Last week’s State of the Union Message was perhaps the most notable of its kind. Biden stood before the American people as a drugged-up loser, gangster, phenomenal liar, war-monger, and career-long failure, who able to make the annual address only because his party rigged and so stole the 2020 election.
Biden during the duration of his speech lectured the great bulk of Americans on their many faults, not least of which is failing to recognize the non-existent Biden-economic-miracle that his administration had delivered for the benefit of all working Americans. Carrying on, Biden then told Americans why they should love the war in Ukraine as he, his party and most Republicans do, and rejoice at forking over another $46 billion to the government of a sexually depraved drug addict so he can conscript and kill the remaining Ukrainian males under sixty and send them to a pointless death. Then he severely chastised Americans – especially rural Christian Americans and Christian nationalists, who his lying gangster of an Attorney General has named as DOJ’s main terrorist target — for not eagerly and joyously opening their hearts, homes, minds, and children to the rampant depravity, criminality, and grooming by the Democrats’ beloved LBGT cretins and – increasingly – to the party’s new source of savage slaves and contract mercenaries found in the waves of illegal aliens entering the United States and picking up gift cards worth many thousands of dollars, paid for by American taxpayers who cannot – thanks to Biden, his Party, and most Republicans – make their own ends meet. Biden, in this speech, clinched the lasting reputation of being the most deceitful, patently crazy, untalented, atheistic, and scoundrel-like president in the republic’s history. Truly, Biden is, in every sense, an abusive, witless, boorish, and, most of all, poorly bred man.
On the issue of Putin and Russia, Biden once again sang the same war-wanting song. He, his party, and most Republicans continue to spread lies about Putin’s “clear intention” to take all of Europe if Moscow is not stopped in Ukraine. The creaking, almost-dead, and far-from mighty NATO alliance’s spokesmen continue to claim that Putin hungers for control of all Europe and its population, even though those peoples are on the verge of rebelling against the EU’s continual raping of their countries via illegal immigration from Africa and the Middle East, its governments’ protection of Muslim groomers, rapists, and Islamist fighters, the EU’s torturing of European farmers by using the untrue and clearly anti-scientific commandments of the climate- change fraud, and the mass eradication of humans it plans to deliver as soon as possible. Why would Putin, or any other human being with an IQ higher than 40, want to take over an angry, continent-wide population seething with hatred for its rulers and their institutions after being abused to an extent never before achieved by so-called “democratic governments”? One can only hope that much of the flood U.S.-and-NATO weaponry that Ukraine is selling to international gun runners – some of them Ukrainians — ends up in the hands of European citizens – and Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders — who can use them to free themselves from the accelerating enslavement being created by the EU and its component regimes.
On a subject that should be return raised and debated much more frequently, it must be said that the resolute failure of the leaders of the republic’s Christian religions to instruct their flocks on the existence of absolute, murderous evil in their national and many state governments and the country’s NGOs – many, sadly, sponsored by Christians. This has been a lasting and almost indelible disgrace, and was made more so with the threats to the faith uttered by Biden. These pious men and women have not only failed to inform, but appear to have no intention of either doing so or offering guidance on how the faithful should respond to protect their families, towns, and faith, as well as to destroy the lethal threat Biden and his allies pose to the republic and the Lord’s faithful in therein This threat is coming to focus especially on America’s rural Christian population which has been identified as terrorists by people who are themselves demonstrably domestic and/or international terrorists, such as Biden, Schumer, Garland, Pelosi, Wray, Mayorkas, Austin, Nuland, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Pope, the EU, the Anti-Defamation League, the United Nations, many hundreds of NGOs, the Southern Poverty Law center, The World Economic Forum, all mainstream media organizations, as well as a goodly number of congressional Republicans who have been sucking on the tit of corruption for an extended period and either have forgotten that there is a God or simply do not give a damn. If there is ever going to be a moment when Christian preachers, bishops, ministers, pastors, and priests realize that the tax exemptions given their churches by the federal government are meant not to promote the freedom and vibrancy of religion, their obedience to God, and the protection of their congregations, it must be today. Christianity has long been an indispensable building block for this republic, and in the history of that construction clergymen – especially Protestant clergyman – have always frankly identified the people, governments, banks, and businesses that have tried to destroy the republic and make slaves of Americans.
For example, a now little-recalled Founder of the American republic, a Boston-based colonial pastor named Jonathan Mayhew, provided the essence of the commonsensical and Christian-basis for overthrowing Britain’s tyrannical rule over its thirteen North American colonies. In January, 1750, Mayhew preached a lengthy sermon, one which John Adams said exerted strong motivation among colonial Americans for a war of independence. In his sermon, Mayhew made an irrefutable, definitive, and scripture-based argument asserting that no people are bound by their faith to obey a government that ignores scripture, ignores the good of society, and persecutes those believing therein. “Let us now trace the apostle’s [St.Paul’s Letter to the Romans] reasoning,” Mayhew told his congregation,
“in favor of submission to the higher powers, a little more particularly and exactly. For by this it will appear, on one hand, how good and conclusive it is, for submission to those rulers who exercise their power in a proper manner: And, on the other, how weak and trifling and unconnected it is, if it be supposed to be meant by the apostle to show the obligation and duty of obedience to tyrannical, oppressive rulers in common with others of a different character.
Those who resist a reasonable and just authority, which is agreeable to the will of God, do really resist the will of God himself; and will, therefore, be punished by him. But how does this prove, that those who resist a lawless, unreasonable power, which is contrary to the will of God, do therein resist the will and ordinance of God?
Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.” (1)
For Americans’ who question the indispensable and pervasive role that Christianity played in the Revolution and its victory, the debates over and drafting of all of the republic’s founding documents, and in establishing – within those documents — the permanency of the statements that the president’s major role is, with the Congress, the protection and victory of the republic armed forces in times of wars authorized by the Constitution’s provisions (thus, there has not been a Constitutional U.S. War since Japan’s defeat in 1945); the execution of all of the laws, not only those he and his party choose to act upon; and, most importantly, to consistently and resolutely govern in a manner that shows the president’s administration accepts, as both fact and law, that the natural rights of all Americans – as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights — are gifts from God and are never privileges awarded by any national government, and that those natural rights are, under the Founder’s Constitution, the durable and irreversible core of American law and the republic’s freedom, liberty, and civil rights.
The main problem preventing far too many Americans – sadly including many, many Americans and their pastors and priests who identify as Christians – lies in their having traveled to maturity by proceeding through an educational system founded on the national-government’s policy that the learner’s reliable ignorance of truth is both a joy and the proper input for those soon-to-be slaves. The same government’s nationwide in-house mass media, at least five presidents who used their only distinguishable talents for entrenching personal greed, national corruption, tyranny, and dozens of one-man-made wars – Johnson, Clinton, two Bushes, Obama, and Biden. This gang of crooks and other presidents – such as Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman – consistently demonstrated in their spoken intentions and executive actions, nothing more than a superficial, only for presidential-campaigns, knowledge of the nation’s founding principles and its peoples’ God-given natural rights, by which governance in the United States is both bound and limited.
These presidents and their lieutenants knew their criminal goals could only be achieved via the creation of a consolidated national government that exercised central control over the sovereign states that drafted and signed, and then campaigned to convince voters to surrender a portion of each state’s sovereign powers to the national government. Several of those states also surrendered enormous tracts of land to federal control. They did this in the name of creating a new Union that would be governed for the equal benefit all component members.
At that time, each state also knew that there was nothing in the newly minted Constitution that forbid one or several state legislatures from reclaiming the powers they had given to national government, thereby restoring its own sovereignty in cases where the republic’s government had become dictatorial, corrupt, or simply lawless. Secession was, and still is, constitutional. Indeed, seceding from the Union today would be no different than the American colonies declaring their secession from the British Empire, defeating Britain’s armed might, and then forming the republic. Nor would such an action today differ from that of Confederate States of America in 1861, when southern states announced their secession to the world, and retrieved the powers its states surrendered to the national government in 1789, formed a new republic, and then waged a war of independence which sought to protect a wide-range of vital regional, economic, social, and legal issues – which included slavery, but was nowhere near dominated by the subject — against a Lincoln-ordered military invasion of the south.
There was in 1789, and there is not today, a single word in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights that can be defined as a bar against states’ seceding from a republic grown corrupt, war-mad, authoritarian, and lawless, as is Biden’s. [2] There also is no doubt that the Constitution, in 1789, would have failed ratification if the states’ legislatures and voters believed that they were locking themselves helplessly and permanently into rule by a federal government as corrupt and anti-constitutional as either the King’s or Biden’s. The exit option also is shown to have been understood by the signing states by the fact that the Constitutional Convention did not – as did its predecessor, the framers of the Articles of Confederation – include any ban on secession, deliberately leaving out the Articles’ clearly stating assertion that the signers thereof were pledging to form and maintain a “Perpetual Union”. [3] The viability of secession also seems supported by the fact that none of the Civil War-era’s constitutional amendments mentioned, argued, or stated that the Union victory had settled the impossibility of secession one for all. A final and despicable example that shows secession to be a legitimate tool for fleeing tyranny, one that can only be blocked by war, is found in Biden’s witless, arrogant, and no-quarter dare to Americans to secede and see how they would fare against F-16’s, nuclear weapons, and, implicitly, another deliberate pandemic using biological warfare weapons against all Americans.
Overall, in his shameful State of the Union Speech, Biden proved he is the true heir of – perhaps the king of — the above-sketched breed of presidential miscreants whose common goals, above all, have been to sate their personal greed and corrupt passions, to produce an overwhelming, central-government-driven corruption and suppression of republicanism from Atlantic to Pacific, and the building of an enormously, expensive, powerful, and now corrupt military led by flag officers eager to lead armies into unnecessary, interventionist wars and death, while knowing that their commander-in chief had no intention of winning any of the wars, aiming instead to stay deployed long enough to gain all economic plunder available and to burnish the presidential war-makers’ best loved title as “Leader of the Free World,” even as they surreptitiously labor to win the same title with the word ‘free” deleted.
Notes:
–1.) Eric Patterson, “Jonathan Mayhew: Colonial Pastor against Tyranny.” Providence Magazine, October 2020, https://providencemag.com/2020/10/jonathan-mayhew-colonial-pastor-against-tyranny/ The excerpts from the sermon are drown the passages quoted in Mr. Patterson’s essay. Mayhew’s sermon is titled: “A Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Authorities. With some Reflections on the Resistance made to King Charles I ” and also are found in the full copy of the entire sermon, which is available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=etas; an inexpensive bound copy of the sermon is available at Amazon.com, https://www.amazon.com/Discourse-Concerning-Unlimited-Submission-Non-resistance/dp/1500445916/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3DY3ZYHY6X8E2&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.xHfOfBvJak7BKsg6u5TufyGg_ViF4pwZ-2fHr4YIxQFrkoIqWpCwktoUluj9Xm25wItqCKxv1TYo_oAPeb3OxH4EEbGpKuZFaJ8mjOxsdxJ95tvpmgSuJPo4PPM-pMt3vcyuFG4nZk_Gwb7hJZywAsjBirEM3OzF9u3kCf2XGkPkOZXP8DiPtvAzn_Mbsv1JA3jaW1tJuzFKcx9O-CAbuNZbrq3Arthd5UjNjZb8uuE.ygb4wTaEyXphf-pwFh7sxIgHN3WDRGRcLgoPVkDFdLA&dib_tag=se&keywords=jonathan+mayhew&qid=1709991874&s=books&sprefix=jonathan+mayhew%2Cstripbooks%2C73&sr=1-1. The best biography of Mayhew is Patrick Mullins. Father of Liberty: Jonathan Mayhew and the Principles of the American Revolution, University Press of Kansas, 2017. An older biography of Mayhew that still amply rewards a close reading is: Charles W. Akers. Called unto Liberty: A Life of Jonathan Mayhew, Boston: Harvard University Press, 1964.
–2.) There is a Supreme Court decision — Texas v. White, 1869 – that argues that once the states joined the Constitution they were –a Lincoln argued — in the Union for good. The argument seems a is a bit sophomoric and almost totally ahistorical. Written by Chief Justice Solman P. Chare – Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury — for the majority, Chase lays out Lincoln’s view of the Union pretty thick, in essence describing it as a trap that when snapped shut, was shut for good. At the end of the decision, however, Chase doubles back a bit and argues, “The Constitution, in all of its provisions, looks to the indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states…” Oddly, Chase and the majority seem not to have recalled that Lincoln’s armies did destroy the seceding states, and his successors in the Court, Congress, and presidency kept the south militarily occupied and economically impoverished, the latter for more than a century. See, Texas v. White, 1869, https://sageamericanhistroy.net/civilwar/docs/TexasvWhite.htm
–3. See, “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”, 12 July 1776, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_07-12-76.asp
