Posted on 04/05/2015 5:22:15 PM PDT by Talisker
As everyone knows, this past week crossed a Rubicon for the violation of religious rights in America. In obedience to a multimillionaire CEO oligarch’s homosexual identification and his threat of economic warfare, the governors of two States refused to sign legislation that was developed by the people of their States, according to Constitutional procedures, which would have allowed access to a defense before the Courts for Christians who are demanded to violate their religious beliefs in their workplace by homosexuals.
So extreme and egregious is this violation of religious rights that the media - in the Net, in print and on video - has had to resort to meticulously avoiding the details of the actual situation. Even when they created victims out of a Christian pizza parlor owner, they insisted on describing this as “discrimination against gays.” Because, of course, if they had given equal time to stating the plain truth that there literally is zero class discrimination against gays in this matter, that gays are welcomed into these businesses just like any other customer, it would severely offset the narrative they are pushing to foment outrage amongst the ignorant for political reasons.
Yet for all the discussion of this issue, I don’t believe the root of it, the actual thing that is going on, has yet been addressed. I believe, in fact, that Christians are like the pre-industrial natives who first received explorers who could not conceive of what a firearm did. They saw the “bang-sticks” go bang, they saw their tribe members fall wounded and dead, but the idea of a tiny bullet flying so fast they couldn’t see it actually being able to kill someone was incomprehensible to them.
They had spears and arrows - things they could see and understand how they worked. To them, there couldn’t be two different kinds of weapons. To them, weapons were weapons and they worked a certain way that you could plainly see and understand. There was no such thing as a weapon you could see, but NOT understand.
And so they remained mystified as to the “magical powers” of these invaders. They were, in other words, blind to the threat that was right in front of their eyes, precisely because they thought they already knew what a weapon was and wasn’t. And as a result, they were destroyed. But it wasn’t the guns that killed them - it was their refusal to SEE the gun and ACKNOWLEDGE its power. And things didn’t change for natives all over the world, until they finally realized what guns are, and got some for themselves.
I believe Christians in America are facing the same sort of blindness: they are the natives, the Left (not just homosexuals) are the invaders, and the TWO legal systems in America are what the Left sees, but the Christians don’t.
It’s time, therefore, for Christians to open their eyes. Or what is going to happen to them in America is exactly what happened to the natives - and for the same reason. Only the invisible weapon isn’t firearms this time - it’s corporate law.
I’m not talking down to you. I’m talking about something you don’t see. You think you see it, because you’ve been taught that you DO see it. But like the screaming, angry, dying natives who considered all the possibilities except the one they thought they already understood - weapons - you look straight past the answer.
Justice Roberts, in his now infamous Obamacare decision for which he is generally (and wrongly) reviled by conservatives, remarked:
"This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power."
Now that's an interesting thing to say, isn't it? "This case concerns two powers."
What two powers? Don't we have only one government?
No, we don't. We have two "governments," in fact. Two completely separate "governments," under one Constitution.
The first "government" is the original one. It deals with human beings acting as human beings and nothing else. That government has to work with authority derived from those human beings. And those human beings are acknowledged as possessing God-given natural rights, that existed before the "government" was created, and which cannot be removed by that "government," because it simply does not have the authority.
The second "government," however, is exactly the opposite of the first one. The second "government" creates, controls and runs corporations. The very word "incorporate" means "give body to," or "bring into existence." And because that "government" creates corporations, it owns those corporations completely - because of the fact that it is their creator.
Thus legally, corporations are slaves to the second “government”, the one that created them, by definition. They are created, live in obedience to, and die at the command of that “government.” And the rules that that "government" can make for those corporations are literally unlimited, because those corporations have no rights. They only have privileges that are granted to them by their creator "government," privileges which can be changed or terminated at any time, solely at the pleasure of that "government."
Functionally, therefore, in the real world, those are the two "governments" which comprise the two main federal government powers of our one constitutional Republic. And thus, they are the "two powers" to which Roberts is referring. And he acknowledges them both as constitutionally legitimate.
But he also warns that it is extremely dangerous to mix them up. In fact, he points out that IF you mix them up, you can end up with what he calls "a general federal authority akin to the police power."
So he is specifically warning everyone against making that interpretation of his Obamacare ruling, and teaching that the way to avoid that terrible mistake is to "read carefully."
So in order to understand the secret weapon that the Left is using against Christians, you FIRST need to understand and accept that TWO governmental powers exist. Roberts affirmed this as a FACT, and warned us against confusing them. For the Chief Justice said that if we mix them up, WE will create - by our very ignorance - "a general federal authority akin to the police power."
So how would that look, if we didn’t heed this warning? If we didn’t recognize the “bang-sticks” as guns? If we refused to believe that there were two completely separate kinds of law, one based on God-given human rights, and the other based on limited government-granted privileges?
It would look like the Federal government treating We The People of inalienable human rights, like wholly-owned government-privileged corporations, for everything.
Including telling Christians what parts of the Bible they lose when they go to work for a corporation.
That’s why the Christian arguments about whether this is “fair” or “legal” are irrelevant. Corporations don’t get to argue “fairness.” And they certainly don’t get to argue “rights,” because they have none. Corporations ONLY get to argue whether the way they are treated is beneficial to the federal government, or not. Because these federal statutes ONLY apply to corporations. In effect, they are corporate policies for the federal government. That’s why judges can rule something that violates rights as “fair” - because it’s fair to the interests of the federal government at that particular time.
Period.
Now, the reason that homosexuals are being foolish is that by relying on federal law to enforce their desires, they are actually relying on federal policies that may be changed at any time to suit the needs of the federal government. Right now, the federal government finds it beneficial to enforce corporate homosexual privileges over corporate Christian privileges. But how long will that last? What about the rising demands of corporate Muslim privileges? Historically, how do Muslims treat gays? Historically, how does anyone anywhere treat gays? The only place gays have found solid refuge is in their acknowledgement of NON-corporate, human being status in the American Constitution. That status CANNOT be changed or challenged. Anywhere else, they live and die at the whim of the corporate government’s needs.
Just like corporate Christians do, and corporate anyone does. Same difference. Same WRONG law being applied, for the benefit of the collectivist Left. So now ask yourself what Tim Cook, CEO of the largest multinational corporation in the world, is REALLY supporting here - along with other multinational corporations like Walmart. Homosexuality? Or the rule of corporate privilege over the law of God-given human rights?
Wake up.
But don’t be naive, either. Don’t think that by understanding what is going on, you can immediately change things. Many, many people have to understand this problem before enough public pressure can be put on the government to make itself clear. Laws need to be clarified so that they CLEARY declare corporate application - or not. Terms need to be clarified, so that, for example, “business” is not used where “corporation” is meant, and “rights” are not used where “privileges” are meant. All sorts of legal justifications are used for these word-swaps, but they have one purpose - deception. What do you think people LEARN in law school? The “law”? WHICH law? Corporate law, that’s which law, and the terms and procedures to refer to it, and how NOT to refer to the common law of the rights of non-corporate human beings, while HIDING this swap from those same human beings.
If it sounds like this little swap of rights for privileges, this “presumption” of corporate status, is done everywhere, then you’re starting to understand. But that general application of this fraud has been it’s best hiding tactic, because people don’t believe something this big could be pulled off in front of everyone. That’s why people say this person is having government trouble here, or that person is having government trouble there, but it doesn’t concern me... And then the government isolates and destroys those people, and keeps the lid on the secret.
But now things have change in SCALE. Now, the government is going after 150 million Christians - directly. Think about it - do these RFRA “anti-discrimination laws” ban the Bible? Nope. Do they ban you going to Church? Nope. What they do is more insidious than that - they decide what parts of the Bible are “LEGAL.” They decide what parts of Christianity is “LEGAL.” They decide what parts of Christians themselves are “LEGAL.”
As in, what parts are legal for a CORPORATION.
And the panels of people who are sitting together as a corporate collective, and ripping out pages of the Bible they don’t approve of and that you are not allowed to follow, believe in, or work under, include (but are not limited to) radicalized homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, communists, liberals and corporate CEOs.
Read the news - this is no exaggeration.
“Someday” is NOW.
“Somewhere” is HERE.
Right now, right here in America.
So given that FACT, isn’t it important to know WHAT LAW these people are invoking to decide if YOUR Christian faith is “LEGAL”? And what they mean by the word “legal”?
Isn’t it important to understand that they are treating you, a human being, as if you are a corporation, in order to cut up your Bible and your faith - and your humanity itself, along with it’s God-given rights?
After all, they’re threatening to fire you from your job, sue you into poverty and even throw you into jail over this issue. So doesn’t the source of their law to terrorize your life over your faith matter a little bit - especially if it’s not the law you THINK it is?
Just imagine if they ripped out the “New Testament” because they were holding you to the “Antique Homes Renovation Act,” and that law said that nothing “new” could be certified as “legal” under that act. So - no “New” Testament is allowed, only the “Old” Testament. Would you let them impose that law on Christianity? Would you let them fire you, sue you or throw you in jail over it?
No? Then WHY are you allowing them to impose a law written FOR corporations, which by definition have NO RIGHTS because they are NOT human beings, upon the subject of RELIGION?
It is impossible, by definition, for a corporation to be religious. A corporation - even a so-called “religious corporation,” is a legal entity, not a human being. A “religious corporation does not believe in God - human beings believe in God - period. Because corporations are literally the opposite of human beings, actually fake human beings that are only treated AS human beings in - surprise, surprise, a corporate courtroom - thus the application of the 1st Amendment protection of religious freedom to corporations is IMPOSSIBLE.
Rights apply to human beings. Privileges apply to corporations. Never the twain shall meet.
So how is this problem to be fixed, since we need corporations and corporate law? Simple: people need to understand the difference. Only when they understand the difference, can they change the laws appropriately, and make sure the laws are being applied appropriately.
Which brings me, finally, to the solution to the current issue of forcing Christians to work at gay weddings under corporate non-discrimination laws: those laws don’t apply to the human beings working at a corporation.
They might apply to corporations, once the conflict between the privileges of corporate gays and the privileges of corporations to choose their clients is resolved. But they cannot reach the human beings that work AT the corporation because they involve an issue that corporate law cannot reach.
Corporate law does not reach religion, because religion cannot be practiced by corporations.
Religion can only be practiced by human beings.
And therefore, when corporate privilege law conflicts with non-corporate human rights, human rights win. They win because the structure of the American government is:
God -> Human Rights -> Human Laws -> Corporations -> Corporate Law.
In America, under the American Constitution, human laws are superior to corporate laws. Religion cannot be practiced by corporations, only by human beings. Therefore the non-human 1st Amendment protection of religious freedom is superior to corporate non-discrimination statutes.
Religion is NOT “corporately legal” and it never will be, because it can’t be, because religion doesn’t deal with corporations, because corporations are NOT human and NOT created by God.
Period.
Yes, that means in America the practice of religion is “above the law” - as in, above the corporate law.
That doesn’t mean one can violate human law - common law - by hiding behind religion to lie, cheat, steal or kill, or trying to replace the Constitution. But the common law is not found in corporate statutes. And religion still is the presumption of authority, even in the common law. In other words, people are presumed to be breaking their religious teachings by committing those crimes, not fulfilling their religious teachings. A religion that teaches murder would not be considered an actual religion. It wouldn’t be breaking the law, it simply would not be acknowledged as a religion under the common law in the first place, and would not be therefore protected by the 1st Amendment of human rights.
So, in conclusion, to understand the answer set forth here, and to argue it, and to make the laws clearer so that these issues can be resolved without the enormous hardship they now bring, you have to understand the two powers. And the two different sets of laws they represent - rights versus privileges - must be brought out of the closet, and into the light of day. This subject MUST become common knowledge. Ways to clearly determine between them in written laws and in court procedures MUST be made clear.
Or the bang-sticks will destroy the Bible - and the human beings holding them.
Because if you step back a little bit, you’ll see that this is the real Leftist goal here - to get rid of the Christians, by getting rid of the Bible, by literally re-writing it to be “corporately legal.” Which is WHY corporate law is the METHOD they are using to accomplish this, and which is also why YOU need to understand the LIMITATIONS of corporate law in America.
They are swapping corporate law, for human law. It’s that simple. RFRA laws (for example) are simply allowances of corporate privileges. They do NOT address the 1st Amendment protections of human rights OUTSIDE of corporations for NON-corporate human beings. Period.
Get that, understand that, and you’re in the game. Pound on that, and you can change things. Demand answers from politicians and courts over that and you can stop the destruction of freedom that is going on right in front of our eyes - everyone’s freedom, not just Christians. But you have to know what the subject is and is not. Because otherwise, they will look you straight in the eyes and tell you that the RFRA laws oppress no rights - and you won't even know that's because RFRA laws don't deal with rights at all, only corporate privileges, and that that's their little secret. And you also won't understand why the courts won't even let you talk about rights when they fine you and jail you for "breaking" your "agreement" to follow corporate laws.
They are swapping corporate law, for human law. It’s that simple.
Americans have fought and died for 230 years to place and keep the mechanism for the protection of our God-given rights in our hands - that’s the power our Constitution gives us. Millions of Americans sacrificed their wealth and their lives and pledged their sacred honor to this mission. Now it is our turn to protect this precious treasure - not with guns, but with knowledge.
Because now Christianity itself - and with it the most fundamental human freedom of worshipping God - is directly in the line of corporate fire.
So it's time to learn some law.
Happy Easter.
I believe there should a UN Human Rights Law, that NO state make religion the official religion of their country and NO state should allow state funds for any religious group, Episcopalian, Christians, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu.
You stoned?
> Now, the reason that homosexuals are being foolish is that by relying on federal law to enforce their desires, they are actually relying on federal policies that may be changed at any time to suit the needs of the federal government. Right now, the federal government finds it beneficial to enforce corporate homosexual privileges over corporate Christian privileges. But how long will that last? What about the rising demands of corporate Muslim privileges? Historically, how do Muslims treat gays? Historically, how does anyone anywhere treat gays? The only place gays have found solid refuge is in their acknowledgement of NON-corporate, human being status in the American Constitution. That status CANNOT be changed or challenged. Anywhere else, they live and die at the whim of the corporate government’s needs.
The homos should heed this warning. As soon as their usefulness runs out, the very Muslims they supported over Christians will be the one that slit their throats and lop off their heads...
Reject “civil rights” altogether. The rights that matter are the ones “endowed by the Creator”.
> Now, the reason that homosexuals are being foolish is that by relying on federal law to enforce their desires, they are actually relying on federal policies that may be changed at any time to suit the needs of the federal government. Right now, the federal government finds it beneficial to enforce corporate homosexual privileges over corporate Christian privileges. But how long will that last? What about the rising demands of corporate Muslim privileges? Historically, how do Muslims treat gays? Historically, how does anyone anywhere treat gays? The only place gays have found solid refuge is in their acknowledgement of NON-corporate, human being status in the American Constitution. That status CANNOT be changed or challenged. Anywhere else, they live and die at the whim of the corporate government’s needs.
The homos should heed this warning. As soon as their usefulness runs out, the very Muslims they supported over Christians will be the ones that slit their throats and lop off their heads...
bump
How about this “two governmental powers” idea get a little airplay, and let’s see if the people think it’s right.
I too have often pondered the similarity in the attitude of the first European settlers towards the “savages in the Heartland” and our current Elite’s own attitude to people like us.
Interesting perspective, and something definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for posting.
Happy Easter!
"Justice Roberts, in his now infamous Obamacare decision for which he is generally (and wrongly) reviled by conservatives, remarked:
No, we don't. We have two "governments," in fact. Two completely separate "governments," under one Constitution."
Thanks for posting Talisker. Good things in your post. But please allow me to indicate some issues that I had with with just a couple of your statements. Starting with your two governments remark, please consider the following.
We have two types of government under the Constitution, state and federal governments. In fact, it is the state governments who established the federal government, not vice versa as you may be thinking.
And not only did the original states establish the federal government, but they also drafted the federal Constitution to deliberately limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers. In other words, what the people have forgotten over the generations is that the original states drafted the Constitution to reserve the lion’s share of government power to serve the people to themselves, not to the federal government.
And the reason that the federal government is unconstitutionally big today is this. As a consequence of generations of parents not making sure that their children were taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, the federal government has been able to steal state government powers to regulate, tax and spend for many things that the states have actually never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific powers to do. In fact, Thomas Jefferson had predicted that the people would become apathetic towards government affairs.
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Next, since you evidently think that activist Justice Roberts was correct to argue the constitutionally of Obamacare, please consider the excerpts from historical Supreme Court case decisions below. Unlike Roberts, these excerpts indicate that previous generations of state power-respecting justices have historically clarified, on several occasions, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
Please note in particular that the current controversy about the Obamacare insurance mandate is actually not controversial at all imo. This is evidenced by the fourth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia (Paul). The Paul excerpt indicates that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that insurance policies are contracts, not commerce, Congress therefore having no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance policies, regardless if such policies are negotiated across state borders.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
In fact, note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, corrupt justices and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note that when the Founding States had established the federal Senate, they had given control of the Senate uniquely to state lawmakers. This basically so that the Senate could defend their states by killing bills made by the House which not only wrongly stole 10th Amendment-protected states powers, but arguably steal state revenues associated with those powers.
The reason that general voters now elect federal senators is this. State lawmakers caved into pressure from misguided citizens who evidently did not understand why they couldn’t vote for federal senators. State lawmakers subsequently turned the control of the federal Senate over to the popular vote by ratifying the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A), foolishly giving up the voices of state lawmakers in Congress by doing so.
One very bad consequence of 17A is this. The Senate wrongly passed constitutionally indefensible Obamacare, for example, regardless that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes as previously mentioned.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
But the SC has also ruled that closely held corporations are exempt from certain federal laws, like Hobby Lobby.
Once you get on that road, though, you breeze right by the "centralized democracy" station ... straight on through to "popular dictatorship," and shortly thereafter, "totalitarian dictatorship".
Are you an attorney? If not, I would be interested in hearing what an attorney (one with an interest in these matters) would say about your article.
Because some people in government are now hostile to marriage as God defined it, in order to protect godly marriage we must remove the power of the State to define and regulate marriage. Then anyone will be perfectly free to enter into whatever relationship they want. However, they will not be able to call upon the police power of the state to force me to recognize a “marriage” that I know is theologically illegitimate and morally repugnant.
If we remove government from marriage and return it to the private sphere where it came from, lesbians can still marry each other, but they won’t be able to use government to force me to sell them wedding cake or artfully photograph their “marriage”. They will be free to do as they please without being able to coerce anyone else about their private affair.
But this was never really about marriage. For homosexuals it was social engineering and payback. They could destroy marriage as God defined it, they could rub Christianity’s nose in it, they could punish people who objected and they could force anyone who was too vocal to shut up. But what they really want is approval, and it just galls them that a lot of people will never give it to them.
hear!! hear!! love your comment & i’ll add I’d love to see the day these gay political flamers so eager for a wedding cake & flowers & music to go to a muslim bakery or orthodox jewish bakery and make their requests made. Now either of those two would be a test case wouldn’t it?
The “two powers” Roberts references are the interstate commerce and taxing powers... nonetheless your point that religion should not be legalized is still valid and important.
The “invisible weapon” is the dynamics of mass marketing: perverts are exceptionally desired consumers and media will do whatever it can to please and attract them.
Supplying such a manipulable, low self-esteem audience for their customers- advertisers- is to the media’s highest profit.
And they control the public square, so demographics their customers- advertisers- desire are portrayed favorably.
Politicians get favorable coverage in the media for boosting their profits from pleasing their customers- advertisers- and act accordingly.
No one sees this.
We are indeed ignorant savages who do not comprehend what is destroying us though it is before our eyes.
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.
