Does a Christian owe allegiance to a gang of robbers who call themselves the government? By Jack Kettler
The aim of this essay is how an individual can opt-out of a social contract. First, this can be done by repudiating one’s citizenship. Second, if the administrators of the contract, i.e., the federal governing authorities, break the contract. The essay will not directly address the question regarding submission to the state, city, and county authorities. The essay will touch on the ineffectiveness of voting when the system becomes corrupted. Also addressed will be the right of the people to lawfully resist a corrupt government.
Re: The Nov. 3rd election and prima facie evidence of voting fraud by election officials in six battleground states:
Approximately 75 million or more voters have become disenfranchised as a result of not one court in the land agreeing to an evidentiary hearing in which evidence can be presented by the Trump legal team to prove the case of massive election official’s voter fraud. This leaves the aggrieved party, the voters, without recourse. Hence, the following proposition.
A Logical Proposition:
· Our government contract is built upon the consent of the governed.
· The election process is how the continuation of this process of reaffirming the contract continues.
· If the governing bodies cannot ensure a fair election, the consent of the governed is null and void.
· If the elected politicians no longer keep their oath of office, the contract is likewise nullified.
“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.” 10th Amendment
Joe Biden said his team has created:
“the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
With this election stolen, how can any future election be trusted? With criminals running the government, is it even possible to root out and fix election processes?
The American system of government is different from a Monarchy, Parliamentary, or some other type of government that has an ongoing transition of power. It is a constitutional social contract. The Bible does not directly reference this form of government.
The Social Contract in history:
“One of the most powerful ideas in the modern world is the social contract doctrine. According to this theory, at one time, in the early history of mankind, society did not exist. All men lived in a state of anarchism. Every man was his own law and state, and men lived in a world without any ties between men other than of their own choosing. This state of nature proved to be limiting, inconvenient, and dangerous, and so men came together to subscribe to a social contract whereby all would be governed. Every man would surrender some freedom in return for mutual protection and a great security under a coercive contract which would give civil freedom to replace anarchic freedom.
All modern political systems are now in crisis. Humanism has triumphed the world over. In some areas, ancient forms of paganism have eroded, with resulting political instability. In the West, the age of revolution is being followed by an era of dissolution.” (1)
Objections to the Social contract theory:
1. It is based on a historical fiction.
2. The social contract is not worth the paper it’s not written on.
3. How can a group of idiots voting for a moron or law bind another person who did not vote for it?
4. How can people hundreds of years ago bind people today into a contract they did not approve?
The American system is contractual:
A contract can be broken or reaffirmed by the parties to the contract. If the contract is reaffirmed, biblically speaking, the citizen is to show allegiance. If the contract is not renewed, the former governing authorities are not owed allegiance.
The political contract is similar to a Church membership covenant. Both are voluntary. There are provisions to opt-out of both.
What if an outlaw motorcycle gang overthrows the existing government and now calls itself the government? Just because a group of individuals call themselves the government does not make it so.
We do not owe allegiance to the gang of criminals who claim they are the government any more than one owes allegiance to a highwayman robber. It may be prudent to pay taxes just like one would pay a highwayman money so as to not get shot. In the recent theft of the Nov. 3rd election, the new alleged rulers are imposters, in essence, a gang of robbers.
The conclusion of this proposition is that individuals are free from the contract if voting is corrupted to the point of citizens can no longer trust the process. Voting reaffirms the contract.
Consider an insight into not voting when the system can no longer guarantee a fair election process:
“Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: ‘You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you.’” – Wendy McElroy
Common sense analysis of voting and politicians:
1. “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
2. A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.
3. A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.
4. Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
5. Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.
6. Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
7. Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
8. Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
9. If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.
10. For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
11. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
12. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken, Henry Louis Mencken was an American journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, and scholar of American English. He commented widely on the social scene, literature, music, prominent politicians, and contemporary movements. Wikipedia
What can be said about the usurpers to the Constitution?
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” – Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Lysander Spooner was an American individualist anarchist. He was also an abolitionist, entrepreneur, essayist, legal theorist, pamphletist, political philosopher, Unitarian, writer and a member of the First International. Wikipedia
This quote by Spooner does not necessarily speak to the Constitution per se. It can speak of the administrators of the contract who have failed to ensure those who are governed by their guarantee.
The most well-known expression of a people’s right to “dissolve the political bands” written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation….” – Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, and Founding Father who served as the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809. He had previously served as the second vice president of the United States between 1797 and 1801. Wikipedia
As stated by the Constitutional Law Foundation in more detail. Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution, The Stewardship Doctrine:
“Perhaps the most fundamental of the several inalienable rights recognized by the founders was the right of re-constitution. That right was understood to rest at the foundation of consensual government; its recognition was deemed essential to the security of all other rights. The Declaration of Independence contains the most famous formulation of the right:
“[T]o secure [inalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . [W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . ..” f175
Operating for the most part out of a contractarian tradition of political philosophy, the founders believed that the legitimacy of a government derived from the consent of its citizens. f176 If and when such consent should no longer be forthcoming, a legitimate political system must allow for its own expiration.
The founders often characterized this right to “alter or abolish” government in generational terms; a legitimate government must earn the consent of every generation subject to its jurisdiction. Some governmental forms were thought to be irredeemably incompatible with the principle of intergenerational consent – hereditary monarchies for example. In Common Sense, Tom Paine argued that “hereditary succession as a matter of right is an insult and an imposition on posterity.” f177
Democratic republics, while somewhat more protective of posterity’s sovereignty, could also pose threats. The drafters of the early state constitutions, recognizing the possibility that the political systems they created might one day be perverted, repeatedly and emphatically reminded their descendants of their right to begin anew:
“whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” f178
The idea was sometimes formulated, per Sidney, in terms of the need for a “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”f179 Some states also took notice of a form of re-constitution explicitly endorsed by Locke: f180 the right to repatriate and “form a new state in vacant countries.” f181
References to the right of re-constitution cropped up repeatedly during the ratification debates. In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton affirmed the right of re-constitution as originally articulated in the Declaration. f182 While antifederalist agitators complained that the lack of a bill of rights left no institutional safeguard for future generations’ unalienable rights, federalists such as Noah Webster warned that a Bill of Rights would itself violate posterity’s sovereign right of re-constitution.” (2) f183
The excerpts from the following book are relevant when the governing power breaks the contract with the people. This book was popular during the time of the War for Independence. The insights of this book are valid today; just insert federal officials in place of King. Much of what is said in the book provide grounds to sever a relationship with governing authorities that have gone bad. The case is made in this work why Christians can lawfully resist and fight against political tyrants.
Commenting on Vindiciae contra Tyrannos:
“Despite its brevity, the Vindiciae’s sharp defense of the right of subjects to resist unjust or ungodly rulers even to the point of armed rebellion helped shape the political theories of John Locke in England and the American Founding Fathers.
Its arguments on the rights and responsibilities of rulers and subjects continue to be relevant today as we consider the limits of the power of the government and the rights of citizens to oppose governmental overreach.” – Dr. Glenn Sunshine, (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, Madison), the founder and president of Every Square Inch Ministries, is professor of history at the Central Connecticut State University, a Research Fellow of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview.
Vindiciae contra Tyrannos: A Defence of Liberty against Tyrants Or of the lawful power of the prince over the people and of the people over the prince.
Being a treatise written in Latin and French by Junius Brutus, and translated out of both into English. 1648 “…But here presents itself another question the which deserves to be considered, and amply debated in regard of the circumstance of time. Let us put the case that a king seeking to abolish the law of God or ruin the church, that all the people or the greatest part yield their consents, that all the princes or the greatest number of them make no reckoning; and notwithstanding, a small handful of people, to wit some of the princes and magistrates, desire to preserve the law of God entirely and inviolably and to serve the Lord purely: what may it be lawful for them to do? if the king seek to compel those men to be idolaters, or will take from them the exercise of true religion? We speak not here of private and particular persons considered one by one, and which in that manner are not held as parts of the entire body; as the planks, the nails, the pegs are no part of the ship, neither the stones, the rafters, nor the rubbish are any part of the house: but we speak of some town or province which makes a portion of the kingdom, as the prow, the poop, the keel and other parts make a ship; the foundation, the roof and the walls make a house. We speak also of the magistrate which governs such a city or province. …
… In these days there is no rhetoric more common in the courts of rules, than of those who say all is the king’s. Whereby it follows, that in exacting anything from his subjects, he takes but his own, and in that which he leaves them, he expresseth the care he hath that they should not be altogether destitute of means to maintain themselves. This opinion has gained so much power in the minds of some rulers, that they are not ashamed to say that the pains, sweat and industry of their subjects is the proper revenue, as if their miserable subjects only kept beasts to till the earth for their insolent master’s profit and luxury. And indeed, the practice at this day is just in this manner, although in all right and equity it ought to be contrary. Now we must always remember that kings were created for the good and profit of the people, and that those (as Aristotle says) who endeavor and seek the welfare of the people are trusty kings; whereas those that make their own private ends and pleasures the only butt and aim of their desires, are truly tyrants.
It being then so that every one loves that which is his own, yea that many covet that which belongs to other men, is it anything probable that men should seek a master to give him frankly all that they had long labored for, and gained with the sweat of their brows? May we not rather imagine that they chose such a man on whose integrity they relied for the administering of justice equally both to the poor and rich, and which would not assume all to himself, but rather maintain every one in the fruition of his own goods? Or who, like an unprofitable drone, should suck the fruit of other men’s labors, but rather preserve the house for those whose industry justly deserved it? Briefly, who, instead of extorting from the true owners their goods, would see them defended from all ravening oppressors? What I pray you skills it, says the poor country man, whether the king or the enemy make havoc of my goods, since through the spoil thereof I and my poor family die for hunger? What imports it whether a stranger or home-bred caterpillar ruin my estate, and bring my poor fortune to extreme beggary; whether a foreign soldier, or a sycophant courtier, by force or fraud, make me alike miserable? Why shall he be accounted a barbarous enemy, if thou be a friendly patriot? Why he a tyrant if thou be a king? Yea, certainly by how much parricide is greater than manslaughter, by so much the wickedness of a king exceeds in mischief the violence of an enemy.
If then therefore, in the creation of kings, men gave not their own proper goods to them, but only recommended them to their protection; by what other right then, but that of freebooters, can they challenge the property of other men’s goods to themselves?…
First, the law of nature teacheth and commandeth us to maintain and defend our lives and liberties, without which life is scant worth the enjoying, against all injury and violence. Nature hath imprinted this by instinct in dogs against wolves, in bulls against lions, betwixt pigeons and sparrow-hawks, betwixt pullen and kites, and yet much more in man against man himself, if man become a beast: and therefore he who questions the lawfulness of defending oneself, doth as much as in him lies question the law of nature. To this must be added the law of nations, which distinguisheth possessions and dominions, fixes limits, and makes out confines, which every man is bound to defend against all invaders. And, therefore, it is no less lawful to resist Alexander the Great, if without any right or being justly provoked, he invades a country with a mighty navy, as well as Diomedes the pirate which scours the seas in a small vessel. For in this case Alexander’s right is no more than Diomedes his, but only he hath more power to do wrong, and not so easily to be compelled to reason as the other. Briefly, one may as well oppose Alexander in pillaging a country, as a thief in purloining a cloak; as well him when he seeks to batter down the walls of a city, as a robber that offers to break into a private house. There is, besides this, the civil law, or municipal laws of several countries which governs the societies of men by certain rules, some in one manner, some in another; some submit themselves to the government of one man, some to more; others are ruled by a whole communalty; some absolutely exclude women from the royal throne, others admit them; these here choose their king descended of such a family, those there make election of whom they please, besides other customs practiced amongst several nations. If therefore, any offer either by fraud or force to violate this law, we are all bound to resist him, because he wrongs that society to which we owe all that we have, and would ruin our country, to the preservation whereof all men by nature, by law and by solemn oath, are strictly obliged: insomuch that fear or negligence, or bad purposes, make us omit this duty, we may justly be accounted breakers of the laws, betrayers of our country, and contemners of religion. Now as the laws of nature, of nations, and the civil commands us to take arms against such tyrants; so, is there not any manner of reason that should persuade us to the contrary; neither is there any oath, covenant, or obligation, public or private, of power justly to restrain us; therefore the meanest private man may resist and lawfully oppose such an intruding tyrant. …
… This, of which we have spoken, is to be understood of a tyranny not yet firmly rooted, to wit, whilst a tyrant conspires, machinates, and lays his plots and practices. But if he be once so possessed of the state, and that the people, being subdued, promise and swear obedience; the commonwealth being oppressed, resign their authority into his hands; and that the kingdom in some formal manner consent to the changing of their laws; for so much certainty as then, he hath gained a title which before he wanted and seems to be as well a legal as actual possessor thereof, although this yoke were laid on the people’s neck by compulsion, yet must they quietly and peaceably rest in the will of the Almighty, who, at his pleasure transfers kingdoms from one nation to another. Otherways there should be no kingdom, whose jurisdiction might not be disputed. And it may well chance, that he who before was a tyrant without title, having obtained the title of a king, may free himself from any tyrannous imputation, by governing those under him with equity and moderation. … For after promise of performance, it is too late to repent. And, as in battles every one ought to give testimony of his velour, but, being once taken prisoner, must faithfully observe covenants, so it is requisite, that the people maintain their rights by all possible means; but, if it chance that they be brought into the subjection of another’s will, they must then patiently support the dominion of the victor. So did Pompey, Cato, and Cicero and others, perform the parts of good patriots then when they took arms against Caesar, seeking to alter the government of the state; neither can those be justly excused, whose base fear hindered the happy success of Pompey and his partakers’ noble designs. Augustus himself is said to have reproved one who railed on Cato, affirming that he carried himself worthily and exceedingly affected to the greatness of his country, in courageously opposing the alteration which his contraries sought to introduce in the government of the state, seeing all innovations of that nature are ever authors of much trouble and confusion.
Furthermore, no man can justly reprehend Brutus, Cassius, and the rest who killed Caesar before his tyrannical authority had taken any firm rooting. And so there were statues of brass erected in honour of them by public decree at Athens, and placed by those of Harmodius and Aristogiton, then when, after the dispatching of Caesar, they retired from Rome, to avoid Mark Anthony and Augustus their revenge. But Cinna was certainly guilty of sedition, who, after a legal transferring of the people’s power into the hands of Augustus, is said to have conspired against him. …
… if a prince outrageously over-pass the bounds of piety and justice, a neighbor prince may justly and religiously leave his own country, not to invade and usurp another’s, but to contain the other within the limits of justice and equity; and if he neglect or omit his duty herein, he shows himself a wicked and unworthy magistrate. If a prince tyrannize over the people, a neighbor prince ought to yield succour as freely and willingly to the people, as he would do to the prince his brother, if the people mutinied against him. Yea, he should so much the more readily succour the people, by how much there is more just cause of pity to see many afflicted, than one alone?”
The contract has been broken! There is no human contract that is binding. The current contract is null and void. “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was most certainly thinking and referencing Vindiciae contra Tyrannos.
How to trust in government can be restored:
“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.” – H.L. Mencken
Politicians must be added to this list. By far, this is the only proposed solution to fed gov corruption that could possibly work short of a national spiritual revival.
In the meantime, the doctrine of the local magistrate can provide relief. How does this work? For example, in Colorado, the Weld commissioners and the sheriff have said they will not enforce unconstitutional tyrannical laws imposed on the state by a wicked unrepentant, people of faith hating governor. The lower magistrates stand between the people and a higher wicked magistrate, thus giving the people relief. The lower magistrate doctrine is happening already on a county basis and even at the state level, for example, South Dakota.
Furthermore, see the pamphlet, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. John Knox was a Scottish minister, theologian, and writer who was a leader of the country’s Reformation. He was the founder of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Wikipedia
Does a Christian owe allegiance to a gang of robbers who call themselves the government? No, unless you want to legitimize criminals.
As an aside, Presbyterians were known as the “fighting Protestants” historically. Not so much today. Misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-7 have neutralized many people of faith.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
1. R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology in Two Volumes (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1994), p. 403.
2. The Constitutional Law Foundation, https://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-Intro.htm
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more research:
See this author’s:
Romans 13 and the Limits of submission to the Church or State
Does Romans 13:1, 3-5 contradict Isaiah 5:20?
@ The Religion That Started in a Hat Use the search bar to find these titles.