insert_link Daily Clip You Want the Truth? 309 Million Citizen Journalists Couldn’t Handle the Truth! todayMarch 11, 2024 38
insert_link Daily Clip Mike Church Show FREE PREVIEW – Vattel and Publius Prove Founders’ Stand on Natural Born Citizenship todayAugust 13, 2020 19
Bill Evans on August 15, 2012 I could’t agree more King Dude. Our great dilema as election season revs up is that we are electing one person to be a satisfactory president (or CEO) of what is in effect two different but conjoined countries. Would we be correct in protesting the assertion that the U.S. and Canada or Mexico ought to be one country and not separate? Of course, It is human nature to segregate according to various distinctions, and to gather with people like ourselves. Language is but one basis for unity. Churchill once joked for instance that, “Britain and America are two separate countries separated by a common language.” Religion is likewise a significant, but not an overriding belief system around which can and have organized. All the nations of Europe shared a pagan, then Christian, then relapse into pagan worldview (steeped as they are in a deep post-Christian morass.) Traditions and values, approaches the heart of why people choose to associate with some and not others, tha often transcends national boundaries. Yet each nation of people, who for what ever reason(s) are gathered collectively, can only have one form of national government at a time. Otherwise civil war racks a country as different systems vie for power. The differences that exist between nations can include all of these. At the cosmological level, as a biblical theist, meaning a person who believes in the God of the Bible, based on my own revelational faith-based presuppostions, diversity is the plan of the Creator. If two people (man and woman) are to live together as one in marriage, there should at least be a basic compatibility, with and love for one another. “How can two walk together unless they be agreed.” Having laid this groundwork, I submit that what we know as ‘America’ is not a single entity ‘The United States,’ but at heart no less than two ‘distinct’ countries, that really ought to be TWO countries. Our respective differences make a union impractical, and as we are more and more experiencing, unworkable and unacceptable, UNLESS one subjegates the other. One is deeply pious, and believes in governing personal behavior as little as possible, and then only on the basis of the authority of a divine standard revealed by revelation reflected in our individual conscience. The other is pragmatic, even machovellian, ruthless and envious. It subscribes to no moral law higher than efficacy, and the power to rule and enforce. One believes in good and evil, and that human government must submit to the authority of the Creator and the God-given rights of free people. It exists in a limited form for the purpose of restraining evil and and punishing evil while protecting the good. Thus, government, like the governed, must operate under accountability to God. It must not steal, murder, covet or practice idolatry (thinking of itself supreme.) The other country holds to the view that God, if God exists, is irrelevant in the affairs of men. It believes that the strongest, richest, smartest, most cunning, able, and well connected people are entitled to rule others. In other words, ‘never mind proscribed law, never mind justice, never mind right and wrong.’ For ‘might makes right.’ In one country, the virtue and value of the traditional family is extolled. The other country elevates ‘alternative lifestyles’ to be equally valid. One prizes self-sufficiency, and along with Divine Providence, on natural ability, will-power, perseverence and work. They wish to be all they can, do all they can, earn all they can, give all they can (to those in need) and keep reliance upon government to a minimum. The other believes the more government involvement the better. They favor an ever-expanding national government comprised of endless agencies, departments and bureaus to manage every aspect of life. The people, or ‘feeders’ exist to do the manual and menial labor to provide government with the power (by means of taxation) to exist, thrive and enjoy the status and luxury deserved by the ‘patrician class.’ One people prefer country living, being close to nature. The other prefers the comforts of metropolitan settings. One prefers hunting and fishing, and see firearms as a tool to feed families, conserve the ecology and protect individuals from coersion. The other prefers more refined forms of entertainment, and believe firearms are dangerous in the hands of the masses. I could go on with the distinctions ad nauseum, but in summation, we have more than ample justification to desire separation; to co-exist, side-by-side, as two unique but related countries, in which the rights and preferences of the other are respected. I believe that this is the solution that our founders would advocate. Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, invited any who were unhappy with their government, to go in peace and start a new one, and pledged his protection and friendship. It was not meant as a challenge, but as an assurance that he believed in the right of free people to government by consent…not force, not edict and executive order. Our government masters (for they certainly are no longer our servant) would have us to believe that ‘liberty and justice for all’ must mean ‘one size fits all.’ Log in to Reply
insert_link Mike Church Presents The Red Pill Diaries Podcasts Listener Calls Crusade Channel “Rolex Quality” – The Mike Church Show todayFebruary 27, 2018 1655
The CRUSADE Channel & Mike Church Show Achieve Milestone of Episode 2,000! Celebrate “Y2K-D” With Us!
The Constitution Hour Episode 13-Why Trump IS A Natural Born Citizen & Cruz Is Not-Why The Founders Chose republicanism Over Monarchy