Julian Huxley, Second Amendment & UN Suzerainty

Suzerain- Main Entry: su·zer·ain
Pronunciation: ˈsü-zə-rən, -ˌrân; ˈsüz-rən

Function: noun

1 : a superior feudal lord to whom fealty is due: overlord;

2 : a dominant state controlling the foreign relations of a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs.

Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, recently authored an article published in Imprimis called “The Constitution and American Sovereignty”. In the article, Rabkin explains how the concept of national sovereignty, as we understand it today, developed during the Seventeenth century along with nationalism.

Abraham Lincoln defined sovereignty as “a political community without a political superior”. Thus, sovereignty isn’t so much about power as it is about authority and legitimacy. Rabkin notes that:

“… in medieval Europe… the defining character of that period was overlapping authority and a lot of confusion about which authority had primary claims. No one had to think about defining national boundaries. This became an issue only in the modern era, when interaction between different peoples increased.”

In the course of arguing that the King of France did not owe allegiance to the Holy Roman Empire, Jean Bodin, a French jurist of the late 16th century, also advocated religious toleration, protection for personal property, rule of law and representative government. According to Rabkin, Bodin was in favor of free trade and his natural law theories recognized God as the source of legal authority.

Not coincidentally, the law of nations (i.e., international law) also began to develop at this time as a result of expanded commercial activities, maritime pursuits and the pursuit of war by European monarchs and princes.

Rabkin discusses how the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”. Treaties are binding on the states; nevertheless, to be valid, a treaty must be consistent with the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution preempts and supersedes treaties. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government” because it is the Constitution that authorizes the government to make treaties in the first place. The historical consensus, now under attack, has been that a treaty violating the Constitution violates the authority which provides legitimacy for the treaty in the first place:

Today there is no longer a consensus regarding the principle that legislative and legal authority cannot be delegated to international tribunals or commissions and this has become a contentious issue. There is strong legal precedent, however, prohibiting Congress from delegating its power to legislate to an international body.

Delegation of judicial power is also a point of contention. Can the rights of American citizens in the U.S. be determined by foreign courts? Such delegation of the judicial power violates Article 3 of the Constitution. Judicial power “shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

In the case of Medellin v. Texas, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court considered an International Court of Justice ruling. A Mexican national that violently raped and murdered two girls in Texas had the right to receive counsel from the Mexican consulate under the 1963 Vienna Convention. Despite a ruling that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that treaty provisions were diplomatic in nature and did not bind the sovereign State of Texas.

Rabkin points to the European Union and its European Court of Justice, originally established to interpret disputes about treaty provisions between sovereign European nations, in order to illustrate how rapidly loyalties can shift to supra-national bodies. Wasn’t the dissension about the war in Iraq largely a national schism over whether the Bush Administration or the United Nations was to decide international policy relating to Iraq? In the 1970s, the Court of Justice held that conflicts between treaty provisions and national constitutions would be resolved in favor of the treaty provisions and EU members accepted the idea that a treaty takes precedence over national constitutions.

A proposed UN Climate Change Treaty waiting in Copenhagen for the President to sign in December may soon test whether the Court will hold to its previous ruling in favor of non-delegation of legislative power.

This week the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and others filed suit against the City of Seattle for violating the Washington state firearms preemption law. Dave Workman describes how this local gun battle is a part of a larger war looming, as the campaign to subject the American people to a UN gun treaty gets under way:

“As former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr writes today on his blog, there is an international battle over gun rights unfolding in the United Nations, and one in Seattle that has been well-covered….

International gun prohibitionists have been pushing the United States to sign an arms trade agreement for several years. With Barack Obama in the White House and Hilary Clinton at State, this could happen. Barr’s column is a “must read” for anyone interested in that controversy. He calls it the “Perfect Storm” for the UN gun control agenda.”

Rabkin asks whether being an American will mean just being part of some abstract humanity. Should we put our faith in words? “What about the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe?” Many states, anticipating the UN push to ban our guns, are already enacting firearms sovereignty provisions in order to erect a fence between a new federal-internationalist tyranny and the people’s right to keep and bear firepower. Meanwhile, Mayor Nickels defies state law and acts like a soon to be deposed satrap in his own feudal principality of Seattle.

In February, 2007, before most of us thought candidate Obama would be the next President, J.R. Dunn suggested in an American Thinker article that a global religious creed may be the only chance for world governance to overcome U.S. resistance to any variety of global suzerainty. The key to promoting such schemes (floating around since before the founding of the ill-fated League of Nations) is a messianic figure that can usher such a secular religious crusade into institutional existence:

In the Fifties and Sixties, Huxley and the CIA were experimenting with LSD, while Aldous’ uncle, Julian Huxley, was busy promulgating a social agenda that sounded vaguely like the utopian, mushroom-eating societies favored by his nephew, Aldous. Julian’s counter-intelligence, propaganda apparatus was headquartered at UNESCO, where he was head of the UN religious mission. In “Religion Without Revelation”, Julian Huxley identified the sense of the numinous (feelings of awe and religiosity) and announced that a universal world religion was needed in order to incorporate such profound feelings….

He advocated enlistment of the media outlets as the best method for converting masses of humanity in every nation to the new secular religion. Thus, by making spiritual feelings (i.e., numinosity) available to everyone without the need to look to higher authority (i.e., Biblical revelation) the world can dispense with feelings of guilt or other negative reactions resulting from moral degradation, loss of human life and diminished expectations of human dignity that have been washing to shore since Huxley began his mission in the 1940s. Now we see all this along with an evangelical-style face in a neo-Progressive wave being financed by George Soros, a billionaire intelligence operative who works at levels that are apparently deeper than most folks realize.

According to one description of Rudolf Otto’s thinking (the German scholar who popularized the concept of numinosity):

Otto describes the numinous as an awe-filled encounter with ultimate reality (UR). UR is designated by Otto as a mysterium tremendum and a majestus as it is experienced as a powerful sentient force, worthy of utmost respect. It inspires not only awe, but also fear. While the subject is urgently attracted to this ineffable source of creation, it may in some instances frighten, humble and ‘purify.’ Otto also notes subjects may perceive some sense of creaturely wretchedness and unworthiness, standing naked, as it were, in the face of a great and powerful, “wholly other”(16) UR-Creator-God.

See C. G. Jung and Numinosity

This definition of numinosity is fairly close to the way in which C. G. Jung defined it and the context in which Julian Huxley used the term in “Religion Without Revelation”. Huxley, the founder of UNESCO, envisioned a future synthesis of Communism with Capitalism.

Finally, notwithstanding our digressions into the semantics of numinosity we are back to Rabkin’s most startling thesis:

Where does this trend away from the sovereignty of national constitutions lead? I do not think the danger is a world tyranny. I think that idea is fantastical. Rather what it will lead to, I think, is an undermining of the idea that national governments can protect people, with the result that people will start looking for defense elsewhere. We saw this in an extreme way in Iraq when it collapsed into chaos before the surge, and people looked for protection to various ethnic or sectarian militias. A similar phenomenon can be seen today in Europe with the formation of various separatist movements. We’re even hearing loud claims for Scottish independence. And it’s not surprising, because to the extent that Britain has surrendered its sovereignty, Britain doesn’t count for as much as it used to. So why not have your own Scotland? Why not have your own Wales? Why not have your own Catalonia in Spain? And of course the greatest example of this devolution in Europe is the movement toward Muslim separatism. While this is certainly driven to a large extent by trends in Islam, it also reflects the fact that it doesn’t mean as much to be British or to be French any more. These governments are cheerfully giving away their authority to the EU. So why should immigrants or children of immigrants take them seriously?

If the world ever looks to supra-national insitutions for protection, I am convinced there will be a recognizable world religious movement with new religious symbolism representing the power and authority of the new “majestus”. Some Bible teachers have predicted a synthesis of Catholicism and Islam may occur. As events in the religious world shift before your eyes, ask yourself- in what will your grandchildren grow up believing and whom will they serve?

Declare His Mighty Works From One Generation To Another!

Ancient Israelites were commanded to carefully obey all the law their servant Moses charged them to keep! They were not to swerve to the right or to the left. Thus, they would be successful in everything they did. The laws revealed through Moses were to never leave their lips:

You must memorize it day and night so you can carefully obey all that is written in it. Then you will prosper and be successful. I repeat, be strong and brave! Don’t be afraid and don’t panic, for I, the Lord your God, am with you in all you do.”

Joshua 1:2-9 (NIV)

God gave a clear order for Joshua to take action to possess the land promised to the Israelites many years before. Action was required to receive the promise. The instruction then was to possess and defend what God had given.

Every step that Joshua took in obedience to the command opened up new windows of opportunity to perform what seemed to be an impossible undertaking. Joshua’s spies received assistance from Rahab, a harlot. Now, of course, harlot is a not too polite way of saying she was a whore. According to Joshua 2: 8 and 9, the spies lay down for the night and Rahab went up on the roof and said to them, “I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you.” Joshua 2:8-9 (NIV).

The Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that people that are oppressed, despised and exploited are on the heart of the Father when they are fighting for the Kingdom and not for the other side.

Rahab stated that the people’s hearts melted when they heard about the power of God after he parted the Red Sea and destroyed the Amorites. The reports of Israel’s exploits while they wandered in the wilderness created a general fear of YAHWEH, the God of Israel, in all the nations that surrounded the Israelite tribes. All that remained was for Joshua to take his people across the Jordan River and claim what God had already given them.

In a leader like Joshua there is a temptation to seek conquest. Consider, for example, men like Alexander and Napoleon. Self-aggrandizing militarism and conquest for the sake of ego gratification is not what Americans desire. Just look at the current polls regarding whether to launch a limited strikes in order to degrade Syria’s capacity to wage war against the rebels, many of whom are aligned with the same Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists our government is trying to detect.

The NSA sifts through our emails and spends billions to break into encrypted messages while the CIA prepares to arm and train the very same operatives the other side of our U.S. intelligence community is seeking to detect!

Even Americans that have no familiarity with the Bible have received a cultural understanding that abhors militarism. In fact, the idol worshipping nations and tribes that surrounded the ancient Hebrews worshipped conquest, sexual lust and militarism. It sounds like both of our major political parties and most of the public officials that live within eighteen or nineteen contiguous zip codes around the Washington, DC area.

Joshua had to remain connected to his Creator and continue receiving instruction every step of the way in order to prevail against the armies of the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites that stood between where Joshua’s army waited and the peace and security that had already been promised.

To be a successful warrior, God reminded Joshua, “…be strong and brave! Don’t be afraid and don’t panic, for I, the Lord your God, am with you in all you do.”

Thus, Yahweh instructed the ancient Israelites to remain grounded in the Books of the Law. A close relationship with God is necessary for a nation or an individual to succeed. He Trains My Hands For Battle Page 7.

Trusting in the promise of God’s protection was therefore linked to strong action. A similar mindset is necessary in modern times. God has given us a mandate to protect the heritage with which we are blessed and the means for doing so with bold action.

The reason Israel spent forty years in the wilderness is because of the reports of men that Moses had sent with Joshua to survey the promised land. The men came back and gave all the reasons that seeking God’s promises was futile. We see the same thing today in the “mainstream” media and academic elite. They deride the idea that sound principles for conducting public policy can be found in the Bible.

If a student in most university classes advances the idea that Scriptural principles may be a the basis for sound public policy, the professor will treat him or her like an unruly child that has interrupted a serious adult conversation in order to recommend that following the gingerbread crumb trail is the best way to find our way out of the forest.

David was already trained in warfare when he slew Goliath. 1 Samuel 16 demonstrates that he was skilled in warfare and prudent:

One of the servants answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the harp. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the LORD is with him.”

1 Samuel 16:15-18

There are others whom God called to lead in times of need – none of whom thought they were any more qualified than the average citizen of today for the task, young men like Jephthah:

Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor, and he was the son of a harlot: and Gilead begot Jephthah. And Gilead’s wife bore him sons; and his wife’s sons grew up, and they thrust out Jephthah, and said unto him, Thou shalt not inherit in our father’s house; for thou art the son of a strange woman. Then Jephthah fled from his brethren, and dwelt in the land of Tob: and there were gathered vain men to Jephthah, and went out with him.

In other words, Jephtah was rejected because his mother was a whore and he joined up with some kind of gang. But the Ammonites made war against Israel. And when the Ammonites made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead turned to Jephthah who was in Tob.

The elders pleaded with Jephthah to be lead them, apparently because he was experienced in fighting. They wanted him to fight the Ammonites. And Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Didn’t you hate me, and run me out of my father’s house? and why are y’all coming to me now when ye are in distress?”

The leaders of the community turned to Jephtah and asked him to go with them to lead the fight against the Ammonites, and be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead. And Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If ye bring me home again to fight against the children of Ammon, and the LORD deliver them before me, shall I be your head?”

And the elders of Gilead agreed to Jephtah’s proposal. Then Jephthah went with the volunteers from among the people to fight their enemies. Something just like that seems to be happening in Detroit, Michigan where it takes almost an hour for law enforcement to arrive if you call 911. The people have been taking possession of their own communities and keeping watch on things, even cleaning up the garbage and demolishing abandoned houses.

We might be tempted to call them thugs today. Most of these young men probably had suffered rejection that was similar to Jephthah’s experience. What makes Jephthah worthy of special mention in Hebrews 11- a list of men and women that demonstrate mighty faith?.

But despite the fact that he seemed to be motivated by selfish ambition, Jephthah knew the heritage of Israel. He sent messengers to the opposing King of Ammon (the people that inhabited the territory comprising modern day Jordan). The message set forth a legal brief and Scriptural basis for Israel’s historical freedom.

Jephthah’s messengers asked the king of Ammon, “Why are you coming against us to fight in Israel? And the king of Ammon answered the messengers of Jephthah, “Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even to Jabbok, and to Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.

And Jephthah sent messengers to the king of o Ammon again and said to him, “Jephthah told us to convey the message to you that Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of Ammon: But when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness to the Red sea, and came to Kadesh.

Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, Let me please pass through your land: but the king of Edom would not listen. And in like manner they sent to the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel stayed in Kadesh. Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not into the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab. Jephthah’s messengers knew their history and this is how Jephtah demonstrated great faith. He had good lawyers that represented matters in a way that was based on Constitutional rights!

The messengers went on to explain not so diplomatically that, back in Moses time (the times of the Founding Fathers, so to speak) , Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, please, through your land into the Canaan.

Sihon had then fought against Israel. And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and Israel smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites from Arnon even to Jabbok, and from the wilderness even to Jordan. The LORD God of Israel had taken away the land of the Amorites and given the land to Israel.

The messengers boldly asked the king of a the people that lived in and around modern day Jordan, “And should you possess it? Won’t you possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So who ever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.”

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin talked like that to a terrorist warlord in Somalia and the politicians marked him as not sufficiently diverse in his outlook, albeit one of the most respected leaders of the war on terrorism. From 1978-1993 he was assigned in various capacities to Delta Force. A Fort Bragg psychologist almost ended Boykin’s career, wanting to exclude him from Delta Force because he was “too religious”. However, he was finally accepted into the Delta Force. When the Bush Administration terminated him Lt. General Boykin was the preeminent leader of the warriors hunting, killing and bringing terrorists to justice.

The Bush administration terminated Lt. Ben. Boykin’s military career for wearing his uniform to church and saying things that were not nice about followers of the religion of peace. Gen. Boykin is still fighting the war against terrorism (but is no longer wearing the uniform) and has demonstrated how true believers will always be set outside the camp. The camp of our Lord;s enemies does not want to listen to truth.

Look at how the Obama Administration has waged a war against American gun owners even while giving firearms to the narco-terrorist cartels in Mexico. It is clear that the Obama Administration has been arming the Muslim Brotherhood, including the factions that tortured, raped and murdered the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi. And now the Adminstration is arming Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria.

And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them, while Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?

Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the LORD the Judge be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.

Judges 11:22-27

Jephthah is an example of young men that are motivated by a sense of adventure and understand their duty to uphold the heritage of their people. We need an understanding of Biblical history and our American Constitutional heritage in order to be prepared for the times in which we live! Jephthah was a warrior that declared the mighty works of Yahweh from one generation to another.

Thanksgiving & Roots of the U.S. Constitutional Order

http://images.google.com/…ages%3Fq%3Dpilg

Where are your loyalties- to the UN? To the religion of humanism? Or are you looking toward traditional values of individual freedom, U.S. sovereignty and inalienable rights that are founded on Biblical principles? The Scripture speaks of covenant responsibilities that God requires of people that would be free (like the duty to defend life, liberty and property as set forth in the U.S. Constitution)- not “rights” bestowed by the State!

Do you know that the concept of a written Constitution itself was a development that grew out of the practices of the early American religious colonies? The Pilgrim fathers (and mothers) consciously entered into covenants (compacts, mutual promises or contracts) that imitated the Old and New Covenants (i.e., Old and New Testaments). The Old Testament abounds in examples of covenants between God and man and between people within the ancient social framework of Israel. The fact remains that a people that are covenant keepers will be strong and prosperous.

The Pilgrims were dissenting religious believers that were originally from England. These Separatists first attempted to create a community of believers in Nottinghamshire village of Scrooby around 1606.

The west side of St. Wilfrid’s Church in Scrooby showing the spire at the north end. This is the parish church where William Brewster attended services until he separated from the Church of England. Photo by Alice C. Teal.

Their objective was to practice their faith without being contaminated by the elitist and worldly culture that surrounded them in England. In order to avoid the reality of being imprisoned for worshipping in their homes, the Scrooby Separatists fled to Amsterdam.

The Netherlands was a Calvinistic stronghold that had struggled for years against Spanish invasions launched on behalf of the Catholic Church. Amsterdam was very tolerant toward various religious groups. In fact, Amsterdam had already become very commercialized and prostitution, alcoholism and other vices were on display as much as the religious freedom that the Pilgrims sought. The Ancient Brethren, another group of English Separatists that had immigrated to Amsterdam earlier, lost many of their children to the worldly atmosphere of Amsterdam.

The realization that Amsterdam could easily corrupt their own community, the Pilgrims moved to Leiden:

After a brief stay in Amsterdam, where they were dismayed by the discord within other immigrant English congregations, the Pilgrims were granted permission to settle in the cloth manufacturing city of Leiden. They lived there under the religious leadership of Pastor John Robinson for twelve years gathered openly as a church. However, life in a foreign country was not without problems. The only occupations open to most immigrants were poorly paid, and they found themselves growing old in poverty. The twelve-year truce between Holland and Spain was to end in 1621, threatening a resumption of hostilities. Also troublesome to the Separatists were the hardships endured by their young people, who were forced by circumstance to work at exceptionally hard jobs. Others were assimilated into the Dutch culture, leaving their parents and their community profoundly disturbed.

The impovershed community began looking to Virginia (the whole Eastern seaboard of the North American continent) as a place of refuge where they could carve out a Scriptural way of life free of the commercial culture and vice with which they struggled in Holland and England. They approached the Virginia Company that had funded Jamestown.

They informed prospective investors that they hwere industrious, frugal and “knit otogether in a sacred bond’ by their hardships in Amsterdam. Apparently the investors agreed that the Pilgrim experience inured to thir “mutual good” and funds were provided for the tiny band to set sail for what became the Plymouth Colony:

A group of English investors known as the “merchant adventurers” financed the voyage and settlement. They formed a joint-stock company with the colonists in which the merchants agreed to “adventure” (risk) their money, and the settlers to invest their personal labor, for a period of seven years. During that time, all land and livestock were to be owned in partnership; afterwards the company would be dissolved and the assets divided.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the first major case involving the important issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The landmark case originated in Washington, DC where, like Chicago and other cities, law abiding citizens were not allowed to defend themselves against lawless criminals! Since Heller v DC was decided, cities all over the land are changing their laws ro conform to the Second Amendment.

The Washington, DC case has provided the legal basis for a series of cases to percolate through the courts. The United Nations and domestic gun ban advocates will be seeking a worldwide treaty banning small arms (firearms are already prohibited to private citizens in all but a few nations). Will the U.S. join the consensus of dictators all over the world by bending our Constitution to “international norms”?

The roots of our American Constitutional order are buried in ancient Israel’s covenant with Yahweh! We need to be careful today what kind of laws, covenants and treaties we make as a people.

A people that recognize their heritage in God and that are grateful for blessings every day (not just on Thanksgiving) will prosper and remain free.

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Proverbs 22:28 (King James Version)