[Previous Page] [Next Page] [Up] [Home Page] [Search] [Contents]

A Modern Declaration of Liberty? (Aug 2000)

I've made some additions at the end of my Sep 99 article entitled the "The Scam Operators' Protection Act of 19XX" which describe a couple more of the really nasty business practices which some of our nation's largest credit card agencies are employing these days. These additions also illustrate what I have now concluded is probably the easiest way to protect oneself from credit card company abuses in general (i.e. always seek and maintain enough available credit to be able to "ditch" an abusive credit card company at a moment's notice).

In this article, we are going to examine a "Modern Declaration of Liberty" petition written by Jeff Head which can be found (and signed if you like) on http://www.petitiononline.com/usdeclar/petition.html.

I find this petition worthy of examining (and rebutting), because it itemizes many of the right-wing gripes and myths that have been circulating (largely unchallenged) throughout the Internet in recent years. Our mainstream news agencies rarely ever take the time to debunk such gripes and myths which leads many to mistakenly conclude, "Well if nobody disagrees with such points, then they must be true." Over 4,000 people have electronically "signed" this petition so far, which shows that there are quite a few people in America who actually believe most or all of the claims made in this petition, so I'm going to take the time to address each one the points that author makes.

One of the things I've observed concerning right-wing political/religious web sites in general over the past few years is that their authors and participants tend to engage in "intellectual incest"; that is, if one of them dreams up a whopping big lie or highly misleading interpretation of an event that reaffirms their view of the world, the rest of them tend to circulate those lies among themselves until (though sheer repetition) nearly all of them end up believing such lies to be "the absolute truth" (it's kind of like the proverbial "rumor mill" phenomenon). I have found that relatively few of them are willing to take the time to carry on a dialog or debate with a "liberal" and that in many cases their concern for the truth (and God's commandment not to bear false witness) leaves much to be desired. You'll see what I mean when we examine this petition. With a presidential election coming up, it's more appropriate now than ever to seriously examine the nature and truthfulness (or lack of truthfulness) of such points, because many of these points are likely to be used by some of our nation's candidates for public office.

[As usual on this web site, my own comments throughout the rest of this document will be included in brackets. In spite of the author's claims to be representing God, I will show that many of the points he makes are downright Satantic, because they violate God's two most fundamental commandments as summarized by Jesus Christ in Matthew 22:37-40 (NKJ):

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."]


In establishing this Republic, our forefathers taught that man made institutions have no authority to grant or deny that which has been established by God. They taught that unalienable rights are endowed upon mankind by God, the Creator, and that governments exist not to grant or deny these rights, but only to protect them.

[Actually, many of the American "founding fathers" didn't really believe the proposition that "all men are created equal" (their attitudes towards slaves and women were in many cases quite to the contrary), but that phrase was highly effective for attracting popular support for their cause, because it appeared to promise a fulfillment of God's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Notice that by referring to God and some quotes from a few of America's "founding fathers", this author is attempting to make it appear the he himself is representing God. As we will see, this turns out to be a classic example of a Satanic deception (i.e. "even the Devil can quote the scriptures").]

They stated that it becomes necessary in the course of human events from time to time for a people to dissolve themselves from the political bonds that hold them. They recognized and warned that a central, federal government could become too strong and they went to great lengths to ensure that a system was established that was checked within itself by a balance of powers.

[That's true, but it's important to note those "checks and balances" didn't come about until the drafting of the US Constitution. It's also import to note that the "they" he is referring to above is America's "founding fathers", not God. Jesus and St. Paul would have sharply disagreed with those "founding fathers" on that point about "dissolving themselves from political bonds" rather than trying to change those "bonds" without getting anybody killed.

Romans 13:1-2 (NKJ) "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."]

This system was also the agent of sovereign state governments that made up the union.

[That point was true under the Articles of Confederation, but it was no longer true under the US Constitution. In fact, this was one of the major issues that was debated before the individual "sovereign" states decided to relinquish a significant portion of their "sovereignty" to the US Federal Government by ratifying the US Constitution.]

This was to ensure that the federal government did not, "usurp from the States all government in little as in great things, when all government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as oppressive as the government from which we separated." Thomas Jefferson.

[This statement by Jefferson was obviously made after the US capitol was moved from New York to Washington, DC. So as you can see, these issues were still being debated and reformulated even then.]

Such usurpations are upon us. The original Constitution of this Republic, and its intent, has been so grossly misrepresented, misinterpreted and wrested that it is scarcely recognizable.

[THAT is an example of a WHOPPING BIG LIE!]

Professional politicians, who have made careers and fortunes out of public service have, in many cases, sold out the interests of the United States to foreign powers and financial interests and their organizations.

[This appears be true in some (many?) cases, but then you get into the problem of trying to precisely identify what really ARE the "interests of the United States?" And who gets to really decide what those "interests" are? Since there are very few commonly agreed-agreed-upon answers to either of these questions, the resulting definition turns out to be a matter of political "push and pull" between the President, members of Congress, and special interest groups. What we have here is a reflection of the "checks and balances" which the author implied was a good thing at first, but now he's saying it's a bad thing.]

In other cases, they have usurped and wrested the interests of this people and their liberties on behalf of their own personal ideologies, vain ambitions and carnal appetites. Thereby, the very purpose of the system established by our forefathers (to protect each citizen's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) has been corrupted.

[In a Reader's Digest summary of their numerous volumes on the "History of Civilization", Will and Ariel Durant concluded that there has never existed a government that wasn't "corrupt" in at least some ways. It's just that some governments have been more "corrupt" than others. I agree with Will and Ariel Durant, but I believe our government is probably less corrupt than most, because (especially now with the internet) it is becoming more and more difficult for politicians to engage in serious acts of corruption without many of their constituents knowing about it. Can the author of this petition (who as you will see is advocating the replacement of our present form of government) guarantee that the form of government he is proposing will be any less "corrupt"?]

As a result, we reaffirm the following to be self evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[OK. That's essentially a reaffirmation of God's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, as long as the concept of "liberty" is defined precisely enough so as not to allow infringements by one upon the "liberties" of others. That's where the need for the "rule of law" comes in.]

That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[OK. This is the conceptual basis for democracy. At the time America's Declaration of Independence was written, this concept of democracy was considered by many to be "highly revolutionary." In many ways, it was.]

That whenever any government becomes destructive to 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 most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

[Abolishing our present government isn't likely to increase very many people's "safety and happiness." Besides, a sizeable majority of the American people already consider themselves to be reasonably "safe and happy." If they didn't, Bill Clinton could never have gotten reelected.]

Prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience shows that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing that to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses, usurpations, cover-ups and mis-appropriation, pursuing invariably the same object depicts a design to reduce them to absolute despotism, it is the right of the people, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.

[Now this author is beginning to sound like Karl Marx! And who will those "new guards" be? This author?]

We are at such a point and juncture in this Republic.

[That's another WHOPPING BIG LIE! If a nation-wide opinion survey were taken today, what percentage of the American people do you think would agree with this author's claim that Americans are currently living under "absolute despotism" or even that the US Government is "designing" to make them live under "absolute despotism"? Perhaps we'll get some indication in November when we will see how many people vote for Pat Buchanan.]

The forces moving us toward totalitarianism compel us to reaffirm the constitutional intent of our forefathers and therefore disassociate ourselves from the usurpations, misappropriations, misinterpretations, corruption and humanism [how did "humanism" get on this list?] which infects our government's elected and appointed officials, and return our government to the more limited form our forefathers established [go back to the 1800's?]. The recent history of the federal government is one of repeated injury and usurpation leading to totalitarianism.

[You can see from the above how such "intellectual incest" has apparently led this author's thinking to go far beyond the bounds of reality. Keep in mind that those officials he is referring to were in fact elected by majority of voters among the people they represent and that it is not uncommon for some of them to get "unelected" in the next primary or general election if they were indeed engaging in usurpations, misappropriations, misinterpretations, and/or corruption. Our democratic form of government may not work as well as many would like, but does in fact do a pretty good job of giving us politicians who truly represent the diverse views of the America people. One of the reasons voter turnout in America isn't as high as many would like see is because many American's come to the conclusion that "either one will do, so why bother voting." By not voting, they are in effect giving their "stamp of approval" (not disapproval) to whoever ends up winning. Or to put it another way, they are deferring their judgement to others regarding such matters. If they really wanted to express their disaproval, they would vote for "fringe" candidates.]

To illustrate this, let the following conditions speak for themselves:

[OK, good. Now he's going to cite some specific examples to support his generalizations.]

Officials of the federal government (elected and appointed) have:

* Been unduly influenced by "special interests" and "lobbyists" who buy votes to pass law not in the common good.

[Unfortunately, that appears to true in many cases. It's one of the inherent weaknesses of a democracy. But on the plus side is the fact that there are so many different "special interest" groups and "lobbyists" that most of our politicians have become quite adept at meeting some of the interests of each of them while rarely meeting all of the interests of any of them. That's politics!]

* Created laws which deny many citizens their property rights for frivolous and ill-defined reasons.

[Notice that this one ranks No. 2 on his list of gripes. Unfortunately, it's true. As I pointed out in my Oct 99 www.onesalt.com article "The Price of Freedom is Vigilance", as part of its "War on Drugs", the Republican's beloved Reagan Administration (with the help of a considerable number of Democrats) pushed through a law called "The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984" which in effect repealed the Forth Amendment to our Constitution without going through the state ratification processes required for a Constitutional amendment. It truly amazes me that the ACLU or America's "conservatives" and "liberals" haven't gotten that law declared unconstitutional yet. That's probably because many federal, state and local law enforcement agencies LOVE this law; it enables them to "seize" people's property and/or cash simply based on a "suspicion" that the property or cash was somehow related to "drug purchasing" or any other illegal activity. This law permits them to perform such seizures without filing any charges, without making any arrests, without taking anyone to trial, and without producing any sort of evidence that an actual crime has occurred. Law enforcement agencies LOVE this law, because they get to keep the cash that they seize and the proceeds from the sale of the properties that they seize and to add those funds to their respective budgets! One of the biggest political blunders of the Clinton Administration has ever made has been to allow that law to continue, because with each passing year it has been causing thousands (perhaps even hundreds of thousands) of additional American citizens to fear and despise their own government (like the author is this petition.) It's too bad that the author of this petition doesn't focus on this law in particular rather than burying this issue the midst a fog of dubious gripes and complaints. I believe a more focused effort could succeed in getting this law thrown out. As it is now, since most Americans have never been victimized by this law, most of them are unaware of it and are therefore not concerned about it.]

* Created laws infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in direct violation of rights enumerated in the Constitution.

[That statement is true for convicted felons, but it is NOT true for normal "law abiding citizens." Most American citizens can legally own a wide variety of handguns, shot guns, muskets and rifles (and many of them do). Since this is gripe No. 3 on his list, this author appears to be a "gun lover" who has been misled by the National Rifle Association.]

* Created laws to redistribute the wealth of the working citizenry through a heavy, progressive income tax, violating the Constitution.

[His point about our nation's progressive income tax violating the Constitution is a WHOPPING BIG LIE. Amendment XVI of the US Constitution states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." If enough American's wanted Amendment XVI repealed, they could have done so long ago (as they did with the prohibition amendment). Furthermore, if a majority of American citizens want a portion of their taxes to be "redistributed" to the needy, the elderly, or whomever, then according to the principles of democracy, they have the right to demand that their elected representatives pass laws to that effect. And in effect, they have done so. Our nation's income-redistributing Social Security System, for example, continues to exist because a vast majority of the American people WANT it to continue to exist! That's democracy!]

* Denied the rights of inheritance to citizens of this Republic by imposing heavy inheritance taxes, further redistributing the wealth.

[The national inheritance tax (which affects less than 3 percent of the US population) was passed with the consent of a majority of the governed and it may now be in the process of being repealed with the consent of a majority of the governed. The same kind of thing can be done with any of our present national, state, and local taxes. The fact that we can actually bring about such changes through peaceful political processes is one of the features that have made the United States Government one of the world's most stable democracies.]

* Undermined our sovereignty by signing treaties allowing arbitration of U.S. citizens' rights by foreign bodies.

[It's not clear what the author is referring to here. NAFTA? The World Trade Organization? The International Criminal Court (which the United States HASN'T singed on to]? One thing that's clear from this statement that this author apparently loves "national sovereignty" and dislikes "foreign bodies" (so much for his claim to believe in the principle that "all men are created equal").

* Created "acts" establishing an unconstitutional framework of "Emergency Powers" and "Executive Orders" which are dictatorial in nature. Maintained an unwarranted state of emergency since 1933 enabling "Executive Orders", which hang over the head of this people.

[Presidential "Executive Orders" can be (and have been) challenged in court and "thrown out" when appropriate. There is no way that Congress would ever be able to find the time to pass legislation to enact every policy or procedure required to run a government. Executive orders and governmental regulations fill that gap. No government can run without them. As to why a so-called "state of emergency" has existed since 1933, this is the first I've ever heard about such a thing. I certainly don't feel like I've been living under a "state of emergency."]

* Established a privately owned, central bank that regulates the monetary system of this Republic, in violation of the Constitution.

[How does the Federal Reserve Bank "violate" the Constitution? The United States government has a right to contract with whomever it wants to help print its currency and facilitate the management of its financial affairs.]

* Served baseless warrants on, brought siege to, bombed, burned and killed citizens, covering up the same allowing the guilty to go unpunished.

[Unfortunately, in some cases that has been true. But in most of those cases in recent years, it's been in response to violence or threats of violence by the leaders of those who ended up being the victims. Such are the ways of Satan.]

* Weakened the free market through excessive regulation of Agriculture, Manufacturing, Communications and Transportation.

[What constitutes a "free market" varies considerably, depending upon who one talks to. With the possible exception of some flea markets and yard sales, the concept of a "free market" tends to be more of an ideal than a reality. Again, these matters are continually being redefined by political "pushing and pulling" among special interest groups, businesses, and politicians.]

* Dictated to property owners who they can and cannot sell to and excessively taxed capital gains from such sales.

[Its true that most buying and selling in the Unites States is regulated to some extent, usually to the mutual benefit of all parties concerned. But what constitutes being "excessively taxed" is again a matter of widely differing opinions.]

* Created a system of state schools for our children which feeds upon the political interests of those who would deny our liberties.

[The fact that our various levels of government have created a system of "state schools" is true, but the rest of his statement is another WHOPPER.]

* Supported the said "state" schools through unconstitutional governmental agencies and reapportioned federal funds.

[If such agencies and procedures were in fact unconstitutional, the chances are they would have been declared unconstitutional long ago. A vast majority of the American people WANT good public schools and are willing to pay for them through their taxes.]

* Denied our heritage by declaring it unconstitutional to teach the values upon which this Republic rests in our schools.

[Not true! Our Republic does NOT "rest" on state-sponsored religious teachings. In fact, America's "founding fathers" emphasized this point by making the separation of church and state the very first provision of the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution. The seperation of church and state is a major feature of the "heritage" they sought to establish!]

* Over regulated who employers may hire, how much to pay and the conditions in the work place, further weakening the free market.

[Would you rather work in some "third world country" where such regulations do not exist? It was regulations like these, the efforts of labor/trade unions, and the GI Bill of Rights that created the large middle class that American now enjoys. Were it not for those, the United States would be a lot more like a "third world country" today.]

* Destroyed the initiative of large portions of the citizenry by maintaining over decades a decadent, fraudulent social welfare system.

[That's another WHOPPYING BIG LIE! America's social welfare system has NEVER supported "large portions of the citizenry." Furthermore, most welfare recipients have remained on welfare for less than three years. This is not to say that our welfare system hasn't had and created some recurring problems, but this author's description of such problems is seriously "overblown."]

* Created laws and agencies to maintain power structures and regulations put in place to implement all of the above and control this people.

[Of course, that's the nature of governments, but to assert that their purpose is primarily to "control this people" is highly misleading.]

* Destroyed the wellspring of tranquility in our society by legalizing and supporting the wanton killing of the unborn.

[Here the author is clearly referring to the abortion issue. If this author really believes that abortions weren't being widely performed prior to "Roe vs. Wade" or that they would cease being performed if "Roe vs. Wade" were repealed, then he's deluding himself as well you. Simply "passing a law" won't bring an end of abortions in America. Our nations' churches could reduce abortion rates far more effectively than merely "passing a law" if they would start teaching their congregations take God's two most fundamental commandments (Matthew 22:37-42) SERIOUSLY! The present abortion rate in America reflects (in part) their failure to do so.]

* Utilized citizen tax moneys to support base pornography and depictions of decrepit practices in the name of Art.

[That's another matter of widely differing opinions. Supporting the arts is an example of how our government helps to enhance its stability by "giving everyone a piece of the pie." By the way, America's pornography industry (by pandering to Americans' "pursuit of happiness") is doing just fine without any need for "citizen tax moneys." Apparently, this author believes in both "liberty and censorship" which is kind of like being a "right-to-life death penalty advocate."]

* Made a mockery of criminal justice by supporting supposed criminal rights over the rights of the injured.

[Unfortunately, this has been true in some cases, but the extent to which those cases have made a "mockery of criminal justice" is debatable.]

* Housed foreign national armies on U.S. soil to unwarranted purposes in growing numbers, thereby creating a Trojan Horse in our land.

[Yes, our military establishment does help train foreign nationals on US soil, but that "Trojan Horse" analogy is not only untrue, it is highly dishonest.]

* Colluded with mass media, which is owned by the principals of the central bank, to keep these truths away from the American citizenry.

[Not true. In most cases, these training programs have been conducted in a completely open (unclassified) manner with the enthusiastic support of the local communities involved.]

* Colluded with a "Council on Foreign Relations" and other bodies, whose members represent the power brokers in both major political parties, the principals in the central bank and mass media, to enact laws, regulations, policies and agencies in pursuit of their primary goal which is the establishment of world governance which would destroy the sovereignty of this Republic.

[There may be some truth in that, but the concept of "national sovereignty" has become far more of a myth than a reality (a very BLOODY myth in fact). Those "business interests" are doing precisely that--pursuing their business interests, and those business interests require a more stable world than our political leaders have yet been willing to provide for them.]

In short, placed this Republic on the road to totalitarianism in a Marxist or Fascist form, pursuing invariably the object of the overthrow of our republican system and its attending free market.

[WOW! That's a set of THREE WHOPPERS piled upon one another! If anything, it's this author who sounds like a "Marxist or Fascist", and it's this author who is advocating the overthrow of our republican system!]

In every stage of these injustices, American citizens who have petitioned for redress or sought to expose the above stated designs have been answered by repeated injury, slander, criminalization, imprisonment and death.

[There's another WHOPPER. There are thousands of people on the Internet who have either "petitioned for redress" or "sought to expose" such things, and far as I can tell, virtually all of them are still on the Internet! And as for the examples that this author probably had in mind when he wrote that (Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.) almost without exception, those were cases where governmental agencies were responding to violence or credible threats of violence perpetrated by the leaders of those who became the victims. There's a LESSON to be learned from that which this author clearly hasn't heeded.]

A governing body whose character (either knowingly or blindly) is thus marked by every act that would define tyranny is unfit to rule a free people.

[An overwhelming majority of the American people do NOT view our government as being a "tyranny."]

It may be argued that these actions were taken by "duly elected" or appointed officials on behalf of the people.

[Yes, they were.]

To this we say that no governing body, who have taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution, has the right or the authority to alter or change the express directives of that constitution, except by means provided for within the constitution itself.

[Fair enough.]

Changes in the name of "States of Emergency", "Executive Order", "Treaties", "Initiatives", "Acts", "Proclamation", "Presidential Directives", "Strategic Alliances" or any other avenue outside of constitutional amendment, properly ratified by the people of the several States, represent a violation of the oath of office and establishes those involved as enemies of "We the People".

[Not true. For the most part, our Constitution DOES grant such powers to the Executive Branch, including the stipulation that treaties are to be considered as being part of the "law of the land."]

In addition, no governing body or majority can amend or legislate away the unalienable rights of the people in any case without the original intent of the founders, who themselves broke from a government that was involved in the same, being stimulated in the hearts, minds and actions of the liberty loving segments of the citizenry, as this document attests.

[Actually, they CAN do so, and HAVE done so. After all, it's a democracy.]

It is therefore apparent, that without immediate reversals of encroachments on our liberties, the time is short before our recourse must be either to resort to the measures our founding fathers took to establish this nation, or lose our liberties and way of life, if not our very lives.

[This amounts to advocating violence against one's neighbors. Jesus Christ would NEVER have taught such views or actions.]

We therefore, appealing to the Supreme Judge for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly resolve on our sacred honor, as God-fearing Americans, to immediately stand for liberty and our way of life. We the People of this great Republic:

[God-fearing Americans? To claim to represent God while advocating violence against one's neighbors is to use God's name in vain (and to blaspheme the Holy Spirit).]

* Demand the immediate removal of all foreign troops stationed on the sovereign soil of the United States of America.

[Is this author paranoid or what?]

* Demand that the War Powers Act, the Emergency Powers Act and the Federal Reserve Act be rescinded.

[I can agree that the first two of those three acts should perhaps be revised to be more respectful of the rights of US citizens, but this author's animosity towards the Federal Reserve Act seems rather puzzling.]

* Demand an end to the unconstitutional practice of Executive Orders which carry the force of law, and a rescission of all such Orders.

[See! This author really IS advocating anarchy! Also, as pointed out above, Executive Orders are NOT "unconstitutional"; like any of our laws passed by Congress or decisions made by judges, they can challenged in court and "thrown out", if appropriate.]

* Demand any acts and agencies derived from the War Powers, Emergency Powers or Federal Reserve Acts or Executive Orders be dissolved.

[Here he's promoting anarchy again. It's my understanding that if the Federal Reserve Act were repealed, our paper money would become worthless and our entire monetary system would collapse. Do the people who electronically "signed" this petition truly understand the Satanic implications of what they are endorsing?]

* Demand an immediate rescission of the "National Emergency" maintained in this nation by Executive Order.

[National emergency?]

* Demand the immediate removal of the United States from the foreign body known as the "United Nations". * Demand an end to all United Nations funding both military programs and all other UN programs.

[Now he's advocating anarchy on an international scale as well. The United Nations saves the lives of MILLIONS of men, women, and children each year. Would he prefer that MILLIONS MORE men, women, and children be killed each year by the wars, famines, and diseases that are either created or made worse by our present "national sovereignty system"? This petition really is a classic example of the "voice of Satan" in action!]

* Demand a rescission to all acts, and legislation that in any way infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

[Now he's promoting the sale and ownership of guns as a "solution" for the anarchy-related problems that would be created if his proposals were ever implemented. Unlike Jesus and St. Paul, this author seems to be adamantly OPPOSED to the "rule of law." Such are the ways of Satan.]

* Demand a rescission to all acts, legislation and agencies that exceed the powers described in the constitution according to the 10th amendment.

[And who is to decide which acts, legislation, and agencies those are? We have a Supreme Courts for that purpose. If this author really does have a case regarding a violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, he should be organizing an effort to have that case brought before the Supreme Court rather than advocating the creation of anarchy.]

* Demand that all educational concerns be returned to the several states directly and that all federal involvement in the same cease.

[What happened to the concept of "one nation under God"? From Satan's point of view, this proposal is one that he would happily endorse ("divide and conquer"). As Jesus said in Matthew 12:35, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.]

* Demand all local government and educational institutions to disavow the blackmail and social restructuring of federal funds.

[This sounds like he wants to re-institute programs like segregation, state-sponsored school prayer programs, and prohibitions against the teaching of evolution in elementary school and high school class rooms.]

* Urge all citizens to become self sufficient as individuals, as families, as localities, as counties and as states.

[Notice that his advocacy of "self-sufficiency" is diametrically opposed to the Jesus Christ's "love your neighbor as yourself" teachings. Apparently, if men, women, or children die of starvation in our streets, this author would view it as being entirely their own fault, because they weren't "self sufficient." Such are the teachings of Satan.]

* Urge all liberty loving citizens to prepare, with God's help, to take the same course of action that our forefathers took in fighting tyranny.

[With God's help? To the contrary, Jesus Christ would NEVER advocate a physically violent revolution. You can be SURE that if you attempt to violently overthrow our present government, God will NOT be on your side.]

We pledge our lives and honor to the points stated in this document, and the efforts requisite to restore our Constitutional Republic and the Declaration of Independence, Constitution & Bill of Rights which define it.

[Let's see now, this author has advocated the abolishment of sizeable portion of our federal laws and agencies by violently overthrowing our government, if necessary. And yet he has the nerve to claim that this will "restore our Constitutional Republic and the Declaration of Independence, Constitution & Bill of Rights which define it." Such are the teachings of Satan (John 8:44).]

May Providence bless these efforts, even as he blessed the founders in their struggle, to overcome the tyranny of the day, which tyranny is inconsequential when compared to the God of this land, the Almighty Creator, who has granted to us our liberty and in whose hands we commit our efforts.

[Once again, he is using God name in vain, falsely making teachings of Satan appear to be coming from God.]

[So there you have it, folks, a formidable lesson regarding to true nature of Satanism. It's a shame that so many people actually seem to believe most or all of that stuff. Even worse is the fact that such Satanically inspired views have already had a profoundly negative effect on US foreign policy, on US support for the United Nations, and on the stability of our present "national sovereignty system" in general. Could this be an example of "Satan's last gasp" predicted in Revelation 12:12?

"Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time."]

"one grain of salt"

[Previous] Ezekiel continued....
[Next] Losening the grip of Satan's idol
[Up] Home Page
[Home] Home Page
[Search] Search www.onesalt.com
[Contents] www.onesalt.com Contents

Last modified on Friday, May 03, 2002