The Early Legal System in America

I wish people knew and understood how things used to work in America and how different they are today, for truly we have come a long way--a long way in the WRONG DIRECTION! 

 

In school I was taught that the great thing about America was that you were innocent until proven guilty.  (Whoops.  Excuse me.  I got that wrong.  I was taught that you were presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.) That's what made America great!  You had a government that gave you the benefit of the doubt, and they treated you civil.  And the legal system was set up to be fair to you whether you were guilty or not.  But now times have changed.  Today you are automatically viewed as guilty (not presumed that way, you are just viewed that way), until proven innocent! 

 

Let me show you the difference.  In early colonial America and even under the Constitution up until the time of the Civil War, this is how the legal system worked.  If a man was wronged by another, the wounded party would go to the court and make an accusation to the judge.  The judge would then send the accused party a legal document called a "Writ of Habeus Corpus."  ("Habeus Corpus" is a latin term that pretty much means "Have your body...")  The sheriff would deliver this paper to the accused, and the paper would instruct that person to have their body in court on an appointed day and time to stand before his accuser.  This accused person was not jailed.  Why?  Because they were presumed innocent.  And, they did not come to court to prove they were innocent.  They went to court for the accuser to try to prove they were guilty.  (For the accuser could have been lying!)  This was fair to both parties.  The accused had time to prepare his defense, while the accuser had his day in court to met the man face to face of whom he felt wronged him.  The judge presided and heard both sides.

 

Now, if the accused did not show up in court on the appointed time before the judge and his accuser, then and only then, was a paper called a "Warrant" issued by the judge.  This was a warrant for the arrest of said person.  And, (watch this now, as it's very important) that person was not arrested for the crime itself that he was accused of, rather he was arrested for the crime of disobeying the judge's demand of not appearing in court!  That is, he was only arrested for not making an appearance in court.

Once the accused was apprehended for not appearing in court, he remained in jail until trial.  And, he was viewed as probably guilty for not going to court to defend himself.  But even then he was still to be presumed innocent, and it was the prosecutor who was to prove that he was guilty.

 

This is how things worked in early America.  What a great justice system!  If a man did right, he was given the benefit of the doubt by his government and had the right to know when an accuser chose to sue him.  He also knew the date of the trial and had plenty of time to prepare his defense.  And, if a man was indeed guilty, he had time to run.  He could "leave town" so to speak, and never look back.  In fact, if he left the country he could get away from facing up to his crime, (and in those times many people did just this, traveling to Australia, Africa, New Zealand, India, and other places) and even get away with it in some cases.  This was fine with the government, as that was one less law breaker in their midst!  And one less trial a judge had to preside over.  The victim had been defrauded and there was nothing more that could be done, end of story as far as the legal system was concerned. 

 

All this worked well, and everything was great, that is until the Civil War.  And then everything changed.  Who's to blame?  That would be Abraham Lincoln.  (He's probably one of the worst President's America ever had, but they still try to make him out to be a "honest" and good guy.)

 

It was Abraham Lincoln who did away with the "Writ of Habeus Corpus."  And, it has yet to be instated or put back into effect even in our own time.  Further, under his administration Lincoln and his cabinet and his army practiced forced arrests of people upon mere "suspicion" of guilt.  That is people were rounded up and imprisoned indefinitely without any proof whatsoever of having committed a crime. (They were viewed as guilty until proven innocent). Not only was this a great injustice, but many of them were not even given the right to a trial by jury, nor were they allowed to plead their innocence.  They were simply locked up and the key was thrown away upon mere suspicion of them being a Southern Sympathizer.  How is this fair, just, or righteous?  It's not.

 

Today, the legal system of the United States of America is very different from what it was like in the Pre-Lincoln days.  If you are suspected of a crime in our day, the police can go to a judge and get a warrant without a writ of habeus corpus, and they can come into your house against your will (never mind the Constitution has a clause against unreasonable searches and seizures) and arrest you and throw you in jail.  They can further take anything they want and keep it.  This doesn't sound like justice, does it?  This sounds more like the Communist KGB or the Nazi thugs in Germany. Where's presumed innocence until proven guilty?

 

Furthermore, the authorities can arrest you and keep you in jail until trail (if they allow you to even have one, for under the Patriot Act they can hold you indefinitely now if they want to).  You might be allowed out of jail on bond if you can afford to pay the outrageous amounts usually imposed by the judge, but if not then you must remain in jail until you go to trail.  And then during your trial, you are not presumed innocent until proven guilty, rather you are already presumed guilty until you can prove your innocence.  What a fearful and oppressive system! 

 

Doesn't the early legal system in America sounds much better?  When we compare how it was then and how it is now, the difference is like night and day.  One system allows you freedom to either defend yourself from false accusations or to admit your guilt and pay restitution.  (I forgot to mention that part.  If a man was guilty he didn't have to do prison time.  He only did it if he couldn't pay grievances to the accuser.  If he could pay, the judge made him do so, and he was then set free).  But look at our system today.  It demands jail time, and doesn't just dish it out as a penalty once a person has been found guilty by a jury, but it often makes a person rot in jail as they wait for their trial.  Where's the freedom?

 

What's changed over the years?  The attitude of the government towards its citizens is what changed.  Before, Americans were viewed as sovereigns with certain rights, given them by GOD himself.  (What the Declaration of Independence clearly states.) Now, God has been kicked out and the government has become secular, viewing its citizens as nothing more than property which they presume are always guilty until they can prove they are not.  (Which incidentally is how a Communist Government views their own citizens). 

 

Because of the lack of belief in God, there is a widespread lack of morals, and this has led to much more crime.  Because of this the American court systems are over filled, and it's easy for judges, lawyers, and juries to become cold and callous, thinking everyone is guilty.  They have become used to dealing with people who truly are guilty, and thus, they feel that anyone who is accused is most likely guilty so they should be locked up.  But what about those who are innocent?  Should we not treat everyone the same whether they are guilty or not?  And how can we know until after they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers?  Why do we automatically assume they are guilty and treat them as such?

 

I believe what America needs is to get back to the old system.  What a great system it was.  You give the accused a chance to appear in court after serving them with a Writ of habeus corpus.  That gives them a heads up that they are accused.  If they are guilty and run, then we know they are most likely guilty.  And, we treat them as malcontents fleeing from the law.  The judge serves a warrant for their arrest and they go to jail, not for the crime itself, but for disobeying the judge.  Next, you give them a speedy trial.  (This waiting in jail for years before trial is ridiculous!  What a waste of taxpayers money!)  Next, you still treat them as innocent until they are proven guilty without any shadow of a doubt.  And then we allow them the option of either paying financially for the crime themselves or choose to reject payment and do jail time as payment for their crime.  This would help clear out the prisons, for if a man can pay money as restitution, that would help pay for a lot of the expenses of the legal system. 

 

This would work great for every crime in America, except murder, rape, and kidnapping.  For these crimes a person should not be able to buy their way out.  Nor should a person go to jail for life for these crimes.  Rather, there should be capital punishment if a person is found guilty of these heinous crimes.  But this is not my own personal opinion.  This is what the Bible teaches, and is something that for many years was even practiced in the American justice system.  Even up until the beginning of the 1900s there were still public hangings of those found guilty of these crimes.  Why?  Because when you intend to steal the life of another human being or defile them through rape, you have forfeited your own life.  And for this reason, you should not be allowed to live!  Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth!

 

Today it's quite different.  We let murderers, rapists, and kidnappers go to jail for several decades, and then we let them out.  And quite often, the first thing they do when they get out is go and do those very same things all over again, raping, killing, kidnapping.  And then it's back to jail with them, and the process starts all over again.  Why is this?   It's almost like the modern Legal System rather than punishing true transgressors is guilty of empowering them to commit those heinous crimes again.  Why have they stopped practicing capital punishment?

 

In summary, America used to be great.  It was so because each individual was viewed as a sovereign citizen with many rights given them by God.  And, if one of them was accused by his fellow citizen, then a just and righteous system was in place to protect the accused in case the accuser was deceitfully trying to falsely accuse a righteous man.  But if the accused was guilty, the system was set up to make sure he was not taken and hung by out of control mobs just upon a mere accusation of guilt.  Rather he was given a fair and speedy trial and witnesses were given ample time to tell what they saw.  And if a man was truly guilty, he had a chance to make things right, by making restitution to those he wronged.  But in case of murder, kidnapping, or rape, when there was no way whatsoever to make things right, it was the duty of the state to execute judgment, and they did, which usually was in the form of hanging or sometimes in front of a firing squad.

 

But today America's legal system is in decline.  It's full of guilty people who fall through the cracks and quickly are set free only to go and do the same crimes all over again, while sometimes (and probably more often than we think) innocent people are wrongly jailed and left to sit in prison for crimes they didn't commit.   It's sad that no one cares or seems to want to do anything about it.  I submit that maybe the answer is to go back to the old way of doing things.  What's wrong with serving a Writ of Habeus Corpus first?  Then, and only then, if a man doesn't appear in court, have a judge issue an arrest warrant.  And then hold the trial.  It worked back then, and it will work today.  If only they would try it!

 

 

THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY IN THE CIVIL WAR

If you have studied anything about the Civil War, chances are that you have been indoctrinated to believe that the Civil War was only about one thing and one thing only:  SLAVERY.

But this is not entirely true.  In fact, it's not true at all.  That is of course unless you define the term sightly diferently than most people do and and who the term is is applied to.  For there is more than one kind of slavery.

Many today believe the South was the bad guy in the Civil War, and they were "evil" for owning slaves.  But is that true?  Was that really all there was to it?  Or was there more?  If you will study history, you will see there was a whole lot more to it than just the slavery issue.  In fact, the Civil War, like almost every war ever fought in the history of man, had a lot to do with money, land, and power.

Before going any further on the topic of slavery, let me briefly state what I believe personally about Slavery.  I don't like it.  The way I look at it, I would not want to be a slave to anyone, and for that reason, I wouldn't want to own a slave myself.  In other words, because I wouldn't want to be "enslaved," I would not want to partake in enslaving others to myself.  It's that simple to me.  It's so clear cut and to the point.

With this stated, let us get back to our topic at hand:  Slavery and the Civil War.  And we must first ask ourselves why Southerners had slaves.  The reason they had slaves was three fold:

1.  BECAUSE THEY WERE SOLD TO THEM BY ENGLAND AND THE NORTHERN STATES.

1.  BECAUSE IT WAS LEGAL.

2.  BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE BIBLE.

If you know your history, you know that it was the British who first brought slaves to America (or the Portuguese, depending upon which version of history you choose to believe).  And if you have done your homework, you also know that it was the Northern states and their Northern Ships which sold slaves to the South.  So Southerners owned slaves because they were taught by the British and the Northerners that it was okay to have them.   In fact, they encouraged it.  They wanted $, and their practice of capturing and selling negroes brought them a pretty penny.  It was all about money, and the North got rich off of their business of selling slaves.  It was the NORTH who started the slave trade!  Southerners just bought them.  Why?  Because they assumed the Northerners thought it was okay!

The second reason that Southerners had slaves was because it was legal.  The laws at the time allowed it.  And as you probably know, when the Constitution of the United States of America was set up, slavery was written into the document and allowed.  This is important to know, as Southerners were labeled "rebels" by the Northern hordes, and "immoral" for owning slaves.  But they were simply following the laws of the land, laws which were set up in the Northern colonies, in New England.

The third reason that the South owned slaves was because they read that it was allowed in the Bible.  As you probably know, the South was as a whole a very religious and God-fearing people.  They believed the word of God (the King James Bible).  So when they read in the book of Genesis that Canaan was to be "cursed" and to be a "servant of servants" they believed it was to be so.  (For those who don't know, Canaan, was the son of Ham, a black man).

Almost all Southerners read the scriptures, and because of this they believe slavery was not wrong.  For it was clearly something that God allowed in the Bible.  Many Southerners took 1 Timothy 6:1-5 as a very clear passage that the owning of slaves was indeed a Biblical ideal.  There we read: 

6:1  Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

2  And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

And many Southerners even took verse 3-5 as applying to the North, when they tried to outlaw slavery, even taking the last four words "from such withdraw thyself" as a scriptural passage in favor of sucession from the union.

Southerners, therefore, viewed slavery as something not only that was legal but also something that was Biblical.  And they practiced it not only because it was allowed in the Constitution of the United States, but because it was clearly found in the Bible.

Now whether or not they were right is subject to debate.  Many people today hate slavery, and for this reason they want to demonize the South and uplift the North, and their noble cause to free the slaves.  But to do so is quite hypocritical.  For history clearly teaches us that the North was those who sold the slaves to the South to begin with, and it was the Northern New England States as well as the Southern ones who wrote the Constitution, allowing slavery. 

Thus, wouldn't it stand to reason, that to be against slavery and the South demands that a person be against the Constitution, the North, and the Bible?  (I'll let you answer that one for yourself).

But here, we will not delve into the moral issue of slavery, and whether it is right or wrong to own slaves.  We will leave that to others.  What we need to examine now is whether or not the cause of the Civil War was about "slavery" or not. 

My own personal belief is as follows:  The Civil War was not about slavery, although the Civil War was indeed about slavery.

Kinda sounds like a conflicting statement, doesn't it?  But please let me explain.  The truth is that in the eye of the beholder, something can look completely different to one person than to another, especially when people don't see eye to eye.  Thus, the issue of Slavery and the Civil War all depends upon the eye of the beholder. 

To the North, many abolitionists believed they were fighting an immoral foe who owned slaves, something they deplored.  So they thought they were fighting a just war, because they were helping to free a certain race of people.  (Note:  Not all Union soldiers thought this way.  In fact, very few did.  The truth is most of the Northern soldiers were drafted and had to fight.  And they didn't really care about black people.  Other Northerners actually owned slaves themselves!  In fact, General Grant owned slaves even after the Emancipation Proclamation and even had them in the White House when he was president!)

To the South, the war was not about slavery at all, rather about "States Rights" or their God-given and Constitutional right to govern themselves.  They did not look at the North as people who were trying to steal their slaves, rather as invaders on their own soverign soil, who were trying to take them over and enslave them to a tyrannical government, who would not even abide by its own laws.  (It's common to hear many stories of black slaves who fought along side their masters.  They too looked at the North as invading their land and trying to take away their soverign right to govern themselves).

So if you look at it from a Southern perspective, the Civil War was not about the slavery of black people, but free Southern Citizens who were fighting for their liberty, desiring not to be enslaved by a tyrannical government in Washington who wished to take away their rights.

Who was right is often a subject of debate, with people forming all sorts of opinions.  Some think the North was right, and are glad the North won.  But such people conviently overlook the horrible atrocities of the Northern occupation, and the many rapes (often on young black girls) and plunder and burning down of whole towns by Sherman's troops.  Nor do they desire to talk about the corrupt rule of the Carpet baggers, or the mass starvation of the South after the war. 

On the other hand, those who think the South was right don't take into consideration the Northern belief of "union" above all, and the desire to have a strong Centeralized big government in Washington under the rule of Lincoln.

One could argue either side.  But let's not argue at all.  Let's look not at the cause of the war, nor the actual war itself.  Instead, let's focus on the fruit of the war.  What did it produce?

The answer is not that simple.  For after the war, the United United States became a very big, powerful, and rich superpower.  It grew by leaps and bounds and eventually became the greatest country on earth!  

But what is it now.  It is better off than before?  The facts are that America today is almost exactly what it was in Lincoln's day.  It is a country divided.  Part of the country wants its freedoms back and wants to separate from a tyrannical government that wants to tax it to death.  The other part of the country likes the idea of communism and socialism, which is nothing sort of trading one's liberty for security, of which Benjamin Franklin aptly put it that if you do, you'll have neither liberty nor security.

In our day, our nation is in debt up to it's eyeballs.  There is more racial tension and terrorism today then ever before in the history of the nation. 

It's hard to find a job.  It's harder to make ends meet.  It's even harder to suceed.  It's almost like we are living just like those Southerners did in the South during the time of Reconstruction.  No one has any money, and for this reason the economy is so bad.

It's almost like the government is once again trying to make slaves out of us all by taking away our rights, our property, our freedom.  No, that couldn't be, could it???

However you look at it, the issue of Slavery is indeed interwined with the Civil War.  But was it really a war to FREE slaves, or was it rather a war to ENSLAVE the populace.  This is something that you must decide for yourself.  Remember, history is always written by the conquering force.  And historically, they always seem to embellish the facts, and try to make themselves look better than they actually were. 

The Guilt of your Accusers!

When I was in Bible School a friend and fellow student told me something that I NEVER forgot until this very day.  It was so simple, yet so profound.  He said, "The thing that people accuse you of is most often the very thing they are guilty of themselves!"

Over the years I've found this to be true over 99% of the time.   Whenever someone calls you names, or accuses you of something, or attacks you personally with slander, and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are 100% innocent and they are LYING, then it's because they are guilty of that very same thing themselves!

Take Jesus for an example.  The Pharisees condemned him for blasphemy.  But was he guilty?  No, they were guilty of blaspheming God and their own Messiah!

Take Hitler.  He blamed the Jews for "money grubbing" and taking advantage of Germans.  What did he do?  The same exact thing!  (You should have seen Herman Goering's house.  It was full of the looted treasures of Europe!)

Take Stalin.  He said the Czars were to blame and that they were unfair towards the Russian people, empoverishing them and keeping them as subjects.  So what did he do?  He made Communism the national form of government, which EMPOVERISHED the people, and kept them as SUBJECTS who were abused by their own government.  (I won't even mention how many millions of his own people that Stalin murdered in cold blood).

Take any dictator you want.  It's all the same.  They claim those they are against are guilty of something, but if you give them power then they end up being guilty of the very exact thing they ACCUSED their predecessor of doing!  (Whether he really did do it or not). 

Modern liberals in America are a prime example.  They claim that their opponents are "racists."  However, when you look at their opponents you find they go out of their way to not be so.  However, the liberals cry aloud against white people, Jews, and others.  How can this be.  Oh, yeah, it's cause they are GUILTY of the very thing they ACCUSE others of!  (Lately, a cable newscaster said that the 2012 Iowa Caucuses don't matter because, and I quote, "They are too WHITE, too EVANGELICAL and too RURAL!"  Can you imagine?  Logically, she must against those things and in only helping BLACKS, ATHEISTS, and CITY DWELLERS.  But...  isn't that racist?  Why not treat all men equally?  Are blacks better than whites or vice versa?  Are atheists better than Christians?  Are City folk better than Country folk?  What a RACIST RANT from this liberal newscaster!)

In my own personal life, I've been attacked time and again, and it never ceases to amaze me how often I remember my old friend's statement, and how often it turns out to be true.  I've been accused time and again of things I'm not and/or things I have never done, but when I study the lives of those who accuse me, they are guilty of those very same things.  And, I'm sure you've seen this yourself in your own life. 

How about it?  Got any examples of people, politicians, dictators, etc., accusing others but then be guilty of that very same thing themselves?  You can leave them in the comments box.  I'd love to hear them!

The Devaluing of America

Yesterday my wife and I ran errands.  We always try to pass out tracts and witness when we go to town, and we had a great opportunity to witness to a Salvation Army volunteer.  But that's a different story.

While traveling, we saw a sign on the side of the road that said, "Moving Sale."  Loving Garage Sales, we decided to stop, so we followed the signs to a beautiful home right on the water.  As we went inside we met the owner who told us about why he was selling everything.  His story was heart-breaking. 

He told us that three or four years ago his home was valued at 1.2 million dollars.  The plummeting economy slowly chipped away at the value of the house and now the house is estimated to be worth only about $700,000.  The problem is the man said he owed more than that on his mortage.  And the reason he was selling everything was in the hopes of being able to make a few more payments on his mortage and hope someone will buy it before the bank forecloses on him. 

His story was so sad.  He said for five years he had the house on the market.  Not only had he bought the home years ago as an investment, and built many add-ons to the home to raise it's value, but he seriously thought he would eventually make money on the house and be able to sell it someday for a profit.  Especially since it was right on the water, with a long pier out on the water.

As I looked at his situation, I was saddened greatly.  I also looked around the neighborhood and all the homes in the area were also in foreclosure and up for sale.  What was worse was the majority of the homes were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Remember them?  Yep, they are the GOVERNMENTAL agencies that years ago the government started to "Help People."  Uh, huh.  Right.  (to be read sarcastically).

So let me see if I can get this straight and explain this for you folks that don't know what happened.  Yep, the government passed laws to "help" people which forced banks to give loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.  What happened?  People didn't pay them back.  They couldn't as the economy failed, and the banks didn't get their money back.  So we had to "bail" those banks out, as they were "too big to fail." 
But what about this guy?  Who bails him out?  Nobody.  He lost everything, and he gets nothing in return.  What a sad state.  But that's how America has been devalued.  Things are worse less, while the prices people owe for them remain the same.  Who gets rich?  Bankers. 

The Great Divide

The Bible says, "...Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matthew 12:25)

And as we look at the United States of America, we find that it is a nation divided.  Half of the country is pro-American, pro-Constititution, pro-Gun rights, pro-freedom, while the other half is pro-communism, pro-socialism, pro-progressivism, pro-anarchy.

So which side will win?  That's not the issue.  The issue is that there is DIVISION rather than UNITY.  And the Bible clearly teaches us that it is the division that will bring desolation and the fall of this great nation.

On one side we have those who think they president is not doing enough.  But on the other side, there are those who think he's done too much already.  So who is right?  It all depends on what it is you want him to do.  If you are a socialist, a communist, and an anarchist, you want him to do as much as possible to bring in chaos and to destroy the system in order to set up your own ideals.  However, if you are a constitutionalist and freedom lover, you feel he has overstepped his boundaries laid forth in the constitution, and is guilty of pushing upon the American citizens things that are not only wrong, but anti-american!

So which side is right?  That's a subject for debate.  But we won't focus on that here.  What we will look at is the "GREAT DIVIDE" between them.  It's almost as if those on both sides are on opposite extreme.  They are so far on one side or the other that they cannot and will not compromise and meet in the middle.   And, this is exactly what we are seeing in the news today.  Politicians have drawn the line in the sand and told others that they must get on this side or that side.  But this line-drawing is what throughout history has always led to strives, envy, hatred, and even wars!   It's dividing people so that they will fight one another.  And the division seeks to keep them apart rather than uniting them on the things they can agree on.

This is exactly what the devil wants, and what he specializes in.  He wants people to hate one another and be so far to the opposite side of the spectrum of each other that they can never get along.  This assures him that they will be long time enemies, and he will seek to work his best at bringing out the worst in both parties, making them lash out against each other.  Eventually, their anger will turn to hatred, and then to violence, and then countless hundreds of thousands of people will get hurt.  This delights the devil, who takes solace in the pain of others.

So what is it exactly that Americans are divided on?  That's a good question, for as you look at what it is that divides them, you find an interesting thing.  It appears that one side is good and one side is evil.  It further seems that one side is influenced by God and the Bible, while the other side is heavily saturated with Luciferian doctrines, and satanism.   So who are these two sides, and what exactly divides them?  Let's look at a few of the key dividing doctrines.

If you know American politics, you know of the two-party system that dominates it.  There are Republicans, and Democrats, and most Americans are either one or the other.  Of course there are those who call themselves "Independents" but most of them would admit that their beliefs and political ideals line up with one of these two parties.

So who are the parties and what do they believe?  Well, it used to be easy to define them, but today it's not that easy, for there are those who have infiltrated both parties which don't always adhere to the main party line.  This is why it's so common to hear of politicians "switching parties" nowadays.  They jump ship and go from one side to another.  Why?  Because they see their parties are "changing" and they aren't what they used to be.  Either that, or the politicians themselves have changed, and that's why they choose to leave their party for another.

But the division in American is much more than just Democrat vs. Republican.  In fact, it's hard to find any differences between the Dems and the Reps, for both of them are now doing the same things. 

So what is the real factor that divides us politically?  Some say it's really Liberals vs. Conservatives.  And this makes more sense.

Let's look briefly at the difference between these two groups, for it's there that we find the dividing lines.

First, Liberals take a weak stance on the constitution while Conservatives take a strong stance on it, believing we should take it literally.  Why is this?  It's because the Constitution is a document that relied heavily upon GOD and man's GOD-GIVEN rights.  Liberals, however, don't seem to like God too much, as the majority of them have been educated in secular schools to despise God.  Thus, they believe that it is GOVERNMENT that gives man rights, not God.   Thus, liberals are "anti-God" while they are pro "playing God" in their politics.

Second, Liberals believe in governmental welfare, or forced political giving to those who don't have.  Conservatives also believe in giving, but they stress that it should be done only by indivuals or churches, and not by citizens through forced taxation.  This is an important point, as the Bible teaches that a man should "work by the sweat of his brow" for what he has.  He's to work hard and "enjoy the fruits of his labor."   Liberals, however, appear to be more in favor of Communism, in which the government owns everyone and everything and it decides what a person should and shouldn't have.  In Communism, a person is not self-sufficient, as God intended them to be, but rather completely dependent upon the government.  This kicks God out and sets the government up as God.  Once again, liberal thought and doctrine spits in the face of God and the scriptures.

Third, Liberals often are in favor of abortion, a horrible practice of killing babies before they are born.  They claim it is the woman's "right" to choose to not have a baby, and they have passed laws in favor of such.  But Conservatives feel this is wrong, as it clearly is the taking of human life without the individual baby having the choice to live or not.  What does the Bible say about abortion?  A lot actually.  For in the Bible, we are further told that, "LIFE" is in the blood.  That means when a child is formed in it's mother's womb and it begins producing it's only blood supply, it is a life.  To take away that life is MURDER in the scriptures.

So why do Liberals defend women in their desire to murder their own children, and attack conservatives who look at this as a pagan, immoral practice?  Could it be once again that liberals are against God?

Finally, liberals are in favor of trying to "right" what they view as "wrongs."  They engage in racial policies like affirmative action, in gender policies like woman's lib, and more.  And instead of allowing laws to apply to all people alike, they seek to grant certain rights or privileges on certain classes, genders, and races that are unfair to others.  Why is this?  They claim it's just "social justice" but who died and made them the judge?

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in the Constitution, and they believe that ALL CITIZENS are equal under the law.  Thus, they look at liberal policies as not only unconstitutional, but also irrational.  If you look at them further, they are often "anti-biblical" as well.

So who is supposed to be in charge of "justice."  Who is to judge others for all the wrong in the world?  The Bible says it's GOD who is supposed to judge everyone in the last day.  So why do liberals think that it's their job to JUDGE everyone and then hand out decrees and laws that are to "right the wrongs" of society.  Could it be they are once again guilty of "playing-God?"

Clearly conservatives and liberals disagree with one another.  No one would argue with that.  But it's strange that no one seems to be pointing out the fact that LIBERALS almost always are on the side that is against God and the Bible.  And often, they are trying to play God themselves.  Why is this?  What is the reason that liberals are so "anti-God?"  Could it be they are influenced by satanic forces? 

Obviously there is something to that, especially when so many liberals love the book, "Rules for Radicals," a work that was dedicated to "LUCIFER!"   Hmmm.  Interesting, isn't it?

Further, most liberals learn their liberal doctrines in SECULAR colleges, which oftentimes are full of professors who are renowned ATHEISTS who continually riducule and downgrade the idea of God.  And while in college, many students often join organzations like Skull and Bones, the Jason Society, etc., which are groups started by people who were into LUCIFERIANISM, and which teach people how to gain power and influence in the world.   After college, many people join groups like the MASONS, which according to Albert Pike is the "oldest religion" and is in fact, the worship of LUCIFER.

Liberals, also enjoy political organizing, and love to fund groups like ACORN, SEIU, and others that further endoctrinate people and propogate their anti-God and anti-bible ideals.

Now back to our topic at hand:  THE GREAT DIVIDE in our country.  Could it be the divide comes from the liberals dividing themselves from what America was founded on?  Could it be that they are going the way of evil, while conservatives are trying to converse the foundations of America, which was founded on God and the Bible?  More plainly stated, "Could liberalism be nothing more than a movement of Satan to destroy America?"

These questions you must answer yourself.  All I know is there is DIVISION, and it's more rampant than it's ever been before.  At first, America was founded as a Christian nation.  But those Christian teachings have quickly erroded away.  Now, it appears America is more of a pagan nation.   And today we find conservatives who are trying to hold on to the Christian ideals of the founders and the Constitution are looked upon as "old fuddy-duddies" by modern liberals who think of themselves as "cultured," "refined," and "modernized."  Yet, these same liberals don't seem to understand that they have been, and still are, rebelling against what founded the nation they are living in.  They are divided from what America was founded on, and are actively showing their divisive spirit as they openly protest, campaign, and endoctrine others to follow them and their teachings.  So dogmatic are they in their ways that they have become militant and are starting to fight all those who don't go along with them in their fanaticism.  They truly believe they are right, and don't see how far they've gone down the leftist path to destruction. 

What do conservatives do?  Sadly, many of them have given up and are even joining the liberals.  They are turning from what they once knew and believed, and accepting liberal teachings.  But they can only go so far.  They are "moderates."  But their inablility to stand for what they believe in only empowers the liberal agenda.  While those who do stand are viewed as "extremist" "right-wing" groups. 

Division ensues and liberals go farther to the left, taking some with them, but forcing others even farther to the right.  The division is getting greater and worseing more and more.  But no one seems to say anything about it?

Do you see the great divide?  What do you think should be done? 

How to Govern America Properly

Our country is in a mess!  And no one can argue with that statement.  Economically, it's in decline, spiritually, it has strayed from God, and morally it has adopted many beliefs that undermine the very moral fabric of our society.  In short, our country is going to Hell in a hand basket!

So, who's to blame?  The answer most often heard from pulpits across our land is that it's all "OUR" fault for electing politicians who are "progressives," "socialists" and "communistic."  But I'm so tired of the blame being placed upon us.  It's not our fault.  It's the POLITICIANS fault, for it is they who are doing all the bad stuff in passing laws that only seek to "regulate" more, rather than allowing a free market system to work.

It's like Benjamin Franklin said, "He who governs LEAST governs BEST!"  If only politicians would realize this.  If only their platform were, "Vote for me, and I'll do NOTHING if elected!" 

The other day I was thinking about how to solve all the problems in America.  And I thought about it as a corporation.  In a corporation, people own part of the company and own STOCKS.  In other words, they are part owners in the business.   They have a stake in the company. 

Now, when the business does well, they receive either dividends or an increase in value of their stock.  So potentially, the owners of the business (the shareholders) have the potential to prosper financially if the company makes a profit.  However, they also take a loss if the company goes in the red.  Thus, the companies very reason for existence is to make money and feed its owners.

So why isn't it like this in America?  Why can't we run this nation the same way?  Why can't Americans who own property (i.e. own stock) in America prosper as the country prospers?

We as a nation are now over 7 trillion dollars in debt.  And sadly, the American people are expected by those in power to foot the bill.  But they had no say in the spending of that money.  So why should they have to pay it?

The governing of this country is completely backwards.  It's not like a business trying to make a profit, rather it's like a company that's trying to run a deficit on purpose, so it can sell more stock and try to get more cash to do more.  The only thing is that its stock is worthless and the whole world knows it!

What if we started over in America?  What if we got rid of the debt and started all over?  And what if, (go with me here for a minute,) what if instead of the government LOSING money, it actually MADE money? 

What if the American government stopped giving money away to everybody and spending on frivolous things of no lasting value, and instead INVESTED the money it receives in taxes and uses that money to make more money to in turn give back to the American people, the shareholders of the nation?

If only things worked that way!  For I read a year or so ago that the nation of America has enough natural resources and minerals in its soil that if divided equally among it's poplulace, every American could have something like 5 million dollars apiece (I don't remember the exact number, but it was in the millions).

Can you imagine?

What if you were an American citizen, and when you are born, you were given 5 million dollars.  They just gave it to you.  Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

Why?  Because it was what the nation had and it was a just nation that EQUALLY divided its wealth with its citizens, just like a company giving dividends to its stock holders.  Wouldn't that be cool?

If you lived in Alaska, you'd know what I'm talking about.  In Alaska they give people about 1500 dollars a year, just to live in that state!  Where does it come from?  Is it tax money taken and given out as welfare?  No!  It's money from the OIL COMPANIES, who take oil out of Alaskan soil who in turn pay the citizens of Alaska for allowing them to let them take their oil.  That's too cool!  

But alas, in our country today, the Government does not want to do such a thing.  Instead, they want to tax the rich to give to the poor.  But that's not right!  Why should one class of people get something for nothing while another class works to get what they have???  That doesn't make sense.

If I were in charge, I know what I would do.  I would make America run like a business, and I would try to make that business make a profit, and not run in the red.   I would then make sure to send dividends to NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of this country.  (Note, I would only give it to people who were BORN here, and not to immigrants.  There are many reasons for this, but I can't go into that now.)

This would be an amazing endeavour.  It would mean that all taxes given to the government MUST be used to turn a profit.  In other words, they must be INVESTED in such a way as to make sure Americans got back MORE than what they paid in.

Can you imagine a system like this?  America would be the greatest country in the world!

So if a company can run itself as a business and make a profit, why can't the federal government?  

That's a good question.  The answer is because the federal government is not in the business of MAKING money, it's only in the business of SPENDING money.  And it does so a little too effectively (being now over 7 TRILLION dollars in debt).  But where does this money go?   The answer may surprise you.  It goes several places.  First it goes overseas.  That's right.  It goes to foreign countries and not to its own citizens!  Through USAID and other organizations the U.S. government gives away money to foreign nations and gets absolutely nothing in return.  Who's money is it?  Why it's the American citizen's money!  So why do others who aren't even Americans entitled to it?

Can you imagine if a private company did this?  Just imagine if they sold stock in their company, then they took that money and just gave it to their competition with no expectation of it being repaid.  What would happen?  Why the stock holders would get angry and dump all their stock and the company would go under! 

Er, um, maybe I've said too much.  Cause that's exactly what's happening with the U.S.  It's spending all it's money and getting the stock holders in debt, all while claiming that they have to give "stimulus" in order to get the economy running again.  In other words, they believe you have to "spend your way out of debt!"  (No, really, that's what several politicians have actually said on tape!)

The American government also spends money on domestic projects that are not profitable and not returnable.  For example, we are hearing lately of the SOLYNDRA scandal, in which MILLIONS (or was it BILLIONS, I forget), of American's tax payer's money was giving to this company, and then it later went belly up and bankrupt.  How does this happen?  But it does and it happens quite often.

If you don't remember anything else in this blog, just remember this:  "THIS IS NOT HOW YOU GOVERN A COMPANY, MUCH LESS A NATION!" 

To give away the stockholders money to anyone and everyone with NO EXPECTATION of receiving anything in return is not only negligant but CRIMINAL!  It is not only bankrupting the nation, but the citizens as well, as the debt incurred leads to high and massive inflation, making a person's money worth less and less.  It's double robbery, taking for them and spending without their say so, and then making what they have left over worth next to nothing.

So with this sad expose of the American situation exposed, the question is, "Would you like to know how to fix the problem?"  The answer is simple, just do what the BIG BANKS do.  That is, (and please get a hold of this), DON'T GIVE AWAY ANYTHING!!!  (unless it's maybe a toaster!)

In order to make a profit, you must sell something that is worth something.  That's common business knowledge.  But if you already have money, the best way to make money is to LOAN it at interest, and not GIVE it away.  For the simple fact is that once it's given, it's gone, and you'll never see it again, and if you borrowed it to give away, then all you get in return is more DEBT.  And what's worse is that if you borrow money and then you give it away for nothing, you end up still having to pay it back!  How is that profitable?  How does that make business sense?

Now here's where the difference is.  Corporations and Banks make profit.  They either sell a product or lend money.  But the problem with them is they usually are corrupt.  They will sell cheap products for high prices, or they will loan money at high interest rates, and this is how they profit off of people. 

This used to not be the case, but with the great lack of morals in our society this is what happens, as greed usually takes over in a person's heart and they seek to "cheat" people by selling them less then adaquate products for overinflated prices.

This is a sad situation, but even though it's taking advantage of a free market system, that doesn't mean that a free market system is bad.  Captialism must have morality to work.  Unscrupulous capitalists are nothing more than thieves.  While moral and honest capitalists are hardworking men who are only trying to put food on the table and take care of their families.

So how should the government govern?  Simple.  They should stop GIVING money, but simply LOAN it.  And they should loan it as very low interest rates. 

For example, the price of college is outrageous nowadays.  So why doesn't the government say, "Okay, we will loan you the money at 1 percent interest." 

Then the person can get a loan and actually afford to pay it back.  He comes out better, because private loan companies and banks charge WAY MORE THAN only 1 percent, getting a person in debt for life, and completely unable to pay back the full amount. 

If the government loaned the money it would suceed, as it would be earning 1 percent until that person pays back their college loan debt.  In other words, they'd MAKE money while they HELPED someone, without going into debt!

See how the government HELPED that person, but at the same time it robbed no one.  It is making money rather than stealing money through taxes which it then gives away in things like pell grants, etc.

In the case of foreign countries, American should NEVER GIVE THEM ANY MONEY, period.  For this takes out money from our own cash flow in our own nation.  But if it does decide to pass money to other countries, it should be in the form of a LOAN, and at HIGH INTEREST RATES. 

For example, a country wants to better itself and it needs capital to do so.  So they come to America and ask for a loan of 100 million dollars.  The government could say, "Okay, we'll happily give you a loan for that amount, but you must pay it back in so many years, at an interest rate of 10 percent!"

If the country agrees and pays it, then wouldn't America be a much better, richer, profitable nation?

All these principles are so basic, so easy to grasp.  Yet our government continues to ignore them and plunge further into debt.  WHY?

Well, there is a reason for the spendthriftery of our national government.  They are getting in debt on purpose, and I hope you know the reason.  If not, you should really study history.  It all goes back to the international bankers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Illuminati, a global one world conspiracy, and more, in which the goal is a one world government and not a world with many different nations.  But that's another blog for another time.

The only way to govern America properly is to run it like a business with the goal of MAKING money, rather than SPENDING itself into debt.  This can still happen and should happen, but it will only happen if American citizens work together to vote out the current administration (I'm talking about Dems and Reps alike.  They are both corrupt and are in favor of spending money.)

Very few people know the truth about America, nor do they study how it was initially set up.  In the beginning, there were absolutely no taxes set up on the American people.  They were sick of taxation by Great Britian, so they made it a point to do away with taxes all together.  So how did the Federal government get money?  The answer was through DUTIES on foreign nations through trade.  If a country traded with America, they had to pay duty on all they sought to sell in America, and that money went into the coffer of the treasury of the government.  It was making money not off the citizenry, rather off of  other countries.  This left the typical American citizen to work hard and profit himself, as almost the entire world had to come to America to buy his goods.  America SOLD to other nations and made a profit, while it made them pay duty to sell their goods to us.  That means the government made money both ways!

If only we could get back to a system like this in which the government was not in debt, did not GIVE away countless TRILLIONS of dollars, and didn't expect their poplulace to pay for all their wreckless SPENDING through wanting to tax them even more.  For such a nation is not governed properly. 

Let me close with this illustration.  Let's say a guy comes into your home and says that he's going to take over your finances, and all you have to do is trust him and he'll make you money. Would you trust him?  I don't know.  I think I might be mistrustful from the git-go.  But let's say he does so and he takes your money and invests it and over time he makes you a millionare.  Wouldn't you be ecstatic?  Wouldn't you appreciate what he did for you?  Of course you would.

Now let's look at it on the other side of the coin.  What if a guy came into your house and said, "I'm taking over your finances whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do about it!"  And then he shows you a legal document granting him that right.  Then he takes your money and gets you so far into debt you'll never get out of it, ever!  How would you feel?  Obviously, you'd be angry and ungrateful, wishing he'd just leave you and your money alone!

So which system of government do we have based on the illustration above?  If you guessed the second one, you are right!

But it doesn't have to be that way.  We can still turn the country around and get it back to what it used to be.  We can still elect officials who can fix this mess and get us back on tract to a profitable pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.  But that time to do so is getting very short, as we have people in positions of power today who believe profit is evil.  They want to "distribute the wealth" and spread it around.  But why don't they just get back to trying to make America great again, and making it a profitable nation like it once was in which the American Dream was:  "If you work hard, you'll suceed!"  

The Importance of Property Owners Voting

When our founding fathers set up the constitution, they knew exactly what they were doing.  They were setting up a system of government with checks and balances, knowing that this had to be done, as one side would want more power than the others.  Thus, they made a way that government could be kept in check and unable to gain too much power over the people, thus giving the people liberty.

Sadly, much of this liberty was lost over the years, as following generations of politicians misunderstood the founding father's intentions.  And probably one of the worst things that ever happened to America was the horrible changes to the voting laws.

In the Constitution only PROPERTY OWNERS were allowed to vote.  This is important, as they actually had a stake in the country.  THEY were the ones who were true AMERICANS.  They owned part of America through the owning of land.

It's like a modern day company with shareholders.  Those who own shares have a right to vote.  And their vote should be heard.  However, who in their right mind would allow outsiders who own NO SHARES to vote for what's best for the company.  That just doesn't make sense, does it?

But this is what has happened in America today.  We find that the right to vote has been changed from just the shareholders, or the land owners, to anyone who is born in America, or who comes here legally and becomes a citizen.  That means that now instead of people voting who have a stake in the country, you have people voting who don't own any land, and they only vote based upon their opinions, their ideals, their feelings, or their party, rather than voting on what's best for them and their own property.

We see as the voting laws were changed in America that voting wasn't only for what was best for the landowner and the country, but rather voting became what was best for the personal voter him or herself.

In other words, when the country was set up, only landowners could vote, and they voted based upon what was best for each other's land.  They wanted freedom to do what they please on their own property.  But as more and more people who were unable to buy and secure land were given the vote, we see a massive change from that of those voting who had a share in the country to those who had no share in the nation.  And we find many non-landowners voting only for what was best for THEM, not what was best for their neighbor.  This meant that all a politician had to do was promise them something, and if they were to vote for him or her then the politician would pass laws to help them. 

What happened next is the history of welfare, as more and more politicians promised something for nothing to non-landowners.  And to pay for it, the landowners were taxed the more in order to give to those who had not.  Redistribution of wealth ensued with the government paying God, and trying to decided who deserved what, taking more from the landowners, and giving it to those who did not own land.

Can you imagine a system like this?  Imagine the example of the company I gave above.  And imagine a company telling its shareholders, "We are going to give the right to vote to all the customers of this company."  And then whenever there is a vote, the customers vote to give themselves more stuff for free.  Who pays for it?  The company, and the shareholders, who eventually find their shares are almost worthless, because the company is no longer making a profit!  So what do they do?  They become angry and sell their shares to anyone who will buy them, and the company eventually fails because of it, and the company and the shareholders have no say on how to run the company and make it prosper.

This is EXACTLY what's happening in America today.  Those who own property are taxed to death and looked at as the bad guys, while those without are given the right to vote, and they vote to give themselves even more.  How can this not eventually bankrupt the whole system?  And who in their right mind would believe that the landowners would sit idly by and take it without trying to do something about it, either selling their land and getting away from such a corrupt system, or trying to change the system in order to be allowed the freedom they once enjoyed to run their land as they saw fit.

In America, we now see that there are many landowners who are failing.  But the very rich ones have figured out ways to buddy up to the government and get special favors so they don't lose their land.  It's like this, and one again I'll use the illustration of a modern-day company.

The company is going bankrupt, and the share-holders are angry that non-shareholders are voting to get freebies from the company.  So in order to keep the company afloat that they love so much, they see the only way is to become the head CEO of the company, so they seek power and then give special favors to the other share-holders, even though the voting customers are against it.  The shareholders then make secret deals to make sure their shares stay high, and they are viewed as a thriving company, even though they are on the verge of bankrupcy.  And the shareholders chose "lobbyists" to lobby the CEO for even more special favors.

What happens?  The CEOs resign, because they can't keep the whole fiasco afloat.  The shareholders loose everything.  And the voting customers get angry and blame the company and the shareholders, claiming it's all their fault.  War ensues, and the company is destroyed all together.

Do you see the correlation with what is happening in America?  How unfair it truly is to allow people to vote who don't even have a share in the nation!  Why allow them to vote when they don't even have any property, or any stake in the American company?

If they try to undermine the property owner's rights to own property and enjoy what they have, then don't they cut their own throats when they obtain property themselves?  Why can't we all be happy owning property.  Wasn't that once the American Dream?

It used to be you could work hard in America, save up, and eventually buy your own land and home.  Now, those days are almost gone.  It's because non-shareholders are cornering the market on the vote and are only voting for what's best for themselves, and not what's best for others.  They can't see that they are destroying what they could also enjoy if they would just work hard to accomplish.

I'll close with this.  Just imagine if you will the company and the shareholders holding the vote themselves.  They would vote for what was best for the company and what was best for the shareholders.  They would want profit for all and each other.  As the company grows, they would then sell more shares, and more people would be shareholders.  As the number of shareholders grows so do the number of votes.  And each one would then vote for more prosperity for themselves and the country.  They would want freedom to hold on to their own lands, and not give it away to others who didn't work for it or buy it with their own hard earned money.   They would vote not to get in debt.  They would vote to make sure the company doesn't spend more than it has.  And they would vote that the company do more, spread more, and do more business, open more offices, and sell more product.  They would all prosper, as they all did what was BEST FOR THE COMPANY and the PEOPLE of that company (the shareholders).

If only people who understand this model would look at America the same way.  How could you ever give the right to vote to those who don't understand how business works?  And how could you let them vote if they don't have a stake in the endeavour?  It just doesn't make sense.

Truly, the founding fathers knew the importance of giving the vote only to PROPERTY OWNERS, rather than to all citizens.  If only America could go back to the simple and important ideal.