The Source Of Law, Rights, And Martin Luther King Jr.

Please ponder, study, and memorize this statement with me.

There is a God, our rights come from Him, and the only purpose of government is to protect and secure our God-given rights.  

This week, Americans will be paying tribute to this past century’s arguably brightest orator and most dedicated man to individual liberty, Reverend Michael King Jr. (aka Martin Luther King Jr.). While I am almost certain that the good minister from Atlanta, Georgia, would not condone having a day named after him, I do not condone the worthless heaping of accolades by any people or group who co-opt, blindly turn from, or outright despise the Christian minister’s teachings.

Immorality, theft, vandalism, Second Amendment violations, and so-called civil rights were not the basis of this Baptist minister’s philosophies. His mission was to proclaim the Gospel, and his basis was God-given rights, and liberty under Law.

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he stated “there are two types of laws: just and unjust.” And that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”  

This smacks of the American Declaration of Independence when our founders declared the English King George was breaking the law when he “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation… and For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.”

The word “pretended” here denotes falsehood, feigned, simulated and conversely invalid.  

Pastor King’s letter goes on to quote renowned theologian and early church father Augustine: “an unjust law is no law at all.”

King knew the definition of law. As stated in his letter, “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” This definition coincides with what the Declaration calls “the laws of nature and natures God.”

At one time in our history, this was widely understood. However, in recent years, Americans have largely forgotten the fact that purported laws draw their efficacy – their validity — from adherence to these two fixed standards. Indeed, in modern times, these two critical standards are not applied by most Americans to the actions of government because these two critical standards are not studied by (or even known to) the people.

Americans desperately need to be reintroduced to the Supreme Law of the Universe (the Bible) and the Supreme Law of the Land (the Constitution).  

These standards can’t be applied to the actions of legislatures and governors and judges unless they are known, respected, and defended by the people.

This country, as great as it is, suffers from many sociopolitical diseases, one of which Dr. King coined Schizophrenia when discussing founding documents like the Declaration of Independence. “History reveals that America has been a schizophrenic personality where these two documents are concerned. On the one hand she has proudly professed the basic principles inherent in both documents. On the other hand she has sadly practiced the antithesis of these principles,” said King.  

He alludes that government has a tendency to praise one concept while malevolently tearing down its foundations. I pray we are not found guilty of allowing this in our own American lives, homes, communities, and halls of justice.

In the words of Declaration signer John Dickenson, “Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness…we claim them form a higher source – from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature.”  

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Watch: Voters Told MLK Jr. ‘Endorsed’ Donald Trump – Their Hilarious Reactions…

In a segment reminiscent of Jesse Watters‘ interviews of Ivy League university students, late night host Jimmy Kimmel sent his “news crew” to the streets in a segment called “Lie Witness News: MLK Day Edition.” The segment was apparently meant to humiliate and embarrass interviewees.

The interviewer said, “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. this morning came out endorsing Donald Trump for president. What was your reaction to that?” Surely, they weren’t going to find anyone who believed MLK was still alive. But find folks they did. It’s unclear if they were in on the gig, but their answers were given nonetheless.

“Please don’t,” one interviewee said. “I would be a little nervous. I would think he (MLK) would be the last one to endorse Trump.”

Another pedestrian said, “I figure if he’s going to endorse Donald Trump for president, then maybe he thinks he’ll be a good president.”

The prank continued, with another man saying, “I would be surprised, but, you gotta do what’s better … you know the rich are going to support the rich. And they gotta know how to take care of their money, because Donald Trump, being the money man that he is, will take care of their money.”

Switching gears in an attempt to appear fair to Trump, the interviewer changed the question: “Would you be surprised to know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never once voted for Barack Obama?”

“Actually, I am,” said another interviewee. “I am surprised. You would think because (MLK is) a minority, that he would wanna vote for Mr. Obama himself.”

Revealed: What MLK Jr. Really Thought About Gun Control Is Jaw Dropping

The American synonymous with non-violence in the battle for societal change understood there was a difference between peaceful protest and being defenseless.

“… the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law,” the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said.

In November 1963, in the wake of the assassination of President Kennedy, King noted that it was the context of the times, and not the weapons, that were at fault for violence.

“By allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing, by allowing all these developments, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes,” King said, according to research from Stanford University historian Clayborne Carson.

King knew that violent times required protection.

“There is nothing in the history that suggests that Martin Luther King felt that guns weren’t useful for self-defense,” said Adam Winkler, UCLA law professor and author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

“If you went to King’s house in 1955 or 1956, there were guns,” said Charles E. Cobb, Jr., author of This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible. “When they bombed his house in 1956, his first instinct was to apply for a gun permit.”

Cobb said many of King’s followers “felt their duty was to protect the movement, grab a rifle” and drive away threats.

“They didn’t see any contradiction between saying they were part of the non-violent movement and keeping their weapons clean and ready,” Cobb said.

King’s application for a gun permit was denied. There is a lesson in that for modern America, wrote Tony Oliva on Bullets First. 

“If a man like Dr. King wasn’t ‘worthy’ to be given a concealed weapons permit then I submit that as proof that any notion of needing to ask the government for permission before exercising a right is flawed,” oliva wrote. “If a civil rights leader who promotes non-violence and is a national figure who gets death threats constantly and has attempts made on his life does not meet the measure of gaining a (permit) in a state that can arbitrarily deny him his right to keep and bear arms, then the states themselves should have no say in it.

“This is what oppression looks like. This is tyranny. This is also a successful application of gun control. Let gun control activists crow about how the world is safer because Dr. King was disarmed. That’s all gun control can do…disarm the law abiding; the criminals just don’t care because they’re criminals and will carry anyways.”

h/t: Huffington Post

Martin Luther King And His Far-Reaching Impact

Some people take umbrage at the fact that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has a holiday dedicated to his remembrance while none of our founders, or even presidents, do.

I am not among them. In many ways, MLK epitomizes the founding principles the nation was based on, for they, along with his theological convictions, comprised his core belief system.

As we celebrate the 87th anniversary of his birth, acknowledgement of his contributions to civil rights and peaceful demonstration for just causes is just a portion of what the man represented. His insights on freedom, work, selflessness and morality apply equally to all Americans, regardless of political orientation, race or creed.

Perhaps that was the key to his enduring legacy – not just that he advanced civil rights, but that he taught and expounded precepts that transcended the great social divide of his time. Perhaps there is as much for us to learn from those teachings in transcending and bridging the divisions of our time.

To him, everything revolved around freedom. “I say to you that our goal is freedom, and I believe we are going to get there because however much she strays away from it, the goal of America is freedom,” King said. “Abused and scorned though we may be as a people, our destiny is tied up in the destiny of America.”

This may seem ostensibly a self-evident truth, but the concept is increasingly foreign to too many of us as we look continually to government for solutions, at the expense of individual liberty to choose and act.

He also stated, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” When we realize much of what’s done in the name of government is oppressive to freedom, it’s increasingly evident as an electorate we must rise up in opposition to freedom-inhibiting laws and regulations, and demand redress.

“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom,” King declared on another occasion. Individual and universal freedom was everything to him, without regard to ethnicity or other contradistinction. He advocated freedom, as opposed to government programs that diminish the freedom to build, achieve, to be rewarded for those achievements, and to succeed.

He often talked about how critical it was for all Americans to have a job. To him, a good job was ennobling and built character. “All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence,” King said. A working society was a free society, for without work, one becomes the ward of the state and loses their individual freedom to become and do.

He was critical of those whose entire focus was on themselves and their own self-interests. And he made no distinction between the personal and the private, the political and the individual. Said King, “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.” And as if to underscore this notion, “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” Clearly those who engage in identity politics for their personal aggrandizement are not looking at the greater good for society and America.

He always emphasized doing, and acting on principles. It wasn’t enough to echo the refrains of freedom; one had to work for them. And at times he seemed to echo the sentiments of Edmund Burke, the English philosopher who said, “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

King’s version was, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.” How can one claim ownership of great precepts, and not be willing to act on them?

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Clearly, to King, all lives matter.

The Rev. King was a highly principled man, driven by truths and fundamental values. He referred often to those values. “If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values – that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control.” Some of those values were the very foundational principles upon which the nation was founded, that he found lacking in their application to all American equally.

He was not a perfect man. None are. Yet he advanced a commitment to “moral foundations” and “spiritual control” which he saw as critical for society as a whole, and can only be accomplished by each of us dong our part.

I think he would concur with Gen. Douglas MacArthur, a great student of history, who declared, “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”

Although an icon of the civil rights movement, King was not single-dimensional. He called upon all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, religious convictions, or socio-economic status to do their part for the benefit of society and the country. It’s wholly fitting to have a holiday dedicated to his memory and teachings. And the nation would be better off if more effort were expended in adherence to his precepts.

 

Things Are Getting Scary: Global Police, Precrime And The War On Domestic ‘Extremists’

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police.

As such, you are now viewed as a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda.

Let that sink in a moment.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.

Police agencies now believe the “main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.”

A New York Times editorial backs up these findings:

Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

So what is the government doing about these so-called terrorists?

The government is going to war.

Again.

Only this time, it has declared war against so-called American “extremists.”

After decades spent waging costly, deadly and ineffective military campaigns overseas in pursuit of elusive ISIS and al Qaeda operatives and terror cells (including the recent “accidental” bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan that left 22 patients and medical staff dead), the Obama administration has announced a campaign to focus its terror-fighting forces inwards.

Under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program. Funded by the State Department through 2016, after which “charities are expected to take over funding,” the cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.

Working with the UN, the federal government will train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime. The problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc.

In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

Consider how Attorney General Loretta Lynch describes the initiative:

As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities, and customs.  By creating a series of partnerships that draws on the knowledge and expertise of our local officials, we can create a more effective response to this virulent threat.

Translation: U.S. police agencies are embarking on an effort to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats. (If you want a foretaste of how “extreme” things could get in the U.S., new anti-terrorism measures in the U.K. require that extremists be treated like pedophiles and banned from working with youngsters and vulnerable people.)

The government’s war on extremists, of which the Strong Cities program is a part, is being sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combating terrorists who seek to destroy America.

For instance, making the case for the government’s war on domestic extremism, the Obama administration has suggested that it may require greater legal powers to combat violent attacks by lone wolves (such as “people motivated by racial and religious hatred and anti-government views” who “communicate their hatred over the Internet and through social media”).

Enter the government’s newest employee: a domestic terrorism czar.

However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.

Similarly, the concern with the government’s anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers, and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale, and it’s been a long time coming.

For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.

Incredibly, both reports use the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘extremist’ interchangeably.

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.

Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home and lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.

Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, and facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremists.”

We’re living in a scary world.

Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion and globalization of the government’s powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.

Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the landscape has already shifted dramatically from what it was like 10 or 20 years ago. It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the police state structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.

Rest assured that the government will not save us from the chains of the police state. The UN’s Strong Cities Network program will not save us. The next occupant of the White House will not save us. For that matter, anarchy and violent revolution will not save us.

If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.

Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, and employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

And then, while you’re at it, urge your local governments to nullify everything the federal government does that is illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

If this sounds anti-government or extremist, perhaps it is, in much the same way that King himself was considered anti-government and extremist. Recognizing that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King’s tactics—while nonviolent—were extreme by the standards of his day.

As King noted in his 1963 “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”:

[A]s I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love—“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist—“This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?

So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty, but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?

Take a cue from King.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.