By Nathan Barton
Looking back at History and Historical Documents and Symbols
Wow, what gives? The squatter at 1600 PA quoted from the Declaration of Independence, and about God? Apparently, as reported by The Last Resistance early this week. The hypocrisy of this man is beyond description: while he busily kills the innocent in the Middle East (and wherever else he can send drones or special forces) and advocates for (and provides for) the killing of millions of children each year, and promotes the persecution of christians because they oppose something that he himself supposedly opposed as recently as six years ago, he can claim some faith in God? Of course, politicians have been total hypocrites concerning religion, especially Christianity, for centuries if not millennia: start with Constantine the Great and his “conversion” and continue right down to Uncle Adolf and his supposed “christianity” and of course, the last three or four occupants of the White House.
Of course, this hypocrisy is involved in more than just religious matters. With the current squatter, more info has come out about the IRS plan to prosecute the squatter’s political enemies in many, many ways, as reported by World Net Daily. His regime has been filled with political appointees who have said one thing about taxes and done another – and look at the track record of both a former president and a current candidate as far as taxes. But we have to remember that the IRS is just one of many ways for those currently in power to abuse and persecute their political enemies – and anyone who doesn’t kowtow to them. Which includes a LOT of people who have faith in God and Christ Jesus. Historical documents and history record thousands of situations where this sort of paper (and physical) terrorism has been used against political opponents.
More predictions coming true sooner than expected, regarding loss of religious liberty after the Nazgul marriage decision, as reported by CNS News. Two leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced that “christian colleges” which denied married-student housing to same-sex couples but take federal money should be forced to do so, and that other measures need to be taken by Congress and the White House to prevent religious beliefs from allowing people to discriminate against homosexuals, immigrants, and others. Part of the dissenting opinion in SCOTUS addressed this very issue, even while the majority opinion pooh-poohed the idea. But indeed, the same thing is already happening in the UK (an issue over preaching against Islam) and in British Columbia, where a “christian” law school is being denied accreditation because they require students and staff to sign a pledge to abstain from sex outside of (traditional) marriage. A Canadian court says that the religious liberties of the school’s owners and other students and faculty must be prevented in order to allow more “liberty” to homosexuals who might want to go to that school. It is obvious that the Americans United, despite their name, believes NOT in the separation of church and state, but that the State can control the practice of religions – and indeed IS the dominant religion in the Fifty States.
(I hasten to point out that while supposedly Canada has an equivalent to the Bill of Rights, called The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, imposed in 1982, that worthy document is inherently flawed, as its VERY FIRST CLAUSE states, “1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Of course, WHO or WHAT defines “such reasonable limits?” The courts, of course. And they write of a “democratic society,” that is, majority vote can steal away (and IS) ANY of the rights and freedoms listed, as is happening in the case of the “christian” law school. Franklin summed it up: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It is NOT that Canada is a monarchy which makes it even more evil a nation and government than that of the (American) FedGov, it is that it (like most European countries) has a fundamentally flawed idea of what liberty is. Once more, I remind us all that Canada is part of an imperial system that has united state and church for centuries, and persecuted people for centuries: persecution being defined by imprisonment, torture, and execution, sometimes in the most hideous of ways.
So, did Canada really do better by staying with Britain? Was the American Revolution (actually, the War of American Independence) a bad idea? Many “libertarians” and “christians” have said so, but now a Tranzi chimes in on the subject in a Fourth of July article in Vox.com. He give three reasons, in a tremendous contrast to the reasons given by others in the past. “Libertarians” talk about the losses of liberty, and the huge taxation caused by the war, independence, and the hologram of liberty that developed (the Constitution) afterwards. “Christians” talk about rebelling against government “ordained” by God, and violence and pacifism. This guy gives three reasons: (1) slavery supposedly lasted 20-30 years longer in North America, (2) more AmerInd died sooner because of Americans’ “rapacious” appetite for land and conquest and trade (huh?), and (3) parliamentary government is “more efficient” and “more responsive” and spend more money, so they are overall much better than a presidential form of government in democracies. These are arguments to support tyranny and progressives, with little to commend it to anyone who loves liberty. It is also seriously flawed, mostly comparing Canada to the US, and with an odd flavor of “evil is good, and good is evil.” (No, I’m neither saying that slavery is good nor that wars of aggression against AmerInd tribes were good. Humans are flawed, and a North America completely inside the British Empire is unlikely to have had a much better record on either slavery or western expansion. Indeed, the UK’s track record in Ireland amply demonstrates that, as do events in New Zealand, Australian, South Africa, and Canada itself. )
What is interesting about this sudden debate over the War of American Independence is that it questions the wisdom of secession – which is really what that war can be characterized as – and follows a clear decision by a wide range of politicians and Tranzis and others, that the last major attempt by Americans to secede was an evil and hateful and racist action. Of course, maybe I’m just being paranoid.