Last night I attended a judicial forum at Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship in Temecula, and it turned out to be a very interesting event.  The attendees, based on their questions, and the responses by the folks on the stage, reminded me that most Americans have a basic handle on what’s going on, and a faint idea of what the Constitution calls for in order for us to maintain our American System, but they are lost in the details.  They know something needs to be done, but they don’t know how to do it.  They realize things are wrong, but they aren’t sure exactly how it is that these things are so wrong, or how they got so wrong in the first place.

From a Christian perspective, Americans recognize that if we are not a Godly people, freedom will elude us.  The Founding Fathers created this country to be a Christian Nation, not in a manner of a theocracy, but with its foundation anchored in a Christian culture that is only capable of standing as long as that Christian culture remains intact.

The forces of statism wish to fundamentally transform America into some kind of big government glob of collectivism.  In the new utopia, the homogenous mass of people would be ardent supporters of their government, and worshipers of a wiser-than-God ruling elite.  The followers of such a system are accepting of socialism, or fascism, or whatever they are striving for, but support it by another name, without realizing they are gladly raising the red flag of socialism themselves.  The ruling elite of this new utopia realize that in order to achieve their goals of an ever-expansive government model, they must eliminate God.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”  Take away the virtue, which is fueled by the Christian nature of our country, and American liberty can finally be defeated, and the new socialist statist utopia can finally fly its flag over the White House.

To accomplish their aim, the forces of the liberal left, progressivism if you must, have targeted Christianity from the very beginning, veiling the attacks as “for the common good” and “fairness.”  First, they worked to remove Christianity from the public eye, and then replace it with humanistic thinking.  They removed prayer from schools, and inserted into the schools concepts such as the Theory of Evolution (without allowing any opposing ideas, such as Creationism, to be allowed in the arena of debate).  And now, after indoctrinating a few generations with their collectivist agenda, they have turned directly against The Church with little opposition from their well-trained dupes.  The problem is, few congregations are willing to stand against the threat of being silenced, and few pastors are willing to speak up because they fear they may lose tithers, or their non-profit status.

I must ask, “For how many pieces of silver are you willing to turn your back on the teachings of Jesus Christ for?”

In some cases, denominations have been infiltrated, have altered their biblical teachings to include the lessons provided by worldly sources.  Some of these “religions” have turned away from teaching about the consequences of sin, have embraced worldly concepts, and have even gone so far as to have homosexual church leaders and pastors.  That is not to say that all is lost.  A few churches have decided to stand against the judicial attacks against Christ that include, but are not limited to, a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding marriage.

At the forum I attended last night at the Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship in Temecula, among the most common questions was, “How did the courts get so much power?”  That is a question I will address in a subsequent article, but to understand that power, first, we have to understand how the liberal left collectivist statists have hijacked the foundational premise of the American System in the first place, thus, changing the whole basis of the argument. . . which has put us into a position of reacting to their attacks, and doing so under their terms without us even realizing that they changed the rules while we weren’t looking.

We have first been lulled into believing that the Constitutional duty of the federal government is to be the ultimate protector of our rights, and in turn, guarantee our rights.  In doing so, we have also allowed the federal government, and the courts, more specifically, to define our rights, and make rulings that directly influence our rights.

When the Bill of Rights was originally written, the amendments were specifically directed (except in a few cases in the legal amendments) at the federal government, not telling the federal government to guarantee our rights, but instead telling the federal government “hands off” our rights.  The States, after all, have original authority over all issues, and therefore if the federal government does not have the expressly enumerated authority over something, and the States are not prohibited, the issue belongs to the States – a concept articulated in the Tenth Amendment.  Therefore, our rights are a local issue, not one that should be addressed by the federal government.  We are the owners of our own rights, and it is our responsibility to preserve them through our own actions, and local governance.

The twist in the whole argument, however, arises when we realize what the Supreme Court used to validate their ruling on marriage, that basically decided the States were not allowed to reject gay marriage.  The clause from the Constitution used by the five of nine unelected justices to support their ruling regarding marriage comes from the Fourteenth Amendment.  The clause is known as the Equal Protection Clause.  In its most basic definition, the Equal Protection Clause says that States must treat everyone equally under the law, and it is assumed that the job to enforce this clause belongs to the federal government.  The notion of treating everyone equal under the law, or “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” was not a new concept when that clause was written by Ohio member of the House of Representatives, John Bingham.  Much of the language was borrowed from Article IV. of the existing U.S. Constitution.

The reasoning behind Bingham’s Equal Protection Clause was to ensure the States, more specifically the Southern States, that the statists in The North believed had misbehaved when they seceded, and must be forced to act in a manner prescribed by the federal government if they were going to be allowed back into the union, not infringe on the rights of the newly emancipated slaves.  There were still elements in the Democrat Party in the Southern States bent on doing whatever it took to deny Blacks their rights, and so Bingham believed that the Constitution must go against the original intent of the Founding Fathers, and make the federal government the enforcer of rights through a concept that has become known as the “Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States.”  The Congress, when they approved the proposal of the Fourteenth Amendment, rejected Bingham’s statist ideas, as did the States, when they ratified the amendment.  The U.S. Congress and State legislatures and/or convention delegates supported the idea that the States must treat everyone equally based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but they did not support the concept that the clause extended to all other definitions that the government may concoct, nor did they support that the clause makes the federal government the guarantor of rights by incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States.  The federal courts, however, picked up the baton, and through various court rulings have incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States, anyway, despite the original intentions of Congress, or the debates during State ratification.  Our generation has accepted the concept of the federal government being the guarantor of our rights as being constitutional because we have been taught that the courts are the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution, and that if it wasn’t for the federal government, the untrustworthy States would get nothing right, accomplish nothing, and betray our rights as often as they can.  In short, the statists have succeeded in convincing the voting public that the federal government is our champion in the battle to protect our freedoms, when in reality, it is the very entity from which oppression is destined to emerge if we don’t prevent the further expansion of the central government.

Even though the concepts of the federal government being the final arbiter of the Constitution through the courts, and being the guarantor of our rights, are not constitutional, that is where we stand at this juncture in history.  The Rule of Law has been shifted from its original definition, to one that is defined by the whims and preferences of a humanistic political and judicial class.  We have been taught, and our entire system is anchored in, the idea that the federal courts are the ultimate deciders over the definition of our rights, and the federal government is the final enforcer of all issues regarding “Constitutional Rights.”  So, because of the reality of our present position, we must work within those definitions, as unlawful as they may be.  To do so, we must also understand that there is something else we can use that may be an important tool in us being able to work back towards where the definitions are supposed to be.  Culture drives politics, so it is our task to begin regaining a foothold over the culture.  In other words, we need a revival.  To reach that revival we must recognize that a Judeo-Christian majority still exists in the United States, and that our Judeo-Christian roots inserted by the Founding Fathers at the founding of this country are intertwined in the foundation of liberty throughout the American System.  That pillar, the very basic idea that served as the starting point behind the Magna Carta, the English Declaration of Rights in 1689, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution, is the belief that we not only have rights, but that those rights are not supposed to be defined, or given, by the characters that inhabit the upper realm of government or the justice system, and that none of those critters in government are above the law, or can force their will that stands in opposition to the rule of law upon us.

John Locke called the concept “Natural Law.”  In the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, we are told that our rights are entitled to us by the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the existence of our rights are “self-evident,” “unalienable,” and we are “endowed by [our] Creator” with those rights.  In the simplest terms, our rights are God-given.  We all, as human beings, enjoy equality in the Eyes of God, and therefore we are all created equal.  Government is simply in existence because the services offered by a government are necessary to “secure these rights.”  The presence of law enforcement, and emergency services, which are administered by local government, allows us to entertain our rights, and to do so without the worry that those rights might be betrayed by an element in society determined to swindle our property rights away from us through burglary, or take away other rights through violence.

However, government in its self can be detrimental to our rights, so it must be limited so that it is only there to protect our rights through its local services, or through common defense (should our rights be at risk due to invasion by foreign forces, or illegal encroachment across the national border).  As Thomas Jefferson so wisely observed, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

In order to ensure that the government does not become that criminal element, and do what it can to compromise our rights, we must remember that our rights are God-given.  If our rights are God-given, that means that they are not to be given, or taken away, by government.  It also means that if our rights are God-given, then they must also be God-defined.

The problem we are experiencing with the federal courts acting as the final arbiters of the Constitution is that they are defining what are rights, and what are not rights, and they are doing so based on a platform that is hostile to our Judeo-Christian foundation.  Therefore, if they can convince an obedient society that a lifestyle or behavior is a “civil right,” then they can use their misplaced definition of the Fourteenth Amendment to enable them to force their will upon the people.  This is what they have done in the case of marriage.  Homosexuality is being defined as a “Constitutional Right,” and more specifically, as a “Civil Right.”  But does that fit the definition of what a right is, as prescribed by the Declaration of Independence?

If a right is God-given, it must be God-defined, which means in order to be a right, it must be something that God would sanction.  So I simply ask, “Would God sanction gay marriage?”  What about killing children in the womb?  Would God sanction abortion?  Would God sanction that Health Care is a right, rather than a responsibility of an individual?  Would God consider Birth Control a right, therefore requiring government to force health insurance to pay for birth control methods?  Would God sanction the idea that homosexuals can demand that Christians do as the gay community demands, be it baking a cake, or recognizing their ungodly marriage, or be punished by the full force of law that would require a person to renounce their beliefs as prescribed by their Faith in Jesus Christ?

As for the enumeration of our rights in the United States Constitution, notice that the Bill of Rights begins with religious freedom, the most important of all of our rights (aside from Life).  The English Colonists first came to the New World seeking to escape religious persecution.  Our nation has prospered because we have recognized the Judeo-Christian foundation of our society.  Once a society loses its moral compass, and denies the moral standard its Judeo-Christian foundation provides, the rest of our rights are soon to follow.  By removing our right to religious freedom, it will not be long before the rest of our rights collapse, as well.  This is why, through the onslaught of homosexuality, the religious foundation of our nation is under assault.  Statism knows that once The Church is rendered ineffective, control over society through governmental means will follow with ease.

In short, they know that “When we abandon the Rule of Law, and embrace the Rule of Man, it isn’t long before we began dancing around a golden calf.”

Recently, in an interview with Thom Hartmann, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said regarding 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president.” Huffington Post goes on to explain that the decisions were rendered by “five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

According to liberal left commentators, experts, political minds, and the Huffington Post, the two rulings “enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns.”

The Huff Post article then goes on to explain that in politics, there are only two choices. Either, we are an aristocracy (oligarchy) where the richest citizen’s desires are reflected in governmental actions, or we are a democracy where the leaders represent the public at large.

Upon hearing such a thing being perpetrated by the liberal left Democrats, the political minds that reside right-of-center react, attacking what Carter, or Huff Post, had to say, without fully understanding that the premise is wrong in the first place. While fighting on the liberal left’s terms, the “right-wingers” make fools of themselves trying defend plutocratic activities and damning what the Democrats consider to be the “will of the people.”

“See?” is the inevitable response by the Democrats, “those conservatives and Republicans are quick to defend the rich, and stand against the democratic will of the people.”

First of all, calling the five Supreme Court Justices “Republican judges” is a trap in itself. Judges are supposed to be “apolitical,” leaving their ideology at the door, and ruling based on the application of the law, rather than their membership to a particular party. “Republican judges” is inserted into the conversation by the liberal left because they believe the word “Republican” has been soiled by their ongoing onslaught of propaganda, and to a point, they are right. The uninformed voters that consistently vote Democrat twist into idiotic contortions when they hear the word “Republican.” Immediately, the terms “racist,” “bigot,” and “anti-democratic” comes to mind. They believe the Republican Party is the party of controlling their lives, saying “no” to their dear Democrat Party leaders, and wanting a religious oligarchy, when in reality the opposite is true. The liberal left has made projecting their own political sins upon the opposition an incredible science, slamming their followers into obedience with mere language, be it with the term “Republican,” “Conservative,” or “Tea Party.”

The second part of the puzzle gets even deeper. The question to the question regarding what the American System is, according to the writers at Huffington Post, has only one of two answers. Either, we are a democracy that is defined as being of the people, or we are an aristocratic oligarchy where the rich (and presumably the religious right) controls everyone with gobs and gobs of cash and religious rules. It’s one or the other. Choose.

The problem is, the choices are not honest, nor fully accurate.

An oligarchy is “rule by a group,” and often such a government plays favoritism to those that provide its political leaders with the most funding. So, Carter is sort of right. In an oligarchy, money pumped into the ruling elite by some members of the wealthy class can be a part of the oligarchical system. A sound financial base supplied by the wealthy, however, does not necessarily mean that the system is automatically a plutocratic oligarchy. What makes it an oligarchy is the fact that a few powerful members of a “powerful elite” rule over the many, regardless of where their funding comes from.

The liberal left is always quick to call the United States a democracy. In truth, a democracy is a dangerous form of government, and in history always serves as a transitional form of government, more often than not using “the will of the people” to move the system towards an oligarchy.

We are not supposed to be either an oligarchy, or a democracy, in America. The Founding Fathers, in fact, warned against our country being a democracy, and they fought against an oligarchy in the form of a monarchy in Britain to achieve independence.

When Elizabeth Powel walked up to Benjamin Franklin after the completion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the politically involved, and well known woman among the political folk, asked Franklin, “Well, Sir, what have you given us? A monarchy, or a republic?”

“A republic, Madam, if you can keep it,” replied the senior statesman.

A Republic.

The problem is, most Americans in today’s society are convinced we have a democracy. This is nothing new. Andrew Jackson, though I believe he was a champion when it came to economics, had a flawed desire to fundamentally transform the United States from a republic, to a democracy. This is one of the reasons many Democrats view Jackson in a favorable light, and why he is considered by many to be the “father of the Democratic Party.”

James Madison, while composing essays to be presented to the State of New York to encourage the citizens to call for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution (commonly known as The Federalist Papers) found the need five times to explain what a “republic” is. The reason for him feeling the need to define “republic” is because the nationalists of the time who opposed the Constitution, because it did not create a powerful enough central government, in their opinion, were trying to convince the people that a republic and a democracy was the same thing so that the people would begin to demand that the government act more “democratic.”

In quote after quote the Founding Fathers warned us against allowing the United States becoming a democracy.

The Electoral College (a method of election created in the Constitution, but not named as such until well into the 1800s) was created to protect our country, and the smaller States, from the excesses of democracy.

Thomas Jefferson called democracies the “Tyranny of the majority.”

John Adams was quoted to say, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

The Founders are not the only historical figures to recognize that a democracy opposes liberty.

Karl Marx once said, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

Karl Marx, the father of communism, understood that the implementation of a democracy is a necessary step in the process of destroying our Constitutional Republic. Once the people are fooled to believe that they can receive gifts from the treasury rather than achieve for their livelihood through their individual aspirations, they will continually vote in the people who ensure the entitlements continue to flow. Eventually, this mindset becomes the majority. This group of government dependents then changes over time from an involved and informed electorate to a populace who lacks the understanding of the principles of liberty and can easily be manipulated into believing that sacrificing individual liberty in exchange for social justice, artificial security, and gifts from the treasury is a price that we must be willing to pay. A group dependent upon the government in such a manner, then, is primed to vote into power a potential tyranny.

Once the majority of the voters in a democracy becomes the recipient of benefits from the federal government, the government achieves unchecked power, and may then violate the property rights of the productive members of society in order to provide benefits to the non-productive members of society. This is best characterized in the “tax the rich,” or “redistribution of wealth,” scheme we are now seeing emerge as the rallying cry by statists in government. Samuel Adams called this method of a redistribution of wealth “schemes of leveling.”

The delegates in the federal convention of 1787 were aware of the danger of collectivism, which is why they established our system of government, and the Electoral College, in the manner they did. A true democracy becomes mob rule, and the principles of liberty become a target for elimination.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” — Thomas Jefferson

Winston Churchill understood the dangers of trusting an uninformed electorate with the capacity to govern. He was quoted as saying, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Democracy is a transitional governmental system that ultimately leads to tyranny, an oligarchy like socialism, fascism, or a totalitarian system. This was true in the days of the French Revolution no less than it is today.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner — James Bovard

My friend, Tim “Loki” Kerlin, used to say, “A Republic is two wolves voting on what to have for dinner, and a well-armed sheep contesting the vote, and ensuring nobody is on the menu.”

Our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic. The indirect election of the President through the Electoral College reflects that truth, and the Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of the system of checks and balances as they apply to the voters.

A limited government is the essence of liberty.

Most of the nations in the world, and throughout history, have been ruled by a powerful few. These oligarchies are most often despotic, and restrictive in terms of choice and individuality.

The word “democracy” comes from two Greek words. “Demos” means “people,” and “Kratein” means “to rule.” Therefore, “democracy” means “The rule of the people,” or as Jefferson reminded us, “The rule of the Majority,” and ultimately, the “tyranny of the majority.”

The “will of the people,” or the “rule of the people,” sounds good on the surface. Does not the U.S. Constitution begin with the words “We the People?” The Founding Fathers agreed that a government that includes an element of the people is necessary, and a good thing. However, they also understood that too much power in any one place could be dangerous. The checks and balances throughout the government as applied by the Constitution are there to ensure that no part of the government can consolidate too much power. That effort extends also to the people, and their vote, for even the people, with too much power, can misuse that power, and lead our American System towards becoming an oligarchy.

In a democracy, majority rule can quickly become “mob-rule,” where the majority begins to vote for tyrannical practices that may, for example, single out one group, or give preferential treatment to another group. Suppose the majority decides to vote away any of our natural rights, or the possessions of a particular group because that group of people has been labeled as being undesirable by propaganda, or a complicit media? Suppose the majority votes away parental rights, or through their vote outlaws possessions because they have a beef with the wealthy having more than them? In a pure democracy there is no check against the vote of the people, and once the mob realizes they can vote into place their selfish desires, or gifts from the treasury, the downward spiral of the civilization into chaos, collapse, or oligarchy is inevitable.

The word republic comes from two Greek words. The first part comes from “Res,” or “Thing,” and the second part comes from the Greek term “Publica,” meaning “Public.” A republic, then, is a “public thing,” which means it is a system that is a public thing, “The Law.”

The rule of law is the foundation of a republic. When we discuss the rule of law, it does not mean the opinions of judges, but instead what the law actually says. In our case, the Law of the Land that the rule of law must be based upon is the United States Constitution.

In a republic, the judiciary is not supposed to rule based on their opinion of the law, but instead they are supposed to apply the law to the cases they hear. In a republic, nobody is above the law, which means that all parts of government must also adhere to the law. Government, in a republic, is limited by the law. In the American republic the Founding Fathers included other mechanisms to protect the rule of law against oligarchs, collusion, and corruption. While no system is perfect, the founders believed that the American System would be able to stand the test of time, and have the best chance to withstand the constant assault that is always a threat by those seeking power in government.

Among the mechanisms in place to protect the American System are Checks and Balances, a Separation of Powers, State Sovereignty, the authority by the States to be the final arbiters of the Constitution (which supports a State’s right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws), and a weak federal judiciary tasked with only applying the law as originally intended and established by Article III of the Constitution.

In our republic, the President has no legislative powers, the Judicial Branch has no power to enforce the law or interpret the Constitution, and the Congress cannot be judge and jury when the laws they propose, and were signed by the President, are not followed. We the People have a right to due process, and local governance over local issues. And to ensure the federal government leaves our natural rights alone, the early Americans also demanded the existence of a Bill of Rights, a set of amendments telling the federal government “hands off our rights! Don’t touch!” As free Englishmen, the demand for a Bill of Rights was a natural expectation, considering the existence of the English Bill of Rights from 1689, after the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and the existence of the Magna Carta from 1215 where “Any freeman” showed The Crown that they believed nobody was above the law, including the king.

The Greeks stated that without law, there can be no freedom. The Founding Fathers understood that a balance must be found, somewhere between big government, and democracy. That is why through the Constitution, they mixed political philosophies, giving us a mixed constitution that provides a proper distribution of governmental powers where for external issues the federal government was created to be powerful and authorized to navigate the waters of protecting, promoting and preserving the union, while leaving local and internal issues reserved to the States, and the people. The federal government is a representative style of government, with a House of Representatives voted into office through a democratic process, and originally (before the 17th Amendment during the Progressive Era) the Senators were appointed into office by an indirect vote of the people, through their representation in the State legislature.

The proper application of government preserves freedom, while too much government leads to the emergence of a ruling class that limits liberty, and too little government leads the people voting into place a powerful oligarchy once the people are fooled into believing that the pure and unadulterated will of the people, and voting themselves gifts from the treasury, are in their best interest.

Jimmy Carter, and the Huffington Post, may also be surprised to learn that the word democracy does not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or in any of the State Constitutions. The Founding Fathers purposely did not create our American System to be a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. So, while the liberal left claims our democracy has been lost because of Citizens United, they fail to admit (and perhaps realize) that we were never intended to be a democracy in the first place.

Interestingly enough, while these folks on the political left claim that Citizens United gives government over to the rich, they fail to mention all of the money that pours into the Democrat Party and leftwing allies from rich and powerful leftists, both in the United States, and abroad, and all of the fortunes that befall Democrats from labor unions, despite the will of those that paid for those funds through their labor union dues (funding that Citizens United, if overturned, would not limit).

In the end, it is not that the liberal left believes that the “right-wing conspiracy” wants an oligarchy, and that they, the Democrats, are the champions of “democracy.” The truth is, the liberal left desires oligarchy, and those that defend our republic stands in the way of their goal. They use language and deception to confuse the voter, and convince the voter that the liberal lefties are not guilty of the things they are actually champions of. It is the opposition, they claim, that are the guilty party.

The liberal left has learned well from their idols in history. One quote from one of their biggest idols probably says it best. “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” – Karl Marx

No wonder, when Chris Matthews asked DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz what the difference between socialism and the Democrats was, she couldn’t give a clear answer.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary