Our Creator Endowed Us With Natural Rights
Put together/written by Kerry Walker
I state herein that the People must take matters about government and its relationship to the People back to the Declaration of Independence (DOI), which sets forth, according to the Laws of Nature (which is universal and undeniable), that relationship. According to nature, mankind (the People) is created by the Creator and endowed with natural rights-- not asked for, but existing as being part of the human species. Again, this is according to nature-- regardless of religious belief, or any government-- domestic, foreign, or international.
The Declaration describes the natural relationship between "man" (I'll use the term "People") and government thusly: "That to secure these [natural] rights, governments are instituted among men [among the People], deriving their [government's] just powers from the consent of the governed [the People]." AGAIN I say this is according to the Laws of Nature. Now comes the question, "HOW do the People institute government?" The DOI doesn't direct the specifics on "how" but it does set forth that it's the People that are to institute (create) government FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of securing their natural rights. That much is established by the DOI.
True-- the Constitution doesn't mention the DOI. Perhaps it should have. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the DOI is the authority FOR a Constitution by the People, since that is the manner by which the People (actually the states on behalf of the People-- and it has to be "on behalf of the People" since the People is/are the origin of authority for the Constitution) chose to institute its government. The Constitution is the "How" which the People have chosen to institute government in this country. It would have been nice if the Constitution mentioned the DOI as being the authority by which the People created it, but that isn't the only defect it has. Be that as it may, the facts are still there-- whether mentioned or not-- and we must deal with the Constitution as written and theoretically "ratified."
The People can't really go beyond "ratification" because that's when the door opened up for the fraud to pour in, since there was no enforcement provision written into the Constitution as a specific spelled-out process by which the People could have independently prevented the government fraud from happening. "Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution"? Government wasn't "bound" at all, as it should have been.
You get into "Principal/Agent" discussion—There can be no denying that by nature, the People would be likened as the "Principal" (the authority for government) and government the "Agent" (the protector, the guardian) of the People. While it is also the nature of people to be ignorant and lazy regarding legalities, even of their own natural status as being the true sovereigns over government, that does not take away from the fact that THAT IS THE PEOPLE'S NATURAL STATUS whether they exercise it or not-- that status is unalienable –inborn.
You say I don't know of any legitimate agency which can operate outside the knowledge and intention of the Principal. That would be true in normal business. However, with reference to the People, we're dealing with the status of a naturally-created being in relation to the People-created government. Only human beings created by an energy of Creation can take on that natural status, and only in relation to their People-created government. Relationships between Human A and Human B do not consist of that natural status-- a status that exists despite People's knowledge, acceptance, and exercise of it. Organized beliefs and the rejection of this energy behind creation, which are sides of the same coin, interferes with the natually-created being and the Laws of Nature, and therefore that natual status. Our Founding Fathers were adament about the separtation of established religion and the state and for good reason.
That's why we need men (and women), among the People, to represent them and their interests. That's supposed to be the role of government, --and the ONLY role-- to protect the People's rights because it is suggested that they don't have the knowledge, awareness, or skills to protect themselves in society, whether because they are lazy or otherwise. There IS a proper place for government, but it's imperative that it be People-centered, not self-centered. The Framers knew that government would be prone to become self-centered, but they did not provide a means for the People-- not a government function-- to keep that from happening.
And the Clueless and aimless can not be Principal or governing.
So the term "consent of the governed" is admission of an inferior status...akin to servants; The "consent" a slave gives his master. No, that can't be, as a matter of nature. There has to be a minority of the People, operating independently as the People, knowledgeable and cognizant enough to be able to monitor the actions of government, to keep it in line with its fiducial functions for the People. It obviously can't be ALL of the People, because most of them ARE ignorant, lazy, "clueless," and "aimless." But that doesn't negate the fact that they are the governed, spoken of in the DOI, and their interests must be protected by the government, and that "government protection" must be monitored by a segment of the People who ARE informed, "clued in," astute, alert, aware, of what was intended for this country as established by the DOI. That segment cannot be brainwashed, intimidated, deceived, or fooled into thinking that "government is the friend of the People." (You know-- "We're the government, and we're here to help you!")
We must examine the fact that our founding fathers were deist and not orthodox “Christians” as so many believe.
The Founding Fathers of American Independence were largely…
Catholics Christians Protestants Deists
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998, p. 420
Some people today assert that the United States government came from Christian foundations. They argue that our political system represents a Christian ideal form of government and that Jefferson, Madison, and others, had simply expressed Christian values while framing the Constitution. If this proved true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves the case. Although, indeed, many of America's colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These ideas of freedom to understand all creation spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith through belief, people began to use their sense of wonder and use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced our Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton's mechanical and mathematical foundations served as a grounding post for their scientific reasoning. A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.
"The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry. It is interesting to note that the modern day Twelve Step Program also has its foundation in allowing a freedom from religion and to allow one to come to his or her own concept of a Higher Power or God as we understood him (or it). The Constitution reflects our founder’s views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd."
There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism.After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied any connection between the fledgling government and organized religion, as seen in his "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]."The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of “Heaven,” more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.Also in that document, he goes on to write:"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
Called the father of the Constitution; Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him: "It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers"Thomas PaineThis freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. " "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more un-edifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
It may very well be a complete waist of my time, again, to suggest to you that you should study some American History. I suggest a book called Common Sense by Thomas Paine.
I’m not sure, but I think you would find this book to be very interesting. They have a special printing of it at Barns and Noble Booksellers, and it sells for only $3.95.
“Common Sense became the moral and intellectual touchstone for the American colonist struggling for independence from England. It sold over 120,000 copies within three months of its publication in 1776.
The United States of America owes its existence in part to the incendiary brilliance of the work. In presenting his case to the American colonist that a break with England was not only inevitable and justified, Thomas Paine convincingly argued that the time for debate was over and that it was now time for the American colonist to raise arms. He ventured the judgment that in a war with England, America would emerge the victor.
The striking phrases and clarity of vision of Common Sense continue to resonate with readers today.”
This man’s insight into God or Truth, or this energy behind all creation, was incredible. Yet those of Orthodox Religion that brought with them the stern doctrines and attitudes of belief systems, would serve to imprison him and to destroy him. Because of the lies perpetuated by Orthodox Christians, “Paine would carry to his death the reputation of an atheist---wrongly, for he did not deny the existence of God, only the divinity of (the orthodox view) of Jesus Christ. Although his views on religion were not so uncommon, for nearly all the most prominent American Founding Fathers were known to admit in private to beliefs resembling Paine’s, the ardor with which he attacked Christian pieties and their supposed ground in the Bible was new and startling.” His explicit expression of questioning the orthodox beliefs roused the “faithful” to fury and earned Paine an enmity that destroyed the good reputation he enjoyed for his earlier activities in behalf of the American cause.
The sad truth is that those that did not live by the love of God and Truth but chose the path of orthodoxy, brought the stead fast violence of their conditioned minds with them, and set out to unleash their wrath on Paine in the name of their orthodox beliefs, which history writes as termed the “Christian faithful”. His health, never firm after his imprisonment, was failing. Because of the mistreatment and malnourishment he suffered in prison, he rarely could summon sufficient energy to address the issues of the day and social isolation from those wanting to bring him harm only increased his misery.
In a SPECIAL ISSUE of TIME magazine, July 4, 2005 Issue, there was a noble work done called “Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln”. There had always been stories circulated about him being a doubter of “religion”, “but Republicans saw him as a great asset and tried to build a myth that would last—and do the party lasting good. In May 1865, the Republican editor Josiah Holland interviewed the President’s law partner William Hendon at length. When the subject of religion came up, Herndon told him, ‘The less said, the better,’ doubting that the pious Holland would want the details of Lincoln’s unorthodox history. How, for example, Lincoln had doubted the divinity of Christ and the infallibility of the Bible. “Oh, never mind,” Holland said. “I’ll fix that”—and his book made Lincoln a model Christian.
Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the first chapter of Thomas Paine’s work:
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last is a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer…
“There is one principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man (and woman) in everlasting ignorance, and that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
History is full of the evil of those that have their beliefs rooted in religion, and here we are in this new century with this same nonsense prevailing. It is not until we are free from the stranglehold of religion that we can operate in a natural state of intelligence that goes beyond self, and the freedom thereof, and is of a natural goodness. The natural capacity of the human being that has gone beyond thought is to be good. The Constitution and the DOI was founded based on this principle. Look at our society today and ask yourself if this culture with its beliefs in this bizarre religion is working? Ask yourself how you beliefs in religion have changed you and made you a threat to everything that is corrupted and harmful to mankind? Look at how those that are rooted in belief will justify harm to another human being in the name of that belief. It is time that the People stood up against this continued pressure of our culture to so impose these conditioned belief systems, and to judge those that don’t subscribe to this orthodox nonsense as being immoral. Most secular studies on neurosis, psychosis, and moral integrity have centered on the fact that the mind that believe in religion is the dangerous mind, and not the mind that questions it. I am convinced that the belief in organized religion and this concept of a personal god is the major cause of corruption and wrong behaviors on this earth as it is untrue. I am not in conflict with anyone that has any other belief system then mine, but these orthodox “Christians” or those with any orthodox belief system may be in conflict with me. I am not in denial here and I know that you will probably not understand the truth of what I say, but the sad reality is that your unwillingness to look into your conditioning and go beyond it will certainly bring about the destruction of mankind.
Anything dealing with "international" this or that in the Constitution must be examined by the People. Is it in compliance with the principles set forth in the DOI? The People can't get wound up in the "Corporate U.S." trap. As I said, there's a ton of fraud, corruption and deceit that has taken over this country, and 200+ years of it is enough! We have to clean up the cobwebs of fraud and deception that has clogged our minds. For the sake of freedom in this country, get out of that deceptive thinking!
The mind that is effortlessly whole and un-fragmented and has ended all ambition with any motive to manipulate or bring harm to anything or anyone is a mind that has absolved the self completely and no longer believes in organized religion.
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."