To Save America, We Must Abolish the United States




To HELL With "The Rule of Law!"

“Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Apr. 19, 1817.

People are being arrested in Florida for attempting to give water to a woman who is literally dying of thirst. Nobody denies that the woman is going to die in a matter of hours unless she gets water and food. Anyone, including her parents, siblings, friends and neighbors, who attempts to give her food and water and preserve her life is met with shouts of "STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!"

Congress passed a law to side-step a judge who ordered that the woman be starved to death, and President Bush signed the law. Liberals rose up against those who wanted to save the woman's life and in defense of an abstract legal principle. That principle is called "The Rule of Law." Thousands of news reports, commentators, and journalists are now talking about "the Rule of Law." The New York Times, in an editorial entitled, "A Blow to the Rule of Law" (March 22, 2005), claimed that "Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy" by giving that woman some water. The Founders, you see, were always on the side of adulterous husbands who seek to kill their wives. It's "The Rule of Law," you understand.

Christians must now stand up and say, "To hell with 'the Rule of Law' -- give that woman a drink of water!"


In a Christian nation, where laws are anchored in the moral absolutes of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "the Rule of Law" is a good thing.

If history teaches anything, it is that human well-being and progress—indeed, civilization itself—depend on the rule of law. For when the rules of human conduct are unjust, arbitrary, or ever changing, people simply cannot plan their affairs with any confidence that today's rules will apply tomorrow.
      Unfortunately, American law and legal institutions have become increasingly uncertain and unstable over the course of the 20th century as statutory law has come increasingly to replace common law and as common law itself has become increasingly politicized. That pattern has only increased under the Bush-Clinton regime, which has proposed countless programs that enjoy no support under the Constitution, has drawn more and more power into the executive branch, and has exercised that power often with minimal respect for due process or legal principles.

 For more on these subjects, click here for Cato Institute symposium.

"The Rule of Law" is the idea that we are "A government of laws, not of men." "The Rule of Law" is the rule of transcendent principle, rather than human whim.

In The Road to Serfdom, Professor of Economics and Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek says the Rule of Law

means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand --- rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."

But these rules are not "fixed" by man alone. They are fixed by God, and were announced before any government was even formed.

Fifty years ago, anyone with half a brain could have predicted how "the rule of law" would be applied in a situation where an adulterous husband tries to kill his wife by denying her food and water and forcibly resisting parents, siblings, and friends who attempt to give her water. But today, we have the following scenario.

A husband tries to kill his wife. He fails. He wavers in his intent, and takes his wife to get medical care. The husband finds a lawyer who sues the caregivers, and a judgment is awarded to him and his wife. With his wife worth more to him dead than alive, his intent is steadfast: he wants to kill his wife. He orders that his wife, still under medical care, not be given any further rehabilitative care or physical therapy despite hundreds of thousands of court-ordered dollars to do so. He wants her to die. He shacks up with another woman and fathers two kids. His wife dies slowly. Finally, represented by an attorney who is a member of "The Hemlock Society," a group that wants to assist in killing people,*  in a case that comes before a judge who is also a member of that same pro-death society, the husband is given the legal power to starve his wife to death. Following the court's order, dozens of people, including the wife's parents and siblings, are arrested for attempting to give the woman food and water.

* "Suicide" means killing one's self; it comes from the Latin sui, "self." "Assisted suicide" is thus a contradiction in terms; it is actually a conspiracy to murder, a murder in which the victim consents.

Fifty years ago, nobody could have predicted that the law would take the side of an adulterous husband who abandons his wife and seeks to kill her. Fifty years ago nobody could have predicted that the federal government would order states to legalize abortion. "The Rule of Law" operated in a Christian consensus, a nation where the timeless moral absolutes of the Ten Commandments were the foundation of our laws.

"The Rule of Law," the rule of legal principles rather than human whim, no longer exists. We are governed by humans who have rejected God's Law and enthroned their own instant gratification. We are no longer a nation "Under God," no longer a nation that respects "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." America's "Organic Law," the foundational principles of our government, has been repudiated in favor of autonomous caprice and judicial arbitrariness.

It is whim, not predictable law, that says Terri Schiavo cannot be given food or water by her parents. It is autonomous caprice, not enduring legal principle, that sides with an adulterous husband who will not allow his wife to live as full a life as she can, who denies her physical therapy which would have been paid for with a generous court judgment.

"The Rule of Law" now equals "The Banality of Evil"

There are some who may be quite sincere in their belief that Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state" (she is not), and quite sincere that such people are "not fully human" or "not really living" and should be killed, or "allowed to die." These people may be very sincere. But so was Adolph Eichmann.

Terri Schiavo's mother wants to give her daughter -- said by various medical "authorities" and "courts of law" to be "not fully human" -- a drink of water so her daughter won't die of thirst. She is threatened with arrest by an armed agent of "the government" who stands outside the door of Terri's hospice room. What kind of human being would threaten to imprison a mother for attempting to give her daughter water to save her life? A sincere defender of a slogan called "The Rule of Law." Now imagine Solomon Ginsberg's mother wants to give her son -- imprisoned in a government concentration camp for being a member of a race which is "not fully human" -- a drink of water to save her son from certain death. What kind of human being wears an "SS" on his shoulder and oversees the killing of millions? A sincere defender of a slogan called "The Rule of Law."

"The Rule of Law" no longer protects innocent people from those who wish to kill them. "The Rule of Law" only protects cowardly judges. In all of the judicial hearings regarding Terri Schiavo following Judge Greer's initial sentence of death, the question has never been "What should we do to protect the murder of an innocent person?" it was only a matter of protecting the rules of the game. The appeals courts said "We don't have the authority under the rules of the game to question Judge Greer's sentence of death and protect Terri's life." All subsequent judges said "The the rules of the game say I don't have to get involved, so I won't." The New York Times and other liberals insist that allowing Terri Schiavo to live is like pointing a finger at Judge Greer. Allowing Terri to live would be an insensitive breach of judicial decorum. Allowing Terri to live would be "A Blow to the Rule of Law." Terri must die so that "The Rule of Law" can live.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, JUSTICE, MERCY, and FAITH: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. {24} Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. {25} Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
(Matthew 23:23-25)

The Judges have carefully preserved the "gnat" of "The Rule of Law," while allowing a woman to be murdered. Judge Greer sentences Terri Schiavo to die a protracted death by starvation, but his campaign contributions will keep coming in. "Thou shalt not kill" has been replaced by "Thou shalt not offend 'The Rule of Law.'"

So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.
(Matthew 15:6)

The modern version of "The Rule of Law" is atheistic ("secular"). The modern version of "The Rule of Law" is no more valid, indeed, just as perverse and just as dangerous to an ordered society, as an atheistic version of "marriage" which allows a man to marry his daughter, his horse, or his male fishing buddy. The "Rule of Law" has legitimate meaning only in a Christian nation. In a nation where every man is his own god, the "Rule of Law" means "The Rule of Those-who-would be-god." It is a demonic doctrine that leads to hell. No true Christian leader will follow it.

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789
“Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”  
– John Adams

This is not the first time the rule-of-those-who-would-be-god has been seen; it is only the most recent and most widely-discussed in the mainstream media (even if in heavily distorted and misleading terms).

It's not just liberals; even conservatives are giving the wrong answer on this national quiz. David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh's brother, got it wrong when he sided in favor of autonomous law-makers and against God the Law-Giver. David Limbaugh's misunderstanding of "the Rule of Law" is an invitation to totalitarian horror.

Not a single person who signed the Constitution, helped ratify the Constitution, or even read the constitution prior to 1947 could have foreseen that the federal government could order the State of Alabama to remove the Ten Commandments from public display. But when the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the Court House, there was a howling of liberals about "The Rule of Law." 

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Implicit in this Amendment is that the federal judiciary shall make no similar law, though it never could have been predicted that the judiciary would be making laws as it does today.

The Ten Commandments --God's Law -- is the basis of American Law. Thus it could not have been anticipated that a state court or legislature would ever ban their public display, much less that a federal judge would do so. The federal government had no power in the area of religion, and no state government would ever use its power to undermine true religion.

Everything about the event is utterly unconstitutional:

  • A judge making a law
  • A federal judge making a law for the states
  • A federal judge making a law regarding religion
  • A federal judge making a law banning the Ten Commandments

is absolutely the most unprincipled decision any of the Founding Fathers could have imagined. Unforeseen. Preposterous. Proof that the Constitution is now a myth, as is "the rule of law."

In a sense even "the rule of law" was a myth. The idea that ours is a "government of laws, not of men" is a fallacy. The Founding Fathers agreed that bad men corrupt good laws. Good men will rule well in the absence of good laws. A man of integrity, virtue, and the Character of Christ with little political experience is to be preferred over a "seasoned politician" who despises God's Commandments. Read their words.

In any case, we are clearly now A Government of Unprincipled Men.

Those who stand on "The Rule of Law" and say that no public office-holder should step up and permit water to be given her -- if not personally show up at Terri Schiavo's facility and start giving her food and water -- are hypocrites, and are ignoring the foundation of "The Rule of Law": The Law of God.

(Matthew 25:31-46) When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: {32} And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth His sheep from the goats: {33} And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. {34} Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: {35} For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: {36} Naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me. {37} Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, and fed Thee? or thirsty, and gave Thee drink? {38} When saw we Thee a stranger, and took Thee in? or naked, and clothed Thee? {39} Or when saw we Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee? {40} And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me. {41} Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: {42} For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink: {43} I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in: naked, and ye clothed Me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited Me not. {44} Then shall they also answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee? {45} Then shall He answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me. {46} And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

All sides in this controversy agree: Terri Schiavo is among "the least" of all human beings not yet murdered.

But "the law" is now at war with Christian principles.

"The Rule of Law" is now a hellish doctrine
that will sentence millions to death
if not repudiated today.

WorldNetDaily: The whole Terri Schiavo story

This is Part Two of a series of reflections on the Schiavo case. Part 1 is here, part 3 is here.

Bush Brothers Connived at Schiavo's Murder

Terri Schiavo Murdered: Many Accomplices, Including Journalists Like Cal Thomas

Justice Tom Parker Condemns Schiavo Killing

The Governor and the President Have Murdered Terri Schiavo

Terri Schiavo Isn't The Only One Dying-So Is Lady Liberty!

Righteousness or Republicanism

A Concluding Note:

"Due Process" Under Legalized Euthanasia

Don't think for a minute that if euthanasia is legalized, you could never be put to death against your wishes.

The essential facts in Terri Schiavo's case are hotly disputed. Terri Schiavo's case has come before numerous courts. Only the first court case actually purported to review the facts, call medical witnesses, and examine the admissibility of Terri's adulterous husband, who has a monetary interest in Terri's death. All subsequent courts have seen fit to sentence Terri to death simply by claiming that there is no "legal" basis for reviewing the first court's decision.

Has Terri Schiavo received "due process?" The other night on FoxNews a criminal defense attorney (generally siding with Terri's murderers) said he wished his clients had gotten a fraction of the "due process" that Terri Schiavo has gotten. When Terri's murder is complete, it will be obvious to anyone with half a conscience that "The Rule of Law" is a myth, and that "Due Process" under Legalized Euthanasia is also a myth. There can now be no doubt that if Euthanasia becomes legal in America, there can be no guarantee that the innocent and unwilling will not be put to death. Terri's medical condition is hotly-contested by numerous medical authorities. Her own wishes are equally disputed. If she sat up in bed and shouted "I'm thirsty! Please give me some water!" would her request be seen as a threat to "the Rule of Law" and the decisions of all those courts? Has she no respect for "the law?"

No future victim of legalized euthanasia will ever receive as much court "review" as Terri Schiavo has received. 

The "Rule of Law" did not work for Terri Schiavo. The "Rule of Law" will not work for you.

The "system" does not work.

Nothing "works" in a nation that rejects God's Law.

You Are Being Targeted For Euthanasia

America, once a Christian republic,
has been taken captive by an atheistic empire.
If we are to save America, we must abolish the United States.

For more information, go to

Send Comments to

About the Author