Modern Day Pharisees

Legalism Doesn't Die, it Merely Adapts
By: Jonathan Harris

When Jesus addressed the Pharisees He didn’t hold back. He publicly called them a “brood of vipers,” preached during His Sermon on the Mount that they were by implication going to hell, and warned their "constituents" to "watch out" and "beware" of their teachings. In the modern church I've heard many people champion Jesus' opposition to these hypocrites by saying things like, "The Pharisees were evil for setting up laws. Everyone knows Christianity isn't about rules, it's about love!" Just two hours ago Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church tweeted, "It drives Pharisees nuts to watch God keep blessing ministries they ridicule & despise. God's sovereignty is often humorous." What drives me nuts is never knowing who exactly the "Pharisees" are? The modern church has made war with "Pharisees" throwing the term against anyone who smacks of having a "standard." It's like playing the race card. If you're called a "pharisee" everything else you say is discounted. Are there really Pharisees walking around today offering sacrifices and "straining at gnats?" Obviously not - so who are evangelicals talking about when they use the term "pharisee?" They're referring to "legalists." They're talking about those pesky individuals who abide by standards not found in the Bible (or at least not found by them). Without a doubt, at times this characterization is accurate.

I grew up in a church which use to be on the legalistic side. I remember people who thought alcohol itself was sinful, and that playing cards were of the devil. A number of local pastors believed drums shouldn't be implemented in worship because they evoked sinful passions. Hollywood represented everything evil, and was to be avoided at all costs (but of course, television was fine). Men must wear suits on Sunday mornings, and women must wear dresses (and they better show up on Wednesday night too!). Some of these people are still around, and still advocating their viewpoints, but let's ask the question, are any of their convictions really "Pharisaical" in and of themselves? In order to find out, we need to look at Christ's "definition" of a pharisee. In Matthew 23, which everyone should probably take a look at before continuing, Jesus stated:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
According to Jesus, Pharisees were "hypocrites." They weren't merely people who made up extra-Biblical laws (though that was part of it) - they were inconsistent. They were "lawless." In other words, they didn't follow God's laws (The opposite of what people accuse them of being!) Their hearts were dirty while their actions (on the surface) seemed clean. If this is the true definition of the term, then the term has been widely broadened. It isn't merely referring to some of the people I grew up knowing, it also refers to individuals who claim to be followers of Christ and then go home and watch lurid sexual behavior on television, or skip church because "its not important," or use filthy language, etc. because they are transgressing the commandments of God while outwardly claiming they are keeping them. . . then again, (sarcasm) maybe I'm just a pharisee for saying such a thing! This means that the judges of pharisees can in many cases be classified as pharisees themselves. The blog "Pharisee Killer" describes the modern pharisee as follows:
The guy wearing the Converse is now the new Pharisee. The guy who believes that there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol is now the new Pharisee. The guy with tattoos is the new Pharisee. The guy who uses buzz words like authentic, real, and community is now the new Pharisee. The guy who says he has an audience of One, is full of it and is the new Pharisee.

Why? Because the root of legalism is pride. Legalism doesn't mean that you abide by rules. On the contrary, God has given us a list of rules summed up in the golden rule. Indeed, even "extra-Biblical" rules are perfectly acceptable so long as others aren't held to artificial standards (i.e. the meat sacrificed to idols). However, we can't gain merit and by implication salvation by keeping such rules. This is why the Pharisees were "blind guides" to the blind. They thought they were good enough that through their efforts to keep the law they could somehow gain salvation. As Paul said, "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. "

It is human nature to look for a license to sin. Young Christians who use the legalism of their parents and grandparents as a justification by which they can have "freedom in Christ" to sin, don't realize they have in essence become the very thing they've criticized creating for themselves a standard apart from God's word and then calling it "God's word." There's only one solution legalists both young and old and its humility. Let's not "break the commandment of God" for the sake of tradition. Let's instead uphold God's laws, judging righteously from his standard, realizing that we will never be perfect - whether we dumb down God's standard, or attempt to perfect it. We will always be sinful this side of heaven, and it's through His grace that we can even follow some of His commands.

So the next time you or someone you know starts calling someone a pharisee, think to yourself, what constitutes a pharisee? Someone who merely keeps commandments (Jesus preached, "If you love me you will keep my commandments.") or someone who does it for the wrong reasons? Oppose genuine pharisees just like our Saviour did, but remember to examine yourself first.


Being Ready For Combat

Strengthening Your Witness By Defeating Its Enemy
By: Jonathan Harris

Liberals Aren't the Problem, Sin Is

What’s hurting Christianity the most? I know I can be pretty quick to blame progressive politicians, liberal teachers, and a postmodern youth culture for all the world’s ills. But after all, I don’t personally fall into any of these categories. I view them as the enemy, yet Scripture says, “all have sinned.” One of my all time favourite preachers is Pastor Paul Washer. A common theme in many of his sermons is the idea that most conservative Christians have misidentified the enemy. We lament “liberalism” but forget about something much more basic – “sin.” There is no doubt that progressive thinking has taken America and the Western world in a direction which opposes Christian doctrine, but its root problem is simply sin. Progressivism is based on secular humanism and the view that man as Rousseau believed was “perfectible.” Humans are somehow smart enough on their own to come up with natural laws which guide human nature, and in so doing, discover ways to make man better – physically, intellectually, and morally. Man is innately good, and therefore society is the problem. Of course, any Christian with just a passing knowledge of Scripture knows that man is the problem, but are we not accepting the same premise the progressives accept when we start viewing their influence on society as the problem? The Apostle Paul said:

We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

It is a well established fact that Satan uses our own sin nature against us in the "battle." His strategy from creation has been to siphon off God's glory by causing humans to pursue joy in venues apart from Him. The "cosmic powers over this present darkness," according to John MacArhur, "possibly refers to the most depraved abominations, including such things as extreme sexual perversions, occultism, and Satan worship." All that to say, our battle as believers is against sin. And the first front we should be focusing on is our own lives. Jesus said, "take the speck out of your eye" first. If the most important message to further Christianity (The Gospel) is go to out to public campuses unhindered we must start by "examining ourselves." We, not liberal teachers or progressive politicians, are the only ones capable of stopping this message from being proclaimed in our own lives – and sin is the break pad on our motivation. I can attest to this firsthand. When I was leading a college campus ministry, I found that it was extremely difficult to evangelize after having partaken in sin. This didn't mean that I forsook it, it just meant that the Spirit wasn't working through me. Leading Bible studies and worship music was also hard, but not nearly as convicting as trying to tell someone about the goodness of a God I had personally affronted earlier in the day. I have grown to view sin not only as spit in the eyes of my Saviour, but also as a direct enemy of the Gospel message. We are being counter-evangelists when we thumb our nose to God's law, and no different in practice than the bemoaned "liberals" inhabiting our society.

Psalm 19 Holds the Cure

In Psalm 19, David conveys an excellent representation of what I like to call, "The Bottom Line." He starts off in verses 1-6 by speaking of natural revelation – "The heavens declare the glory of God." In verses 7-11 he exalts God's Special revelation and its accompanying attributes and value. Finally, in verses 12-14, David personalizes his own reaction to both revelations by admitting his weaknesses and glorying God for restraining his sin.

Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults. Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression. 12-13

David knew that only God had the power to "keep" him from "presumptuous" (i.e. prideful, with knowledge) sins. According to verse 11, the "rules" of the Lord warned him of God's justice. Yet, at the same time there was an intense joy accompanying God's precepts. His rules were "sweeter also than honey." Why this paradox? Why this joy and fear together? David understood that God's law revealed something about Himself. That he was both just and merciful. Recognizing that David had sinned, and would continue to sin, He also kept David from sinning, and from his Divine justice. This could only be possible when the "dominion" belonged to God and not sin, which is why David concluded the Psalm with these words, "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer." David prayed that God would permeate his life (heart and mouth). God was able to accomplish this because of His relationship to David as "rock and redeemer." This doesn't mean David became perfect. Certainly there were times David disallowed God access into his heart, but that's where God's redemptive work kicked in. David did however become more and more "sinless" in his walk, and therefore effectual in his witness. We need to be like David. To understand that God is both the creator and the moral lawgiver. That he demands justice, but gives mercy. And that we "shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression" only when we humbly submit to the Lord by asking for His control and welcoming His law into our lives. This is the only solution not just for our own walk, but for our effectiveness in our culture. It is the key part of our participation in the afterlife and this life.

The Answer for Life on Earth

Though the afterlife is more important than this life, the only cause which can truly change this present world for the better is still the Gospel message – It's implications are important politically and sociologically. Indeed there are many out there who accept some of its logical conclusions without accepting the Gospel itself which leads to those conclusions. A good example would be Glenn Beck perhaps who although a Mormon rejects progressive policies and champions free markets (which have their root in puritanism). However, Glenn doesn't understand that it is because of man's sin nature that such a system works. It stands to reason that the more people receive the Gospel, even without receiving its implications, the more will come to such "conservative" conclusions. It may be important at times for us to argue the merits of the Gospel's implications, but much more important is for us to proclaim the central message itself. Let's be ready for such opportunities by preparing in the footsteps of David.

The Church's Lukewarm Trend

Redefining Christianity on the World's Turf
By: Jonathan Harris

Sometimes I have to wonder, “What’s the church’s problem?” No I don’t mean your church or my church specifically – I mean the universal church. What are we doing wrong? And how do we fix whatever it is? According to my observation I believe the church has consistently mimicked, joins forces with, or accepted the standards of the world. We’ve been catering to the wrong crowd for so long, we’ve forgotten who we are, and who wants to join a group which lacks an identity? Let me give you a couple examples which have lead me to this conclusion.


The Christian music industry formed in the early 70s as the result of the “Jesus Movement.” It was supposed to be a way for Christians to impact the world by attracting younger audiences to their message by means of, ironically, mimicking the world. I don’t see a Scriptural prohibition against Christians who want to play rock music as a means to evangelize, but why does it have to be in a “special” genre? It seems like the whole “In the world but not of the world” has been flipped around to mean “Of the world but not in the world.” The only “Christian” songs that even make it to secular markets are the ones which aren’t exactly Christian. Turn on any Christian Contemporary Music station and you’re liable to hear a watered down feminine version of Christianity constantly redefining itself to copy-cat whatever happens to be popular in the world at the time. I’m not advocating a total recall on every “Christian” artist or song – but I am trying to point out that there’s a bad trend out there we should be aware of. I've been to multiple concerts featuring at least eight leading "CCM" bands and have not heard the Gospel proclaimed even once. Christian television has pretty much gone the same way. What use to be on “secular” stations has now ghettoized itself into TBN and the like, changed its message to be more in line with the world’s way of thinking (think emergent, prosperity gospel, and positivism), and lost its potency. Art, according to Francis Schaeffer, is a reflection of society. What will the history books say (if they say anything) in a hundred years about Western Christianity based on our artwork from the current period? Most likely it will be something like this: “A dying religion adjusts and redefines itself to become more acceptable in the eyes of a greater audience, and in so doing loses its true identity which subsequently leads to its demise as a formidable faith in the Western world.”


Evangelistic efforts have changed as well. I’ve noticed from personal observation that the default method of evangelism (if Christians decide to do it at all) is what’s commonly referred to as “lifestyle evangelism.” People who advocate it are fond of saying things like “Share Jesus through the way you live” and “Meet people where they’re at.” Indeed, I suppose I can consider myself a convert to this way of thinking through my early to mid teens. Again, just like within Christian music, there’s nothing inherently wrong with living a good life and trying to get people curious about Christ through personal interaction, but this should not be confused with evangelism. Evangelism is actively making disciples of Jesus Christ. Sharing the Gospel with friends and actively discipling them is great. Sharing the Gospel with complete strangers is also great. Yes, even open-air preaching is great. Jesus and the Apostles did all of these things, but they never just went about their daily business thinking that somehow they were fulfilling the great commission through living an honest life. An honest life can lead to opportunities, but it is not the opportunity in and of itself. The tragedy is most people just use “lifestyle evangelism” as an excuse to keep their mouth shut about their faith under the guise of sharing their faith through their life. This, I can safely say, is wrong.


As a young “political junkie” I have to question, “Surely, there must be a political trend which corresponds to these sociological changes?” and in fact there is. A growing number of evangelicals support same-sex marriage or don’t think it important in contrast with issues like the economy. While most young evangelicals are pro-life, they don’t place a high priority on it, and are willing to vote for a “pro-choice” candidate. Obama himself received a third of the young evangelical vote, while John Kerry only received 16%. Popular Christian leaders like Rick Warren who focus more on global poverty than abortion and same-sex marriage are having their affect. Issues of basic morality on all levels are seen to be “divisive” and therefore “not important” as an essential element of conviction. Jesus did not preach the supreme virtue of tolerance, so why live as if he did?


Based on these three observations alone I think I can safely say it’s no wonder that younger evangelicals aren’t having much of an affect on campuses. I mean, why should they? They’ve been force-fed a pathetic weakened faith their entire life. Their version of Christianity is more consistent with emergent youth leaders and lukewarm singers than it is with the puritans, reformers, and apostles. When over half of all pastors are viewing pornography, and a third of all "born again" Christians think sexual explicit material in entertainment is somehow "Ok," there's an underlying problem. The observational surface trends are merely the results of a secret pandemic. Most "Christians" aren't Christians, and the ones that are are missing a backbone. Still there is hope out there. It’s time’s like these that something big happens. Either Christians wake up and purge their churches of mediocrity by preaching the offensive truth like in China, or the church dies from within as was the case in Nazi Germany and Marxist Russia. Only God’s Spirit can ultimately better the situation, we can help by siding with Him and not our culture.


Secession in America

How Our Most Basic Right is. . . Right!
By: Jonathan Harris

Trending Toward Secession

Since the election of Barack Obama, a growing number of patriots have “woken up” as radio talk show host Glenn Beck likes to put it. The tea party movement has become the face of a new movement for fiscal accountability and constitutional limitations. As tea party candidate and senate seat hopeful Rand Paul said on CNN two days ago,“The Tea Party Movement is about constitutional government!” People are starting to realize just how far off course our republic has drifted upon reading the founding documents of America. State sovereignty, nullification, and even secession are once again dinner conversation topics resurrected from their long absence from American political discourse. Though the progressive hijackers of academia have for over a century worked tireless hours attempting to bury such notions as state sovereignty, the truth is suddenly gaining a foothold. The State Sovereignty that "died at Appomattox" is living once again.

While secession still remains an increasingly divisive topic (no pun intended) due to accusations of racism and anti-patriotism against anyone who so much as hints at the possibility, it should be known that such a notion is not the possession of a fringe group, but rather is a birthright all Americans share. Some public figures have taken up the cause beside Governor Rick Perry in defense of this noble American entitlement (in the true sense of the word). Senator Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitono, and Glenn Beck have all made sympathetic remarks in favor of secession, and it’s starting to become mainstream. In an April 2009 poll of 106 listeners of the Sean Hannity Show, 44.34% stated that secession was not “anti-American.” A July 2008 Zogby poll in which 1,209 Americans were questioned concluded that one out of every five (20%) American adults believe that, “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.” Over 18% said they would support a secession movement in their own state. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the percentage of secession advocates was highest in the south regionally. However, ethnically speaking, blacks were the most likely to support a state movement. Almost every area of the country has some kind of local secession movement. The four most notable groups include “The League of the South,” a Neo-Confederate group which has been increasing its membership as of late, “The Alaska Independence Party”, which former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s husband was a member of, The “Second Vermont Republic,” which maintains 13% of its home state’s support, and the Texas Nationalist movement which has received the most press in the past year. Rick Perry’s April 15th 2009 comments have done much to put secession back on the table in the minds of many conservatives.

"Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."

Of course, if you’re an anchor on MSNBC this could perhaps cause you to have conniptions as Chris Matthews did. But if you’re a Middle American who’s fed up with deficit spending and unconstitutional governance, Perry’s words were a breath of fresh air. In a recent poll of 2,003 Republicans, the Daily Kos/Research Center showed that 33% of Southerners answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?” while the national average for a “Yes” answer was 21%. Putting this number in perspective – it was only 40-45 % of white Americans who supported the Patriot’s cause in the first American war for secession – the War for Independence. As the writer for the League of the South’s blog commented, “So we're half-way there, folks.”

Justifying Secession

Even if you personally don’t believe your state would be better off without federal intrusion, an honest account of history demands at the very least an approving nod to its legality. Secession was and is a brilliant mechanism whereby tyranny is checked. If you’ll recall, the founders set up our federal government upon the notion that unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. Calvinism held sway in both American religious and political philosophy. In order to stifle the propensity of man toward acquiring power and using it for selfish ends, checks must be put in place to purposely make the government dysfunctional, and therefore render it unable to amass power. It was the Virginian Thomas Jefferson who stated:

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

In elementary school every child is taught there are three major branches of government which all have checks and balances on each other – the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative. However, today most children aren’t taught about the greatest check of them all: the state governments. Although state power has been slowly eroded by the reconstruction and seventeenth amendments as well as several supreme court decisions, there was a time in our nations history when secession was almost universally accepted as legitimate. This is the reason Lincoln had to sell his decision to invade the South by claiming they fired the “first shot.” (even though no one died in the battle, Lincoln was the aggressor, and it wasn’t the “first” shot) It had to be a rebellion, not secession, in order to justify using Federal arms to the American public. “A View of the Constitution” by William Rawle (which advocates secession as a possibility) was standard curricula at West Point before 1860. It’s important that we as patriots stand up for the same rule of law our founders believed in. Below I have stated reasons for why secession is still a viable option, and completely within the realm of legality.

1. The Constitution Allows Secession

During the Constitutional Convention, a debate emerged regarding the creation of new states from preexisting ones (i.e. like West Virginia being created from Virginia – even though that was done by Lincoln unconstitutionally). John Adams records Governor Morris of Pennsylvania’s (who actually wrote the constitution) two cents in the convention minutes. He stated:

If the forced division of the States is the object of the new System, and is to be pointed against one or two States, he (Morris) expected, the gentlemen from these would pretty quickly leave us.

i.e. Governor Morris assumed that secession itself was an assumed privilege the sovereign states held. But why was he able to make such a remark? The answer boils down to three things: A. The Tenth Amendment, and B. The Articles of Confederation, and C. The Ratification Papers. The Tenth Amendment clearly states,:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This begs the question, “Where in the constitution does it talk about the federal government being able to kick states out of the union?” The answer is, “It doesn’t.” The question of secession is therefore a question left up to the individual states. They alone have the power to leave. In addition, a quick comparison between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution will clearly show some key differences. One of them is that the Articles didn’t allow secession. Article XIII states:

And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the Union shall be perpetual;. . .” it goes on to say, “. . . nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them (the articles) unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The idea of perpetual union (i.e. an unending contract) could not be overturned unless all states unanimously decided it could. Interestingly enough, the Constitution does not invoke the idea of a “perpetual union,” and therefore contrasts itself with the concept of an unending contract. States could end their contract with the federal government whenever they wanted. The Ratification Papers attest to this. Virginia’s ratification agreement with the federal government read:

. . . the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.

The state of New York included a similar provision. The purpose for joining a republican form of government had everything to do with benefiting the states themselves. Pennsylvanian James Wilson, a delegate to the constitutional convention encouraged his state to ratify the constitution by stating:

. . . I am sure that our interests, as citizens, as states, and as a nation, depend essentially upon a union. This Constitution is proposed to accomplish that great and desirable end. Let the experiment be made; let the system be fairly and candidly tried, before it is determined that it cannot be executed.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, “All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the states; the states created the Federal Government.

2. Historical Precedent Implies Secession

When the colonists fought against Britain, they wrote their own pact, the “Declaration of Independence,” to "secure these [inalienable] rights. . . the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [Government], and to institute new Government." King George had disbanded their legislative governments and imposed his own rules, even at times jailing representatives through the authority of the royal governors. Today of course, such abuses happen consistently without anyone blinking an eye (think back to Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments). The colonists, outraged as they should have been, declared themselves free of Britain's unjustified rule. It was no long acting within its constitutional powers, and therefore was illegitimate. When the colonists won, it wasn’t the country of “America” that King George surrendered to but each individual state in the Treaty of Paris. Subsequently, each state retained its sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation (though it could not secede) and under the Constitution.

During the War of 1812 New Englanders seriously considered secession at the “Hartford Convention” in response to the war and Virginia’s political domination. Some wanted to join Canada, others wanted to form their own government. No one seemed to bat an eye or claim, “You guys are way out of line!”

When the South lost the war for their independence Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason simply because of the embarrassing situation it would create. If the supreme court couldn’t convict him, it would fully expose the true motives for Northern aggression and render the whole war essentially unjustified. During his imprisonment and trial (which was thrown out later) the foreign press was not amused – even Pope Pius IX send Davis a crown of thorns. Conveniently, President Johnson declared amnesty for all Confederates toward the end of 1867 which excused a trial in the minds of the North. No lawyer could convict Davis of doing something which was completely legal.

Throughout our nations history, popular sovereignty has remained on the forefront of our foreign policy. We “liberate” communist, Islamic, and other second and third world nations in the name of self determination, however on the home front we have acted like hypocrites since our sympathetic position on the Southwest’s secession from Mexico in the 1840s. The Russian federation deserves to be liberated from its contract with the Soviets, but the various “satellite nations” of America somehow do not deserve the same treatment. Southerners, North Easterners, Mid Westerners, and Westerners all designate various national identities in the U.S. and should be afforded the same opportunities if we are to be consistent.

Common Sense Legitimizes Secession

In July of last year, president of the Texas National Movement Daniel Miller asked Glenn Beck on his program, "Who would ever enter into some sort of contract where one of the parties broke the contract and the contract was still enforced and you had to live under that abuse?" Glenn Beck's answer was short and to the point, "No one." Under the Articles of Confederation, in which states maintained an incredible amount of sovereignty the Federal government was incapable of breaking a contract having almost no power. However, under the U.S. Constitution the threat became greater, and state's would have been foolish to enter into death wish. The equivalent would be a woman who marries a man who turns out to be abusive and unfaithful and then is kept by force in her contract and is required to fulfill her marital prerogatives. Were the American people really that unwise? Of course not!

What Now?

In conclusion, it should seem evident that secession is an American tradition started during the very war that gave birth to our nation. The right to secede is a right which keeps the federal government from becoming a tyrant. It is the last refuge of any free people, but a refuge which must be defended nonetheless. Without the ability to leave tyranny, we are forced into slavery, which is exactly what’s happening in modern America. The Tea Party movement provides some hope that this issue will become a serious issue once again as people began to seriously look at the Constitution and our original secession pact The Declaration of Independence. When the government is threatened by the prospect of losing control and tax revenue it becomes willing to negotiate. That was the whole point of the right to secession, and that right hasn’t evaporated, it’s just been buried. Looking back over our centuries of existence, “experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” (Thomas Jefferson) Educate yourself with the facts. Relearn your American history, and let others know about our rights as Americans. . . all of them.

In the words of Confederate President Jefferson Davis

Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...