Chapter 30 - The Right of Association
One of the cornerstones of freedom is the right to negotiate a contract with another individual or a group of individuals.
The free man or woman has the right to decide who they will enter into a contract with. It follows, therefore, that no one has the right to force another into a contract that the individual does not freely want to enter into.
Forcing one individual into a contract that that individual did not freely enter into is called slavery or involuntary servitude.
Allowing the government to choose an individual's associates and forcing them to join together is also wrong and is another form of involuntary servitude or slavery.
All men and women have the right to protect themselves from the coercive force of other individuals or groups. Men and women join together to form governments to protect their rights from the aggressive and coercive activities of others.
One of the functions of government is to protect people from contracts that were not freely entered into. These contracts are to be declared null and void, and are to have no legal force or effect.
One of the basic purposes of The New World Order is to restrict the right of the individual to be free from the coercive force of another.
These definitions of slavery and involuntary servitude are currently being challenged by those who wish to enslave mankind.
Examples of how slavery is becoming fashionable are appearing in every segment of society, and courts are making slavery the law of the land.
A legal contract is defined as one in which two or more parties agree to certain terms in order to reach mutually acceptable goals. If one party is forced into any contract against his or her will, the contract is declared to be null and void and therefore unenforceable.
As was discussed, one of the functions of the courts of the United States is to enforce valid contracts between two consenting individuals. Once an individual enters into a contract, the other party has the right to have the terms of the contract met, even if the first party decides later not to perform as required. But, todays courts are enforcing contracts where one party was forced into the terms of the contract. Or, in other cases, where one party did not agree to the terms. In those cases, the courts have chosen to force that party to abide by the terms of a contract that they were unwilling to make.
This is simply called slavery.
A good case in point was a Supreme Court ruling in 1987 where they forced the Rotary Clubs, a group of men voluntarily joined together for friendship and acts of charity, to accept women as members. The article that reported on this ruling said: "The Supreme Court, toppling another sex barrier, declared yesterday that state civil rights laws may force Rotary International and similar all-male private clubs within the state to admit women as members.
By a vote of 7-0, the justices concluded that a California anti-discrimination statute requiring women to be admitted to Rotary clubs within the state does not violate the right of members to choose their own associates." 593
A review of the comments of the Supreme Court reveal exactly how words have lost their meaning, and are to mean exactly what the Court says they mean.
First of all, the Court agreed that these clubs were "private."
That meant that the members were not publicly inviting others into their organization. They were exercising their right to associate with whomever they chose to associate with. These men, acting as free individuals, were choosing to associate in a voluntary manner with only those people they wished to associate with.
This is a right of free men.
The Court was forcing them into a contract with people that they freely chose not to associate with. After the court decision, one can only wonder what would have happened if the Rotary Clubs decided to disband because they wished to associate only with men. Would the Court have forced them to continue their meetings? And, then what would have happened if no one chose to attend? Would the court have jailed the missing members? How would they have known whether a person's failure to attend was the result of a legitimate illness or because he chose not to attend? Would the court have forced him to provide a doctor's excuse to explain his absence?
The Court said that this use of court ordered force did not violate the "right of members to choose their own associates."
The Court admitted that the men had this right, and then ruled that they didn't have this right. This is double-talk of the highest order.
Freedom does not mean that certain people are free to force other people into associations that the first have deemed advisable.
Simply stated:
Free men discriminate.
Slaves do not.
Free men have the right to "choose their own associates."
Slaves do not.
Therefore, when the Court ruled that the Rotary Clubs had not chosen correctly, and forced them to associate with individuals that they had freely chosen not to associate with, the men in the Clubs were no longer free to "choose their own associates."
The Court has decided that slavery was preferable to freedom.
In another flagrant violation of a free man's right of association, the U.S. Justice Department filed suit against a Christian conference center, claiming that it violated federal civil rights laws when it prohibited the Mormons from using the facilities to espouse their own teachings.
If one individual has the right to associate with whomever that individual chooses to associate with, a group of individuals also have that right.
In this case, the discrimination charges were levied by a Mormon group that was denied permission to rent the facilities to hold their own conference and teach Mormon religious beliefs. The director of the center stated that he had turned them down because the Mormon view of Christianity differed markedly from the beliefs of the owners of the center. Should a court determine that the Inn is a "public accommodation"
on the basis of offering meals and overnight lodging, the decision could signal increased governmental control over other religious conference facilities, or, for that matter, any "public" facility.
Should a hotel be allowed to refuse the rental of a room to a group advocating the violent overthrow of the government?
Should a hotel be allowed to not rent to a group advocating violent animal sacrifice if they determine that when the group asks for facilities for the purpose of conducting their religious rites?
Just where does the right of one group to practice their religion end, and where does the right of the hotel to rent to anyone they choose to begin?
In another case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals also ruled against the right of free association. In 1986, they upheld a $300-a-day fine levied against a chain of health clubs for failing to bring a halt to employment practices involving religious discrimination. The owners of the health clubs argued that they could not comply with the order to cease discrimination against non-Christians because they felt that they had the right to employ only those who agreed with their religious views. In other words, they believed that they had the right to employ only fellow Christians if they had freely chosen to do so. 594
The court ruled that they were wrong.
And even an organization as "all-American" as the Boy Scouts of America does not have the right to freely chose their associates. In 1983, the 2nd District Court of Appeals decided that the Boy Scouts did not have the right to refuse membership to those young people who were homosexual. 595
It is not a stretch of this "logic" to imagine that the courts will soon decide that a church does not have the right to reject the application for church membership of an admitted "atheist." This would be "religious discrimination."
But, to further confound the problem, it appears that this nation's courts do not have a clear and definite policy about discrimination.
In 1987, a state court of appeals ruled that boys could be barred from playing on girls' high school teams to prevent them from dominating the game and displacing the girls. 596 So, the result of these and similar decisions is to clearly say to the world:
you will discriminate when ordered to do so, but you may not freely choose to discriminate.
The courts have now made it mandatory that you can "freely associate" only with whomever they decide that you can "freely associate with."
And if you do not choose to "freely associate" with someone, they wish you to "freely associate" with, the courts will force you to "freely associate" with that person.
That is simply called court ordered slavery.
Obviously, "slavery" is no longer "slavery."
And "freedom" is no longer "freedom."
Furthermore, if the above cited examples were not enough, even certain Senators in the United States Senate have admitted that they no longer know what the two words mean.
In April of 1989, Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, introduced Senate Bill 781, a bill called the National Service Act of 1989. This bill calls for the Administration to "develop a comprehensive, mandatory national service program."
The Senator offered the curious public a brief explanation of his bill in a news release dated April 13, 1989. In it, he explained that: "This legislation will establish a program leading to a comprehensive, fair and mandatory system of community or military service to the nation." 597
The bill stipulates: "... that both men and women between 16 and 26 would be required to serve either in the community of in the military. They would serve 24 hours a month and two weeks during the year for two to four years." 598
The Senator's news release stated that this bill would be "fair." Somehow, forcing someone to serve the nation is now deemed to be "fair."
Slavery used to be defined as forcing one individual to serve another.
Slavery used to be called "madness."
Now it is being called "fair."
But that is what the Senator says in his news release.
The news release further explained why the Senator had chosen to introduce the bill: "This program will allow us to combine the responsibilities of citizenship with a concerted effort that addresses vital community and national defense needs that, otherwise, will be unmet in the years ahead."
So "mandatory service" to the government has now become a "responsibility of citizenship."
Man was created to be free!
Man was not created to be a slave of government!
In fact, government was created by men to be the servant of mankind!
Man was not to be the servant of government!
America used to be called "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
Now, one will be mandatorily obligated to serve the nation.
That is the new "requirement of citizenship."
Freedom is not mandatory service!
To show that there is bi-partisan support of this concept of "fairness," Arizona's other Senator, Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat, also publicly announced his support of the idea.
Senator McCain had a somewhat revealing experience before he ran for this office. He was a pilot in the so-called Vietnamese "war" and was taken captive by the North Vietnamese after his airplane was shot down. He spent several years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, prior to being released after the end of the "war."
The Senator was not "free" to leave the prisoner of war camp. He was a "slave" of the Vietnamese. He was there "involuntarily."
He had to do as he was told.
One can only presume that if anyone should understand the words "slavery," "involuntary" and "mandatory," it should be the Senator. But, for some reason, he does not. And, apparently, neither does Senator DeConcini.
It is ironic that both of these men had taken the same oath when they became Senators. That oath reads: "I do hereby swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."
These two Senators took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States when they became Senators. If either had taken the time to read the document in its entirety, they would have read the 13th Amendment which was passed after the Civil War of 1861-1865. There are some historians who claim that that war was fought to end slavery.
That amendment reads: "Neither slavery not involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States."
If Senator McCain's bill makes all of America's young people "slaves" of the government, or requires "involuntary servitude,"
and the only "slavery" or "involuntary servitude" that is legal is as a "punishment for a crime," it follows that citizenship in America must be termed a "crime," the punishment for which is "involuntary servitude."
So "slavery" becomes "freedom," and "freedom" becomes "slavery," in the convoluted thinking of these two Senators.
"Involuntary servitude" becomes "fair." "Mandatory service"
becomes a "responsibility of citizenship."
America's founding fathers had no such problem with understanding the difference between the two words "freedom"
and "slavery." They wrote this 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."
A "self-evident truth" is one that is not debatable. It is true simply because it is true. No one can say that a "selfevident truth" is false, because man's mind tells him that it is true. Man cannot debate whether these rights belong to mankind, because they are not debatable.
These rights were deemed to be "inalienable" by those who wrote the Declaration. That word is defined as: "that which may not be taken away or transferred."
The Declaration went on to say that "liberty" was one of those inalienable, self-evident rights.
The word "liberty" is defined in a dictionary as: "freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control."
Liberty is freedom. Freedom from government. Freedom from "mandatory service." Freedom from the slavery of Senators like McCain and DeConcini.
Man's inalienable right to "Liberty" is no longer a "self-evident"
truth. Senators have now decided that "liberty" is "mandatory service."
Slavery is now "fair."
The New World Order is getting closer.
One of the cornerstones of freedom is the right to negotiate a contract with another individual or a group of individuals.
The free man or woman has the right to decide who they will enter into a contract with. It follows, therefore, that no one has the right to force another into a contract that the individual does not freely want to enter into.
Forcing one individual into a contract that that individual did not freely enter into is called slavery or involuntary servitude.
Allowing the government to choose an individual's associates and forcing them to join together is also wrong and is another form of involuntary servitude or slavery.
All men and women have the right to protect themselves from the coercive force of other individuals or groups. Men and women join together to form governments to protect their rights from the aggressive and coercive activities of others.
One of the functions of government is to protect people from contracts that were not freely entered into. These contracts are to be declared null and void, and are to have no legal force or effect.
One of the basic purposes of The New World Order is to restrict the right of the individual to be free from the coercive force of another.
These definitions of slavery and involuntary servitude are currently being challenged by those who wish to enslave mankind.
Examples of how slavery is becoming fashionable are appearing in every segment of society, and courts are making slavery the law of the land.
A legal contract is defined as one in which two or more parties agree to certain terms in order to reach mutually acceptable goals. If one party is forced into any contract against his or her will, the contract is declared to be null and void and therefore unenforceable.
As was discussed, one of the functions of the courts of the United States is to enforce valid contracts between two consenting individuals. Once an individual enters into a contract, the other party has the right to have the terms of the contract met, even if the first party decides later not to perform as required. But, todays courts are enforcing contracts where one party was forced into the terms of the contract. Or, in other cases, where one party did not agree to the terms. In those cases, the courts have chosen to force that party to abide by the terms of a contract that they were unwilling to make.
This is simply called slavery.
A good case in point was a Supreme Court ruling in 1987 where they forced the Rotary Clubs, a group of men voluntarily joined together for friendship and acts of charity, to accept women as members. The article that reported on this ruling said: "The Supreme Court, toppling another sex barrier, declared yesterday that state civil rights laws may force Rotary International and similar all-male private clubs within the state to admit women as members.
By a vote of 7-0, the justices concluded that a California anti-discrimination statute requiring women to be admitted to Rotary clubs within the state does not violate the right of members to choose their own associates." 593
A review of the comments of the Supreme Court reveal exactly how words have lost their meaning, and are to mean exactly what the Court says they mean.
First of all, the Court agreed that these clubs were "private."
143
That meant that the members were not publicly inviting others into their organization. They were exercising their right to associate with whomever they chose to associate with. These men, acting as free individuals, were choosing to associate in a voluntary manner with only those people they wished to associate with.
This is a right of free men.
The Court was forcing them into a contract with people that they freely chose not to associate with. After the court decision, one can only wonder what would have happened if the Rotary Clubs decided to disband because they wished to associate only with men. Would the Court have forced them to continue their meetings? And, then what would have happened if no one chose to attend? Would the court have jailed the missing members? How would they have known whether a person's failure to attend was the result of a legitimate illness or because he chose not to attend? Would the court have forced him to provide a doctor's excuse to explain his absence?
The Court said that this use of court ordered force did not violate the "right of members to choose their own associates."
The Court admitted that the men had this right, and then ruled that they didn't have this right. This is double-talk of the highest order.
Freedom does not mean that certain people are free to force other people into associations that the first have deemed advisable.
Simply stated:
Free men discriminate.
Slaves do not.
Free men have the right to "choose their own associates."
Slaves do not.
Therefore, when the Court ruled that the Rotary Clubs had not chosen correctly, and forced them to associate with individuals that they had freely chosen not to associate with, the men in the Clubs were no longer free to "choose their own associates."
The Court has decided that slavery was preferable to freedom.
In another flagrant violation of a free man's right of association, the U.S. Justice Department filed suit against a Christian conference center, claiming that it violated federal civil rights laws when it prohibited the Mormons from using the facilities to espouse their own teachings.
If one individual has the right to associate with whomever that individual chooses to associate with, a group of individuals also have that right.
In this case, the discrimination charges were levied by a Mormon group that was denied permission to rent the facilities to hold their own conference and teach Mormon religious beliefs. The director of the center stated that he had turned them down because the Mormon view of Christianity differed markedly from the beliefs of the owners of the center. Should a court determine that the Inn is a "public accommodation"
on the basis of offering meals and overnight lodging, the decision could signal increased governmental control over other religious conference facilities, or, for that matter, any "public" facility.
Should a hotel be allowed to refuse the rental of a room to a group advocating the violent overthrow of the government?
144
Should a hotel be allowed to not rent to a group advocating violent animal sacrifice if they determine that when the group asks for facilities for the purpose of conducting their religious rites?
Just where does the right of one group to practice their religion end, and where does the right of the hotel to rent to anyone they choose to begin?
In another case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals also ruled against the right of free association. In 1986, they upheld a $300-a-day fine levied against a chain of health clubs for failing to bring a halt to employment practices involving religious discrimination. The owners of the health clubs argued that they could not comply with the order to cease discrimination against non-Christians because they felt that they had the right to employ only those who agreed with their religious views. In other words, they believed that they had the right to employ only fellow Christians if they had freely chosen to do so. 594
The court ruled that they were wrong.
And even an organization as "all-American" as the Boy Scouts of America does not have the right to freely chose their associates. In 1983, the 2nd District Court of Appeals decided that the Boy Scouts did not have the right to refuse membership to those young people who were homosexual. 595
It is not a stretch of this "logic" to imagine that the courts will soon decide that a church does not have the right to reject the application for church membership of an admitted "atheist." This would be "religious discrimination."
But, to further confound the problem, it appears that this nation's courts do not have a clear and definite policy about discrimination.
In 1987, a state court of appeals ruled that boys could be barred from playing on girls' high school teams to prevent them from dominating the game and displacing the girls. 596 So, the result of these and similar decisions is to clearly say to the world:
you will discriminate when ordered to do so, but you may not freely choose to discriminate.
The courts have now made it mandatory that you can "freely associate" only with whomever they decide that you can "freely associate with."
And if you do not choose to "freely associate" with someone, they wish you to "freely associate" with, the courts will force you to "freely associate" with that person.
That is simply called court ordered slavery.
Obviously, "slavery" is no longer "slavery."
And "freedom" is no longer "freedom."
Furthermore, if the above cited examples were not enough, even certain Senators in the United States Senate have admitted that they no longer know what the two words mean.
In April of 1989, Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, introduced Senate Bill 781, a bill called the National Service Act of 1989. This bill calls for the Administration to "develop a comprehensive, mandatory national service program."
The Senator offered the curious public a brief explanation of his bill in a news release dated April 13, 1989. In it, he explained that: "This legislation will establish a program leading to a comprehensive, fair and mandatory system of community or military service to the nation." 597
The bill stipulates: "... that both men and women between 16 and 26 would be required to serve either in the community of in the military. They would serve 24 hours a month and two weeks during the year for two to four years." 598
145
The Senator's news release stated that this bill would be "fair." Somehow, forcing someone to serve the nation is now deemed to be "fair."
Slavery used to be defined as forcing one individual to serve another.
Slavery used to be called "madness."
Now it is being called "fair."
But that is what the Senator says in his news release.
The news release further explained why the Senator had chosen to introduce the bill: "This program will allow us to combine the responsibilities of citizenship with a concerted effort that addresses vital community and national defense needs that, otherwise, will be unmet in the years ahead."
So "mandatory service" to the government has now become a "responsibility of citizenship."
Man was created to be free!
Man was not created to be a slave of government!
In fact, government was created by men to be the servant of mankind!
Man was not to be the servant of government!
America used to be called "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
Now, one will be mandatorily obligated to serve the nation.
That is the new "requirement of citizenship."
Freedom is not mandatory service!
To show that there is bi-partisan support of this concept of "fairness," Arizona's other Senator, Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat, also publicly announced his support of the idea.
Senator McCain had a somewhat revealing experience before he ran for this office. He was a pilot in the so-called Vietnamese "war" and was taken captive by the North Vietnamese after his airplane was shot down. He spent several years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, prior to being released after the end of the "war."
The Senator was not "free" to leave the prisoner of war camp. He was a "slave" of the Vietnamese. He was there "involuntarily."
He had to do as he was told.
One can only presume that if anyone should understand the words "slavery," "involuntary" and "mandatory," it should be the Senator. But, for some reason, he does not. And, apparently, neither does Senator DeConcini.
It is ironic that both of these men had taken the same oath when they became Senators. That oath reads: "I do hereby swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."
These two Senators took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States when they became Senators. If either had taken the time to read the document in its entirety, they would have read the 13th Amendment which was passed after the Civil War of 1861-1865. There are some historians who claim that that war was fought to end slavery.
146
That amendment reads: "Neither slavery not involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States."
If Senator McCain's bill makes all of America's young people "slaves" of the government, or requires "involuntary servitude,"
and the only "slavery" or "involuntary servitude" that is legal is as a "punishment for a crime," it follows that citizenship in America must be termed a "crime," the punishment for which is "involuntary servitude."
So "slavery" becomes "freedom," and "freedom" becomes "slavery," in the convoluted thinking of these two Senators.
"Involuntary servitude" becomes "fair." "Mandatory service"
becomes a "responsibility of citizenship."
America's founding fathers had no such problem with understanding the difference between the two words "freedom"
and "slavery." They wrote this 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."
A "self-evident truth" is one that is not debatable. It is true simply because it is true. No one can say that a "selfevident truth" is false, because man's mind tells him that it is true. Man cannot debate whether these rights belong to mankind, because they are not debatable.
These rights were deemed to be "inalienable" by those who wrote the Declaration. That word is defined as: "that which may not be taken away or transferred."
The Declaration went on to say that "liberty" was one of those inalienable, self-evident rights.
The word "liberty" is defined in a dictionary as: "freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control."
Liberty is freedom. Freedom from government. Freedom from "mandatory service." Freedom from the slavery of Senators like McCain and DeConcini.
Man's inalienable right to "Liberty" is no longer a "self-evident"
truth. Senators have now decided that "liberty" is "mandatory service."
Slavery is now "fair."
The New World Order is getting closer.
147
0 comments: