Thy Liberty In Law

(This post is part 12 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest.)

 

Statement 4: Our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are endowed upon us directly from God.

 

Answer: If inalienable rights are endowed upon us directly from God, then a man need only fabricate a “God” in which he professes his belief to declare for himself the rights of his choosing. He can say that his god has granted him the “inalienable right” to steal, or to kill, or to rape little children, and who can oppose him, if a right is granted by God alone?

 

Furthermore, if a person or a people claim to be endowed with “certain inalienable rights,” does that make it so? When and where did this ‘endowment’ take place? Can it be proven? Are such rights limited to only those initially declared? By what means are they limited or extended?

 

Under these considerations, the answer is obvious: No, inalienable rights are not endowed upon us directly from God.

 

In order to conclude how such rights are obtained, we must first come to a greater understanding of “God” and “rights.” Recall that “God” is the title of a constitutional republic capable of authoring and executing law on a universal scale, which laws cannot be created or destroyed by man. These laws created by a higher authority are otherwise known as universal, physical, scientific, or natural laws.

 

Next, we must consider where “rights” come from. All rights come from laws. The right to operate a motor vehicle comes from an individual’s confirmation and execution of the man-made laws that govern the act of driving. When a person agrees to confirm and execute such laws, a person is granted (or ‘endowed’ with) the right to drive. If the laws are violated, the person’s right to drive can be revoked.

 

Correspondingly, inalienable rights come from inalienable laws, or laws that cannot be created or destroyed by man. When an individual confirms and executes an inalienable law, a person is granted, or becomes “endowed with,” certain inalienable rights derived from that law. If a person denies or violates an inalienable law, the person forfeits the rights associated with that law.

 

In conclusion, our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not endowed upon us directly from God, but are only granted upon an individual’s confirmation and execution of a law created by God (an authority higher than man). The law that endows us with these rights is the natural law “All men are created equal,” written mathematically as (God > man) and (man = man). This means that all American citizens are required to recognize and worship the God of equality in order for us to legally claim the inalienable rights associated with that law. If at any time an individual violates the law of equality through a criminal act, he forfeits his inalienable rights in which his life, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness can be taken away.

 

Statement 5: The California Air Resources Board wants to mandate a “cool paints” initiative to ban automakers from painting their cars black, since black cars absorb light/heat which results in a higher level of fuel consumption/emissions in the effort to maintain a cooler interior.

 

Answer: If this is the law that the California Air Resources Board wants to impose upon automakers, then it must be scrutinized to see if it possesses a correct constitution. Since the first component of law is mathematical truth, let us determine what statement of truth serves as its basis. Simply put, the underlying “truth” of this law is “any action that causes inequality in carbon emissions is ‘bad,’ and therefore must be prohibited by law.”

 

If this were a statement of mathematical truth, then 1 – it could be easily proven, 2 – it would be applicable to all things and 3 – it would not violate the already proven self-evident truth that “all men are created equal,” as truth cannot conflict with truth.

 

Point number one:

It has not been proven by any means that an inequality in carbon (or carbon dioxide) emissions violates the physical law of equality, which is the only instance in which human behavior can qualify as “bad.” This “truth” is based on a man-made philosophy that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise which would eventually cause cataclysmic loss of life, in which those emitting higher amounts would stand in violation of their fellow man’s inalienable right to life under the laws of God. Even after thousands of years of human inequality in carbon emissions, there is no scientific evidence to support such a philosophy. There is also no scientific evidence to support the correlating premise that the Earth’s temperature would not rise if all humans emitted the same level of carbon dioxide. Additionally, it is suspect that many of those who revere this philosophy also subscribe to the idea of “evolution,” or that life forms possess the authority and power to create the laws by which they function. If this were true, then human beings would never be affected by the Earth’s temperature as they would simply “evolve,” adapt and thrive in all temperatures, in which loss of life due to environmental fluctuations would not be possible. Thus, this statement cannot qualify as mathematical truth and therefore cannot serve as the basis for law, as it is based on an unproven philosophy with self-conflicted origins.

 

Point number two:

If this statement were somehow scientifically proven, then its premise would be applicable to all things, allowing the men in government to be able to ban any instance of carbon emission inequality, not just cars. This means that government would be able to impose restrictions on a person’s weight, height, or even lifespan, as all these things are factors in the overall amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Legislation could be passed on how often a person travels, laughs, exercises, or speaks, and the color black could be banned from anything that has the potential to promote increased levels of carbon dioxide – buildings, rooftops, clothing, hair or skin.

 

Point number three:

The best way to test to see if a man-made law violates the physical law of equality is to require its authors to be subject to it. If the men in government can pass a law based on the “truth” that human carbon emissions must be “equal,” then they, too, must emit no more carbon emissions than the people they govern. They must open their entire lives to the scrutiny of the public and be prohibited from driving in black cars, traveling, exercising, speaking, laughing, living long, or doing anything that would cause inequality in carbon emissions, which they have fully embraced as truth. If they themselves would not be subject to the tyranny of such a law, then the law is a false law designed to usurp the active power of the people to exercise their God-given liberty, which in itself is a violation of law in the image of Fascism or Totalitarianism. Liberty is preserved when automakers can choose which colors to offer their customers, and customers can choose if they want to assume the increased costs associated with their choice of color.

 

Statement 6: Congress and the President want to tax AIG executives’ bonuses at 90%.

 

Answer: There is no authority for men in government to create public law that targets only specific individuals, just as there is no authority in the government of the universe to create laws targeting specific individuals or things. For instance, the law of gravity has not been legislated as applicable to things made of carbon but not to things made of iron, or to people with brown hair but not to people with red hair. The law applies to all things that have mass equally. It is the active mass of an object that determines the amount of gravity it will have, not the static law.

 

Because laws are based on mathematical truth, and truth applies to all things equally, all laws should apply to all things equally. When a proposed law does not apply to all things equally, it is because the law is not based on truth but rather the personal opinions or desires of men. Laws based on the whims of men are also known as unjust, incorrect, disordered or false, and are made by men in positions of authority who possess these same characteristics. False laws and the men who create them stand in violation of God’s laws (laws created by an authority higher than man) and will cause instability, chaos and destruction if the people continue to uphold them. This is the reason such laws were prohibited from being made by Congress under the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” If the law above were to be made, it would be a Bill of Attainder (a law that has a negative effect on a single person or group) and an ex post facto law (a law that is enacted retroactively).

 

Statement 7: On the promo to the first season of “The Sons of Anarchy,” a policeman is shown driving next to a member of this gang. The “Sons of Anarchy” member tells the policeman, “We’re all free men, protected by the Constitution.”

 

Answer: This statement is self-conflicted because the man who is a member of a gang titled the “Sons of Anarchy” and therefore does not recognize the law declares to the policeman that he is protected under the law, or the Constitution. This man’s position can be stated as, “There is no law, yet I am protected by the law,” which is a blatant contradiction. One who recognizes and is subject to law can claim protection under the law. One who does not recognize law forfeits any claim to protection.

 

Statement 8: Government bailouts, earmarks and welfare programs were not what our Founders intended.

 

Answer: While this statement may be correct, it is misleading in that it implies that the laws created by our government today are wrong only because of the assumption that our founders didn’t “intend” for them to be made, or wouldn’t have liked them. Such statements only serve to perpetuate the false notion that law is based on active human intent rather than static mathematical truth. For instance, Newton’s “intent” was not endlessly disputed after he authored the laws of motion, nor was Einstein’s “intent” constantly scrutinized after he penned the famous formula E=mc2. This is because their personal intent had nothing to do with the physical laws they discovered – it wouldn’t have mattered if Einstein intended for “E” to mean “Earth,” as it would have been incorrect.

 

When it comes to the founders of the American Republic, their only “intent” was to keep their own intent out of the equation and base all aspects of government and law on a single mathematical principle: “All men are created equal.” Therefore, laws instituting government bailouts, earmarks and welfare programs are not wrong because they are not what our founders “intended.” They are wrong because they stand in violation of the physical law of man’s equality under God.

 

Statement 9: In FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights” at the 1944 State of the Union Address, he tells the Congress that some “economic truths have been accepted as self-evident,” among which are the right of every family to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the right to a good education.

 

(Here is a more inclusive list of FDR’s “economic rights”:

- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

- The right of every family to a decent home;

- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

- The right to a good education.)

 

Answer: While we currently witness the pending destruction and disastrous collapse of many of FDR’s remaining unconstitutional New Deal programs such as Fannie Mae and Social Security, this quote from 1944 reveals the mathematical errors in FDR’s political philosophy. While the amendments in our own Bill of Rights were based on the mathematical formula that “all men are created equal,” or (God > man) and (man = man), in this quote Mr. Roosevelt attempts to encourage Congress to create an “Economic Bill of Rights” based not on self-evident mathematical truth but on Mr. Roosevelt’s personal opinion. He declares that “some economic truths” have become “accepted” as “self-evident,” but does not supply the mathematical formula or statement of truth that would serve as a basis for the creation of such “Economic Rights,” as did our Founding Fathers. Instead, he asks Congress to legislate such rights based on his own personal opinion, in which a “decent home,” “adequate medical care” and a “good education” are relative terms that must be defined by Roosevelt himself or some other person who is granted the authority to assign their own definitions to the terms.

 

If the “Economic Bill of Rights” had been passed, the law of equality – or the law by which all our inalienable rights are derived – would have been violated in two ways. First, if Mr. Roosevelt’s opinion were written into law, Mr. Roosevelt himself would have become the source of truth and thus the “creator” of the economic rights of each individual. As the source of mathematical truth and the creator of human rights, Mr. Roosevelt would have been elevated to a position of superiority over all other men since no other man’s definition of the terms would be regarded as true except Mr. Roosevelt’s. Mr. Roosevelt would have thus placed himself above God as the source of truth and on unequal grounds with his fellow man.

 

Second, in order to secure such “economic rights” for the people, Mr. Roosevelt would have had to seize private property earned or owned by some citizens and transfer it to others in order to provide each citizen with the entitlements listed in the bill. Mr. Roosevelt would then hold both authority and power over the people, in which he would be able to author and confirm his own law, or dictate, which people should be relieved of their property and which people should be given property. Because the people would have no power to confirm and execute the laws pertaining to their own property, Mr. Roosevelt would have usurped (and the people would have yielded) the power of their liberty, in which Mr. Roosevelt holding both authority and power would have become a tyrannical dictator in violation of God’s law of equality.

 

Once again, the substitution of man’s opinion for mathematical truth as the basis of law immediately classifies the law as false, unjust, or unconstitutional. In this instance, the terms “decent,” “adequate” and “good” are subject to man’s interpretation, and as such will possess as many different definitions as there are human beings to define them. Any law based on relative terms lacks a foundation in mathematical truth and therefore cannot qualify as constitutional law. Because a “right” must be based on a constitutional law in order to exist (see answers 1, 4), all the “rights” listed in FDR’s bill are mathematically false, unless of course a scientific principle is discovered to provide a basis for such rights that does not conflict with the principle of equality. The reason FDR’s existing New Deal programs have only led to destruction and collapse is because each program began with a mathematically inaccurate law, a law that went through the process of being authored and confirmed by government and the people while having no basis in static mathematical truth. These false laws and their resultant programs are disordered after the Satanic image of Communism, a disorder that leads to the scientifically predictive collapse we are now witnessing.

 

Statement 10: The first principle of Glenn Beck’s “Nine Principles” is: “America is good.”

 

Answer: In order to understand what is wrong with this statement, we must first understand what a principle is. A principle is a statement or formula that is always true. One example of a principle is: “Matter (mass) cannot be created or destroyed.” This statement is a principle because it is always true. Any statement or hypothesis in conflict with this statement has always and will always prove to be false.

 

“America is good” is therefore not a principle because 1) “America” is not “always good” and 2) the definition of “America” and “always good” are currently subject to man’s interpretation. Principles are always true and are not subject to man’s interpretation. Thus it would seem that “America is good” is the exact opposite of a principle.

 

However, because it is now evident that the definition of “good” is not subject to man’s interpretation but that it is mathematically associated with truth, order, function and endurance, the word “good” can be scientifically defined as “in accordance with physical law” or “in accordance with laws made by a higher authority.”

 

With the application of this definition, a more complete version of this statement that would qualify as a principle is, “All that is good for mankind comes from the confirmation and execution of the law of equality,” or in other words, “All that is good comes from obedience to the laws of God.”

 
(This post is part 11 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest.)

 

Statement 1: Out of 73 Supreme Court decisions, 32 were decided by 5-4 votes in the 2006-2007 term.

 

Answer: The judicial branch in a republic represents mathematical truth. Thus, the purpose of any judge is to represent mathematical truth in administering justice according to the law, maintaining the rule of law, and upholding the constitution (a representation of the supreme law), which is why the rules of judicial conduct always presuppose the attributes of static intelligence – impartiality, objectivity, rationality, etc. Because the judicial branch represents mathematical truth in a republic, no judge at any level should disagree with another on an issue. Mathematical truth cannot conflict with itself; if a conflict exists then it is a conflict of truth against falsehood or falsehood against falsehood. In other words, when two judges disagree, either one of them is incorrect or they both are.

 

In the case of the Supreme Court, a dissenting opinion indicates that this branch as a whole no longer represents mathematical truth but that one or more of the judges has ignorantly or deliberately based their ruling on their own active, internal man-made philosophy and not the static, external mathematical truth which they are required by law and by oath to acknowledge and uphold. This type of bad judicial behavior results in one of two different scenarios based on the actions of the legislative and executive branches: correction or destruction. For example, if the people recognize the correct constitution of law, which is: 1) mathematical truth; 2) an authored statement and 3) confirmation and execution of the authored statement, the people will also recognize that a judge who fails to represent mathematical truth in upholding the law has lost his authority as a judge, and will enact new laws to protect themselves from being governed by the judge’s personal philosophy or they will take action to remove or impeach the judge due to his failure to represent mathematical truth (bad behavior). The correction of the judicial branch in a republic always requires the collective acknowledgement of an authority higher than man, which is the only way man can protect himself from being governed by man-made philosophies.

 

If the people do not recognize the correct constitution of law (and thus the correct role of a judge), dysfunction in the judicial branch will lead to the swift demise of the republic as judges who rule based on their own personal opinions set precedents (binding or persuasive) which hold the appearance of new legislation. The befuddled citizenry begin to uphold false judicial rulings as binding law, which not only is a usurpation of the authority and power of the legislative and executive branches to author and confirm law, but also introduces disordered “laws” into the republic, both of which will cause the republic to self-destruct according to the nature of the disorder.

 

In the scenario above, the frequent dissention among the members of the Supreme Court indicates ignorance of or malevolence towards constitutional law, in which the members’ personal philosophies in many instances are either setting precedent or are very close to setting precedent, which will ultimately seal the fate of our constitutional republic if such precedents are upheld by the citizenry as binding law.

 

Statement 2: The Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, has asked Congress for the authority to regulate the executives of a privately-owned company.

 

Answer: Congress does not have the authority to grant the Secretary of the Treasury or any public official authority to “regulate” any person in a privately-owned company. In this request, we see that a public republic (the U.S. government) is seeking to usurp the authority and power of a private republic (the company) to create and execute its own private law. Under normal circumstances, only the private company can grant Timothy Geithner a position of authority over its employees, an action commonly known as “hiring.”

 

However, those familiar with the details of this scenario understand that this is not a normal circumstance. The reason a member of the government is asking another branch of government for authority over the actions of a private republic is because the private republic has sold the power of its liberty to the government in exchange for taxpayer dollars. Because the private company is now operating on capital that the company itself did not produce, it is no longer a private company free to confirm and execute its own private law. Instead, it finds itself subject to the legislative authority and executive power of the U.S. government, whose members consider themselves administrators of the furnished capital who will assume the authority to govern the company irrespective of the law. This authority is assumed under the guise of “protecting” the citizens of the country from the “disastrous effects” of a dysfunctional organization deemed by the men in government as “too large” or “too important” to experience the natural consequences of its behavior.

 

Here we find an increasingly common rationalization in which a government elected to protect and preserve the inalienable rights of the people seeks to extend this duty to include the protection of the individual from the consequences of his violation of natural law. (This rationalization seems to occur most frequently when those experiencing such consequences are the fervent political supporters of the government in question.) When a private republic fails, it is because the laws created and executed by that republic are mathematically incorrect. When this happens, competitors operating on mathematically correct laws provide a superior alternative and naturally gain prominence. However, when this natural process of self-destruction threatens the financial support of certain political parties, leaders or candidates, instead of allowing a company to self-correct or self-destruct, these political beneficiaries rush to legislate against its demise by plundering the wealth generated by other citizens operating on correct laws and redistributing it to the failing enterprise.

 

Contrary to popular opinion or practice, this action has the opposite of its desired effect: In the process of trying to “save” a disordered republic from the consequences of its actions by engaging in plunder, all the republics involved will become disordered and will eventually self-destruct as the plunderer (the government), the recipients of plunder (the failing company) as well as the victims of plunder (successful producers that allow themselves to be plundered) are each in violation of natural law and thus are sentenced to destruction as a whole.

 

(See also “Lemon Socialism” and “Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses”)

 

Statement 3: Barack Obama said to a private citizen during his campaign, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

 

Answer: The main problem with this statement is that it does not matter what Barack Obama thinks is good. It only matters what actually is, in fact, good. When it comes to human behavior, actions that are “good” are in accordance with natural law, and actions that are “bad” are in violation of natural law. Because the only natural law known to govern human behavior is the law of equality (“All men are created equal” or (God > man) and (man = man)), our only consideration must be whether the action in question is in accordance with this law or in violation of it.

 

That being said, the proposition that one superior man should be granted the authority and power to take wealth from some citizens and redistribute it to others as he deems necessary is a violation of the natural law of equality. The philosophy of “wealth redistribution” is based on the presumption that all men are not created equal and as such, a superior man must be delegated the supreme duty of equalizing men according to his own opinion. This act removes God’s definition of equality as the basis of law and replaces it with Barack Obama’s definition of “equality”, which definition can only be determined by Barack Obama himself.

 

When Barack Obama’s opinion replaces static mathematical truth as the basis of law, all laws created by the American republic become null and void and Barack Obama becomes the sole arbiter of law. A republic that removes static mathematical truth as the basis of law (abandons the image of God) is no longer a representative government that operates according to the rule of law (constitutional republic) but becomes a disordered republic (unconstitutional republic) that operates according to the opinions of men and is thus sentenced to destruction according to the nature of its disorder. Recall that a republic can become disordered in four different ways depending on the relationship of authority and power in that republic.

 

For example:

 

1. If the citizens consent to allow Barack Obama to redistribute their wealth according to his own unwritten opinion, the citizens have confirmed and executed laws that have not been legislated and have thus taken upon themselves the disorder of Socialism.

 

2. If the citizens consent to allow Barack Obama to redistribute their wealth according to written legislation based on his own opinion, the citizens have confirmed and executed false laws, or laws that are not based on mathematical truth, and thus have taken upon themselves the disorder of Communism.

 

3. If Barack Obama grants himself the authority to redistribute wealth without the consent of the citizenry, the republic has taken upon itself a Fascist disorder.

 

4. If Barack Obama grants himself the authority and power to redistribute wealth against the will of the citizenry under threat of injury, imprisonment or death, then the republic has taken upon itself a Totalitarian disorder.

 

All of these scenarios will result in the degeneration and destruction of the republic due to the fact that all are in violation of natural law.

 

The personal belief that all men are not created equal but that one man must be elevated to a position of superiority over others in which he himself can grant equality to the human race is not only a violation of natural law but a malicious attempt to subjugate mankind and usurp the Creator’s position as the source of man’s equality and inalienable rights. Any person engaging in such redistribution efforts would become an enemy to God and to the republic as they pervert the law into an instrument of ‘legal’ plunder, best described in Frederic Bastiat’s essay, The Law.