Posted on 11/04/2016 2:14:51 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience. The people who spout ‘diversity is our strength’ have cast a mind-dulling net of intellectual conformity across our nation. Thought police don’t just troll the halls of academe; they have infiltrated society so deeply that violence from those offended by supposedly hurtful thoughts or words is sanctioned by the highest levels of government and popular institutions.
Trump supporters can find themselves beaten up. Municipal police in San Jose CA just watched and stood idly by as Trump rally attendees were assaulted. Since Trump is obviously a racist, then so are his followers. Opposition to racism is a higher good than civility or respect for others.
Hillary Clinton has called for shutting down Breitbart News, while Senator Barbara Boxer investigates and threatens companies that challenge climate change orthodoxy. Christians are compelled to comply with diktats that violate the fundamentals of their faith and the free government foundations of our republic.
The force behind all of this is a secular Social Justice Religion centered on phony climate change that Leftist apostles defend and enforce with righteous indignation. Conformity in thought and deeds are essential to their future perfect world in social justice Utopia. Since Christianity and Constitutional principles stand athwart their goals, the destruction of both is moral and good.
Most Americans, those who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid, are expected to shut up and sit down. Through endless repetition we are informed that the greater good of society is served through our non-resistance and passive obedience to Left-government. Nonsense. Government-enforced Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience over an unwilling society has, in the past, led to revolution. For almost thirty years, from 1660 to 1688, Stuart Kings and their Anglican Church enforced the divine right of kings to rule, and treated dissent and disobedience both unlawful and sinful.
In 1661 parliament imposed on all clergy and office-holders a non-resistance oath – ‘that it is not lawful upon any pretense whatsoever to take arms against the king.’ Through divine right, kings should rule and command in their several dominions all persons of what rank or estate soever, whether ecclesiastical or civil. Non-conformists, non-members of the Anglican Church were prohibited from holding any public office.
The Oxford Decrees of July 21st 1683 prohibited ‘pernicious books and damnable doctrines, destructive to the sacred persons of princes, their state, and government, and all of human society’. These put the premier teaching institution of the country and the intellectual center of the church strongly against all notions of popular resistance and firmly in favor of passive obedience in clear terms.
Reversal of these doctrines required revolution, the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In the 1689 indictment of King James II, he was charged with acting contrary to his oath, which entrusted in him a limited power to govern by the laws of the land, to use that power for the good and benefit of the people, for the preservation of their rights and liberties. Instead, it read, he conceived a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will.
In modern times, the Left has inverted the sovereign/servant relationship. Through a warped system of indoctrination beginning in their earliest school days, a people founded in liberty are taught non-resistance and passive obedience to tyranny. Yet, history shows the servant cannot forever demand non-resistance and passive obedience from the sovereign people. Resistance is growing nationwide as God-given reason informs us that government is made for man, not man for government. While violence against tyranny is our natural right, so are less than violent means. We must use them to restore free government. Article V.
We are the many; our oppressors are the few. Be proactive. Be a Re-Founder. Join Convention of States. Sign the COS Petition.
References:
Huyler, J. (1995). Locke in America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Kenyon, J. (1990). Revolution Principles The Politics of Party 1689-1720. Cambridge: University Press.
Robbins, C. (1968). The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
“Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”
I have revoked any implicit blanket consent. Any legitimacy government has now applies only to specific aspects of government and specific actions - each act of government is judged on its individual merit.
“we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly” - wikileaks - podesta-emails-bill ivey
From: bi@globalculturalstrategies.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2016-03-13 17:06
Subject: From Bill Ivey
Bookmark
On a related note, the campaign slogans say a lot about how the candidates view government.
Trump’s slogan is Make America Great Again. Nothing in it even hints at self-aggrandizement—it captures the fact that everyone connected to government, all the way up to president, is a servant of the people.
Hillary’s slogan, “I’m With Her” sends a completely different message. It tells us that she views her supporters as nothing more than peons that exist only to serve her. She wants to be the supreme ruler who won’t do squat for anyone.
Yes, Locke and our Founders were all over that concept. It’s so bad, I’m certain that Locke would describe our relationship with Washington DC as a state of war.
VERY good. They have mutually exclusive views of the purpose of government.
The Left knows exactly what it is doing. An ignorant society is malleable.
-- President Davis
We need an amendment to the Constitution that requires each member of the Electoral Congress to cast their ballot for how each of their Congressional District voted, not state level winner take all.
Senators who are each states member of the Electoral Congress should be required to vote how their state legislature decides during a special legislative session between election day and the the Electoral College Vote.
After all aren’t Senators supposed to represent the interest of each state, and not multinational corporations, who fund their campaigns?
Only then will we see an accurate representation of the the American People, reflected in the office of President.
As a result the massive voter fraud in large urban district will be limited to just their district, and the President will truly represent the will of the People of the United States.
IIRC, and I might not, every seceding state held a convention to decide, yes or no, whether to leave the Union. Do I have that right?
I am very leery of altering the Electoral College — your suggestion, in particular, sounds rather akin to proposing a law that would outlaw jury nullification, such a law would make the jury a rubber-stamp of the government's prosecutors, and such a law as you propose would likewise constrain the electors.
It’s a state level decision.
Certainly.
And my argument applies even to state-level legislation.
I’m just saying assign the electors per the outcome of each Congressional District, as I believe the Founding Fathers intended. Remember each Congressman used to have to wait for a week or more to find out how his Congressional District voted, or get word from their Governor.
Under the amendment I propose, all they have to do is check the outcome in their Congressional District. They then know how they are to vote. If a Democrat Congressional Member has a district that voted for a Republican candidate, everyone knows how they are supposed to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.