home > archive > 2007 > this article

Search this site Search WWW

A cold (civil) war

By Alisa Craddock
web posted June 11, 2007

Freedom is not the absence of laws.  That would seem to be obvious to any thinking individual.  Freedom requires the rule of law.  Freedom requires, in fact, that man's law conform to a higher law than man's to guard against man's law becoming an instrument of imposing tyranny.  Our morals and our rights are therefore derived from the same source, Divine Law, and our laws are derived from those morals.  The right to life is guaranteed by the law that makes it an immoral act to take the life of another, and therefore we have laws to guarantee that right, and to punish those who violate it.  Our right to property is guaranteed by punishing those who steal our property, because it is immoral to steal from another.  Our right to own the means of protecting our property and persons is therefore a natural right as well.

Freedom also requires equity in the treatment of individuals' in guaranteeing their rights, and it requires equity in the enforcement of laws and the punishment of those who break them. 

The Christian call to love one's neighbor cannot be reasonably perceived as a passive, blanket acceptance of your neighbor's behavior.  Love of neighbor involves as much what you don't do as what you do.  The Jewish admonishment against doing to someone else what is hateful to you is about not doing things to other people such as killing him, stealing his property or his spouse, destroying his good name, engaging him in impure acts, and so forth.  It's the source of our laws – the Thou Shalt Nots define what "charity" to neighbor is.  An examination of the Tradition of Judeo-Christian Law places honor for God at the top of the list.  Obviously the belief in a Higher Law requires a belief in a Higher Being.  It might seem absurd to imagine that without the First Commandment, the others become arbitrary and your neighbor might just be able to kill you with impunity.  Sound ridiculous?  Remember Terri Schiavo?  Remember all the hundreds of thousands, the  millions killed in Communist countries?  They rejected God.  Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and many others.  They made their own laws in defiance of divine law, and millions perished.  Others suffered terrible torment and loss of freedom.  They took from these unfortunate souls everything you and I take for granted in our Bill of Rights.

People behave now as though it is somehow irrational to believe in God, but it is irrational not to believe in Him.  It's irrational to believe in effect without a Cause, and it's irrational to believe we humans can pretend that Divine Law came from man and can be discarded and society restructured in a "more enlightened, less superstitious" Darwinian model without us backsliding into barbarism.  Have you looked around lately?  It is happening already.   The Bill of Rights is perilously close to extinction, to be made "obsolete" in light of our new planned global government, with its most peculiar idea of what constitutes "rights".   Our new utopia does not include a recognition of the providence of God, nor a foundation in His law.   Our fledgling global government is not even fully formed and it is already pathologically corrupt.

America's politicians are fond of saying we are a nation of laws.  All nations have laws.  We are a nation of laws built upon the foundation of Higher Law, and some among us, some in very powerful positions, have abandoned that Higher Law.  We are, to my eyes, in the midst of full-scale collapse.  Not only have we rejected Divine Law, many of our leaders are heedless of the state, federal and municipal laws that govern our society. 

I am referring to the Democrat politicians, and some Republicans as well, the civil authorities and activist judges who daily attempt to redefine our society, (aided and abetted by corporations who hold the purse strings and are therefore the puppet masters of their employees) to get around the laws and the Bill of Rights, who usurp the authority of the People of this nation in order to impose their own utopian idea of what's good for us upon us.  What is more, in some cases there are blatant abuses by lawmakers and judges and city, state, and federal officials who are apparently unimpeachable or untouchable by the people whom they supposedly serve.  And each time one of them gets away with it, it emboldens others to push the envelope a little more.  How can the people of this country not believe in a global conspiracy to enslave them in a dictatorship when abuses of the law by those who are supposed to preserve, protect and defend it go unchallenged and unpunished, indeed receive the cloak of legitimacy even as they defy their own laws, and no one can do anything to set things right?

To whom do you go for justice?  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?  Nancy Pelosi?  The United Nations Commission on Human Rights?  These people don't believe in the classical liberalism you and I believe in—the religious, political and economic freedom of our forebears.  They don't believe in living your own life on your own terms, what our Declaration of Independence calls "the pursuit of happiness".  They believe in Leftism—socialism, communism, fascism, elitism.  They believe they are gifted with a natural right to rule according to a utopian vision that requires their intellect and your indoctrinated (or coerced) obedience to enact.  They believe they must take the power to run our lives and govern ourselves away from the poor, ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded citizenry.  They know better than you how to spend your money, raise your children, maintain your personal environment, get along with people.  They feel duty bound to control every aspect of your life.  That's their sublime vision.  The corruption in the UN is proof enough that the bigger government gets, the more corruption there is, the more abuse of power, and the less freedom.  It is naïve to believe there can ever be an effective world government, because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And yet the Democrat controlled congress has seized this moment of power to try and get laws passed that undermine the civil rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  The addition of sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes law (which is itself an unconstitutional violation of principle of equal justice under law), would criminalize speech critical of homosexuality, and is a direct assault on the entire First Amendment; the anti-lobbying law (with its amendment to severely restrict/control grass roots activism) is also designed to criminalize the right of citizens to petition their government; the law which prohibits religious institutions from political activism will soon be used to silence priests, rabbis, and ministers from preaching the Word of God on matters of morality which are an integral part of the practice of one's faith, on the false pretense that, because these issues have become political issues to those who wish to reorder our society, pronouncements on them by religious leaders constitute political activism.  These laws or potential laws have one glaring thing in common:  they are all designed to undermine efforts of people of faith to organize and work together (as minorities, gays, feminists, abortionists, illegal aliens, and other special interest groups do) to influence public policy--in other words, to prevent them from participating in their government as a voting bloc, and to alienate them, even as individuals.  Shame on you, Nancy Pelosi. 

And why did it take so long for this new ethical administration to comment on the William Jefferson bribery and corruption case?   "While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power," says Speaker Pelosi.  She's one to talk about "egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power", when she took it upon herself to play "Secretary of State" Pelosi by traveling to Syria and undermining the authority of the President in foreign policy matters.  Assad ate it up.  It was a slap in the president's teeth, and only served to strengthen and encourage our enemies while demoralizing our troops and figuratively "cuckolding" our Commander in Chief. 

Democratic control of Congress could not have come at a worse time for us.  The Fed under Republican control could more reliably be counted on as a place where the buck stops on liberal abuses of the law.  Fortunately, we still have a president with veto power, and enough republicans who remember what they are supposed to be doing there to ensure that a veto-proof majority on the more "egregious and unacceptable abuses of public trust and power" is not achieved in most cases.

But Liberals simply don't acknowledge the law if they don't like the law.  In Florida recently a booth set up to disseminate information about Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment and gather signed petitions to get it on the ballot for 2008 during a Promise Keepers conference was shut down by two police officers assigned to security for the event.   This activity was entirely legal, yet these officers came over and ordered them to stop obtaining signed petitions, and physically removed the petitions from public view.  Then, as WorldNetDaily reported, "Two of the male officers mocked the volunteers by kissing each other after they initially removed all the petitions from the area."  When John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, confronted Sgt. Allen (the "kisser" in the photograph) concerning what law the Florida4Marriage volunteers had violated, his response was to recite his gay interpretation of Jesus view of homosexuality and that the petition was a waste of time.  He told Stemberger that he was the authority, and that the Bible says you are to obey the authorities.  He even threatened Stemberger with arrest.  A lawsuit against Broward county and the police officer is pending for violation of the volunteers' civil rights.  The outcome of that lawsuit will probably depend on what kind of judge gets the case. 

In California, the State Assembly has once again passed a law permitting gay marriage, despite the fact that the people of the state of California overwhelmingly voted to protect marriage as a union of one man and one woman.  But the state's anti-discrimination laws may be used to overturn the will of the people in this matter.  If the liberal California courts were to compel the state to allow homosexual marriage on those grounds, those anti-discrimination laws could be used to overturn every marriage protection law passed by voters in each of the states where the issue went on the ballot.  Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the first attempt to override the voters, and will likely veto this one as well.  Nevertheless, activists keep chiseling away at the foundation of our laws, and liberal judges, when those decisions come before them, simply override the existing law and impose their own will on the people.  That is nothing short of tyranny.

In one of the most egregious violations of law by a person in a position of public trust, the newly elected Attorney General Paul Morrison of the state of Kansas fired the special prosecutor, Phil Kline, who was assigned to conduct the criminal case against the infamous late-term abortionist George R. Tiller.  Morrison, whose campaign was largely financed by contributions tied directly to Tiller, has done everything he can do to keep Tiller from being brought to justice despite the overwhelming evidence that he has performed numerous late term abortions in violation of Kansas law.  Morrison had promised, if elected, to drop the investigation against Tiller, and immediately fired Kline upon assuming office.  In addition, the judge who dismissed the charges against Tiller, District Judge Paul W. Clark, is also credibly accused of having financial ties to Tiller, and there are efforts to have him investigated and disciplined, and the charges against Tiller reinstated, led by Operation Rescue who first uncovered Tiller's gruesome and unlawful activity.  This entire situation smacks of payoffs and corruption at the highest state levels.

Of all the underhanded liberal abuses going on, the one that disturbs me most is the corruption in the matter of election abuses.  In a 2000 report by Joseph Farah, a last minute campaign to register Latino voters in California, many of whom were not American citizens and were ineligible to vote, was uncovered.  The letter sent to these Latinos bore the signature of the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, and asked them to vote Democrat.  It is liberals who, knowing how many illegals we have in this country, pitch a fit whenever a state wants to require a positive ID at the precinct, calling it another "poll tax", another form of voter disenfranchisement.  It is liberals who fight to have convicted felons' voting rights reinstated, democrats who have worked to have military absentee ballots disqualified, who commit voter registration abuses.  Of course, the left accuses Republican operatives of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement and other abuses, also, but where are the reports of Republican abuses?  Every time there is a report of an election irregularity, it always points back to the liberal activists.  After the 2000 elections, with banks of paid phone solicitors calling to "ask" democrat voters if they had been "confused" by the butterfly ballot, urging them to call and complain, and Jesse Jackson's outrageous accusations of police dogs being used to chase off black voters (we have yet to see any video of these heinous acts of voter intimidation) and the democrat campaign handbook that came out for the 2004 election stating their intention to charge the opposition with voter intimidation (or at least raise the cry and cast suspicion) whether it actually occurs or not, calling it a "pre-emptive" move, (they, of course, denied that was the intention of the manual), the election process in America has been permanently tainted.

With all the forced changes in voting procedure, all the new paperless computerized voting machines whose integrity people are naturally skeptical of, and the pall of doubt and suspicion that now hangs over every election due to the deep divisions in our country, the deepening conviction in the hearts of many that the "other side" will do anything to get or keep power, with the widening chasm between two completely opposing visions of our future, it is doubtful we will ever truly trust the outcome of our elections again.  Thank you, Al Gore, for your legacy.  (Incidentally, every single independent recount showed emphatically that George W. Bush won the state of Florida in 2000, and the election.)

A cold war is simmering in our country.  A cold civil war.  These two ideologies cannot exist together.  One must fall.  There is only one sane course to take.  The solution is to get back to the vision of our Founding Fathers and our own history and traditions—smaller government, family values.  Most of all, we must restore a respect for the sacredness of human life, without which we have no guiding principle to shape our country and our people but the tyrannical lust for power of a ruling elite who lord it over us and believe themselves entirely justified in doing so. ESR

Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian.  She may be contacted at alisa.craddock at hushmail.com.


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story





Site Map

E-mail ESR

Musings - ESR's blog

Submit to Digg

1996-2019, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.