And remember: you asked for them.”
It’s easy to point out the problems with conservative border policy. Changing someone’s mind is not so easy.
Some of each. Press both buttons. Still, it ignores the real question about why they are invading our border. If they were honorable, they would stay in Mexico and start a revolution to overthrow their own corrupt government.
Just like the Irish, English, Germans, Dutch and others, jolly dishonourable of them to do so.
So wrong, Nathan. 12 million Germans (or other nationality) did not disrespect the US by sneaking across the border at night. Mexicans and those from Central America embarrass themselves with their presumption. If 12 million Chinese sneaked across our southern border, they would have been shot.
We welcome immigrants in the USA, just as it should be. However, people who come here should rightfully bring their education, good health and financial or intellectual capital–and do the paperwork to get here legally and honorably.
Invading Mexican hordes do not offer any of that. They bring, ignorance, disease and poverty to the US. People around the world should be unhappy about that… all the illegal aliens are stealing the opportunity from qualified legal immigrants to be here.
Because honour is defined by compliance with Federal bureaucratic edicts, I understand.
Honor is best defined by self-respect. 12 million Mexicans and people from Central Americans apparently don’t have that. They are willing to lie, cheat and steal to invade a land where they are not wanted. They know they are not wanted because of the Border Patrol, the fences and the fact many pay to get help to break the law.
Some Mexicans and people from Central America immigrate to the US legally. They are welcome, of course. The others are not.
I never realised American Conservatives were so enamoured with arbitrary legislation invented by the big government brigade and put into force by bureaucrats. I though they wanted freedom. Very interesting.
Good job the huddled masses of Europeans were independently wealthy and well qualified, not like that dishonourable mass of Mexicans and Central Americans.
The purpose of this website is to promote the idea that a county or city or some other small group of people could secede from the union, or as an alternative to formally seceding just ignore whatever the federal or state government tells them to do that they don’t like.
Sanctuary cities are in the news and the republican presidential candidates are shocked and confused that cities are ignoring laws they don’t like, and have been doing so for decades in some cases. Of course sanctuary cities are resisting federal tyranny in the form of immigration laws. Where a county clerk makes a sanctuary county to resist same-sex “marriage” they make campaign appearances. So they’ve revealed themselves to be hypocrites with a double standard.
The GOP candidates aren’t against locals flouting federal tyranny. They’re against allowing “illegal” immigrants to stay in the country.
This nation was founded on the idea that there is a law superior to the laws of men. Where the laws of men contradict God’s laws, it is the duty of the people to resist those laws, for they are no laws at all. That is the whole point of this website and what I’ve been saying for quite a while now.
And that concept is a concept that works, and is in force in over 300 cities and counties. Here’s more on sanctuary cities:
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
