5 Comments

Patrick Henry doubted its wisdom and argued against it.

He wondered what right the writers of it had to say "we the people" instead of we the states?

Even with its may noble sentiments the constitution violated the wisdom precepts of God.

Constitutional limitations have been overcome by the greed and avarice of the people through contracts, application and participation.

The corporate creature constituted by writ and act has become a monster through its vast bureaucracy, myriad of laws, special interest, industrial and commercial interest and we the people are little more than merchandise.

Expand full comment
author

We are not for sale. For we were purchased at a great price, the blood of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. The constitution was never able to limit government, whether it was ever intended to do or not. Only by taking up our freedom and obeying God will we be actually free.

Expand full comment
Aug 19, 2023·edited Aug 19, 2023Liked by Jim Davidson

Yes Sir!

The People were not a party to it.

Two forms of government, free and not free.

Many opposed it for good reason.

Consolidating power into the hands of men is a rejection of God.

There is no retaining of rights without the acceptance of responsibility.

Applications, licensing, oaths and affirmations lead to bondage.

We give up our birth right for a bowl of benefits.

The corporate creation grows into a ravenous beast.

Unwise and wicked we become snared in our own religion of the "state" , becoming idle we worship idols created by our own hands.

To become free it seems we must free others.

Expand full comment
author

I do believe. If we are to be free, we must free ourselves. If we are to stay free, we must free all the others. We cannot leave a group of people in bondage because the ones holding them will persist in trying to enslave more and more. America has, at times, been a shining city on a hill. It will achieve a lasting commitment to freedom. God bless you and your family. Amen.

Expand full comment

Andrew Torba, the ceo of Gab just sent an email with a demand letter from the gooferment of New Zealand requiring the removal of a publication on the Christchurch shootings, identifying the shooter as a "three-faced terrorist." The evil and violent New Zealand government doesn't say that the publication is false or mistaken in its information, only that the publication is "objectionable." This idea that the government of New Zealand doesn't like something is a good thing since the government of New Zealand is evil. But their idea that they have power to disappear a set of information that has been published is terribly naïve.

"Barbra Streisand phoned. She still doesn't understand the effect she has."

The thrust of Andrew's email is that Gab is based in the USA where freedom is paramount. So we'll just see about that.

Expand full comment