The Federal Government is the Real Threat
by KERRY L. MORGAN
Part 3: God is No Caesar, Caesar is No God
Can we really recover freedom? As noted in a prior Essay “What Can We Do Now that Our Freedom is Taken?” we introduced the idea that the federal government has taken our freedom and remains the greatest threat to its recovery. Also discussed was the need to rely on law rather than violence in addressing this threat. A Congress of States was proposed as a means to reduce the federal government’s power so that it would be explicitly barred from crushing our unalienable rights. Also considered was the idea that it may be more desirable or even necessary to simply abolish the federal government in order to preserve the American People and the nation.
Attention was then turned to the foundation of recovery in “What Foundation will Support Recovery of our Freedom?” We discussed the need to take the Declaration of Independence at face value and reject the myth that freedom can be reclaimed on any other foundation than the laws of nature and nature’s God as reflected in the Declaration of Independence. We considered that there are very few people who can lead the recovery of our freedom. Few will be concentrated in any one party, place or institution, and many will oppose a Congress of States from ignorance or self-interest or worse. Few in fact, may be counted on to lead us toward recovery of freedom. We also saw how the framers’ relied on law as the basis for civil government’s limited purpose in securing our unalienable rights. We concluded with recognition that a Congress of States must affirm the foundation in the law. It must reject the myth that human freedom can be grounded on any other foundation.
We now turn to an explicit discussion about God and civil government. We will clear up confusion and misinformation. We will see that God empowers a People to establish their own form of civil government by their free consent if they so desire. Uncovering false assumptions about what God actually says about Caesar, and what civil government “should do,” will be unpleasant for most. Doctrine, history and “I never heard that before” are strong winds and blow hard against the truth. Yet, we have no choice but to press on. The insanity and irrationality of our present destructive view that God is pleased with the power of the federal government in Washington, D.C., or would be if the other party was elected, must be rejected if we are to get out of this situation alive. We must see that the Law of Nature itself limits the jurisdiction that people can extend to civil government.
It is important to understand what God has and has not established. What has He actually established? First, He established one kind of authority mankind. He gave man–male and female–governing authority over the earth, but not over other persons. Man has no implied authority over another man. No man has a right to govern another without his free consent. Mankind is capable of self government without any civil government ever coming into existence.
Second, God established the authority of a Husband and Wife. How? By defining marriage and then empowering a man and woman to mutually consent to be husband and wife in marriage. He, therefore, established the authority of the family and charged it with continually governing their part of the earth in connection with their own labor, property and land. God also added duties pertaining to bearing, rearing and the education of children to the family’s charge. The family does not need any civil government to fulfill its purposes. God made it self sufficient. This is a hard fact to accept in a day and age where the government claims to help build strong families and politicians solicit votes on that basis. But the government does no such thing as build strong families and the sooner we see this, the better off we will be.
So these are clearly the authorities that exist: man male and female–, husbands and wives, and fathers and mothers. They govern themselves, their families, their household and rear their own children. Civil government is not necessary to their existence or purpose. What other authorities has God instituted? For Christians, Jesus established his church of which he is the head. (Colossians 1:18.) It is a voluntary society based on faith, reason and persuasion with its own internal structure lacking the power of external force or coercion. (I Corinthians 12:28.)
How about civil government? Did God establish civil government? The answer is “No.” God did not establish civil government. What God did instead was divide the people into language groups. Division into language groups was God’s means to effect two objects. First, He divided people into language groups to induced mankind to inhabit the whole earth, not just one place. Second, he confused the language so that mankind would search for God Himself. The natural and predictable result of being separated by language and fanning out over the face of the entire group was the creation of nations. The manmade creation of a civil government specific to each of those nations thereafter was likewise a consequence of being separated by language and spreading out over the face of the earth.
But the fact that nations and eventually civil governments arose either by consent or by force of men, from the original act of God confusing human language, is not to say God created civil governments. God created languages and as a result humanity scatted into language groups, each occupying different geographical regions. These regions developed borders and assumed the particulars of nationality built on their unique language and fraternal identity. “From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:26-27.) He did this by confusing our language at Babel. (Genesis 11:1-9). This passage makes no reference to civil government. Countries and nations are the byproduct of language division, not the purpose. The object was to disperse the people over the face of the earth so that they could exercise their rights in connection with family, land and property. God asked the people to do this earlier in Genesis 9, but they refused. So now He employed a new means to effect His purpose of scattering the People across the globe. The new means he employed was to confuse their language. He did not do this to create nations, per se, but rather to effect his command that the people exercise dominion through their families.
Despite this history, we have not been careful in how we talk about God and government. We must be very clear and concise. We must avoid anarchy, tyranny and idolatry. The book of Romans, Chapter 13, affirms that there are multiple authorities established by God. Do not lose sight of this. We have just examined two such authorities by nature mankind and the family. These authorities have specific purposes and are not dependent even on the existence of civil government to empower them or fulfill their purposes. These authorities existed before any civil government was even contemplated. Man and woman existed before civil government was conceived. Marriage and family existed before any civil government was conceived. Our thinking has been blind to this reality.
Only in this context is civil government even discussed. It is not discussed as “divine right” emanating directly from God to that ruler. While God created Man and established marriage and the family, there is no comparable creation of civil government by God Himself. Civil government only exist by the consent of the people or by the declaration of a despot backed by the sword and violence. It does not exist because God said “Let there be civil government.” He never said this. The sooner our thinking recognizes this situation, the better off we will be.
Some argue that the inherent authority of civil rulers is to punish murders. (Genesis 9:4-6). But when God extended such a power to mankind, there were no civil governments in existence. Some argue that God established a civil government in ancient Israel. They ignore the fact that its origins were by consent of the people and later that He objected to their demand for a King. (Exodus 19:7-9, I Samuel 8).
The author of Romans observes this situation as a reality, not as a never-before-announced doctrinal statement. We like he, can also deduce it from the Creation account as we have. We need not take his word for it. We like he, can see the reality is that mankind and marriage preceded civil government. We like he, can see God created the former and that the latter simply came into being by the will of men after God confused the languages. It is self-evident from creation and Babel itself.
From this foundation, our author observes that there are wrongdoers which are held in check by civil rulers. Who are these wrongdoers or more properly, “Who are these wrongdoers in the context of the preexisting authority of men and women and marriage and family?” They are not just any wrongdoers, but specific wrongdoers those who would subvert the authorities God has already established. It bears repeating that those authorities are man, male and female, husband and wife and mother and father (marriage and family). If any person interferes with these authorities, that person is a wrongdoer. He does wrong by interfering with what God has established. Civil rulers may enjoin or punish any person who interfere with the authority and task which God has placed in the hand of every man and woman to exercise authority over the earth, over their land and their property, and of husbands and wives in respect to their authority as a family in terms of their labor, land, estates, marriage and children including the education and upbringing thereof. The implications of this are far reaching, more than we can immediately address here. In short, the legitimate purpose of civil government when established by people, is to secure the rights of individuals, and of the family to exercise those rights without interference, regulation, or control by others, and certainly not by the civil government itself.
Unfortunately, we have this Romans 13 idea all turned around. We have been wrongly taught that God has authorized Caesar to play mini-God. We have been taught that these verses justify every civil ruler’s authority to punish anyone and everyone in connection with an undefined and unlimited number of civil and criminal offenses. We have been taught that the President down to the dog catcher is God’s divine representative. We have been taught this idolatry in our churches. But accepting that whatever the state says is a crime and can be punished, is the wrong way to think about it.
The problem is that the civil government, state governments and the federal government have criminalized and will punish, control, regulate and interfere with a man or woman when they try to exercise their own authority – authority they enjoy as members of the human race and not as gifts from any civil government. These civil governments also pass laws that interfere and punish the exercise of that authority which God has given to husbands and wives and fathers and mothers in the context of marriage and family. This is a complete perversion. It is a construction that emasculates the clear and obvious authority of human beings and families.
Simply put, the wrongdoer is the one who interferes with you and me when we undertake those responsibilities we all enjoy as members of the human race and as families summarily stated in Genesis 1:28: “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.'” The civil ruler’s limited authority to punish wrongdoers exist only where the people consent to extend that authority. If that limited power is simply assumed by a despot or oligarch, the resulting use of that limited power may be the same, though the basis upon which such a despot comes to power is lawless. If a civil official enjoys the authority to punish those who interfere with our responsibilities either by our consent or without our consent by usurpation, the end result in protecting our freedom is the same. But the lawful approach is no civil official ever act by his or her own claim to rule.
Caesar’s power, where given by the people, is limited to punish those who interfere either by interference, regulation, subsidy, taxation or legal prohibition, with the individual authority of each man and woman over their property. It is limited to punish those who interfere with our authority to enter into and enforce contracts and join or associate with others including the pursuit of voluntary societies and commercial and business relations by consent (to name a few). It is limited to the punishment of those who interfere with husbands and wives and fathers and mothers in connection with the exercise of their authority concerning their land, labor, children (including their education and upbringing) and their estates. Unfortunately, the reality is that Caesar is not the protector of there responsibilities. Caesar is instead, the greatest transgressor of these responsibilities through codes, property regulations, compulsory education and zoning laws (to name a few).
Civil government never made a man, husband or father, wife or mother by legislative declaration. These all preceded it in time and history and are superior to civil government in the exercise of their respective authority in all respects. Without this understanding, personal freedom is impossible and Caesar must play God.
With this contextual understanding concerning the limited derivative authority of civil rulers to punish wrongdoers, limited to those persons who impair the preexisting responsibilities and obligations of men and women and of their obligations in marriage and family, how do we arrive at a discussion of unalienable rights? What is the bridge between the authority to punish wrongdoers and unalienable rights? It is straightforward and logical. It begins with understanding of responsibilities. It progresses from responsibilities to a duty to God. It then moves from the duty we owe to God, as a right against wrongdoers in connection with their interference with those duties.
In other words, the responsibilities God entrusts to every man and women by His creation of mankind, and then to husbands and wives, fathers and mothers by His creation of marriage and family, are likewise duties which each owe back to God. God said that mankind should exercise authority over the land. This responsibility in turn is a duty mankind individually owes to God. When a man or women exercises that duty, they should not be interfered with by other person or government. Thus, we say that human beings have a right from God to perform that duty. It is an unalienable right because it cannot be impaired by any person and certainly not by the civil ruler who enjoys no authority or immunity to act as a wrongdoer itself.
When we refer to unalienable rights, we mean that human beings by virtue of their being created in the image of God and by virtue of them being asked by God to undertake certain universal responsibilities, have an unalienable right to be free from the interference, regulation of control of other persons (and governments) in the exercise of those preexisting responsibilities and duties to God ,who requested them in the first place. Those who interfere with the exercise of those duties are the wrongdoers identified in Romans 13 and whom civil government, if instituted by a specific people living within a predefine geographical boundary, may be entrusted to secure the free exercise thereof.
It is wholly unsatisfactory to talk about such “duties” without also acknowledging their correlative, “rights.” There is no “duty” that does not necessarily or logically imply a corresponding “right.” Thus, a God-given responsibility entrusted to human beings, and other responsibilities entrusted to married persons and to families by God, duties which preexist even the existence of civil government in time and in history from Creation, is a “duty” imposed by God. As such that human being has a “right” as against all others to exercise that duty free from interference, regulation and control. If that “duty”is unalienable, in the sense of being absolute so that the individual on whom God imposes it cannot free himself from it, then that duties corresponding right must also be likewise “unalienable.” As such, the person to whom it attaches cannot be lawfully deprived of it by any other and clearly not by any government.
Turning from responsibility, duty and unalienable right and the wrongdoer being the one who impairs their exercise, God then leaves their security to the people themselves. He does not say “I decree a civil government to secure your rights.” If a particular people during specific “periods” of time and within their “boundaries,” as per Acts 17, voluntarily choose both the need and desire for any particular civil government, they may organize it. God did not say that the national government of the United States is entitled to exist or exercise any power it desires. Nor did He say that this government may enjoy any power the People see fit to Constitutionally extend to it, as if the People en mass could lawfully strip human beings and families of those responsibilities God originally decreed.. How absurd. The People have no authority even by their consent to create a tyrannical government, or declare anyone a wrongdoer, or collectively abridge the rights of their neighbor. See also U.S. Const, Art. 1, sec. 9, cls. 3. In short, God did not declare: “Let the United Stated federal government come into existence” and poof, it appeared.
When it is said that “God establishes civil authority,” it does not mean civil officials are therefore unlimited in their power. We do not mean that civil authority can be made unlimited in power even by the People. We do not mean that any form of government subsequently established has a perpetual existence. We do not mean it enjoys continued existence by God’s will. Nor do we mean that the People must obey a tyrannical government, or a government which claims unlimited power, or a government whose acts are not constitutionally authorized, or a government whose acts serve any purpose beyond the equal security of our unalienable rights.
Instead, even when it is loosely said that “God establishes civil authority” this means only that He empowers a People to organize a civil government if they so choose, by their consent for the purpose of better securing our unalienable rights than might be accomplished without civil government. He empowers a People to apply to that civil government so organized, the purpose of securing their pre-existing rights. That civil government will have but one purpose. Its organizational form serves that purpose. That purpose is to secure our rights. Our rights are secured by punishment of murder and by proportionate punitive responses according to the law of lex talionis.10 When the civil government no longer serves that purpose, or fails to serve that purpose, or undermines that purpose, or turns against that purpose, that government has outlived its usefulness. We do not need it. We are better off without it. Let a Congress of States propose its abolition if this is the case.
Of course, as a practical matter, it is the prosecutor and police we must watch and of whom me must be careful. It is the jailhouse, machine gun and bayonet which are arrayed against us. If the state thinks there is no God to hold it accountable, then the danger is further compounded. If to them there is no God, then their will is god. If they think they act for God or do his will in prosecuting or enforcing the lawless use of law, then their will “on His behalf” is still supreme. Either way, they are the threat to recovery of our freedom, not God. If we fail to include God in the equation, then what are we left with? We are left with our current federal government. We are left with the police state, the surveillance society, confiscatory taxation, and economic slavery. We are left with Democrats and Republicans, banksters and the military.
God is much more reasonable than any of these when it comes to the exercise of power and the security of rights. He believes in self-government, volition and even love of one’s neighbor. In this respect, God is no Caesar. The untethered state believes in control, force and violence. In this respect, Caesar is no god.
What are the unalienable rights to be secured by a limited civil government? The particulars will be examined later on. For now, we must understand how to recognize an unalienable right. Such rights consist of those obligations which God requires of us in connection with him, our neighbor, our family, our religion, our labor and our property. No man or set of men, may interfere in our exercise of those obligations. George Mason drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 which declared: “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” The Virginia Declaration also affirmed that “all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.” In other words, God does not make civil governments, only the people do.
It is difficult today to conceive of the federal government as our “trustees and servants.” Yet this thinking must be recovered if freedom is to be recovered. We must also recover the most basic unalienable right the right to alter or abolish any civil government.
“[t]hat government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.11
In other words, our benefit, protection and security may be ensured by civil government. The means by which our security is exercised is diverse. It may include admonishment. It may be accomplished by injunction. Fines may serve the end of non-interference. Civil proceedings and the awarding of money damages in a court of law may be employed where make-whole remedies are appropriate for past deprivations. Deprivation of a wrongdoer’s liberty may sometimes be necessary to achieve non-interference or even deprivation of life where the life of another by murder has occurred.
We are not born, by either nature or God, for slavery. We have rights. Slaves do not. As Thomas Jefferson has observed, the “mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” God cannot mean that we were born for civil slavery. He means that the legitimate delegated power of any civil government is limited to the power to enjoin interference with the exercise of our rights or award damages or punishment in a legal proceeding after the fact of deprivation or interference is duly established and the matter fully heard. Civil government may be instituted to punish murders. It is not instituted to plan, institutionalize and itself commit murder or genocide on a national or worldwide scale.
In each case the law of lex talionis serves as a rule of limitation on punishment, not as a rule of minimum mandatory punishment. It is the brutal ceiling, not the floor. It is the maximum, not the minimum. The law of proportionate remedies cannot justify revenge, cruel or unusual punishment or exemplary pains and penalties. It cannot justify rendition, beatings, deprivations, water boarding or torture. It does not sanction mutilation, amputation, electrocution or drugging. It does not permit the image of God to be degraded in any human being. It keeps men out of the business of revenge. (Deuteronomy 25:3.)
If the object of civil governmental action is anything other than to secure our right to continue to govern ourselves, our property and our households free from external interference from another, then that object is neither necessary nor proper. God intends that the legitimate power of any civil government is that it may not interfere with the rights enjoyed by every man and woman– to life, to marriage, to govern his or her property, to enter contracts, enforce them, to freely associate or refrain from associations including in employment, education, commercial relations and housing, and to punish those who interfere with these rights, including the restraint and punishment of those who would interfere, regulate or control the education of our own children. The government itself, however, is the greatest abuser of a child’s mind since it seeks to compel by force of law, the attendance and education of the mind, which is voluntary by nature.
Consider how the last few Presidents who are but men, talk about their power as “Commander in Chief.” Consider how they twaddle on about “national security.” Consider their fascist declarations on Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria and the so-called “war on terror.” President Barack Obama has even threatened Russia single-handedly reigniting the cold war. He has criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin over the free referendum of the people in the Crimean region of Ukraine. Congress beats the drums of war. What fools we have as leaders. They say that American spying on Germany’s government is needed, then lecture Russia on restraint. Washington, has an array of missiles surrounding Iran. It has missiles in Taiwan aimed at China. It has missiles on the border of Russia. It broke its treaties with Russia and used NATO countries to put missiles in Russia’s backyard. These are the declarations and warmongering acts of insane men. It has spread false reports about Russia and the Ukraine. What sane person would claim the moral obligation to influence or control all the nations of this world by force, bribes, world bank loans, false flag operations, assassinations, missile deployments and ultimately war thermonuclear war?
Only Russia, China, North Korea and possibly Iran remain free to criticize the United States. Only Russia and China have the wherewithal to block the United States’ worldwide aggression. The other great countries of the last century, the United Kingdom, France and Germany have passed their heyday and now become pawns of Washington. The United States is focused on the remaining “threats.” Russia and China are not threats to the United States’ security. They are only threats to the United States’ vision of worldwide global hegemony. Thank God for them. Placement of anti-ballistic missiles in Europe and now in the Asian realm by the United States serves as a means to impair or degrade the ability of those nations to restrain Washington’s demand that the nations of the earth conform their behavior to Washington’s will.
This makes Washington the one true government of worldwide terror. Think of Washington like a gang leader and its little puppet countries around the world as part of the gang. Let’s say a country wants to get out of the gang. Can it afford to lose American aid? What to do about the American military bases in that country? How can it rid itself of CIA operatives in that country? How can it default on all those international monetary fund loans it could not afford in the first place? Can it afford to have its trade embargoed by the U.S. Navy? The price of “freedom from the gang” is very high and very few countries have ever left the gang for very long. Washington’s foreign policy amounts to this: “No nation left uninvaded.”
God does not endorse this type of evil. When American presidential speeches call for more control worldwide, God does not say “God bless America ” and neither should we. God does not authorize governmental officials to adopt a national policy of worldwide perpetual war with its interlocking military treaties, supported by defense contracts, inflationary measures and confiscatory taxation. (Deuteronomy 17:14-17.) He did not intend that civil government be authorized to interfere with any person in connection with the use of their land, impair their contracts, spy on their associates, destroy their money or usurp the education of their children. God did not author the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. His glory is not synonymous with the Federal Civil Service, Homeland Security or the TSA. God does not take joy in the federal power to tax or penalize the freedom associated with contractual choices for health insurance, or the Administration’s assertion that it has the right to murder by drones, anywhere and at any time, anyone whom it secretly or openly decides is an imminent or possible threat. Judicial decisions which affirm tyranny as “Constitutional,” do not place the Supreme Court upon God’s footstool, but do make us the laughingstock of the world.
Don’t let the talk of insane politicians confuse you. “The beginning of his words are foolishness, and the end of his talk is evil madness.” ( Ecclesiastes 10:13.) They talk about God as in “God Bless America.” But their “God bless America” translates into “God bless this lawless law I just sponsored or proposed.” Or, “God bless this governmental program which destroys the rights You gave to each person.” Or, “God bless Presidential murder by drone, the death of due process, and covert foreign assassinations” for the sake of national security. God has no particular interest in blessing any program or any civil government for that matter, especially one which rejects His law and the rights which we are given based upon that law. He wants civil governments to acknowledge those preexisting rules which universally define its authority and limit its civil jurisdiction. God wants us to realize that no civil government has the authority to trample down those unalienable rights which He gave to us.
But even God’s patience is not unlimited. He grows weary of us using His name in vain to build the money-printing, covetous debt state, the warfare, welfare state and the digital surveillance state. He appreciates a government of good and limited laws. He opposes a government which is nothing more that the collective will of lying, partisan sycophants. Any civil government that acts contrary thereto, cannot be a government under law “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” as referenced in our Declaration of Independence. A government that claims its jurisdiction is broad enough to override our unalienable rights, is unworthy of being a civil government at all. That pretender of a civil government should be warned of its lawlessness, and if that warning fails to set things right, it should be abolished.
What are we saying? God is no Caesar. Man was not created by God for slavery. Man was created by God for freedom. But Caesar is no God either. Civil governments do not lawfully operate when they enslave us with fiat currency and debt, when they spy on us, when they lawlessly search our homes for drugs and firearms, when they impair our economic rights, and usurp the education of our children. These are the mechanisms of modern slavery. They are what we oppose. They are what God opposes. God shows mercy. The Divine Right of Caesar knows no such grace. Rendition, torture and death are the stock and trade of Caesar. Caesar loves war. The way of Kings is war. (1 Samuel 8:10-22; 2 Samuel 24:14.) A Congress of States must see that the stakes are high and that war upon the nations must invariably lead to civil war and crushing debt at home. A Congress of States must reassert the foundation upon which our rights can be recovered. It must see clearly that God is no Caesar and Caesar is not even close to God.
10. Lex Talionis is the law of proportionate punishment equivalent to the offense. It is based on the the principle of retributive justice found in the Mosaic law of an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” etc in Exodus 21:23 25. This law, however, was a limit on the maximum punishment that could be inflicted without engaging in retaliation or revenge (which are reserved alone to God). It set the ceiling, not the floor. Is set the maximum punishment, not the minimum.
11. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776. http://lonang.com/library/organic/1776-vdr/
Thomas Paine articulated a more limited view by asserting that: “Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others” Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791. http://www.constitution.org/tp/rightsman1.htm