International Law for Christian Nations

International Law based largely on Christianity?

One of my readers posted a comment that included the following:

“The problem with this is that international law is for Christian nations.  Excerpt from  The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary (verified in Vattel as well):  http://tinypic.com/r/15s7ev5/5

I had no idea of the link between international law and Christianity.  I don’t know that that link is still deemed true today in what passes for “international law”.

But, insofar as I view most of what happens on this earth as evidence of “spiritual warfare,” I’m pleased and excited to see evidence that international law was–and might still be–based on a Christian foundation.

I’m not yet sure how to apply this new insight.  But, if you’ve followed this blog or my radio shows, you might recall that I like to focus on the “man or other animals” definitions of drugs and medical devices.  Insofar as those definitions are subject to a “freedom of religion” challenge, they might also open the door to some challenge in “international law” (provided that “international law” is still founded to some degree on Christianity).

In any case, I’m posting the evidence of the International Law/Christianity “connection” without much commentary simply because I think it’s important and you deserve to see it.  That “connection” is at least consistent with arguments that most of what we see to today is the result of spiritual warfare.

If you have more knowledge on this subject, please let me know.

 

Slick Production Values?

US Edition Cover, May 1971 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I’ve previously explained, I don’t believe that the Christ and God are one in the same.  I believe that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym is God and the Christ is His Son.  Many people agree with that belief.

Many others disagree.

I can’t say whichever belief is right.  I can only say that my belief is honest and sincere.  Given the intellect and information available to me, my belief is the best I’m currently able to embrace.

Here’s a video that’s based on the belief that God and the Christ are one.  I disagree with that premise but, nevertheless, I find the video to be a powerful and delivered by speaker with a style that I’d love to see on the pulpit.  I find the video inspirational.

Faced with the power of this video, I feel able overlook the video’s belief that God and Christ are one being.  For me, the video “works” despite my belief in the God/Christ duality.

 

Military Internment Camps for US Citizens

Pdf file reference in video:  http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

video  00:03:37

 

Mini-Seminar by Adask

Adask at the “gates” of Hell’s Canyon, Idaho

I was recently interviewed by Stephen Roberts on “Cancel the Cabal”.  During that video interview, I explored the concepts of sovereignty and the “sovereignty movement,” as well as potential applications of the 1st, 2nd and 9th Amendments, and “MOOA” (“man or other animals”) in relation to drug laws, the war on drugs, police state, big pharma, and American medicine.

The interview lasts almost two hours.  It’s too long to be an “interview,” but it might reasonably be described as a “mini-seminar”.  Most won’t have the time to listen to the entire presentation.  But it’s actually a pretty good general introduction to a number of concepts, so, if you’re inclined to listen, here’s the link:

 

Support 2nd Amendment Rights with the “Declaration of Independence,” Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and 9th Amendment

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I were to construct an argument to justify my right to “keep and bear arms” (including alleged “assault rifles”) under the 2^nd Amendment, that argument might consist of several of the following parts:

1) Founders’ Purpose for 2nd Amendment

As I explained in The Purpose of the 2^nd Amendment, we can learn the Founders’ intended purpose for the 2^nd Amendment by reading the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.

According to that Preamble, the purpose for the 2^nd Amendment is not to empower Americans to hunt deer or ducks, or defend against an attack by Indians or even an invasion by Great Britain.  We retain the right to “keep and bear arms” so that we can shoot officers, officials, judges, bureaucrats and employees of the federal government who “abuse or misconstrue” their powers under The Constitution of the United States.  In other words, the 2^nd Amendment is intended to guarantee that we have the necessary “equipment” to shoot those members of our own federal government who attempt to subject this nation to despotism (tyranny).

 

Papal Resignation

Pope Benedictus XVI (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Genesis 9:6 explains why it’s a sin to murder or even injure a man:

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Because we are each made in God’s image it is wrong to kill us, or even assault us.  To kill another man is a kind of blasphemy against God, Himself.

However, highest form of the blasphemy inherent in killing another man is killing yourself.  That’s why those who commit suicide are deemed to have committed an unpardonable sin and won’t be buried on “hallowed ground” by the Catholic Church.

See, my body is the particular “image of God” with which I’ve blessed and also entrusted in this life. It’s merely true that others have a divine prohibition against injuring or killing my body, it’s also (in my opinion) that I have an obligation to defend my personal “image of God” against any assault by the wicked.  Thus, I have a right of self-defense where that “self” is my personal “image of God”.

Therefore, if I commit suicide, I have probably committed the single greatest insult and blasphemy that any man can commit against God.  By committing suicide, I not only kill my own “image of God,” I deny my obligation to defend my “image of God”.

There may be greater blasphemies than suicide, but I have no idea of what they may be.

This introduction on suicide brings me to the recent resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.  I want to begin by saying I am not Catholic.  I wasn’t raised Catholic.  I haven’t studied the Catholic faith.  So, my following commentary is based on nothing more than my own “gut”.  I write from ignorance.  Even so, I might have something to write that’s worth reading.

There are a number of conspiracy theories to explain why he resigned.  Some say he’s so old that he can no bear the workload required of a Pope.  Others say he may have some criminal liability attached to lawsuits against the Catholic Church for allowing child abuse by priests to continue.  I have no idea which theory is true.  I don’t know why the Pope resigned.

But if I understand the Catholic faith correctly, the Pope was and presumably still is, presumed by Catholics to be God on Earth.  For reasons unknown to me, after the physical body of the last Pope died, God decided to inhabit the body of the man we’ve come to call Pope Benedict XVI.

If that were true, the man chosen to be Pope would be singularly blessed.  To be chosen to allow your personal “image of God” (your body) to become the exclusive “vessel” that holds God the Father would be an extraordinary blessing.

I can say that if God chose my body to “occupy,” I would never throw Him out. I would continue to carry God within my flesh until they carried me out, feet first.

So, I look at Pope Benedict XVI and I’m wondering “What th’ hell are you thinkin’ about, buddy?”  What do you have to do that’s so important that you’ve decided to evict God and retire from the ranks of Popes?

For me–an ignorant non-Catholic–it looks as if either Pope Benedict XVI never really was God or, if he was, he has just committed a kind of blasphemy that makes normal suicides seem benign.

Pope Benedict has just abdicated what some believe to be the throne of God.  Pope Benedict has just turned his back on God and effectively said, “Get th’ hell out!”  Pope Benedict has seemingly declared that it’s better to be a mortal man than God.

A Pope has seemingly turned his back on God.

As I’ve already said, my ignorance concerning things “Catholic” is almost perfect.  I don’t mean to offend anyone.  I may be completely off the beam in this article.

But there is something in Pope Benedict’s resignation that strikes as spiritually horrific.  If the Pope were God, why couldn’t He resolve whatever health, energy, legal or political problems were bugging him?  Why would the “Pope/God” cave in to the pressure and resign as Pope?

I’m not even sure that, once chosen to “be” the Pope, any man can “resign”.  Maybe the appointment as Pope is “for life” and can’t be terminated except by death.

You don’t quit being Pope the same way you resign from being a janitor or even a President.  The fact that Benedict the XVI chose to resign rather than die tells me that either the Catholic faith is a fraud and the Pope is no more “godly” than your or me–or–the one man on Earth who acts as God’s vessel has quit.

There’s even a report by USA Today that on the night of the day when Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation, St. Peter’s basilica (located within the Vatican) was struck twice by lightning.  I don’t know if these reports are true or false.  More, as a Protestant, I’m not inclined to treat these reports as true since they tend to validate the Catholic faith.  Nevertheless, I have to admit that these reports are consistent with the idea that God might be very displeased by the Pope’s resignation–or that big changes are coming.

As a Protestant, I’m not sure that Pope Benedict’s resignation didn’t strike a lethal blow against the foundation of the Catholic Church.   He seems to have committed a kind of spiritual suicide that’s almost unprecedented.

If it’s wrong to commit suicide because you’re made in God’s image, isn’t it an even more profound suicide if you are chosen to “be” or “retain” God and you quit?  There’s something extraordinary in Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation.  There are some spiritual implications that I can’t put my finger on, but something about it all seems, at least to me, to constitute an incredible assault on the Catholic Church.

Whatcha think?

 

“It Works the Same in Every Country”

Hermann Goering raised an important implication:  Yes, governments will cynically exploit their own people–we all know that.  But Goering implies that the people virtually ask for that exploitation by insisting on their right to remain ignorant and trusting.

Are those who initiate wars villainous bastards destined to burn in Hell?  I think so.  But are the people who are afraid to criticize, afraid to stand up, and absolutely determined to preserve the bliss of their ignorance any less guilty?  Most common people support war–and even go to war to kill and be killed–because they’re too cowardly or ignorant to say “No!”    Are the common people who won’t whisper “No!” any better than the psychopaths who shout “Yes!”?

 

“God’s Will, My Liege!”

Henry the Fifth of England painting is in “The Royal Collection” . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Shakespeare’s version of Henry the Fifth addressing his soldiers. Outnumbered 5 to 1, Henry rallies his troops.

This speech isn’t real life . . . but it could be . . . and should be.

But the speech, no matter how fictional the words, still illustrates a point that’s absolutely true:  one man who stands up at the right time and place to speak with passion can change history.

One man.

video

00:03:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dDZVxbrW7Ow

 

Ideas Matter

English: Wilhelm Wundt Polski: Wilhelm Wundt (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Arkansas Bob” sent me an email concerning “Cultural Marxism” and “critical theory” as “concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School.”

An article describing the “Frankfurt School” is posted at:  http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=8183

Footnote #1 at the bottom of the page of that article reads,

1) Lionni, Paolo, “Leipzig Connection,” Heron Books, 1993. [Wilhelm] Wundt, in the 1870s, advanced the then-radical notion of man as an ‘animal,’ not accountable for his conduct, which was said to be caused entirely by forces beyond his control. According to Wundt’s thinking, in a human being there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system. Therefore, teachers must try to educate a person by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the ‘correct‘ response. Thus, a child’s actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, because he is simply a stimulus-response mechanism.

In that footnote we learn a little history.  The “man as animal” theory (rather than the Genesis 1:26-28 declaration that man is made in God’s image and given dominion over animals–and therefore can’t be an “animal”)–may have started in the decade after the end of the Civil War.

 

People Capable of This Don’t Deserve to be Slaves

People are Fantastic                   video                          00:04:39

There’s a spirit in these people that might not be capable of enslavement.  Every one of these people are saying “screw you!” to big government and endless regulations.