Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

God-given Rights, Man-made Anti-rights, and why “Safety Nets” are Immoral

By Publius Huldah.

It is the dogma of our time that proponents of government safety net programs hold the moral high ground. Accordingly, Democrats preen over their own “compassion”; and Republicans chime in that they too “believe in safety net programs”.

But safety net programs are unconstitutional and immoral.  They are unconstitutional because “charity” is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.1

They are immoral because they are based on a fabricated system of man-made anti-rights which negate the Rights God gave us.


The Origin of Rights and the Purpose of Civil Government

The Declaration of Independence sets forth the Principles which were fleshed out – more or less perfectly – in Our Constitution.

The key is the 2nd paragraph, which begins:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” [emphasis added]

The Bible shows that God gave us a great many rights such as to earn, keep, and inherit private property; to defend ourselves; to worship God; and to live our lives free from meddling and interference as long as  we observe the God-given Rights of others.

But men are not angels.  Evil men seek to take God given Rights away from others.  Evil men seek to exercise power over others.

That is why we need civil government – to restrain the wicked.  Without civil government, we would be in anarchy, always defending ourselves from those who seek to do whatever they want with our lives, liberties, persons, and property.2

So!  Rights come from God, and the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights God gave us.


Political Power is from The People!

Our Constitution was based on the radical Principle that The People are the original source of political power.

Throughout history, political power has been seen to originate with the King.  This is powerfully illustrated by King John I in the movie “Robin Hood” with Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchet. King John saw his Will as “law”, and the People as “subjects” to his Will.

But in this Country, WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established the Constitution and created a federal government.  And the federal government We created was subject to us.

The Preamble to our Constitution, “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States”, is our assertion that We are the source of political power, and We are the creators of the federal government. 3


Federalism & Enumerated Powers

We created a “federal” government.  A “federal” government is an alliance of Sovereign and Independent States associated together in a federation with a general or national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas only.

In Federalist Paper No. 45 (9th para), James Madison, Father of our Constitution, explains the separate spheres of operation of the federal and State governments. Only a few enumerated powers are delegated to the federal government – all other powers are reserved by the States:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce … the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order …and prosperity of the State.”

So! What are these specifically defined areas where We delegated to our “creature” – the federal government – authority over the States?

We listed in the Constitution every power We delegated to each branch of the federal government. These are the “enumerated” powers.4  It is ONLY with respect to these enumerated powers – those listed in the Constitution – that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large! 5

  • Does the federal government have authority to issue patents & copyrights? Yes! How do we know?  Because Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8 delegates this power to Congress.
  • Does the federal government have authority to institute social security, food stamps, Medicare, aid to families with dependent children, and obamacare?  No!  How do we know?  Because these are not listed among the enumerated powers delegated to Congress.

Internationally, Congress and the President have authority to conduct war & national defense (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 11-16 & Art II, Sec. 2, cl 1); and the President and the Senate have authority to make treaties respecting trade, commerce, and diplomatic relations (Art II, Sec. 2, cl 2).  The lawful objects of treaties are restricted to the enumerated powers.  Accordingly, the President and the Senate may not lawfully enter into the UN Arms Trade Treaty because the Constitution does not permit the federal government to restrict firearms; and further, the 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing our pre-existing Right to bear arms. 6


Congress has authority to make laws respecting a uniform commercial system: Specifically, uniform weights & measures, a money system based on gold & silver where CONGRESS (not private bankers such as the fed) regulates the value of money, issue patents & copyrights, make bankruptcy laws, establish post offices and build some roads (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 4-8).  The President’s duty is to implement the foregoing (Art. II, Sec. 3).

Congress may make, and the President is to enforce, laws respecting who may become a naturalized citizen and the procedures for naturalization (Art I, Sec 8, cl. 4).

The Constitution authorizes Congress to make criminal laws respecting counterfeiting, treason, accepting bribes, and piracy & other felonies committed on the high seas. Congress may make those few criminal laws which are “necessary & proper” to carry out enumerated powers, such as making it a crime to file false claims in federal bankruptcy courts, and to lie under oath in federal court.7

Congress has authority to levy taxes and borrow money and appropriate funds (Art I, Sec. 8, cls 1,2 & Sec 9, cl 7), but ONLY for purposes authorized by the Constitution. So!  Congress may levy taxes to fund the military, to pay the salaries of the people in the patent & copyright office and other constitutionally authorized offices, and to carry out other delegated powers.

With the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, the defect in our Constitution permitting slavery was corrected, and Congress was delegated authority to make laws enforcing the Amendments.9

We created federal courts and strictly limited their jurisdiction. The kinds of cases We permit federal courts to hear are itemized at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. 10

So!  This is basically all We gave the federal government authority to do for the Country at large.

In all other matters, the States – the Members of the Federation – are sovereign and independent.

So “federalism” refers to the form of the government We created in our Constitution – a “federation” of Member States united for limited and enumerated purposes only; with all other powers being retained by the States and The People.


How the federal & State Governments are to go about Securing our God-given Rights

It is not the federal government’s job to secure all our God given Rights, just those appropriate for a “federal” government.  Other rights are secured by the States.

How the God-given Right to Life is Secured:

The federal government is to secure our right to life by military defense (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11-16); by protecting us from invasion (Art IV, Sec. 4); by prosecuting traitors (Art III, Sec. 3); and by laws against piracy and other felonies committed on the high seas (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 10).

The States reserved the powers to secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, outlawing abortion, euthanasia, drunk driving, the selling of harmful substances to minors, and imposing quarantines for dangerous contagious diseases. States may have pure food and drug laws. States or local governments may outlaw conditions such as old tires lying around which breed mosquitos, which cause disease.

States also once secured our right to life by means of “support laws” which required family members to care for their own!  Fathers were to provide for their minor children! Adult children for their elderly parents. The Bible requires family members to care for their own – and State laws used to implement this Godly Principle.

  • But in our brave new world, people are no longer obligated to support dependent family members – everyone just goes on a government program. That is what Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, obamacare, are about – relieving people of their Responsibilities imposed by God to themselves and to their own families.
  • Such programs also increase the size and power of the federal government. That’s how we got the Frankensteinian monster it is today.

Securing the God-given Right to Property:

The federal government is to secure our property rights by requiring an honest money system based on gold & silver, and by establishing uniform and honest weights & measures (Art I, Sec. 8, cl 5).  Inflation by means of paper currency and fractional reserve lending is theft; so honest money must be based on precious metals. Honest money and honest weights & measures are called for in the Bible.

The federal government is to secure our property rights by punishing counterfeiters (Art I, Sec. 8, cl 6).

The federal government is to secure our property rights by providing for bankruptcy courts. This permits the orderly dissolution of debtors’ estates with fair treatment of creditors; or the reorganization of financially troubled businesses for the benefit of all (Art I, Sec 8, cl 4).

And the federal government is to secure our property rights by issuing patents & copyrights to inventors and writers to recognize their ownership of their intellectual labors (Art I, Sec 8, cl 8).

The States are to secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers, penalizing negligence, fraud, breach of contract and slander.  States and local governments may impose burning bans when dry weather makes outdoor burning dangerous.  Local governments may make ordinances requiring people to maintain their properties so as not to deflate housing values.

Securing the God-given Right to Liberty:

The federal government secures our right to liberty by laws against slavery (13th Amendment).

But the federal government secures our God-given right to liberty primarily by obeying the Constitution!  The reason our Constitution so strictly limits and enumerates the powers of the federal government is to secure our basic right to be left alone to live our own lives free from meddlesome and interfering do-gooders, tyrants, and bullies.

The States secure our right to liberty by laws against kidnapping, false imprisonment; and by prosecuting rapists, molesters, and muggers.

Securing the God-given Right to Pursue our Own Happiness:

The federal, State, and local governments secure this right by not meddling in our lives!  We have the right to live our own lives free from interference as long as we do not deprive other people of their God-given rights.

Securing the God-given right to a Fair Trial:

The Bible requires civil governments to give fair trials – to citizens and aliens alike.  See, e.g., Dt. 1:16-17, Dt. 19:15-20 & Mt. 18:16; Ex 18:13-26; don’t bear false witness.

Outlawing the Hereditary Class System:

And Remember!  We are all equal before the Law – we all stand on equal footing before God and are supposed to stand on equal footing in human courts.  So our Framers outlawed hereditary aristocracy with its class system: Art I, Sec 9, last clause & Art I, Sec. 10, cl 1 prohibit the federal government and the States from granting Titles of Nobility.

So!  Do you see?  The only proper function of civil governments is to secure the Rights God gave us – and this is how it was to be done.

And note something else about God given rights:  They don’t put us in conflict with each other.  When all civil governments do is secure our God given rights – protect us from foreign invaders and domestic criminals and tortfeasers – the People can live together in peace.

So THIS is the gift our Framers gave us in 1787 when they drafted our Constitution.  But for the last 100 years, we have been letting this gift slip thru our fingers.


What Happened?

Why is our Country coming apart?  Why is everybody at everybody else’s throat? Why is our financial system collapsing?  Why has our Country turned into a moral cesspool?

Because we forgot the Principle set forth in our Declaration that the purpose of civil government is to secure our God-given rights – by protecting us from those who seek to take these rights away from us.

And we were seduced into believing that civil government should

  • Provide for our needs; and
  • Protect us from the risks and uncertainties of Life.

But these beliefs are Evil and Destructive. They destroy Countries and individual Human Souls.


A Government which Provides to Some, must Take from Others

HOW do governments provide for our needs?  How do they PAY for the safety net programs progressive Democrats and Republicans love so much?

They take money from some people by force and give it to other people! 

At the beginning, the money was taken from those who paid taxes.  When that pot of money wasn’t sufficient, the governments borrowed money to fund the welfare programs. Now, they can’t borrow enough, so the federal government devised new methods of creating massive debt to be shoved on the backs of our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

This is stealing. The federal government takes money which doesn’t belong to them – they create massive debt to be paid back by future generations – and they give it to people who have their hands out – in exchange for their political support.

All these “safety net” programs: social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, free day care, head start, forcing hospital ERs to provide free medical care, unemployment compensation, and the like, are all based on taking money from some people (born and unborn) by force and giving it to others.

On the State level, we are told that a free public school education K – 12 is a fundamental “right”. So property owners are taxed heavily to pay for the public schools which have churned out generations of Americans who know nothing and can’t think but have been indoctrinated into a secular statist worldview.

Meanwhile, teachers’ unions and purple-shirted SEIU thugs are screaming for more benefits to be paid into their bloated pockets by taxpayers who make less money than the union thugs!

The welfare state isn’t based on “compassion”.  The welfare state is based on Envy, Coercion & Theft.

THIS is what has set us at each other’s throats: The misuse of governments to rob some of the People for the benefit of favored groupsthe public and private sector unions, businesses owned by Obama fundraisers, and welfare parasites.

Senior citizens were once a favored group, but Seniors will be phased out via Obama’s death panels.

The welfare state with its “safety nets” negates God’s Gift of Liberty, and it violates God’s Laws protecting private property, prohibiting theft, and condemning envy. And when a culture is based on Envy, Coercion and Theft, as ours now is, it is impossible for The People to live in peace with one another.


Living in a Cocoon?  Or as Free and Independent Manly Men and Womanly Women?

We were also seduced into believing that the federal government should protect us from the risks and uncertainties of Life.

And so the federal government regulates and controls all human activity. Under obamacare, bureaucrats in the federal Department of Health & Human Services will control access to medical care!  Education is regulated.  OSHA regulates work conditions. EPA regulates the air and the water and “emissions”. The federal government oversees the wages we pay and get – all arrangements between employers and employees; all human activity is regulated and controlled and taxed.

Obama’s model is the Life of Julia: a single mother dependent on the federal government throughout her life who lives in a cocoon woven around her by the federal government and paid for – by others.

The price of the cocoon is personal liberty and dignity. We exchanged our glorious heritage for a bowl of porridge.

The test for us is this:  Have we become so dependent on handouts, and are we so indifferent to the fate of our grandchildren, that we refuse to stand up to the federal government and tell them all to go to hell?


The Progressives and the Regulatory Federal Government

This Country was made great by our Forefathers who valued freedom so much that they left their homeland on a dangerous voyage to come here where there was no job, no home, no “safety net”, no nothing but God, wilderness, Liberty, and Opportunity. Our Forefathers came to this Country without health insurance!  Without disability benefits!  Without retirement pensions!

What happened to bring us where we are today – on the brink of social, moral, and financial collapse?

During the late 1880s, Progressivism with its meddlesome and unconstitutional policies arose. The Progressives were going to “fix” everything and “fix” everybody by “regulating” everything and everybody. They would get “experts” to run everything and manage everybody and tell them what to do.

The Progressives did many bad things – I’ll just mention a few:  The federal government started regulating railroads. Congress passed anti-trust legislation and created the federal Food and Drug Administration.

In 1913, the 16th & 17th Amendments were ratified.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913.

Prohibition – the 18th Amendment – was ratified in 1919.  God says we may drink alcohol; but Progressives didn’t agree with that and so banned it.

Federal funding for maternity and child care started.

We moved to the present unconstitutional system of Presidential primaries, and abandoned the procedures for electing Presidents set forth in the 12th Amendment (ratified 1804).

So it was the Progressives – and Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive President – who initiated our abandonment of God’s Model for Civil Government, our abandonment of our Constitution, and our descent into the cesspool of Envy, Coercion, Theft, and Dependency.

The Social Security Act was passed in the mid-1930’s, and Medicare in the mid-1960s.


Man-made “Anti-rights”

So today, we are laboring under the ridiculous notion that we have a whole host of “rights” to stuff which is paid for by other people: the “right” to a free public school education; the “right” to a fair wage, paid vacations, maternity leave, and equal pay for equal work; the “right” to an income for when you are old, unemployed, sick, disabled, or whatever; a “right” to a “decent” standard of living including “adequate” food, clothing, housing, medical care, and other social services.

And let us not forget the “right” to free cell phones, the “right” to free birth control, and the “right” to free abortions and abortifacients!

What’s wrong with all these “rights”?

What they all have in common is a claimed “right” to live at other peoples’ expense. They elevate parasitism into a “right”.

All these handouts must all be paid for by someone. And unless other people pay for these freebies voluntarily, the money must be taken from them BY FORCE.  So it turns some of us and our grandchildren and great grandchildren into plucked geese.

That is why the welfare State is evil, immoral, and rotten to the core.  And it is operated by politicians who seek only more and more power for themselves.

THIS is why we are all at each other’s throats.  The people who are getting the handouts want more!  The people who have been paying are sick of paying for the welfare parasites who sit at home watching their big screen TVs eating junk food – all of which is paid for by those who work, along with those who haven’t even been born.

God NEVER gave us the “right” to demand that other people be forced to pay our living expenses and give us free stuff – cell phones and abortion pills!

God NEVER gave us the “right” to force others to subsidize our own failures, vices, weaknesses, or irresponsibility.

Two of the 10 Commandments deal with the sanctity of other peoples’ property.  Not only are we forbidden to steal other peoples’ stuff, we are forbidden to covet it.  Throughout the Bible, God’s Laws uphold the sanctity of private property.

So!  All these man-made Anti-rights negate the God-given Rights because they steal our Property and our Liberty.

The welfare State – socialism – communism – fascism –obama’s blather about “redistribution” and “fairness” are evil and immoral because they are based on a violation of God’s Laws granting us Liberty, upholding the sanctity of private property, and condemning envy and theft.


What Should We Do?

We must repent.  We must return to God, our Founding Principles, our Constitution.

We must acknowledge that the present system cannot continue; and that everyone’s favorite “safety net” programs – Social security and Medicare – have done much to destroy The Family and the concept of Personal Responsibility.

The Bible, which we have spurned for a very long time, tells us that families are the primary “welfare” institution. For a very long time, families actually did take care of one another!  Elderly parents died at home with their children.

But today, people see it as the responsibility of the “government” to care for elderly people – to provide them an income and pay their medical expenses.

And when they can no longer take of themselves, they are put in nursing homes where they die … alone.

Social security and Medicare are evil – they corrupted us and destroyed our families. They are bankrupt and filled with fraud. Politicians use them as a tool to manipulate the gullible.

Still, many of our Senior citizens have become dependent on these programs.

So we must phase out these unGodly and unconstitutional programs in an orderly manner.

All taxes need to be reduced dramatically so that people have more money to set aside for themselves and their own families.

The Estate Tax should be eliminated.  In the Bible, the eldest son got the double share of the inheritance because it was his prime responsibility to care for his aged parents.

We must pull together with our families. We must rediscover Personal Responsibility! Until we were corrupted by the Progressives and their evil programs, we were a remarkable People characterized by “goodness”. PH


1Read the Constitution! “Charity” is not an enumerated power! James Madison said, in opposition to a proposal to give aid to French emigrants, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, Jan. 10, 1794, p. 170-171.

2 People in the federal government now do whatever they want with our lives, liberties, property and persons [TSA agents feel us up, the Executive Branch will control our access to medical care, etc.].  The federal government has become destructive of the purposes for which it was created; and since it is violating our Constitution, is ruling without our Consent. Hence, it is illegitimate.

3 Alexander Hamilton referred to the federal government as our “creature” in Federalist No. 33 (5th para); and Thomas Jefferson called it our “creature” in The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th  Resolution).

4 For a discussion of Congress’ Enumerated Powers, go here.  For the enumerated powers of the President, go here.  For the enumerated powers of the federal Courts, go here.

5 Get a pocket copy of our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution. Using different colors, highlight all references to God, the enumerated powers delegated to Congress, the enumerated powers delegated to the President, and the enumerated powers delegated to the federal courts. You will be amazed.  Then prepare another highlighted copy and send it to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

6 God gave us the Right to hunt for food and to use arms to defend ourselves. Jesus commanded his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword.

7 Most of the criminal laws Congress makes for the Country at large – all drug laws, all laws which pretend to restrict gun ownership, whether sports figures take steroids, etc., etc., etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.

8 What is so appalling about John Roberts’ opinion in the obamacare case is that Roberts in effect says that Congress may tax for any purpose whatsoever.

9 The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from Southern Black Codes which denied them basic God-given Rights. But the 14th Amendment has been perverted by judges on the supreme Court to create a “right” to kill unborn babies, a “right” to engage in homosexual sodomy, and probably, a soon to be created “right” to homosexual marriage. Do you see?  Human judges claim the power to create “rights”. And note how these judicially fabricated “rights” are contrary to God’s Laws.

10 Many of the cases federal courts decide are outside their constitutional authority to hear: They have no authority to review STATE Laws and STATE Constitutional provisions respecting prayer in schools, posting of the Ten Commandments in public places, abortion, homosexual acts, and homosexual marriage. The supreme Court has long been seizing powers which Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, doesn’t delegate to them. Those judges should be impeached, tried, convicted, kicked off the bench, and prohibited from ever again holding federal office (Art I, Sec. 3, last clause, & Federalist No. 81, 8th para). PH.

August 29, 2012

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

August 29, 2012 - Posted by | Anti-Rights, Declaration of Independence, Federalism, God-given Rights, man made anti-rights, Medicare, Personal Responsibility, Rights, safety nets for the poor, social safety nets, social security | , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. Publius Huldah, even though human rights technically take precedence over those specified in our Constitution, can it be legitimately argued that there is any level of overlap between Constitutional right and human rights?


    Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 9, 2022 | Reply

    • The first 10 Amendments do not grant rights. Instead, those Amendments are specific prohibitions on the federal gov’t from interfering with pre-existing rights granted by God. The 13th Amendment and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment required States to stop denying to black people the Rights which God gave to all people everywhere.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 9, 2022 | Reply

      • Publius Huldah, that makes a lot of sense.


        Comment by ragnarsbhut | November 9, 2022 | Reply

  2. Amen Sister !!!


    Comment by Mark | February 17, 2021 | Reply

  3. did you used to post here under a different name? I seem to recognize the style….

    Obviously, GOD never gave man the “right” to education and healthcare at other peoples’ expense.


    Comment by Publius Huldah | March 27, 2020 | Reply

    • hummm, you sure do have the same style.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 27, 2020 | Reply

  4. Yes! And the general welfare is secured with a government which does nothing more than secure the rights God gave us – and governments do that by protecting us from those who seek to take our God-give rights away from us.


    Comment by Publius Huldah | March 12, 2020 | Reply

  5. Publius Huldah, what are your thoughts regarding the “right” to healthcare that Leftist political types seem to believe exists? Personally, I believe that no person is entitled to the right to another person’s labor or services.


    Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | April 21, 2018 | Reply

  6. Reblogged this on TruthPatriotRN.


    Comment by judymarie81 | April 16, 2018 | Reply

  7. I apologize that this is a bit out of context but, the question has arisen in my mind recently: In modern times (since the thirties), was America really a godly nation? I’ve heard it said countless times that it was. But, I’m thinking it wasn’t then and certainly isn’t now. I postulate that we became a nation of pretenders, imitators and mimicks. Most church-goers went for reason other than worshiping or establishing a relationship with God. They were seeking an antidote to their daily problems i.e. unemployment. Gov began to answer these prayers and “solve” some problems. Other folks saw this and began to “pray” (indirect petition of Gov), which eventually became lobby (direct petition of Gov), that Gov would answer their prayers, too. And, when Gov began to respond quicker than God, these “believers” had found the one true god.
    This, I do not believe, applies to recent immigrants — illegal or otherwise. Think they have voted for democrats (been believers in Gov) since they hit the shores or crossed the border. Don’t believe it applies to minorities, either. They have cast their lot with Gov since the late sixties, early seventies.
    Your thoughts, please.


    Comment by Jeff Edelman | December 27, 2012 | Reply

    • Jeff,

      You are absolutely right on all points. And your para is very well written. Eloquent, really.

      Except that your comment is not out of context. Our Problems are basically theological problems brought about by 200 years of pastors who haven’t been doing their job!

      The Puritans who came here in the 1630’s understood what the Bible says about God’s Model of Civil Government. They came to build that shining city on the hill.

      But in the 1730’s -1740’s, the so-called “Great Awakening” (Jonathan Edwards, etc.) swept the American colonies. This was a disaster for Christianity and our Country b/c it changed the focus FROM obedience to God’s Word TO the personal & emotional “heart” conditions of the individual – this is when American Christianity started to become little more than pious mush. The focus turned FROM God TO one’s own personal, emotional, “heart” condition. Today, when you see Christians standing up with their arms outstretched and waving, swaying to the beat of some trashy “christian” rock song, you are seeing in action the rotten fruit of the so-called “Great Awakening”. Wallowing in personal emotion – NOT obedience to God.

      By the time of our Framing – the late 1780s – there was still sufficient Puritan influence among our greatest Framers (Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc.) that they were able to frame a Constitution which for the most part reflected Biblical Principles and God’s model of civil government. Many of the quotes from our greatest Founders reflected that they understood that our duty is to obey GOD!

      But by the 1820s, the Unitarians in the North East had conquered the field – the Unitarians turned away from GOD and the Bible and focused on civil government as the “god” of this system of things.

      Thereafter, the beneficent influence of the Puritans – who sought to implement the dominion mandate to conquer the World for Christ [Remember, the second command given to Adam & Eve was to take dominion over the World; and this dominion mandate is repeated throughout the Bible] – was erased when American clergymen embraced European amil eschatology. Basically, amil eschatology teaches that the world will just get worse and worse, there is nothing we can do about it; so we should just hunker down in the “ark” of the church and bring in as many people we can so as to save their “souls”. And wait for Jesus to return.

      About 100 years ago, the “rapture” theory swept through America. Why bother to take dominion over the World when you are going to get whisked out of here when the SHTF?

      So these false eschatologies (doctrines of future things) neutralized Christians as being an influence in the World. I expect 99.999% of the Christians in America embrace one of the other of these false doctrines.

      So this is how Christians abandoned the World [which GOD made and said was “good” and which GOD commanded us to take dominion over] and surrendered it to Evil. The Bible says in James Ch. 4 that the devil flees when we resist him – but we today are just too “nice”, weak, and cowardly to resist evil.

      Meanwhile, socialism invaded the Catholic church and many Protestant denominations.

      So Christians have lost all their salt. All their light. They are good for nothing and deserve to be thrown out. And it looks as if that is going to happen.

      May God have mercy on us.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 27, 2012 | Reply

  8. Maybe we should be concentrating on not what rights we are afforded by God, through the Constitution, but the responsibilities we have been given by God that are not mentioned through the Constitution. If states have issues with services “mandated” by the Federal government, maybe they should continue giving the taxes levied by the Federal government for protection, etc. and stop taking money back that is allocated for the services that those funds are “earmarked” for. Most state’s government budgets are subsidized up to 40% from Federal funds.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Kirk | December 22, 2012 | Reply

    • Maybe the Government should get out of the “God” Business…..


      Comment by David Batten | December 23, 2012 | Reply

    • Kirk, What you say reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of our Founding Documents. Your misunderstanding is not surprising, considering the lies we have all been told for so long. In school, in the media, in our worthless churches, and everywhere else, we have been indoctrinated into accepting big government statism. “Indoctrination” is not learning at all – it is merely the instilling of a particular belief system – a set of attitudes about a subject.

      1. The starting point must be the Rights GOD gave us, because the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).

      2. Our Rights don’t come to us “through the Constitution”! We go to the Bible to see what our Rights are. All WE THE PEOPLE did in the Constitution was to create – CREATE – a federal government designed to secure some of the Rights GOD gave us. [Our various State governments were to secure other rights GOD gave us.] So our Rights do not come through the Constitution. To the contrary, in the Constitution WE delegated specific enumerated powers to the federal government. Thus, in the Constitution, WE are telling the federal government what WE are allowing it to do.

      3. The Constitution is not about the responsibilities GOD gave us. Those responsibilities are in the Bible, and all ought to abide by them. Our Constitution is only about what WE are authorizing the federal government to do.

      4. Read this and you will see how civil governments are to go about securing the Rights GOD gave us. It also shows why the welfare state is immoral and a negation of the Rights GOD gave us.

      5. The proper response for a State when the federal government purports to require the States to provide “services” is to NULLIFY that lawless act of the federal government. The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to require the States to “provide services”. See:

      6. It was very wicked of the States to let themselves be bribed with so-called “federal” funds. Of course, those “federal” funds don’t belong to the federal government at all. They represent monies extracted from some people by force, the spawn of inflation, and money borrowed and added to the every increasing national debt.

      Do read these two papers carefully, and then let us chat again.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 23, 2012 | Reply

      • My comments have nothing to do with your arguments about government as much as they do your understanding of God and God-Given-Rights. My comment is merely disdain for the argument of rights of the individual (given by God) without concern for the COMMANDMENTS of Christ TO the individual.


        Comment by Kirk | December 23, 2012 | Reply

        • But that is not the business of civil government. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) – which is the fundamental act of our Founding – recites that the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us.

          Some of the duties GOD imposes on individuals, e.g., charity to the deserving poor, are merely personal, individual and family responsibilities. And of the church. Relief to the poor is NEVER a function of civil government in the Bible.

          And note that GOD’s laws on charity are NEVER enforced by the civil government. That is because GOD never requires us to subsidize the vice, laziness, and irresponsibility of others. GOD always permits us to choose the objects of our charity.

          And BTW: The Greek work, “agape” and “agapeo”, have nothing to do with “affection” or “liking”. It is not an emotion. John’s letters make it clear that to agapeo another is simply to treat him according to GOD’s Laws. So, I agapeo you by not stealing your stuff, not bearing false witness against you, etc. 1 Cor 13 also tells that it is not sufficient that I refrain from mugging you and taking your stuff, I must also be kind.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 23, 2012 | Reply

          • Merry Christmas to you PH. May God continue to bless you in the coming year. Your counsel has been a valuable blessing to me, as I am sure it is to other followers of your blog; at least to those who are willing to risk the hazards of independent thinking.


            Comment by Jerry McDaniel | December 24, 2012

        • Kirk, it seems to me that you are confusing the humanitarianism taught by Jesus with the humanism taught by humanists, socialists and progressives. Humanism uses the powers of government to care for the “have nots” by forcibly taking from “haves”. It is self serving, coercive and egocentric. The humanitarianism taught by Jesus is personal, voluntary, and altruistic. It is never coercive.


          Comment by Jerry McDaniel | December 23, 2012 | Reply

          • I agree with some comments here and disagree with others. Mostly, I disagree with absolutist views on The Constitution or The Bible. The constitution is a living, breathing document and, as far as I am concerned, God is still speaking.. I have seen some videos on YouTube uploaded under the name Publius/Hulda. I don’t know if those are of the same entity as this blog but as is the case in most views, people latch on to the things they like and spend countless hours parsing words to justify their views and to try to discredit the views of others. I’m glad it didn’t take long for the words “socialist”, “progressive” and “lazy” to be brought up in this thread as it shows the absolutist views of black and white with no shades of grey. One of the most contentious issues in this country is abortion. I would assume the dominant opinion of this blog is that a fetus has the rights that people are “born” with and see the fetus as an individually living life rather than a parasite of the impregnated woman that only becomes a life when it is physically separated. I find most absolutist views to be very contradictory.


            Comment by Kirk | December 24, 2012

          • Kirk,

            1. Whether YOU “agree” or “disagree” is not relevant. Your “agreement” is not the Standard. The Standard is TRUTH. Is what is said here TRUE or is it FALSE?

            To make that determination, we must have recourse to Facts & Logic. A rational man conforms his beliefs to the TRUTH.

            I understand that you have been raised in a culture which has renounced the concept of Fixed Principles. Our culture even believes the preposterous notion that “truth” evolves! I explain how our culture got that way here:

            If you read that with your mind open, you will come to see why you believe what you believe. And then you will be in a position to rise above your circumstances. You may even eventually learn how to observe so that your point of observation is outside the sphere within which the thing observed takes place.

            2. Re the “views” expressed on Publius Huldah’s u-tube videos: Please be so kind as to point to any error of FACT or LOGIC! Go on, do it!

            3. You suggest that “absolutist views” are wrong. Are you SURE about that?

            4. Oh, I would love to enter into a contract with you for personal services (yours). Why, I’ll just keep changing the meaning of the payment clauses of the contract. You wouldn’t have a problem with that, would you? The contract “lives and breathes” doesn’t it? And the person with the power gets to decide how it changes, right?

            5. Babies in the womb are “parasites”? Really? Do you know what THE BIBLE says about unborn babies? Review Samuel’s and King David’s words on this when they are talking to GOD. Do you really hate life – the human race – that much? Or have you just unthinkingly absorbed the anti-life views of the pro-abortion people?


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 24, 2012

          • Wisdom is immutable, Kirk. I believe you’re right. God is still speaking. He’s speaking to the affirmation of his eternal, unchanging laws. Alpha and omega, baby!


            Comment by Jeff Edelman | December 25, 2012

          • Kirk, I really can’t add much to PH’s response. I have difficulty communicating with people who live in a grey world with no absolute principles to guide them. If the only absolute you accept is that nothing is absolute, then I would have to assume that you have no confidence in your opinions. And, if your have no confidence in your own opinions, I really can’t put much credence in what you say.


            Comment by Jerry McDaniel | December 24, 2012

          • Merry Christmas, my dear pro-life friend!

            From your pro-life friend,


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 24, 2012

          • Publius/Huldah,

            As far as YouTube – I just noticed on the video regarding not needing the Bill of Rights that Hillsboro Baptist Church was mentioned in regards to free speech. There seemed to be a dislike of them picketing the funerals of soldiers (and what seemed like a reluctant need to disclose their objections to homosexuality) and, withing seconds, moved to the topic of government sanctioned gay marriage. Was (is) there a problem with Hillsboro Baptist Church, as a whole, or was their only a problem after they moved their hate speech to not only be towards gays but more toward mainstream that they became a problem for you? (I’m not pointing to any error of FACT but possibly LOGIC) There! I did it!

            Yes, I suggest that absolutist views are wrong. Am I sure? Of course not! That would be absolutist!

            Entering into a contract with you would be interesting, for sure. It would most likely require a 2,500 page Letter of Intent before getting to the actual contract!

            Technically, babies are parasites. I never said I “hate life”. You interpreted that based on your own emotions, not fact or truth. Technically, a fetus is a parasite. Views of the importance of life seem to skew when discussing topics of abortion and execution. Are your views of the lives of persons sentenced to death by their peers as fierce as the ones you so obviously hold for the unborn? I wonder what Ms. Rand’s views would be in this regard. (Please enlighten me if you know)

            I would agree that the standard is truth. Unfortunately, some people get so wrapped up in perceived truth, fact and reasoning that they lose their grip on reality. I usually find those people pointing to their own writings as another gospel and many times referring to themselves in the third person.


            Comment by Kirk | December 24, 2012

          • Kirk,

            I will make this simple. But it does require than one be able to look at facts and follow a chain of reasoning. So, you must focus. And open your mind, b/c what you have believed about this is all wrong.

            Re the Westboro Baptist case:

            1. Read the U.S. Constitution and you will see that the Constitution does not delegate to any branch of the federal government the power to abridge speech for the Country at large. I.e., regulation of speech is not an “enumerated power” of the federal government.

            The 1st Amendment expressly prohibits CONGRESS from making any laws abridging the freedom of speech.

            The 10th Amendment says that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States [see Art. I, Sec. 10] are reserved to the States or the people.

            SO! From this we know that while the federal government has no power to abridge speech for the Country at Large, the States reserved the power to do so. And the States have always restricted speech! That’s what slander & libel laws are about. Fraudulent misrepresentations. Falsely crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Intentional infliction of emotional distress. “Fighting words”, etc., etc. I hope you get the idea.

            In the Westboro Baptist case, the Father of the Dead Soldier sued the Westboro Baptists under State laws permitting him to sue and permitting him to recover damages.

            What the supreme Court has done with the 1st Amendment is this: Even though all the 1st Amendment does is list some things CONGRESS may not do, the supreme Court has used it to set itself up as judge over ALL the speech which takes place in this Country, and the supreme Court claims the power to decide which speech is “protected” by the 1st Amendment and which speech is NOT “protected”. If they decide it is “protected”, you can say it. If they decide it is not “protected”, you can’t say it. What it all boils down to is this: If 5 of them think it should be said, it is “protected”. Otherwise, it is not “protected”.

            NOW, PAY ATTENTION: The 1st Amendment says that CONGRESS can’t abridge speech. So, if Congress were to make a law which pretended to restrict political speech; obviously, such a law would be unconstitutional! Restriction of speech is not an enumerated power delegated to Congress, AND the 1st Amendment says CONGRESS can’t make laws abridging speech.

            But the States may abridge speech – that is NO BUSINESS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S.

            “Speech” is something the federal government has no power over for the Country at large. Regulation of “speech” is reserved to the States.

            2. Re the supreme Court’s perversion of the 14th Amendment. You don’t seem to be a lawyer, and hence the paper will require study before you can understand it. I explain it here:

            You didn’t understand the legal issues in the 1st & 14th Amendment cases, and so made unwarranted assumptions, and read in “problems” which weren’t there. You ought to be careful. When one doesn’t understand what one is talking about, but is merely repeating what one has heard, it shows.

            3. You are the one who said the federal Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. If that is your belief about the Constitution [and yes, yes, I know it is what you have been told], then why would you object to entering into a personal services contract with me where I get to decide that our contract “lives & breathes”? Or object to playing poker with me where I get to change the rules on you. Would you object to that? Why? You don’t have a problem with the supreme Court changing the Constitution, do you? What’s the difference?

            4. You are suggesting that someone who calls unborn human babies “parasites”, can be one who loves life?

            5. Do you not understand the distinction between aborting unborn babies and imposing the death penalty for heinous crimes? Here is the distinction: God’s Law mandates the death penalty for certain crimes. Ayn Rand also supported the death penalty for certain heinous crimes.

            FINALLY: If you wish to continue a dialogue on this site, I ask that you do so in a polite and civil tone. Your post to which I am now responding leaves much to be desired in the aspect of good manners & civility.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 24, 2012

          • The unborn are innocent!


            Comment by Jeff Edelman | December 25, 2012

  9. Well, lookie here. The Vatican not only supports wealth redistribution, but also wants an unaccountable “world bank” to do it and national governments to be subordinated to it:

    Doesn’t the Vatican realize that it’s theology is un-Christian? That wealth redistribution is stealing? That we as Christians are prohibited to steal other people’s property or even to covet it?


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | September 28, 2012 | Reply

    • ZB, I am convinced that for a very long time, 99.9999% of the churchmen of all denominations have not troubled their precious selves to actually read the Bible. They have the doctrines with which they were indoctrinated in seminary, and that’s all they “know”.

      The Catholic Bishops in the United States were all for obamacare before it was passed. Only after it was passed, and HHS started writing the administrative rules (unconstitutional as violative of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution) and they found out that they weren’t going to get an exemption for the baby-killing stuff, did they protest it. They were all for having the federal government pick up the tab for all the charity cases in the Catholic hospitals here.

      They also oppose the death penalty – a penalty which is mandated by God for 19 or so criminal offenses. Every time God imposes the death penalty, He says, “In this way, you will rid yourselves of the evil among you” – or words to that effect. But the Catholic clergy has long opposed the death penalty, I think. I don’t think any of them know that God requires it.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 28, 2012 | Reply

      • Of course the Catholic Church was happy to have taxpayers pick up the tab for their charity cases and was for Obamacare before it was passed. Of course they oppose the death penalty. Of course they don’t know what the Bible says on this subject. And they don’t care. Want to know why?

        Because the Catholic Church, and especially the Pope, see themselves as above the Bible and believe that their opinions supersede it. Even worse, the Pope considers himself infallible, as if he were an angel and not e mere mortal human.

        They’re like the SCOTUS, which sees itself above the Constitution and puts its precious opinion above it. But even they don’t consider themselves infallible.

        That’s the main reason why I left the RCC over a year ago and began attending the Lutheran Church. We Lutherans bow to no one but God Almighty, and we recognize only the Bible as an authoritative text.


        Comment by Zbigniew Mazurak | September 29, 2012 | Reply

        • This will offend the RCs, but for Heavens’ Sake, WE THE PEOPLE must start putting TRUTH above our precious beliefs, instead of putting our precious beliefs above the TRUTH.

          “But what I believe is the Truth”, they say.

          “Then why don’t you test your beliefs?”, I answer. What does The Bible say about the death penalty? What does The Bible say about charity being a private matter left in the discretion of individual people and the church – and how it is never a function of civil government? What does The Bible say about the role of civil government? We can’t rely on anyone to tell us the truth about what the Bible actually says. WE must read it cover to cover. And then read it again. And again. It gets better every time.

          The same for our Commission to convert the world! That’s what The Bible teaches. The Bible NEVER teaches us to surrender the Word to evil, or spend our lives thinking about how we are going to escape from the World. Yes, they want to escape from the World which GOD made, and which GOD owns along with everything in it, and which GOD said was “good”.

          BAD theology has been the undoing of the American People. The American People uncritically accept what their priests and pastors tell them; and these clergymen merely regurgitate what they were told by their seminary professors who, in turn, merely regurgitated what they were told.

          Re Lutheranism: I haven’t had time to read Luther’s original work on the so-called “two kingdoms” theory; but here Lutheran pastors interpret that to mean that God pretty much gave civil government a free hand to do what they want. There is God’s Kingdom (which they say is restricted to the Church! [really bad theology here!]), and then there is the Kingdom of Man. And never the twain shall meet. Of course, this is Manichean Dualism, pure & simple. Manichean dualism was imported into “christian” doctrine by Augustine. And I think Luther was an Augustinian Monk before he broke from the RC Church. So since you never seem to sleep, in your spare time, read Luther’s work on the Two Kingdom theory. And beware of what might be pagan Manichean dualism being passed off in your Church as “christian” doctrine on civil government.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 29, 2012 | Reply

  10. When you wrote that you’re sure that you’re on the list of people to be killed, I thought you were paranoid. But today, I read this:

    By the by, you wouldn’t mind confirming to me that there’s no Constitutional authorization for a DHS, would you?


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | September 20, 2012 | Reply

    • Oh, I am above all things quite sane. Never neurotic. I know quite a lot about totalitarian theory and techniques. My philosophy department (my undergraduate degree) was all hard left; and I spent several years in and out of E. Europe during the cold war. I was also in your country (before you were born). I have read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn extensively, etc. I know quite a bit about NAZI Germany. So I am well aware that the first thing they must do is get rid of the independent thinkers. And I know they know about me b/c they are frequently on my web site. My stat counter tells me this. All of them, even the executive office of the teleprompter in chief, have been here.

      The federal government is supposed to protect us from invasion (Art. IV,§4), suppress insurrections (Art. I, §8, cl. 15), and handle our national defense (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16). To the extent DHS performs these functions, it would be lawful.

      However, it seems that DHS spends much time spying on people like me (my ancestors were the English Puritans who came here in the 1630s and the Scots who came here in 1718, and they have fought in every war for America: King Phillips’ War, the French & Indian War, the American Revolution, the War for Southern Secession, WWI, and WWII. I have been a regular respectable person of good family and good reputation. Yet I am spied on by DHS and various other federal agencies (unless, of course, they come to my web site to learn the original intent of Our Constitution). Which I suppose is possible: bored federal employees stealing some private computer time to learn the original intent of our Constitution. Well, it could be so!

      In my State of Tennessee, DHS is involved in issuing State driver’s licenses (!), deciding whether people can have State concealed [gun] carry permits (!), and they seem to have taken over our State Highway Patrol (!). [The State Highway Patrols patrol the highways of their respective States looking for speeders!] DHS “partners” with our State Highway Patrol in doing random checkpoints where they stop all drivers to see if they are drunk or have driver’s licenses, etc. Of course, NONE of this is the business of the federal government, and so it is all unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government.

      I don’t know what else DHS does. But anything it does beyond the functions listed in the second para above (or elsewhere in the Constitution as a delegated power) is unconstitutional.

      You are certainly aware of zero’s connection with Bill Ayers whose terrorist organization, “Weather Underground” planned on how to kill 25,000,000 Americans. Zero is connected with George Soros, the Hungarian Jew who assisted the NAZIS in rounding up other Jews – and he gloated that he enjoyed the sense of power this gave him. And you are probably aware that obama adviser, Anita Dunn, said her two favorite heroes were Mother Theresa [yeah, right] and Chairman Mao. Zero’s contacts are totalitarians – who must commit mass murder in order to consolidate their power.

      The test for America will be whether we have enough:

      (1) People with the intelligence & judgment to vote for Romney in the next election; or failing that

      (2) manly men left who will STOP a totalitarian takeover by zero and his thugs.

      I don’t know whether WE will pass either of these tests. Not only is the size of the welfare parasite class approaching 50% of our population; but The Christians [who should be our allies] are all waiting to be raptured out of here any day now; or they are resigned to defeat in this world: Their “true home” is Heaven, you see; and so they have surrendered the World to Evil, and pat themselves on the back for doing so!

      If you don’t know about “Rapture Theory”, let me know. But if there are Baptists in your Country, and if you know any of them, then you have probably heard of “The Rapture” they are waiting for. Any day now….


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 20, 2012 | Reply

      • Was your slam on Baptists who believe the rapture necessary? Seems not to contribute to this discussion, rather would anger friends. Regardless, I believe in the rapture but I am NOT RESIGNED to defeat in this world! I am disappointed to say the least though I will overlook.


        Comment by Larry Self | September 20, 2012 | Reply

        • It was not the Faith of our Fathers. Rapture theory was born in Scotland, I think, about 150 years ago, and was popularized here by Scofield. People here just ate it up b/c it promises such an easy way out: Who wouldn’t want to avoid, via “rapture”, all the unpleasantness which results from surrendering the World [which God made and said was “Good”] to evil?

          Our original command was to take dominion over the World; that Command is repeated several times throughout the Bible; and was never rescinded. The Apostle Paul is an illustration of what it means to take Dominion over the World: He traveled around Christianizing People and countries. Same with other very early heroes of The Faith – such as those who Christianized England and Ireland and Scotland. THEY had Salt and Light. WE have given ours up.

          It is necessary for me to speak out against it. B/c it is a false doctrine; it is responsible for taking the Salt and the Light out of American Christians; and We need the Christians to regain their Salt and Light NOW, or our World will be engulfed by islam and/or collectivism. Look at our Country today! If we had Christians who actually believed and obeyed the Bible, instead of exulting over how they were going to be rescued from it “any day now”, our Country wouldn’t be the collapsing cesspool it now is. THE MAJORITY OF OUR POPULATION IS STILL CHRISTIAN! The fact that we are in such a state of decline and mortal peril shows that Christians haven’t been doing their job. THEY ARE PASSIVE. THEY ARE IN RETREAT. THEY ARE IN WITHDRAWAL. Singing songs with closed eyes and waiving arms, and thinking about escape and rescue don’t do diddly squat to combat the mortal perils we now face.

          The theory is demonstrably false. The clergy have butchered the Bible as much as the lawyers have butchered our Constitution.

          I haven’t written on this b/c at least two others have already written conclusive & elegant refutations of the rapture theory. Let me know if you want further info.

          If you aren’t willing to surrender the World to evil so long as you and yours escape, then perhaps you don’t really believe that lying theory after all. Perhaps you really are a Puritan at heart! They are the ones who came here to build a Country to the Glory of God! Not to escape from the World. But to Christianize it!


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 21, 2012 | Reply

          • Why ask if readers want further info? Just post the links. I haven’t spent your time, but here is a thoughtful one I found in defense ( To say the doctrine is responsible for taking the Salt and the Light out of American Christians is petty and laughable.

            Southern Baptists, the largest evangelical protestant group in the US, teach the rapture but admonishes against making it or any other idol an excuse to not share ones faith with all those we come in contact with and frequently preach Matthew 28:19-20 (among others) and on being thankful. Southern Baptists put feet to their beliefs, not all, but many. The Southern Baptist Convention has the second largest disaster relief group behind the American Red Cross. They have over 10,000 missionaries worldwide not including those sponsored through local congregations apart from SBC’s Mission Board. These are they who go and live among unreached people groups to help them physically and spiritually.

            Let’s get back to sharing our faith with those we meet and defending our inspired US Constitution.


            Comment by Larry Self | September 27, 2012

          • Most, if not all, of the modern day Christian denominations urge their members to share their faith. That’s easy – there is no risk in that kind of “sharing”.

            But the faith being shared is an escapist faith which surrenders the World to evil.

            Disaster relief? That is fine. But it takes no guts to do that. The guts are in challenging and fighting the forces of evil which are taking over our Land: The socialists, the muslims, the statists, the secularists, the humanists, etc. THAT is where the Battle is – or rather, that is where the Battle would be if the Christians had the guts to fight. But they don’t. They are focused on escape or rescue. Passivity. Being “nice”. Waiting to be whisked out of here before the trouble hits.

            The majority Christian population of this Country has no effect on our Culture. We have an increasingly degenerate pagan culture. Why? B/c the Christians lost their salt & light. They are now wusses & wimps waiting to be rescued.

            This refusal to fight evil is based on that man-made theory of “rapture” which was fabricated 100 or so years ago (as well as the classical amil view that the world is just going to get worse & worse and there is nothing we can do except hunker down in the “church” and wait for the end) which has completely neutralized the Christians who embraced these destructive theories. This is why such Christians are no threat to the forces of evil. They go along with it and pat themselves on the back while doing so.

            The best books on eschatology I have seen are:

            “Paradise Restored” by David A. Chilton. Once can read it free on-line at


            “Last Days Madness” by Gary DeMar


            We have forgotten how to read Scripture in pari materia – each passage in Scripture must be read in the light cast by all other passages in the Bible on the same topic. We don’t do that any more b/c people no longer read the Bible cover to cover. People just read their idiotic “proof texts” to support the man-made theories they got indoctrinated with at Seminary or Church.

            Chilton & DeMar read the Bible as a whole and their eschatology reflects what the Bible as a whole teaches. Christians are supposed to convert the World to Christianity and we are supposed to teach God’s Laws as the path to follow for individuals and for civil governments. God told us to take Dominion over the World and we have refused to obey God. We despise the World God made and have surrendered it to evil.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | October 7, 2012

          • PH, “Rapture” came into the churches via John Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren, when he published his book by the same name in 1631. Oh, and did I tell you I have been a Baptist since March, 1953. In fact, I am a post-tribulation Baptist.


            Comment by Jerry McDaniel | September 27, 2012

          • My comment concerning the “Rapture” contains an error. “1631” should have read “1831”. Sorry about that.


            Comment by Jerry McDaniel | September 27, 2012

      • Orrin Hatch – one of the senators from Utah (he makes me want to puke) was so very proud of himself for getting federal funding to build a new spy facility out at Camp Williams – South of Salt Lake City. He thinks he has created some jobs and that is what it is all about. I have heard the stories, seen some videos and read several reports on the purpose of these facilites. DHS won’t talk much about them but apparently there are almost 100 now strategically placed throughout the US. The DHS calls them databases that monitor terrorist cells. The untrusting call them mega-databases and what DHS does is gather all of the information they can about everyone in the US. They are not spying on specific terrorist cells, they are spying on and gathering information on everyone. PH, what you have posted above is disconcerting. It seems to lend credence to the contrarian reports of the purpose of the spy centers. BTW – I laugh at the people who don’t believe in “conspiracies”. Do you think the real plans of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Obama, were openly discussed? Are people really so naive?


        Comment by IMO | September 24, 2012 | Reply

        • The only thing I can think of that Orin Hatch ever did right was the big part he played in getting Clarence Thomas confirmed to SCOTUS.

          Our federal government should take a look at Ferdinand & Isabella and do as they did in Spain: Expel the Muslims.

          How on Earth did the American People ever get suckered into accepting multiculturalism? It is a patently absurd and false doctrine: Mexicans come here for (1) the welfare benefits and (2) to escape their own crummy culture. Mexican culture has always been a criminal & corrupt culture. The solution is for them to fix their own culture! We shouldn’t let them import it here.

          Same for muslim culture: it is and has always been, cruel & crummy & anti-intellectual.

          If the United States would protect us from invasion as they are required to do (Art. IV, §4), there would be NO EXCUSE for spying on little old ladies, military veterans, and pro-life Christians.

          Hitler said in his book what he was going to do! People just didn’t know what he had said in his book or didn’t believe it when they were told. When he was elected, he only got about 35% of the vote, but among the 15 or so candidates, he got the most votes. I haven’t read zero’s books, but from what I have heard of them, it seems that he is very clear about who he is and what he wants. Also, from the first, I recognized from his speech the code words of the hard left. But most Americans don’t recognize that language.

          Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are a sorry pair for not supporting Mitt Romney.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 24, 2012 | Reply

          • Actually, in the last German federal election before WW2, the election of March 1933, the Nazi Party won 44% of the vote, breaking their previous record of 37% in July 1932.



            Comment by zbigniewmazurak | September 25, 2012

          • Thanks, ZB
            I knew if I didn’t get exactly right, you would. I was going from memory, which, from time to time, fails me. Anyway, the point, of course, was that the first time Hitler was elected as Chancellor, he got less than 50% of the vote – the other voters split among the numerous other candidates.

            This is why it is so distressing that that self-indulgent hypocrite who pretends to be a libertarian (Gary Johnson?), is running as third party in this upcoming election. I fear he will take votes from Romney.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 25, 2012

  11. Here’s something that might interest you: The Economist is now speculating about whether Asia, including China, will repeat the West’s welfare state mistake or institute an “affordable” welfare state and thus “set an example” for the West.

    What Economist columnists don’t seem to understand is that a welfare state is, by nature, unaffordable. It can never be made financially viable; no self-improvement reform can change that fact. Of course, I’m talking about a real, fully-fledged welfare state like Western European countries and the US. If you try to provide a true welfare state – big benefits/big giveaways – to everyone, it’s unaffordable and will inevitably bankrupt you, because no country, not even the wealthiest one on Earth, has the resources to provide that.

    It can be “affordable” only if you provide handouts only to some people, or only low-quality, basic benefits. But even then, the people, once taught that they can get something for “free”, will begin demanding more.

    A welfare state is unavoidably very expensive and unaffordable, and THAT is why every welfare state in the world, including the US, is drowning in debt. The Economist’s journalist don’t seem to get it.


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | September 16, 2012 | Reply

  12. Thanks for your response PH. I have heard these accusations regarding the Tea Party people guarding “their” government largesse. Unfortunately, this appears to be human nature. It is the rare person who will sacrifice himself for the advancement of his country. However, in regards to SS, it was their money — their private property — they were coerced into surrendering. The deal was they were to get it back. They should get back what they paid, with perhaps a set amount of interest, and that be it. Social security should be eliminated.


    Comment by Jeff Edelman | September 11, 2012 | Reply

    • I agree. I have long thought that the answer to SS is to give the money back with some compounded interest. Seems like a fair thing to do, after all, the people were forced to contribute to it with their own money. It is not a government benefit or endowment.

      SS is purely a Ponzi scheme. People have been thrown in jail for the same thing that the government has been doing for years. I think that under the definition of Ponzi scheme which “pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation”, the dictionary should say “see Social Security as a blatant example”. Just give the money back and throw congress in jail for 250 years. After all, Bernie Madoff got 150 and his has only been going on for a couple of decades. The government Ponzi scheme has been going on for over half a century and has/will hurt far more peole than Madoff could ever reach. Our government makes Madoff look like a kindergarten child when it comes to public rip-offs.


      Comment by DP | September 12, 2012 | Reply

    • I take execption to your statement that the Tea Party people are guarding their government largesse. I am a Tea Party member and agree with all points made by Huldah and so do my fellow members. I do NOT KNOW where you get your information, but I suggest that you explore some grass roots Tea Part sites to discover that most of us feel that we should get our money back with some amount of interest.


      Comment by David Batten | December 18, 2012 | Reply

      • I don’t see any dispute here about social security (SS): It seems we all agree that since people were forced to pay into it, they should get their money back. [Of course, if a person lives long enough, he will get back much more than he paid in + interest; and some working person he doesn’t know is taxed to provide his SS income (or the amount is borrowed and added to the debt).

        I, personally, have renounced my SS and medicare “benefits”. But I don’t fault those who claim them – except that it would be very rare for the monies which individuals have paid in for medicare would even come close to covering the cost of the medical care they receive. And THAT, is the purpose of the Death Panels in obamacare – when you get to a certain age, you will be denied medical care – YOU get the pain pill. B/c it costs too much to let you have medical care.

        We may all witness the bitter lesson that there is no such thing as a free lunch.


        Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 19, 2012 | Reply

        • I agree that there is no such thing as a free lunch. However, if SS and Medicare were set up as ‘savings’ accounts and you would only get out of them your principle plus interest, I would agree with that.

          -I do not believe that SS and Medicare should ‘for the rest of your life as long as others a paying for it’, you should only get what you paid in plus interest

          – … [I know of a person] … who has gobs of money, just had a hip replacement at the expense of Medicare while she could have easily paid for it herself; she knows she’s going to live a lot longer and is afraid that her money will run out (it won’t) and she won’t have the cash to keep buying her Country Club Memberships and new cars every few years. I think THAT is wrong.


          Comment by David Batten | December 19, 2012 | Reply

          • REVISED COMMENT:
            When Congress passed Medicare, they transferred Responsibility for personal medical expenses FROM the individual TO the population at large (born and unborn).

            If the person of whom you speak was forced to participate, why shouldn’t she get the same “benefits” as everyone else? I think it would be even worse for the federal government to distribute medicare benefits based on what the federal government perceives to be the “need” of individual people than to give it to all who were forced to participate.

            The federal government has no more lawful authority to pay the medical expenses of needy old people than it does for rich old people.

            But it was b/c we can not afford to provide all this subsidized medical care to old people that obamacare set up the Death Panels.

            ADDED STILL LATER: And also, what about the people who need medical care b/c of the medical problems they gave themselves? My late neighbor was a long time drunk – he gave himself liver disease and cost the taxpayers much in his final illness. What about these 300-400 pound Americans who give themselves a whole host of diseases and ailments: Why should WE be forced to subsidize their vice? Why are they more “deserving” of free medical care than rich old people?

            Socializing medical expenses is a very wicked thing and can NEVER be made right.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 19, 2012

      • Dear Mr. Batten,

        You are responding to some comments that I made to PH some months back. However, if I recollect correctly, part of my comments mirror yours exactly in that I believe people who paid in should receive that with interest. Let me add that it is my understanding most people receive way beyond what was confiscated from them. And, that still would probably be the case if a generous amount of interest was included. In regards to the comment that TP members guard their government largesse, this information resulted from a poll. Don’t remember the polling organization. I can’t say with 100 percent certainty that it is a legitimate or bogus result. However, having read some of your other comments to wit: you didn’t think it was right for the old rich woman to have medicare pay for her hip replacement; leads me to believe the results were accurately reflected. You think you have the right to the money you paid in but, somehow she doesn’t have the right to the money she paid in.What’s hers is hers. What’s yours is yours. Her current economic situation has no bearing on her claim to her private property. As a TP person you should understand and respect private property. You, nor anyone else, has a claim to her property just because it has been illegally confiscated and is in the “hands” of the government! This thinking seems like a modification of Marx’s slogan: From each according to his (monetary) ability, to each according to his (monetary) need. Please, explain your logic. Lastly, I would refer you to my comments of Sept. 3 & 4 and PH’s replies.


        Comment by Jeff Edelman | December 23, 2012 | Reply

  13. PH: Andy McCarthy has come to the same conclusions as you. In a blogpost on June 28th, he wrote that:

    “But, at the risk of being a broken record, we remain focused on the wrong issue because conservatives and Republicans do not want any part of the right issue. Congress would not be able to tax anyone a penny if the subject matter on which lawmakers sought to spend the money raised was not within Congress’s constitutional authority to address. Health care and health insurance are precisely such issues. So why does Congress get to raise taxes for and spend money on them?

    Because the country — very much including Republican leaders and many conservatives — has bought on to the wayward progressive premise that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to spend on anything it wants to spend on as long as their is some fig-leaf that ties the spending to the betterment of society. That, and not an inflated understanding of the Commerce Clause, has always been the problem. Republicans are afraid to touch this because, if you follow the logic, you’d have to conclude that Congress has no constitutional authority to set up a Social Security system, a Medicare or Medicaid program, or most of the innumerable Big Government enterprises that Republicans support while, of course, decrying Big Government. Republicans occasionally want to limit what government spends, but they don’t want to acknowledge any constitutional limits on what government could spend — that’s what has gotten us to this point.”

    So McCarthy’s main theses are:

    1) a large chunk of the American electorate WANTS to continue to receive these giveaways (thinking they are freebies or paid for by someone else); and
    2) that being the case, Republicans, to be a viable political party, must support such giveaways and present themselves as the guardians of the welfare state.

    Ultimately, it’s not the politicians who are to blame. They just want to get reelected. It’s American VOTERS who are to blame. They still want to continue to receive all their giveaways – farm subsidies, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, welfare payments, “free” K-12 education, etc. And they want someone else to pay for that. As long as the majority of Americans subscribes to that mindset, America will continue to drown in debt.


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | September 10, 2012 | Reply

    • Good Post ZM. Have you noticed lately that Romney, the press, and the Republicans in general now speak of “replacing” Obamacare rather than “repealing” Obamacare? If it is unconstitutional for the Democrats isn’t it also unconstitutional for the Republicans? I think (or maybe I just hope) both parties are misunderstanding the outcry of the people. I wish one of them would give us a real “Constitutional” candidate. Until then, I wish the states had the courage to nullify what congress is doing, even though the people and the states are hostages to the 16th and 17th amendments and, I am sure, would be severely punished for so doing.


      Comment by GovandGod | September 11, 2012 | Reply

      • Exactly, GovandGod. But you should not be suprised given that Romney was the author of MA’s own socialized medicine scheme, which served as the prototype for Obama’s (both plans were designed by the same guy, Jonathan Gruber).

        Romney and other Republicans don’t seem to understand that a true constitutional conservative would not repeal Obamacare and replace it with a new government program. He would repeal Obamacare, period.


        Comment by zbigniewmazurak | September 16, 2012 | Reply

        • Our choices are obama or Romney.

          Romney is the better of the two. Western Civilization will not survive another 4 years of obama. Western civilization will survive Romney; and his election will give us 4 more years to try to educate the ignorant Americans.

          Of course, obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated by our Constitution to the federal government! Yes! Republicans should repeal it, start dismantling Medicare & Medicaid, and get out of the medical business altogether, except for our wounded military personnel. But until a majority of Americans understand that the welfare state is evil, this isn’t going to happen. They still think [make that “believe” b/c they can’t think] that federal government programs for the poor & needy are good & wonderful & moral.

          I haven’t read the Constitution for the State of Massachusetts. It may be that the Mass. State Constitution permits State involvement in medical care. But in any event, it appears that the version Romney proposed was very different from the one which got passed by the Mass. Legislature. See:

          [I haven’t personally looked into Romney’s proposal & the version which got passed. Hence, the qualifying language in the preceding para.]


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 17, 2012 | Reply

          • I know that Romney is a better choice than Obama. But I think you’re too optimistic regarding the former MA Governor.

            Yes, he may be swayed in the conservative direction and work with Republicans on conservative reforms, including eliminating unconstitutional programs, cutting spending, repealing Obamacare, etc.

            But forgive me if I’m not optimistic about that.

            Remember the years from 2003 and 2007, when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress? President Bush didn’t lead a fight to shrink the federal government, reform it, or cut spending; he didn’t even try to. He actually led a crusade to expand the federal government, and in doing so, he cajoled and corrupted a lot of good Congressional Republicans.

            The result? Embarrassing Republican defeats in 2006 and 2008, which nearly led to the death of the party.

            If Romney wins, we better hope that he keeps his word, and that he succeeds in reviving the economy AND cutting the deficit significantly by November 2014. If he doesn’t, the GOP will be routed in 2014 and 2016.

            OTOH, if Obama wins this time, he will certainly drive America off the cliff… and if Democrat voter ranks don’t expand significantly before 2014, Obama and his fellow Dems in Congress will get the blame and be routed in 2014, paving the way for a 2016 conservative comeback.

            Regarding Romneycare, it was designed by a team of MIT folks led by Jonathan Gruber. Those guys, including Gruber, later went on to author Obamacare, and they say it’s “Romneycare with three more zeroes.”

            The two plans, as the Club for Growth points out, share at least 3 similarities:

            1) Both require citizens to buy insurance – and impose heavy fines on those who don’t comply.
            2) Both subsidize insurance for those who can’t afford to pay for it.
            3) Both set up “insurance exchanges” to heavily regulate insurance policies and strictly define what is and isn’t covered.

            Yes, the MA State Constitution does authorize the state government to mandate that people buy insurance. But, as your hero Sarah Palin has (rightly) pointed out, just because you can doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.

            And guess what? Michael O. Leavitt, President Bush’s HHS Secretary, who has a lot to lose if Obamacare’s “insurance exchanges” are eliminated, would be President Romney’s transition chief and WH Chief of Staff.


            Comment by zbigniewmazurak | September 17, 2012

          • ZM

            I don’t let “The Perfect” be the enemy of making the better choice. There is rarely, if ever, a “perfect” choice; but there is always a better choice.

            Alan West & Sarah Palin do not understand the U.S. Constitution, but they are not self-conscious statists. obama, clintons, etc., are self-conscious statists. West & Palin are among the most good-hearted politicians we have in this Country; and West understands the threat of islam and has the guts to speak out eloquently against it. Note, I said, they are among the best we have. We don’t have any James Madisons, Thomas Jeffersons, or George Washingtons.

            There are perhaps 10 people in the entire United States who understand the U.S. Constitution. None of them are running for President. None of them are in the federal government (that I know of).

            The American people do not want constitutional government. They want their handouts. The American People are morally corrupt, as well as ignorant. Our worthless clergy has been out to lunch for over 100 years.

            So my task is to try to turn on the lights in as many minds as I can; hope that someone with lots of charisma will pick it up and sell it to the ignorant morally corrupt American people.

            Meanwhile, I support Romney as the better choice. I do not expect him to round up people like me and take us away and kill us. Western Civilization can hang on a few more years under a Romney administration.

            I expect that if obama is reelected, there will be mass exterminations. They monitor my website (DHS, etc.) one of the federal agencies is here almost every day, so I expect I’m on the list to be killed. Or, perhaps someone in those agencies wants to learn the original intent of the Constitution?

            I have a very good idea who Romney is. He is far better for us and for the World than obama.

            Those are our TWO choices.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 17, 2012

          • I don’t have any faith in the federal government. My personal opinion is that I don’t think it matters who will be president. People are worried about who will be president but, IMO, they should be more concerned about who is running/not running their state. Presidents are controlled by the money people every bit as much as senators and congressmen are. Maybe even more so. Many are also controlled by threats and blackmail. The only way I can see that we are going to get the federal government under control is by having the states stand up and say “you can’t do that”. The out of control federal government will remain out of control until it is brought under control and the only entity large enough to do that is the state and it would take a consortium of states to have any influence. I believe the only way any of the states are going to get enough yaboos to do that is if we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. These two amendments have basically emasculated the states. The 16th because it allows the federal government to go around the state and directly attack/control the individual. It allows the feds to give the illusion to the states of having money (that they got from the citizens of the state in the first place) and control the states with that money. If the states don’t adhere to the wishes of big brother then they won’t be given money to the states for their projects (roads, bridges, BLM, schools, free lunches, healthcare and every unconstitutional social program and agency upon which the states now think they are dependent). No individual is big enough to fight that system, they’ll just get stomped on by an illegitimate federal agency.

            Only a state is big enough to stand up to the federal gov’t and only if the 16th amendment is repealed so that the federal government has to bill the states. This would give the states the ability to refuse to pay for unconstitutional agencies and programs. As it is, the states have no say in controlling the federal government but it is the other way around. The creature controls the creator. The 17th must also be repealed because there is no representation at the federal level for a state’s rights. Senators are now elected by whomever has the most money and influence, so consequently, that is who they represent, not the state. If the states could go back to appointing the senators then those senators would have to represent the states or they would get thrown out on their ear. 16th and 17th work hand-in-hand to limit the authority of the state. These amendments must be repealed in order for the states to re-obtain their rightful place.

            IMO, the presidential race has become more of a diversion from the real consitutional issues. All the hype and press is at the federal level and the local issues are ignored. Sure, who the president is is important but not as important as states maintaining their own rights. Romney is a good guy, by all reports, a highly moral individual, family oriented and faithful, very religious and tries to live a clean good life. I hope this would give him the right to have inspiration from God to do what he should as I believe our Founders had. (I am not comparing him to the Founders – they were a special group of men. I just hope he can have and act on inspiration from God as they did.) I hope he understands the authority of the federal government as opposed to authority of a state. He justifies his MA healthcare plan as being a state right but not allowed at the federal level – he may have a point, I haven’t read the MA constitution but it was done at the state level which Madison says the rights thereof are ill-defined and therefore perhaps justifiable. I suppose we could have some socialism in the US if the people want it at the state level and their state constitutions allow it. Again, according to Madison, socialism may not happen at the federal level because its role is specifically defined. And yet socialism does happen at the federal level because the states allow it. Want to get the federal government under control? Get the states under control. I believe you can work your way down to the individual using the same logic.

            During the Reagan years, one of his campaign promises was to get rid of the federal department of education. The way I remember it, he tried to move in that direction and the states wouldn’t let him. I can’t remember all of the arguments but I do remember that the states cried and whined when he tried. So the only way we are going to get the federal government under control is with the states – who don’t seem to want it under control.


            Comment by IMO | September 18, 2012

          • Everything you say is TRUE except for one crucial point.

            It matters who gets elected as President in this next election. If obama is re-elected, it will result in the collapse of our Country and western civilization.

            obama has in place all he needs for a complete totalitarian takeover. He knows Congress won’t stop him – even if the Republicans control both houses – because the Republicans don’t have the Principles to give them the backbone to stand up to him. He also now knows that the supreme Court won’t stop him. John Roberts will do obama’s bidding.

            The only ones who can stop obama are WE THE PEOPLE. We must defeat him.

            All the evidence shows that Obama is a muslim. He won’t need to make any pretense of concealing this if he is reelected. Look at all the countries where the muslims have taken over – they eradicate all vestiges of the preceding civilization. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over Egypt, they are talking about destroying the pyramids of Egypt and the Sphinx.

            If obama is re-elected, you can expect to see a rapid growth of muslim influence here and persecution of Christians and Jews.

            Yes, Romney is, I believe, a decent moral man who is faithful to his wife and a good family man. Obviously an extremely competent manager. And yes, the reason Romney long ago became my choice among all the others is that he actually seemed to understand the concept of “federalism”: That State Constitutions permit things which the federal constitution does NOT permit. And he was saying this when the so-called “conservative” candidates were advocating the Balanced Budget Amendment, etc. Rick Perry (Gov. Texas) said more ignorant rubbish about the U.S. Constitution than anybody else has ever said. Romney was the only candidate whom I never heard speak rubbish about our Constitution. And he understands federalism.

            Romney is not Jefferson or Madison. However, I suspect he is what we need at a time like this: Actually, I think we need an honest & competent manager even more than a constitutional purist like me. Romney said the other day that he wants to transfer some of the things the federal government is doing back to the States. But I would have no idea how to do this w/o causing upheaval and chaos and unrest. I bet Romney knows how to do it with the minimum unrest.

            I have known some Mormons and have been in their homes. Patriotism and family life are two of their bedrock beliefs.

            It really does matter who wins the next presidential election. obama is a very evil person. Romney is a good man.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 20, 2012

          • I agree. I should not have written that it does not matter who is the president because we see what an awful president (Obama) and his evil minions can do in destroying the government. The evil influence of that man has cost us dearly. It really does matter who is president. To say otherwise is indeed foolishness. I do believe that the states MUST stand up and take their place and protect their people from the invasive federal government. That was the point I was trying to make. Thank you for your concise correction.


            Comment by IMO | September 24, 2012

          • Believe me, I understand. When Romney says something Madison & Jefferson would wince at, so do I! But, we are where we are and must start the correction from where we are now. We are in such peril if obama is re-elected.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 24, 2012

    • Thank you, ZM, for telling me about Andy McCarthy. I’ll check him out.

      Blame-shifting is second-nature to Americans of today – it is encouraging to see another voice putting the blame where it belongs: On THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, most of whom have their hands out.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 11, 2012 | Reply

  14. Thank you, Publius, for a very much needed look into ‘rights’. We take our God-given, inalienable rights for granted, and at the same time have unknowingly allowed the government to substitute ‘privileges’ for our rights, ie: our right to travel has been substituted with a ‘privilege’ to drive via a ‘license’, which can be revoked. We have given up our liberty, and have become slaves of government that loves to exchange our rights for privileges. We bow to the government and ask permission (via licenses) for almost anything that as a truly free person we do not need permission for.
    Why do we need government permission to get married, to transport ourselves to another place, to run a business to provide for ourselves and family, or to even preach the Word of God? Where have our ‘rights’ gone? Do we have to give up certain rights to live somewhere? Witness our rights being trampled in various ways, in various communities: a veteran Marine is told he cannot fly the American flag on his property in a certain community; another family in another community is told they cannot paint their house a certain color, and just last week a woman finds that some community official trespassed on her property and cut down her vegetables and plants because they were “growing too high”. Do we have rights or not, and can the government take them away or limit them?


    Comment by Gary | September 2, 2012 | Reply

    • We must always expressly identify the particular “government” of which we are speaking: Federal government? State government? City or County government? Or, private “governments” such as homeowners’ associations in condos or neighborhoods?

      REMEMBER! In a free country, power is decentralized!

      The federal government has its enumerated powers. I have papers detailing every power each branch of the federal government lawfully has.

      The infringements of liberties which you listed all involves the State or local governments or private homeowners’ associations. Homeowners’ associations make rules about flying flags, etc. When you buy property in such a private community, you are subject to their rules.

      The State governments were designed to do what the People in the State wanted them to do. But the American People ARE NOT ALERT! THEY DON’T THINK. THEY ELECT PEOPLE WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND THE STATE & FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.

      So, we have the federal, state, and local governments The People voted for.

      Our present plight is not due to wickedness of “the government” – it is due to the stupidity and laziness of the American People.

      The solutions are for the American People to take responsibility for themselves and their families and to return to our Founding Principles: The Faith of our Fathers (instead of the pious mush which passes for “Christianity” today) and our federal and State Constitutions.

      If YOU will take the trouble to learn our federal Constitution, and then teach those in your spheres of influence, then YOU will be part of the solution. If you want to do this, start with this last paper of mine, and learn it completely. It gives the overview. Then read – and learn – the 3 papers on the enumerated powers of Congress, the President, and the federal courts. Ask me questions whenever you like.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 3, 2012 | Reply

      • If I may humbly offer a consideration here. You say the American people are lazy and stupid. And that they probably are. But, there is at least one other problem that I see. They are BUSY!!!! I am single, not in a relationship and don’t have kids. But, I once was in a family. My father worked. My mother worked part-time outside the house. My father came home, ate, read the newspaper, help three kids with their homework, then fell asleep watching the news before getting up the next morning and doing it all again. I don’t think I have to tell you what a mother does or the time consumed in doing it. My folks and all of those in their generation like them were at a huge disadvantage in making informed decisions with the news sources availble to them. The biases not yet discovered by many. They stayed informed the best they could. They listened to the politicians’ pitches, and they voted. At the end of the day, all they had and all you and I have is trust. Trust that a man will abide by his oath and his word. But, in all reality, by that time, not to speak of the present, abiding by your oath was a thing of the past. And, you may find out how a man voted, depending on whether the press agreed or disagreed with his vote. It’s the division of labor of which Adam Smith spoke. I got a job to do. I hire a man to do another job — wash my car, launder my clothes, uphold the Constitution. If he doesn’t do his job, you fire him. The only problem is the only other guy in town is worse. In short, staying informed takes a lot of time; time a lot of people just don’t have. And, being informed is not necessarily a panacea.


        Comment by Jeff Edelman | September 3, 2012 | Reply

        • I hear you – and I know about being busy.

          I’m primarily talking about the 43% and those in the Tea Party who blindly accept whatever they are told without examining it, but then repeat it to others. Mark Twain said it best:

          “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
          – Autobiography of Mark Twain

          It takes time to study and to read & outline The Federalist Papers. I don’t expect working parents to do that! And in any case, their time would be better spent reading stories to their children.

          But it takes no time to THINK the simple things through: To see that money to fund the welfare state comes from coercive taxation, or inflation, or creation of debt, or all three. So HOW can proponents of the welfare state claim the moral high ground when their system is based on theft? This is simple! Yet the American People couldn’t figure it out.

          Look at the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law…. Yet Congress makes laws on those areas, and the supreme Court issues rulings on these areas. And The People scurry to obey.

          And so it goes. The establishment conservatives select Marco Rubio as “The One” for our side; tell us over & over that he is a “rising star”; and the TP people gobble it up. Why? b/c they have been told that he is something really special, and so they believe it. They have no facts, no evidence, no nothing to support it! But they believe it and they repeat it.

          I’m talking about the 60% who can’t name the 3 branches of the federal government!

          Some people – those who actually work – are very busy. But most people in America now have plenty of time on their hands! They are busy only in spouting off the rubbish they have heard others say, while pretending to be experts in their own right.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 3, 2012 | Reply

          • I think back on my own life of 51 years and trying to determine which candidate I was going to vote for for president. November 1979 was my first vote for a president. For years, on a local radio station, I had heard Ronald Reagan do short segments on government. What he said seemed true and made sense. So, I knew his positions. That November in ’79, I voted for the “Gipper”. Jump to this year. Newt Gingrich used to teach a course at a college in Georgia. It was aired every Sunday on a cable channel. I watched it religiously. I had had some college by then. It was the first time I could recall hearing about the Federalist Papers and that Frenchman, de Tocqueville. Gingrich inspired me to read the Federalist Papers and Democracy in America. I was in my 30’s. Then came the “Republican Revolution” he led. I felt he capitulated and lost a great oppurtunity to put this country on the right path. I think he’s a intelligient man. Is he too intelligient for his own good and ours? Nixon was an intelligient man, also. We know the unconstitutional things he did. When it was time to vote, I voted for Santorum who I know far less about. He’s not as knowledgable as Newt. But, he had the momentum at the time. I thought it best not to break it with a Gingrich win because for me it was anybody but Romney.

            Pardon my being long-winded. But, my point is I don’t believe one can ever get or know all the information there is about a candidate. How can you know if you have all the information? There might be that one little bit of information that you didn’t get that would change your mind, if you had it. Ultimately, there comes that time when you have to pull the lever. And, quite honestly, you never know what a person is going to do. You have to TRUST and have faith in God, I guess, that they will do as you expect.

            One other thing, if I may. You say the Tea Party people blindly accept what they are told. How do you know this? Perhaps, there are some like that. But, it seems to me that these are a people who have reached their political positions based much on experience. They support a smaller government which the Constitution advocates. If one has reached the correct conclusions, doesn’t matter how they arrive?


            Comment by Jeff Edelman | September 4, 2012

          • When deciding which candidate to vote for, all one can do is … the best he can.

            I listen very carefully to what the candidates say and I look at what they have done in the past. Of all the candidates for the republican nomination for President, not one – not one – understood the Constitution. I know this from the idiotic things most of them said about the Constitution. So from what they all said, I knew that none of them understood the Constitution.

            We must also consider the record of the candidates. Yes, Gingrich did squander the opportunity he had when he was Speaker. When he was Speaker, I remember his giggling about how he couldn’t resist clinton. And he supported a number of looney liberal schemes and liberal republicans. I never thought he was a bona fide constitutionalist.

            No, you can’t know everything about a candidate, BUT you can learn a great deal by what they say and by what they have done. None of them had a good record.

            So then, it becomes a matter of choosing the least bad, and trying to educate the American People about constitutional – and moral – principles.

            Actually, of all the candidates, I thought Romney was the least bad. If Romney is elected, we will get 4 more years in which to try to educate the American people. If obama is re-elected, many of us will get a bullet in our heads.

            As we go thru our lives, we can never have perfect knowledge. All we can do is get as much information as we can and make the best decision we can, based on FACTS, not emotion. But honestly, we know a great deal about people just by listening to what they say and looking at what they have done!

            E.g., I knew from the very beginning that obama was a hard core totalitarian who hates America. I studied marxist and totalitarian ideology as an undergraduate and know the terminology of the hard left. One can also tell much about people from the way they behave. Look at the expressions on obama’s face and his posture! They scream, “narcissist!

            Re the TP people: Oh, I suppose some of them want a smaller government. I do. But I am willing to renounce social security and medicare. And I have renounced them! But I haven’t come across many TP people who are willing to renounce ss, medicare, their federal & state retirement pensions. What they object to is those “other people” getting handouts: too many illegal mexicans getting handouts, the welfare parasites are getting too much, etc.

            And they are manipulated into supporting the BBA, the parental rights amendment, etc.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 11, 2012

  15. If Slavery was a defect in our Constitution, is not Abortion a defect? If states were precluded from sovereign control of slavery, why do you assign abortion to the states?


    Comment by Sam Gallo | August 31, 2012 | Reply

    • Our Constitution recognized slavery as an established institution! See, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 and the abominable Art. IV, § 2, cl 3, which was constitutional authority for the federal fugitive slave laws.

      At Art. I, § 9, cl. 1, we announced to the world that we would stop the importation of new slaves after 1808, but that did not end slavery in the United States.

      So, b/c of these constitutional provisions recognizing and permitting slavery, a Constitutional Amendment was needed to fix the defect. And this is what the 13th Amendment did: it officially ended slavery in these United States.

      But the Constitution makes no mention of “abortion”. Thus, the federal government has no lawful authority over it – “abortion” is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at large. So jurisdiction over “abortion” was reserved by the States. Many if not all of States had laws outlawing “abortion”.

      What happened in Roe v. Wade is this: The supreme Court looked at the word, “liberty”, which appears in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and said “liberty” means “privacy”; and “privacy” means “YOU CAN KILL YOUR UNBORN BABY!” For more on this, see my paper(s) under the Category “14th Amendment”.

      The supreme Court acted unlawfully b/c “abortion” is not an enumerated power of the federal government. So the federal government has no jurisdiction over it for the Country at large. The States retained power to outlaw it or permit it within their borders. Remember, the supreme Court had to say: “liberty” means “privacy” and “privacy” means “you can abort your baby” to decide that case the way they did. So they had to pervert the established meanings of words – and substitute completely new words and meanings – to give themselves the power to decide the case.

      So this is how they unlawfully took that issue away from the States and claimed it for themselves.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 31, 2012 | Reply

  16. This is an excellent paper, except that:

    1) I don’t see where in the Constitution is there any requirement for money to be made of, or based on, gold and silver (or either of them). Moreover, adopting a gold or silver standard today would mean deflation and a new depression. It would grossly constrain the money supply.

    2) I don’t see how can the present (imperial) system of measurements be deemed “honest” when it is very difficult to use, both internally and in conversions to the SI, confusing, expensive to administer, and negatively impacting external trade. In 1975, Congress passed the Metrication Act, but the US still hasn’t adopted the metric system.

    3) And last but certainly not least: as you have rightly stated, there is a battle ongoing between the parasites and the taxpayers – the takers and the makers. But the takers already account for almost half of the entire electorate, and may soon outnumber the makers. Unless the US changes course next year, they will irrevocably outnumber the makers, with disastrous results for them, the country, and the GOP.

    After all, who will vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but wants to cut the benefits they do receive (at others’ expense)?

    Pat Buchanan has nicely explained that in two recent HumanEvents articles.

    Your arguments, PH, will fall on deaf ears if you use them with the takers. They don’t care if their benefits are unconstitutional and immoral or not. They’re existentialists. They just want what benefits them. Your only hope is to mobilize as many makers as you can to repeal those welfare programs – before it is too late. Good luck.


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | August 31, 2012 | Reply

    • ZM:

      1) I had a discussion on this site a while ago with someone (wasn’t it you?) about the requirement that our currency be based on gold & silver. Don’t you remember? I quoted James Madison from The Federalist Papers where he speaks of the evils of paper money. And I quoted Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1

      Note that Congress has constitutional authority to “regulate the value” of coin. I am not an expert on monetary theory, but even I can see the ramifications of that power. Well, some of them, at least.

      2) “Honest” as in “standardized” – a “liquid ounce” in TN is the same as a “liquid ounce” in New York. I can’t have my own notions about how much a “pound” is when I sell vegetables – I must use the standardized 16 ounces in a pound standard measure – when I measure out a “pound” of vegetables.

      Difficult to use? Humm. We don’t find it so in our everyday lives.

      Perhaps conversions to metrics are difficult, but that has nothing to do with my paper. In any case, Congress has the constitutional authority to convert us to another system of weights & measures.

      3) You thought I might be unaware of that? 🙂


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 31, 2012 | Reply

  17. […] her latest paper entitled “God-Given Rights, Man-Made Anti-Rights, and Why ‘Safety Nets’ are Immoral”, Publius Huldah makes the case in context with the U.S. Constitution, and other sources, and as […]


    Pingback by The Unconstitutional and Immoral Welfare State « SubConch | August 30, 2012 | Reply

  18. PH, does man have a right to sin?


    Comment by Jeff Edelman | August 30, 2012 | Reply

    • Jeff, I know quite a bit about the Bible, but my knowledge of theology is not as great as my knowledge of our Constitution and Founding Principles.

      But we can all distinguish “rights” from “abilities” or “powers”. God didn’t give us the “right” to sin – but we have the ability to the sin – the power to do so.

      God gave us the “right” to inherit, earn, and keep private property.
      God didn’t give us the “right” to steal. We have the ability – the power – to steal, but not the “right” to do so.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 30, 2012 | Reply

  19. I have no intention of separating the Founders or the citizenry from god. I am pointing out god is separate, a different entity and purpose, from the 1787 Constitution.


    Comment by allandouglas | August 29, 2012 | Reply

    • Allan, you are refusing to see what is staring you in the face. Unless you are willing to look, you are just wasting everyone’s time (and making yourself look ignorant). Your continued insistence that our Founding Documents don’t acknowledge The Creator God as the source of Rights, and that the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us, makes you look like ….. well, an ignorant idiot.

      So, please read the Declaration of Independence. Highlight the references I cited for you.

      Until you have done that, there is no point in continuing this.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 30, 2012 | Reply

      • There seem to be several things generally lacking in our society’s understanding of the constitution (and thereby the government) and its relationship to God. People often use “separation of church and state” as an argument that we are a “humanist” or “secular” society and God has no place in government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me point out that since our rights are unalienable and come from God, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights, this actually binds our government to God. There is an inseparable connection between our government and God. Our founders acknowledged God as the giver of rights and created a government to protect those rights which also must therefore acknowledge God as the giver of the law. After all, who said “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” etc. These are God-given laws to protect the God-given rights of all. Our Founders believed in a separation of church and state but NOT a separation of state and God – a significant distinction. (Cleon Skousen addresses this in his book “The Naked Communist”.)


        Comment by GovAndGod | September 4, 2012 | Reply

        • GREAT post!
          And yes! Civil governments are to “serve” God by securing the Rights God gave us.

          But the term, “separation of church and state”, has come to mean in the minds of The People, something entirely different from the meaning Thomas Jefferson had in mind. It simply means that the federal government may NOT “establish” a denominational religion – I.e., it may not “establish” a national church and require the People to support it by taxes & tithes.

          About half of the original 13 States retained their “established churches” for some time after the U.S. Constitution was ratified! In Connecticut, where the Danbury Baptists lived, the Congregational Church was established – i.e., supported by taxes & tithes. Connecticut did not dis-establish that church until it’s Constitution of 1818 or so. Massachusetts did not dis-establish its Congregational Church until 1833 or so.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 11, 2012 | Reply

  20. Thank you PH. Shared on Facebook.


    Comment by Larry Self | August 29, 2012 | Reply

  21. Yes, we go a way back and you are the best “constitutionalist” I am aware of but you are “constitutionally” incorrect invoking your god in a conservation about the Constitution, or the purpose of government. The federal government is clearly forbidden any jurisdiction in any religion, Amendment I, and so are the people forbidden to use, condone, or allow the use of the power of government for religious purposes.

    BTW I don’t consider myself an atheist. My God is Jefferson’s God, Natures God.


    Comment by allandouglas | August 29, 2012 | Reply

    • What you are saying is factually incorrect:

      1. I didn’t invoke “God” in our Founding Documents. Our Framers did:

      Here are express references to God in our Declaration of Independence (2nd para):

      …The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…
      …endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
      …appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…
      …with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence…

      Our Constitution at Art. VII, last clause:

      …in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…

      2. Our Constitution is modeled on GOD’s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible. I prove it here (and I just touched the high points):

      3. What does our Declaration of Independence say is the purpose of civil government? Read the second para and you will see. Again, I didn’t invoke God – Our Founders invoked God when they stated the purpose of civil government when they drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence.

      4. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a national church or from interfering with the powers reserved by the States to establish whatever church the People of that State wanted to establish. I explain the “establishment” clause here:

      So the things you believe – the things you say in your post are demonstrably FALSE. Well, except for the part about my being the best “constitutionalist” you know – that part of your post is true!

      OH! And if your God is Jefferson’s God, then you are a Christian.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 29, 2012 | Reply

      • At least there is something we can all agree on. “except for the part about my being the best “constitutionalist” you know – that part of your post is true!”


        Comment by Jerry McDaniel | August 29, 2012 | Reply

      • You cannot separate God from the founders, or thereby presume that the founders sought to separate God from the people. Further, to fully separate government from God would be to fully separate God from the people who govern… which of course, would be unconstitutional, and an affront to liberty.


        Comment by subconch | August 29, 2012 | Reply

  22. “The Bible has something to say about how to choose “leaders” – NOT IN THE USA!!!

    “what qualifications should we look for in leaders?” – NOT IN THE USA!!!

    The 1787 Constitution clearly states the qualifications to hold office, age, residence and citizenship. Then the last sentence of the past paragraph of Article VI says; “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    How about American’s Right to serve on a citizen jury?

    If the Right to choose “Lawmakers” and serve on a citizen jury came from God then why don’t all People have those Rights?

    The Right to “choose” Congressmen every two years came from the Founding Fathers and that Right is a power, or force, privileges are not a power or force. The Right to serve on a citizen jury came from the Magna Carta.

    BTW the federal government cannot legally negate either the Right to choose Congressmen or the Right to serve on a citizen jury; Amendment V.


    Comment by allandouglas | August 29, 2012 | Reply

    • Allan, Our Constitution was built on God’s Model of Civil government as set forth in the Bible. I have a paper showing this. Our Framers were Christians who believed that Rights come from GOD and that the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

      YOU reject that. Therefore, we have no common basis on which to have any discussion.

      You say you support the Constitution, but you reject its roots and its foundation! What you actually support is what you think is a strictly humanist document which is to be interpreted by humanist judges and that God has nothing to do with it. The judges are the “gods” of your humanist system. So, you should be very happy! You have what you want! A document which is considered to be totally secular which is interpreted by secular humanist judges. [How’s that working out for you?]


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 29, 2012 | Reply

      • Excellent rebuttal PH. By coincidence, I am working on an article about Humanism. I hope to have it published tonight or tomorrow.


        Comment by Jerry McDaniel | August 29, 2012 | Reply

        • I will look forward to it, Jerry!


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 29, 2012 | Reply

  23. Another timely and very necessary reminder. A veritable course on the Constitution. Thanks.


    Comment by Jerry McDaniel | August 29, 2012 | Reply

    • Thanks, Jerry!


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 29, 2012 | Reply

  24. Isn’t it an American Right, not given by God, to choose Congressmen every two years? (Article I, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution)


    Comment by allandouglas | August 29, 2012 | Reply

    • The Bible has something to say about how to choose “leaders” – what qualifications should we look for in leaders? So God gave us the right to choose our leaders.

      With the Constitution, we created the federal government. In Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1, we implemented that God-given right to choose our leaders.

      Do not seek to strip our Rights of their Divine Origin. For if you do, then you have no basis on which to object when statists take them away.

      If you assert that rights come from the Constitution, then you are submitting your “rights” to the tender mercies of 5 people sitting on the supreme Court. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 : The judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases “arising under this Constitution”.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 29, 2012 | Reply

    • Allan, you are confusing rights with privileges. Rights are given by God and are unalienable. Privileges are granted by government and may be regulated by it. Voting is a privilege, if it was a God given right then any human being, regardless of Citizenship status, or other factors would have the right to vote. God assigns us the duty and right to choose our leaders, as PH points out. We the people, through our representatives, determine the length of time each leader will serve and when and how they are to be elected.


      Comment by Jerry McDaniel | August 29, 2012 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: