Liberty, Socialism and the Dangers of Democracy

Jonas Clark's Revolutionary Review ^ | July 4, 2011 | Jonas Clark

[truthnomatterwhat]

There are forces in this world that want a one world government, a one world economic system, and a one world religion. The Church must provide answers to socialism and the biblical limitations of the State. Left unchecked socialism leads to a breakdown in society and national serfdom. The answer to socialism is grasping your personal liberty provided by the King of kings and the Lord of lords. When a nation of peoples’ resolve to put first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness they are at once freed from the wickedness of serfdom.

Again, these forces want a one world government, a one world economic system, and a one world religion. All of these will lead to social chaos, tyranny, and decivilization. The path toward decivilization has already been executed by exchanging our republican form of government into a democratic form of government.

I’m not speaking of political parties but of political structure. America, for example, was a national republic with defined limitations of government found within the U.S. Constitution. In 1861, however, that changed when Abraham Lincoln forbade State succession through bloodshed, the liberty found within a republican structure of government was seriously damaged and progressively diminished. Up until then, States were able to buffet the threat of an all powerful Federal government, being able to maintain the threat of unlimited succession found in the Tenth Amendment and voluntary membership within the republic.

[all the best]

Thanks for posting. I went to Clark’s site and will explore it.

[screaminsunshine]

That must be why all the tv shows on the fourth were about the civil war.

[Durus]

"In 1861, however, that changed when Abraham Lincoln forbade State succession through bloodshed, the liberty found within a republican structure of government was seriously damaged and progressively diminished.

I'm not sure if this is reflective of the ignorance of the author or an attempt to deceive.

[truthnomatterwhat]

Do you think that statement is incorrect? If so, what other historical facts do you have?

[Twotone]

I did happen across a series on the Revolutionary War over the weekend. Every time they described one of the founding fathers they used words like haughty & arrogant. They tried very hard to make them all sound like a**holes.

Very irritating!

[Durus]

Certainly it's incorrect, in fact I called it either ignorant or decpetive.

One does not need to be an expert in history to see that the constitution was in crisis before the civil war, and certainly one does not need to be a scholar of history to know that the civil war was not fought over constitutional principles no matter what some modern secessionists go on about.