DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I am going to by-pass the individual complaints. They most certainly have to be compared to the list of present complaints, but they are not needed to tell the story that I'm trying to tell. I will go to the last two paragraphs:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from the Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

If there was no such person as God, this would be quite a document. There is a God and if this document is not carefully implemented and maintained with the God of the Bible in mind, it could lead to serious trouble for this nation. If you want to see just one of the many scriptures that shows what God thinks of "freedom of religion" take a look at Deuteronomy 12:1-3. Whoever coined the phrase, America, the land in which you can worship God the way you choose, or even worse, America, where you can worship the god of your choice, has no more understanding of God and the Bible, than the person(s) that puts forth the concept of "unalienable rights." If there was no God and evolution was the truth, it too (the Constitution) would most certainly even go against this godless concept. It would protect the weak from the strong. Evolution would stop and all life would stagnate and die.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are only as good as our faith and obedience to the God of the Bible. The framers of the Constitution and the writers of the Declaration of Independence must not have been too keen on the God of the Bible, or maybe they were very sensitive about shoving their religious beliefs onto other people, this, because of the way the documents were written. Their non-aggressive stand for the God of the Bible has now come to haunt the very land that they wanted to be such a blessing on mankind. I would think the terms, "Divine Providence," "Natures God," "Supreme Judge," "and Creator" would have told the framers that God is in charge, not only of the universe, but in the affairs of all mankind also. For with the God of the Bible, there is no such thing as "unalienable rights". When in the course of time, mankind himself, and not only government, becomes a corrupt and vile stench in the nostrils of God, He, Himself will send oppressors and/or troubles to those people, whether there is a piece of paper protecting them or not. The judgment of God is not held back by the power of man. It has been reported that the founding fathers (or at least the most religious of them), said, “The Constitution in the hands of non-virtuous people will not work.”

I think the Bible teaches that all men are NOT created equal. What is the meaning of EQUAL? God's bestowal of equality is based on His foreknowledge of all people and His providential justice. If all people were exactly the same then we could truly say, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal,"..., but as to UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, the Declaration should read, VARIOUS RIGHTS according to our righteousness before God. What God gives, can also be taken away. In GOD AND STATE, there are numerous scriptures that teach that God puts whomever He wants in charge of the governments and also stirs the spirit of an adversary when trouble is what the offender or offending nation deserves. The Bible truly teaches that we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,... as long as we are a blessing to God. The "right of the people" does not overrule God's right to RULE over His creation, and moreover, can probably be considered rebellion against God's sovereignty. The trouble with documents is that they don't change with the people. When ungodly people that deserve severe judgment, start to get it, they grab onto the Declaration and scream for their rights. Rights (blessings) that may very well have been subjugated by God Himself, and there will be no help coming from anywhere or anyone, and if it does, it will come with much grief and blood shed.

A lot of people will say, better DEAD than RED. Paul Harvey quoted Robert Orbin, when talking of the "Right to Die" movement. He says, "When God sends you tribulation, He expects you to tribute." I think the same thing can be said about the judgment of nations. Jeremiah 38:2 says, "Thus saith the LORD, he that remaineth in this city shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans (the enemy) shall live; for he shall have his life for a prey, and shall live." Verse (3), "Thus saith the LORD, This city shall surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon's army, which shall take it." Now we hear from the "better DEAD than RED crowd:" Verse (4), "Therefore the princes said unto the king, We beseech thee, let this man (Jeremiah) be put to death: for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city..." Chapter (21) is even more powerful than (38). King Zedekiah wanted to know if Nebuchadrezzar was going to go away. Verse (4) Says that God will turn back their (Zedekiah's) weapons of war that they were using to fight against the king of Babylon. Verse (5), "And I myself (God) will fight against you with an outstretched hand and a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath." Verse (6), "And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they shall die of a great pestilence." Verse (9), "...but he that goeth out, and falleth to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey." Verse (10), For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith the LORD:..."

When despotism comes, either from within this country or the threat from without, the Declaration says that "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,"... Here we are given permission by the Declaration to rebel against God's judgment. Apostasy comes slowly and we don't think we are so bad, and that is one thing that keeps us clinging to the Declaration. This causes us, like it says in the next to the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,"... Depending on the situation, we could be asking God to help us in our struggle against Him.

Take for instance the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is not immune from certain areas of legislation. If your religion says you can have more then one wife, the Government reserves the right to say it is immoral and forbid the practice. The WORLD BOOK ("B"), Bill of Rights says..."But the Supreme Court of the United States has held that these rights have some limits. For example, freedom of speech does not protect a person who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire"... and "when its exercise creates a "clear and present danger" to society". Herein is where the real danger lies. The liberals in the law, the Legislature, the Supreme Court and any other governing body have failed to recognize the fact that there is a God, and God has prohibitions on bad language, nudity, kiddy porn, and all sorts of other immorality. The Bible clearly teaches a nation that is practicing gross immorality is truly in "clear and present danger" of losing it's freedoms. These include loss from invading forces, famines, pestilence, drought, faltering economy and any other bad thing that could happen to a nation under judgment. The humanistic people governing this country have a much different interpretation of "IMMORAL" than God has. Deuteronomy 8:1-20, would be a good chapter to read in this connection.

The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is out of balance with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence says, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,...". How can you have the governed, force-fed constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court, and still be considered a nation of the people. Law and order is being held hostage by a very select group of men and women who may not have knowledge of God or even care if He exists. They are a law unto themselves. If we the people have trouble choosing good leaders, how can we expect them to choose good people to sit on the Supreme Court?

There have been many decisions by the Supreme Court that have clearly given the guilty more rights and protections than the honest citizen. One of the most obvious was the Supreme Court's June 25th, 1962 decision that said prayer in school is unconstitutional. Why do "WE" allow the Supreme Court to be seated by the President and have them remain in that seat until death or resignation, while we have the option to retain or reject other judges? We ought to be able to vote down bad decisions and get rid of the justices that are not representing the "will of the people." The consent of the Governed gives "US" the right to be wrong as long as we do it in the majority. What is worse - most of the people being wrong, or a few judges being wrong? If it is "constitutionally" okay for the minority to say, good is evil and evil is good, why is it wrong for the majority to say, good is good and evil is evil? Why does the Constitution have to protect the wrong view? Why do the humanists get to push off their minority view on the majority, all in the name of equal, human or constitutional rights? There are two reasons why that doesn't make any sense. Number one: the majority should rule. Number two: since there is a God, then there must be a right and a wrong and no matter how many go against God; He is still right. If the Constitution gives the majority or the minority the right to be wrong, then it, in fact goes against God. If, on the other hand, God pronounces judgment on a people, no matter which nationality, race, creed or color, who are we or the Constitution to avert that judgment? Which means we had better watch out when trying to help other nations of the world, as well as our own, if in fact they or we are under God's judgment.

The Constitution is a contradiction. The people that wrote it did not fully understand who the God of the Bible is and how far His authority extends into and throughout humanity. (See: God And State). The framers built problems into the Constitution. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". If the framers wanted this nation to be Christian, they should have said so. As it is now, any atheist, or persons of any other religion can come into this country, wait the required amount of time, get elected to office, and start to write laws against the Christian majority. In article 6, it says, ..."but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Looking back into history we can see where this came from, but it too can have an undermining effect on the Christian principles on which this nation was founded. The framers should have written into the Constitution an oath to honor the God of the Bible. As a result of that failure, look at the secular humanism that has invaded our schools, churches, Congress, Supreme Court and all the other institutions in this nation. This in itself could be an act of judgment.

How can the Constitution start out in the hands of the people and then the people be "deemed" not able to interpret its intent? A similar thing happened in a period of time called the "dark ages." The Bible was withheld from the common people because it was thought that they couldn't possibly understand it and needed a "professional" to interpret the "true" meaning. When you look at some of the religions we have today that claim their authority comes from the Bible, maybe the "dark agers" had a good point; but the way the First Amendment of the Constitution was written, it gives them the right to be wrong. That may be both good and bad. If this nation had the Bible written into the Constitution, there are those that could and would pervert it just as they do in many churches today. It all comes back to the "will" of the people in following God, or not. The Constitution is at best, flawed, and at worst, is in conflict with God and His authority to rule over His creation in the way He chooses and the way we deserve. The Supreme Court is a good example. The decisions they are passing down in this “enlightened age” bring the honest citizens right back to taxation without representation and inability to have redress of grievances.

The Bible is our guide to life. We get in trouble when we throw it down and follow our own instincts. "There is a way which seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 Without strong leadership we will have a similar situation to what Israel had, in Judges 17:6 and 21:5, "but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." With that type of freedom, comes bondage.

Even a casual reading of the Old Testament will show you where slavery came from, and from whom it came. Slavery is not a blessing on mankind but a curse. Biblical slavery is not based on race, creed or color; it is based on one’s inability to handle freedom. (See: Slavery).

I think we have to look at China and Russia as modern day examples of God's judgment. China was under Mao for around 30 years. Those people lost a lot of basic freedoms. After Mao died there was a real turn around. Not all of it is positive but a real turn around indeed and more is coming in the future. Russia was about the same way. The leadership of the country was in spiritual decay when the revolution came in 1917. Russia fits the Revelation-Laodicean mode quite well. If we are lukewarm, God will vomit us out of His mouth. Since the chance of Russia getting hot for the Lord in the form of a revival was not a possibility, God made sure they would be cold. You can't get much colder than an atheistic government. Those closed borders only go to prove that people get the government they deserve. In the case of Communist governments, it would be interesting to see how many people would remain in the country if the borders weren't closed.

The World Book ("B"), article on Berlin says that between 1945 and 1961 almost 3 million refugees flocked to West Berlin from all parts of East Germany. In June of 1961 more than a 1000 people a day crossed into the west, and was on the increase. On August 13, 1961, East German police started to build the wall.

My wife and I were in West Berlin for 3 days in 1968 and there were three attempts by three different people to escape. Two were killed and one was drug back to be further forced fed Communism's good life.

Now that the wall is down we'll have to see what the quality of life is going to be like.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Constitution was never meant to protect the guilty. It was never meant to protect those who are employed by commission of crimes against society, from prosecution.

When a law enforcement officer gets evidence by sneaking into the suspect’s house, that evidence should not be thrown out when the procedure comes to the attention of the court. What should be happening is, the evidence taken that proves a crime, should be used to prosecute the suspect and put him or her behind bars. The officer that got the evidence illegally should then be suspended without pay for whatever amount of time a citizens committee deems appropriate. If the officer’s illegal entry produces no incriminating evidence he or she could be jailed for up to six months and fined, depending on the circumstances of that officer's illegal action. This could be determined by a board of elected citizens. I think the citizens of this country would rather have criminals go to jail than go free on a technicality. If it turns out that the officer has bothered or harassed an innocent citizen, the suspension and/or jail and/or fine and punitive damages should be accepted by society as a trade off for making sure that criminals are not set free on society. No criminal should ever be set free because of a technicality.

The trouble with the system that we have today is, a civilian that would snoop through someone's house, see something illegal, would be able to go to the authorities, sign an affidavit stating that he or she saw the illegal item and the authorities would swear out a search and arrest warrant and they would be able to go execute those warrants. Our main problem is that most civilians don't want to get involved and "rat" on their neighbor. What is the difference if an informant told a police officer (whose job it is to get involved) that those items were there and the police officer signed an affidavit and got a search warrant? If the informant gives the officer bad information and an intrusion is carried out against an innocent person then the informant will be jailed, fined, sued or all three, or any of the combination of the three.

The thing we have to remember is, the Constitution does not allow the people living under it to commit crimes. Why do we restrict the authorities in enforcing the laws? The state, as we have seen, is given its authority by God, Daniel 4:17 and Romans 13:1-7, and it's the people's responsibility to obey those laws.

The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The word unreasonable is the key to the Fourth Amendment. Any search that could be deemed to be unreasonable needs a proper warrant. In gross violations of the law, whether treason, drugs, etc., there should be no problem with law enforcement officers going in and seizing the property and arresting the violator. To say that these people should have the same rights as the law abiding citizen is clearly ridiculous and is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I don't think the Supreme Court should be the ones who are interpreting what the word "unreasonable" means. It should be "the people" in general and a local Justice of the Peace, in particular, and if there is an appeal, the decision and all police reports can go forward to the higher courts. The main evidence is the most important thing in the case. If the evidence was found on the person, or the property of the person, and it has been proven that they were in control or they had reasonable time to leave the premises and report the contraband, he or she is guilty. The means of seizure will be the next item that the Higher Court will have to look at. The whole jury trial and appeal system should also be overhauled. (See: Criminal Justice System Has Aids).

In the November 1988 issue of FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, page 22-28, Special Agent Kimberly A. Kingston, J.D., goes over "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Cases". In the case of Oliver v. United States, it is in reference to two police officers, acting on a tip that marijuana was being grown on the defendant's farm. When the officers arrived, they ignored a "No Trespassing" sign and a locked gate. My belief that the Constitution does not protect criminals makes the "No Trespassing" sign and the locked gate, null and void.

Before the trial the defendant moved to suppress the marijuana taken from his property on the grounds that it was discovered as a result of an unreasonable, warrant less search. It was a warrant less search indeed but the fact that there was marijuana on the property only goes to prove that the search was reasonable.

Concerning Trash Inspections: California v. Greenwood, Listen to an excerpt of the dissenting Justice's opinion. "Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior". (emphasis mine) What about the uncivilized behavior, depravity, sickness, poverty, and the expense, it costs this nation, to let the drug sellers and users have Constitutional protections that were really designed for protesting government harassment of it's citizens; desiring, redress of grievances. If it's a toss up between "freedom" and losing the battle against drugs, I think the average citizen is willing and ready to have the "rights" of drug dealers and users "stomped" into the ground.

If we're going to protect society with a bunch of laws, let's not use a bunch of "man made" loopholes to free them (law makers) from the obligation to follow the intent of the people.

The whole of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been prostituted in the name of godless religions, foul language, indecent behavior, concealing contraband, lengthy continuances, state paid lawyers, no bail, and who knows what else. The thought is, that if "they" start cracking down on the sleaze mongers, we, the honest citizen will be next. It's the same thing Joe McCarthy did in spooking the nation about Communism. It's my opinion that the Bill of Rights is too general, and wide open for radical interpretation. Amendment (8) is a good example of how the founding fathers should have spent a little more time and spelled out what they really meant, not that it would make any difference to a radical on the left or right, but so that "we the majority" would know what they thought was excessive bail for whatever class of crime, or what punishment they thought to be not cruel or what types were acceptable.

They should have known that there would have been these types of troubles considering the wrangling that it took to make everybody happy when writing the Constitution, and then adding the Bill of Rights in the first place.

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

Doesn’t it seem a little funny that the innocent witness to a crime can be compelled into court, and have to testify against a person that does not have the same obligation under the 5th amendment? If that witness fails or refuses to do so, he or she can be held in contempt of court. The word compelled (in the Constitution) should have been eliminated or replaced with one that would convey the idea of requiring the suspect to answer for the crime of which he or she is accused. They should be required to answer “yes” or “no” to questions asked of them by the prosecution or be held in contempt of court. The dictionary defines compelled as, “to drive or urge with force.”

As it now stands, the guilty can keep his or her mouth shut and possibly escape any sentence for the crime which they may have committed. The witness guilty of contempt of court has to serve whatever time the judge decides while the person doing the crime may only serve the time which he or she is in court. Lawyers today are being used to get guilty people “off the hook,” instead of being used to point out extenuating circumstances and seeing to it that the punishment fits the crime.

The founding fathers were not error free and some of these inconsistencies should be changed for the sake of justice and law and order . With all the obvious loopholes in the Constitution, and knowledge of the ages, one can't help but wonder what part God played in its design as pertains to "Conspiracy of Judgment."

The liberals of our day and age are clinging onto the last dying gasps of FDR-ism. The depression was a judgment of God on the people of this nation. It was meant to drive us to our knees in repentance. Socialism was a form of rebellion in which the people were attempting to over-ride any possible wrinkle in the economy that was or could have been a judgment of God. Its most brutal form was that on full-blown communism such as in Russia and China and its most subtle was FDR-ism in America. FDR was popular because he “bought us” out of the depression, both in government programs and wanting to, and eventually getting involved in WW2. It can all be summed up in saying the world is looking for health and job security. If you’re not willing to save it up yourself, you have to have someone else do it for you. That is where socialism comes in and is quite attractive. You seem to be getting something for nothing all the while forgetting that you are either paying high taxes or large premiums for that security. In this system-the people abusing their bodies the worse, are the ones that make out the best.

This nation started out in a self-sufficient mode and the modern day Robin Hoods are seeking to stay where we should have never gone in the first place. By their philosophy and actions, they are seeking to produce a Declaration of Dependence (upon big government).

Many of these “activists” are very rich actors, politicians, members of the news media as well as other trades and associations. They want the down trodden to live the good life at the expense of all taxpayers. The only rub is, they can afford 40% taxes and still have plenty of cash left over for exotic travel, entertainment, spacious homes, summer homes, expensive cars and all the rest.

I used to get a chagrined chuckle out of the union sponsored “Buy American Made,” campaign shown on TV and other media’s. Big stars like Bob Hope and other six figured income celebrities would be telling us how good it is for the country to buy American made products. If I made six figures I could be talked into exclusively buying American made items, but until then I’ll have to shop around and clip coupons.

Do we have a Constitutional right to be lawless other than the overthrow of bad government? Does the Constitution give us a right to break the law, other that in the overthrow of bad government.

This depends on which side of God you stand on. In the case of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it had a shelf life of about 70 years. When Communist rule effectively ended, it wasn’t because of Billy Graham, the Pope, Nixon, Reagan, war, anyone or anything else. It was because of God. He started and ended a 70-year jail term that was given to the people of the Russia’s for their sin against Him.

So when we ask the above question, “Does the Constitution give us a right to break the law, other that in the overthrow of bad government,” the answer is no, unless driven by God to do it. The oppression that you are suffering will end in God’s time. If, through a revolution, not of God’s will, there will be trouble for the emerging government.

We (as an overall population) get the government we deserve. The innocent (if there is any such thing) will have to suffer along with the rest of the people, until God ends that oppression. If you want to start a revolution just go out and tell the ungodly masses that they don’t deserve such treatment. Then they come up with all sorts of cleaver sayings and slogans like, “give me liberty or give me death,” “Don’t Tread on me,” and others. Nobody ever thinks they deserve what they get.

Mark Twain, a guy who not only, wasn’t satisfied with his own name, was also not too close to the God of the Bible, (so-as-to understand where governments come from) supposedly said of news papers, “ a newspaper is not just for reporting news, it’s to get people mad enough to do something about it.” That is the same mentality that the moved the Bolshevik’s to overthrow the Czar. They thought they deserved better government treatment.

Thou shalt not steal has been reduced to, innocent until proven guilty. Thou shalt covet anything of your neighbor’s. The much gentler N.T. says if you lust after a woman you are guilty of adultery in your heart. Matt 5:28.

previous page | next page | back to top | index