Our subject this month may not be something you feel is relevant for our nation since we have no history of a monarchy. Unfortunately, corruption pollutes the minds of many in government.1 That’s something we all know quite well in our day and age. Our founders made every attempt to avoid the corruption that a central government could impose. First, they refused a central government. This understanding is crucial. What has been lost to history are the voices who warned of the dangers of a federal government. True is the axiom to the victors go the spoils of war; or said another way, the party who wins elections gets to rewrite history. In the case of Federalist verses Anti-Federalists, this is all too true. Madison, who was a Federalist, described their definition of federal, not as a national “unlimited or consolidated” government but as a federal government operating “within the extent of its authority thro’ requisitions on the confederated States, and rested on the sanction of State Legislatures, the Government to take its place, was to operate within the extent of its powers directly & coercively on individuals and to receive the higher sanction of the people of the States.” 2
We should also understand that the “coercively” used by Madison here is not the same as we see power used today as it has become unlimited: Involved in our health, personal and social networking through the access to our Internet, phone and banking; data collecting where we send our mail and looking into our credit card records and mortgage information. As well as laws passed in 2010 to collect information on students’ voting records, medical records, among so many other extremely private information concerning them— Or the attempt by the EPA to control land where the smallest of temporary waterways or puddles exist. Along with the ridicule to our free speech and the economic procurement attached to our religious and scientific beliefs, if they do not conform to the government’s ideology and plans.3 Madison had no such vision, nor did any of the other founders. In point of fact, they all defined the word federal in a way we have totally forgotten today. During the Constitutional Convention’s proceedings, they defined foederal, with the old English way to spell it, meaning covenant. It was spelled that way to describe foetus for the executive branch as well as federal (with and without the ‘o’) for the legislative branches. The words “great confederated republic” are used to describe state involvement, as well as words like “federal pyramid.”4
In order to protect us from a centralized government, as we see in socialistic and monarchal nations, our founders followed a similar compact method and style seen in the colonies where England was an overseer. To avoid the same intrusive and powerful tool England had become in attempting to control the states, the founders implemented a tension of limited power in a federal government and then gave the states and the people the control. Before the Constitution was ratified and even while the Articles of Confederation were still active, the government was viewed as a federal (foedus-covenant) government. We see a dialog within the Virginian ratification process that takes place on June 7, 1788. It is an argument to counter Patrick Henry, who was against ratification. Henry was siding with the Anti-Federalists at that point. Francis Corbin, one of the delegates to Virginia’s Ratifying Convention has heard the arguments around calling the new government “federal” or consolidated and counters by saying it is “a representative federal republic.” Why is this statement important? It proves, not only arguments for and against ratification, but what had been desirous in the pre-Constitutional government would be desirous in the nature of the post-Constitutional government. In other words, the people needed to be in charge and in covenant. Corbin may not have been exuberant in his desire for the Constitution, but after reading his arguments, it seems obvious that he agreed it was necessary. Not only is our Federal government, by definition of the word federal, a covenant, it is a representative republic! How’s that for redundancy? It seems Madison, who was in attendance, acknowledged the legitimacy of the argument.5
Republics are very different from democracies. In a non-sectarian covenant agreement between people who are given inalienable rights by God— and viewed as “Sovereign” in replacing a king— and states, who are sovereign in their decision-making power, the Federal government has no inherent power except the people and the states give it authority to act. So the people select what they believe to be honorable statesmen and send them to the state and federal forum to act as their representatives. Originally the states sent senators as well to the federal forum to act on their behalf, thus creating a federal representative republic. Democracies, especially socialistic ones are far more chaotic and messy, thereby causing lawlessness among the people and a predictably brutal response from the state. You might ask why that is. Democracies (in theory) are more corrupt in outcome. The majority can be bought or otherwise hoodwinked. Mob rule and constant use of protestation and subtle and outright bullying— name calling or the suggestion that the ‘other’ side is insensitive, hateful because of their disagreement, or “doesn’t care for the common man or the poor”— is in constant use by those who want socialist and/or communistic democracies. They control, by many different means, what a people hear and know. Today’s control of mass media by the ideology of progressivism is one example.6 In fact, to avoid the controlling nature of corruption in limiting what the people hear and know their government to be doing, we have a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments are inalienable and thus not up for negotiation. Why is that? Because inalienable are rights given by God, not the state. No one can take an inalienable right from me; thus the thinking behind the 5th and 10 amendments.
The 1st Amendment is critically important in many ways when it comes to avoiding corruption in government. One of those methods is by giving the rights of free speech to the religious, which at that time were a super-majority Christian population (over 98%). This is important in two ways. First, biblical Christianity is profuse with instruction on becoming more and more like Jesus, its founder. That means corruption in spiritual, physical and soul-based levels is to be rooted out, exposed and repented of. Biblical Christianity’s pulpits are to preach this to every level of government, private and public life— and most importantly, individual Christians are to be ambassadors of deliverance in sharing the Gospel message. Another area rooting out corruption within the 1st Amendment, and second in our discussion here, is freedom of the press. If the pulpits don’t preach the fullness of what’s going on, then the press is supposed to. A progressive socialist by the name of Lyndon B. Johnson inserted what has been termed the Johnson Rule to thwart the 1st Amendment rights of pulpits in the nation. It is illegal, and a few pastors ignore it. The IRS has shown a real distaste for bringing known disobedience of the rule to court; namely, because it knows it is illegal.
Self-silence by pastors is one reason why we don’t hear about political corruption. There is another reason why Americans are not hearing the true depth of the corruption of our government and that is because the press have become progressive socialists, almost to a majority. Those who are not progressive have been threatened with dismissal (and worse) if they open their mouths.7 Socialists must marginalize the Bill of Rights. In many ways they already have. Our founders made many provisions to stop that theft. Ultimately though, it is up to each of one us, as ‘The Sovereign’ to expose corruption and stop them from stealing our rights. We each need to be armed with truth in order to do that. You can pick up a copy of my new book, “70 Years of American Captivity: The Polity of God, The Birth of a Nation and The Betrayal of Government” to help you do just that.
1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893> <https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/> <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-05/wikileaks-releases-part-31-podesta-emails-total-now-50408> <http://www.infowars.com/spirit-cooking-clinton-campaign-chairman-invited-to-bizarre-satanic-performance/> <http://www.anonews.co/fbi-clinton>
2. Meier, Christine. 2016. “70 Years of American Captivity: The Polity of God, The Birth of a Nation and the Betrayal of Government” TellWell: Victoria, BC, Canada. 245
4. Ibid., 245
6. Ibid., 189
7. <http://www.truthfeed.com/former-cnn-reporter-exposes-the-truth-obama-paid-them-to-lie/22859> <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-15/caught-tape-cnn-reporter-cut-air-she-critiques-hillary-clinton> <http://www.dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/lanny-davis-yeah-the-white-house-threatened-me-too> <http://www.anonews.co/cnn-hillary>