by Al Benson Jr.
The issue seemed clearer to some (but not all) in 1787. When the Constitution was presented for ratification in Virginia the issues were much better understood than they are today. Of course people back then had not had the dubious “benefit” of our government school system with its obfuscations and omittances regarding our history. It was pretty well understood in Virginia, as well as in other areas, that the issue was a strong federalism, or centralism, as opposed to a loose confederacy of state governments where states rights were to be the rule–the dreaded (by historians) Compact Theory!
In his speeches against ratification Patrick Henry noted that the delegates in Philadelphia had overstepped their bounds in that they had not been sent there with power to create a central government, but only to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, in light of the results of that convention it does seem that some went with other motives in mind. Henry warned the Virginia delegates that they were not to consider how they could increase trade nor how they could become a great nation, but rather how their liberty could be secured. Henry said, and quite accurately, “…for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” He made another prescient statement in this regard when he said: “If you give too little power today, you may give more tomorrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power today, you cannot retake it tomorrow, for tomorrow will never come for for that.” In light of the direction this government has gone in from 1787 until now, does any sane person wish to argue with Mr. Henry’s logic?
Author, economist and columnist Gary North wrote a book almost twenty years ago now called Political Polytheism which dealt with much of this. For starters he noted that: “…The Constitution removed Christian religious tests as the judicial requirement of the judges and officers of the new national government. That, in and of itself, delivered the republic into the hands of the humanists. Nothing else was necessary after that. From that point on the secularization of America was a mopping-up operation.” That’s a much different assessment than most of us have been fed regarding the Constitution, even in Christian circles, or might I say, especially in Christian circles? I have to admit that when I first saw North’s book and skimmed it, I was a little hesitant about his thesis. As the years have passed I have become much less so.
And he made another trenchant observation, one that many of us, myself included, had not even thought of at the time. I since have come to where I can see his logic. He said: “The sought-for Constitutional balance of the one and the many, apart from the Bible and Old Testament case laws, is unattainable.” In other words you cannot have the proper relationship between a central government and the state governments apart from Scripture. So the further this country departs from Scripture and God’s law the more impossible it will be for us to really do anything right, especially in the area of differing governmental jurisdictions. By the same token, the “checks and balances” we have been told will keep the different branches of the national government in their proper spheres won’t work either.
North also noted that: “Like Newton’s universe apart from God’s constant, active providence, the ‘balanced Constitution’ will eventually move toward centralized tyranny (the fear of the Anti-Federalists) or toward dissolution (the fear of the Federalists). Both movements took place in 1861-65.” The Anti-Federalists feared tyranny; the Federalists feared secession. North’s comments add a whole different perspective to the question of the Constitution and what it really says.
Back in August of 2004, Gary North wrote an article called Conspiracy In Philadelphia. He also wrote a book by the same name. He observed: “In 1787 the states, with one exception (Rhode Island) were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new constitution made all such oaths illegal for federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso vs. Watkins (1961). I told this story fifteen years ago. In response, the silence has been deafening.” Mr. North, like many of us over the years, has learned that the movers and shakers, the ruling elite, the country’s “other masters” will simply ignore what they do not want dealt with, and they press their lackeys in the “news” media to do the same, and the media bombards us with sports extravaganzas and “reality shows” to the point where we do not have the time or inclination for any serious reflection. If the truth can be out there and almost totally ignored by the general populace, Christians included, they don’t even have to bother shoving it down the “memory hole” anymore. Most people today will gaze at the plans for their own destruction and that of their kids–and yawn.
However, for the unusual few that may be concerned about the truth and how it might affect their children and grandchildren, Mr. North has posted his book Conspiracy In Philadelphia on the Internet, from which it can be downloaded. My son downloaded it for me and for a friend of mine at church. It can be found at http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf and I would encourage those who have genuine concerns about our “founding document” and its background to download North’s book and see what he has to say. Knowing about Mr. North, I am sure his analysis will be penetrating and worth your time.
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS of AMERICA!".
Reblogged this on IF THE TRUTH BE KNOWN…BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny.G….
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
Where can we see the rest of the article? It is truncated on my screen.
Thank you. I can now read the whole article. It’s right on the mark, by the way. Keep saying it. Maybe someone will listen. I haven’t been having much luck getting any listeners.
The computer constantly gave me trouble as I posted this article. For awhile I wasn’t sure I would get it done.
Believe me I know the feeling. Sometimes you feel truly like a voice in the wilderness and the wilderness isn’t barren country, it’s willfull ignorance.
Provided Article 6’s Christian test ban and with it the elimination of Biblical qualifications remains intact, America is destined to more nincompoops, scoundrels, and outright criminals. Obama is not the end but just the inevitable continuation of such leaders. It matters not whether Republicans or Democrats are elected. They’re two wings of the same liberal bird: The Democrats the left-leaning wing and the Republicans the right-leaning wing.
For more, see online Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.
I have Ted Weiland’s book “Bible Law vs. the Constitution” and highly recommend it. It is an excellent companion to Gary North’s “Conspiracy in Philadelphia” which Al Benson mentions in his posting (I have “Conspiracy” which is also an excellent book, and is itself a revision and expansion of Gary’s earlier book “Political Polytheism.”)
The foundation is in love of truth in equity – therefore just exactly what Messiah Reveals:
Hebrews 11.1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.:
Funny how the truth speaks to things.
Pingback: Why Dirt People | Dirt People
Pingback: Do You Want To Know How To Fight Like Our Founders? – Dirt People
Pingback: AL Benson Jr: If Liberty Was the Object, Why Did They Give Us Centralism? – Dirt People
Pingback: 1994 Valparaiso Univ. Law Review: THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT (companion piece to “If Liberty Was the Object, Why Did They Give Us Centralism?”) – Dirt People
Pingback: Pertinent Reading – Dirt People
Pingback: The 2nd Amendment Is Far More A History of Where We Came From & Who We Are Than We Are Led To Believe – Dirt People
Pingback: Vegas Trump Sovereignty & 4th Generation War – Dirt People
Pingback: Articles, Posts, & Linkage Friday, 3 2017: 10 Months Into Trump’s Reign – Dirt People
Pingback: A FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD DOWN, so too the largest organized crime syndicate on Earth, we once called “OUR” government. – Dirt People
Pingback: Compendium of Articles Regarding The Destruction of “The Deep State” | Dirt People
Pingback: NPC: All Your Base Are Belong To Us… and Why I Love America | Dirt People
Pingback: Truth, Sovereign Individuals, & Martial Law | Dirt People
Pingback: JUST WHO AND WHAT: THE REAL INSURGENCY IN THIS CIVIL COLD WAR | Dirt People
Pingback: Long Read: The Conspiracy To Destroy Our Republic Is Deeper & More Evil Than You Could Imagine | Dirt People
Pingback: “To Be Right Means That You Oppose Diversity Equality and Democracy (D.E.a.D.)” & Other Wisdoms of The Honorable Resistance | Dirt People