Civil Government: Power, Nations, and Constitutional Order: Where We Are & How We Got Here

The Desire For Power #2

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Civil Government

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2002-07-28

Synopsis: John Weaver argues that fallen human nature is incapable of self-reformation, using Jeremiah 13:23 and Romans 8:7-8 to establish total depravity and inability. He applies this principle to governments, asserting that sinful rulers inevitably become more corrupt with power. The sermon draws extensive parallels between the unconstitutional actions of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and the expanding powers of the George W. Bush administration, particularly regarding suspension of habeas corpus, domestic spying programs like Operation TIPS, and erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act. Weaver contends that Lincoln transformed the American republic into a centralized empire through war, and that Bush is completing that transformation into a police state. He concludes that true change comes only through the grace of God in Jesus Christ, not through political means.

[John Weaver] Jeremiah chapter 13, and today we're going to be reading verse 23. Jeremiah 13 and verse 23. The Word of God says, Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil.

[John Weaver] Now look at it very carefully. Can the Ethiopian change his skin What's the answer? No. Can the leopard change his spots? No. Then may you also do good that are accustomed or practiced to do evil. There are some things that are humanly impossible to change. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin. Neither can a white American. I mean, it's just a simple statement. But then he goes on to say, then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil. Just like the leopard cannot change its spots, or the Ethiopian cannot change his skin, likewise, a sinner cannot change himself. Those who are practiced, those who are habitually and accustomed to sinning can only sin.

[John Weaver] If you will look in Jeremiah 22 and verse 21, the Lord says something similar. Jeremiah 22 in verse 21, God says, I spake unto thee in thy prosperity, but thou saidest, I will not hear. Now, look what God says. This has been thy manner from my youth that thou obeyest not my voice. Now, this has been my manner from my youth that thou obeyest not my voice. So sinners, then, are not only incapable of changing themselves, They are habitual sinners and are contrary to God. The truth is, fallen men do not change themselves. Fallen men cannot change themselves because they're incapable of doing so.

[John Weaver] Now, I can quote this passage, but I do want you to turn very quickly to the book of Romans 8 and look at verses 7 and 8. Romans 8, verses 7 and 8. Watch carefully. You're talking about a passage that really shows Total depravity and total inability. Here it is. Romans 8. And note, if you would please, verse 7. God says, because the carnal mind, that's the natural mind, the fleshly mind, the mind that you were born with. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God. May I remind you that the word enmity is an extremely strong word for hatred. So he literally says, because the carnal or the fleshly mind is hatred against God, look carefully, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. And then he climaxes that truth with verse 8, so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. So those who have nothing but the flesh are incapable of pleasing God. Now once you understand this simple principle of total depravity and total inability, you not only understand why sinners do not change and cannot change, you also understand why sinful governments do not change.

[John Weaver] Because they are run by sinful, fallen, helpless, depraved men. I don't think I need to enunciate this truth, but civil service does not change a man into a saint. And the truth of the matter is, the opposite is true. The more power a sinner gets, the more corrupt he becomes, as I demonstrated last week from Psalm 62.

[John Weaver] Now, each of us have heard the expression, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Now, the expression really indicates that in reality, Although there is an appearance of change, in reality, there is no change. The change only appears to be, but it is not real. And so, with the appearance of change, then you have business as usual.

[John Weaver] Now, a good illustration of that, and some of you will remember it, is a truth that was given to us in the Republican Revolution and the contract with America. Remember Newt Gingrich? Remember the Republicans? who were clamoring about how excessively gigantic government was and that they were going to reduce government, they were the administration that were going to downsize government, they were going to cut expenses, they were going to reduce taxes.

[John Weaver] Need I say that the more things have changed, the more they remain the same? So the Republican contract with America did not change one single thing. Remember, if you would please, how all the Democrats blamed all the problems on the Republicans, and they assured us that when they got into office, things were going to be different. It's amazing how different things remain the same, isn't it? Now, I mention both Republicans and Democrats for a reason.

[John Weaver] I want to be politically correct, because I want to be an equal opportunity offender, okay? Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between either one of them. Both of them are absolutely corrupt, both parties, and have totally left not only the Word of God, but even the Constitution. Now, many of us have heard the statement, and I want to correct you if you think this, many of us have heard the statement, history repeats itself. Whenever you use that, I want you to understand that that is a pagan concept. It is pagan to the core. In other words, the pagans believed in the cyclical view of history. That is, things, history, just went round and round, and that's how you came up with history repeats itself, because the pagans viewed history as a vicious, non-ending circle. From the biblical perspective, history is linear.

[John Weaver] That is, it has a straight line. There is a definite beginning. And it progresses to a definite end.

[John Weaver] Now Acts chapter 15 and verse 18 substantiates this truth. Because there the Word of God says, known unto God are all of His works from the beginning of the world. So when God created the world, God knew exactly what He was going to do. He knew exactly how He was going to end everything. So there's a definite beginning and there's a definite ending. So history is not cyclical. History is linear. God has not only ordained the end, but He's also ordained the beginning, and He's also ordained everything that is in between. So the correct thing to say is not history repeats itself, but the correct thing to say would be this. One thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. The reason we believe history repeats itself is not because history is cyclical, but because we make the same mistakes, commit the same sins, fall into the same traps that our forefathers did. The problem is not cyclical, but it's sin and stupidity. You got that? It's not that it's going around, it's that we're still sinners and we're still stupid in thinking that we can sin against God and get by with it.

[John Weaver] So, you could also paraphrase another common saying, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Now, let me ask you a question because Mark asked me coming over here today, what brought last week's message and this message to your mind, and I'll share it with you. Because some of the information that I got that I'm going to be quoting and showing you in just a moment, some of the information that I got, I stopped and I thought, you know, this has been done before. I remember this. I recognize this. And so I want to show you basically that what is happening in our country today You could in essence say, we've been there, done that. Now, why is it that we're so blind today as to what's actually going on?

[John Weaver] Is it simply ignorance or is it willful blindness? Or is it the fact that people are just apathetic and really don't care? There's another possibility. There's the possibility that some really do not believe that what is happening in this country could happen in this country. There are people who genuinely believe that we, as Americans, are somehow above failure, we are above defeat, we are above tyranny and totalitarianism. That that could never, ever happen in this country.

[John Weaver] Well, the truth of the matter is this. We, as a republic, have been conquered many years ago. In fact, the very nature of our government itself was changed by the War of Northern Aggression. Alexander Hamilton Stevens, in his book, actually there are two books, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, said this, and I want you to listen, remember now, Alexander Hamilton Stevens was Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Here's what he said, the contest which ended in the war was indeed a contest between two opposing principles.

[John Weaver] But not such as bore upon the policy of African subordination. They were principles deeply underlying all considerations of that sort. They involved the very nature and organic structure of the government itself. The conflict on this question of slavery in the federal councils from the beginning was not a contest between the advocates or opponents of that peculiar institution, but a contest, as stated before, between the supporters of a strictly federated, that is, a decentralized government on the one hand, and a thoroughly national or centralized one on the other hand." So Alexander Hamilton Stephen says yes, they held up slavery as an issue. But what he was saying is this, it was really not the issue. The issue was a contest between two opposing principles. One wanted a decentralized government and the other wanted an extremely structured and centralized or national government.

[John Weaver] Now Abraham Lincoln was not simply a follower and a of the philosophy and the politics of Henry Clay, but Abraham Lincoln viewed himself as Henry Clay's successor. Now, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and a number of other men were great centralizers. They wanted a strong national government. Let me tell you basically what these men propounded. First of all, Clay and all those who believed like him fought for a central government to promote what they called economic growth, but they were to promote that economic growth by internal improvements. Now what they meant by internal improvements was this, governmental subsidies. It was actually British mercantilism, that is the government is going to have the power to improve the states The government's going to have the power to run the interstate highways through the states. The government's going to have the power to have the canals in the states. all the expense of the taxpayers at the expense of the citizens, but it's not the states who are doing it. It is not the citizens who are doing it.

[John Weaver] It is the federal government that is going to do it. So the federal government then would be calling all the shots and not the states and not the citizens. Not only did they believe in a strong central government, they believe in what is known as protectionism. That is, they wanted high tariffs.

[John Weaver] Now what the tariffs would do would prevent outside competition for the north. Anytime you have a high tariff, the losers are always going to be the consumers. And in this instance, it was the southern consumers. Because here's what the North wanted. The North wanted a high tariff to protect foreign competition. Now you've got to remember all the manufacturing industry was basically in the North, very little in the South. And so here the South has all of their cotton and all their plantation, all their agricultural crops, and so they take these agricultural products and they will ship them then to England. Well, instead of England giving coal hard cash, England then would trade manufactured goods. So that means that when the Southerners brought the manufactured goods back in, since they were from England, there was a high tariff. That means the Southerners were still having to pay, even though they brought them back in a bargain or in a slot. And if they wanted cash, then they had to reduce their product so they could get coal hard cash.

[John Weaver] Either way you looked at it, the South was losing. And so, Henry Clay and all of his cronies wanted not only a centralized government, but a strong protectionist tariff. And by the way, some of you will remember that in history, which was known as the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. That led to the nullification crisis in South Carolina, where John C. Calhoun said, no, you've passed this law, it's unconstitutional, we're going to nullify it. And there was almost a war in 1828. or the abomination uh... of uh... terror the terror of abomination so they wanted a strong central government they wanted protection and they wanted a national many of you probably do not know but it was andrew jackson president andrew jackson old hickory that actually camp the national bank out of the united states twice uh...

[John Weaver] once He prevented it from even coming to existence, and secondly, when it did come into existence, he refused to renew the charter or have the charter renewed. He says, what we do not need in this country is a national bank. Now, I want you to listen to what Jackson said in refusing to renew the charter of the national bank. In vetoing it, here's what he said. Distinction in a society will always exist under every just government. Now you just pause and think about that. Distinctions in a society will always exist under every just government.

[John Weaver] Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gift of heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by the law. But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society, the farmers, mechanics, and laborers, who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to

[John Weaver] themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their governments. Did you hear what he said? He said, when a government begins to give subsidies, monopolies, special privileges to a select few, the average citizen has a right to complain of the injustice in their government. Andrew Jackson denounced the National Bank as dangerous to the liberty of the American people because it represented a fantastic centralization of economic and political power under private control.

[John Weaver] Would you like to know who runs the money in this country? It is certainly not the United States Treasury. It is certainly not Congress. It's the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank in private hands.

[John Weaver] Now, please understand that these three points, a centralized government, a high tariff or protection, especially for the northern manufacturing industries, and a national bank, Henry Clay himself referred to these points as the American system. That's what he fought for. That's exactly what Abraham Lincoln fought for. And this American system was nothing less than British mercantilism, which would bring to our country – now watch – it would bring to our country national debt, political corruption, and a court party or a political elite to America. Did it bring those three things to America?

[John Weaver] Well, of course it did. Thus, our republic was basically transformed then into an empire.

[John Weaver] Now Lincoln remained a staunch protectionist, he promoted internal improvements, and he insisted upon high tariffs. There is a illustration that I gave in one of those messages in that series, Where We Are and How We Got Here, where Lincoln was being offered a way out without having the war, but all Lincoln could reply was this, my tariff, my tariff, What about my tariffs? He was for tariffs. In fact, what Lincoln did was this. He used the war to force his agenda upon America. Now, although there are many Northerners who may have believed in and held the same positions that Lincoln did, it was Lincoln who actually initiated the American system and changed the nature of our government.

[John Weaver] Now let me make a statement, then I'm going to give you some quotes that may surprise you, but here it is. Lincoln was a dictator. I could say that another way. Lincoln was a tyrant. But not only was Lincoln a dictator, many Lincoln admirers openly and readily admit that Lincoln was a dictator, albeit they say that he was a benevolent dictator. Clinton Rossiter in his book Constitutional Dictatorship said this. Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms.

[John Weaver] One man was the government of the United States. Lincoln was a great dictator. This great constitutional dictator was self-appointed. And here's the man who supports Lincoln. In 1900, James Ford Rhodes, who practically worshipped Lincoln, wrote this. Listen, never have the power of a dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands. But at least he's admitting that he's a dictator. James G. Randall declared, if Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent one.

[John Weaver] Well, I got news for you. I don't even want a benevolent dictator, you know.

[John Weaver] Now, let me ask you, which would you rather me do? Have you rather look at me and say, angrily, forcefully, you will give me your money or I'll sonar me to take it. Or had you rather me smile and say, please give me your money, but you're going to give it to me either way I ask. What's the difference? I'm just asking nicely. One time I may be a benevolent one, but I'm still stealing from you. Doesn't matter.

[John Weaver] But anyhow, Lincoln was most certainly a dictator. He initiated a war against the South without consulting Congress. He declared martial law. He blocked southern ports, which was unconstitutional. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration. He imprisoned thousands of Northerners without trial and without charges. He arrested and imprisoned newspaper publishers and editors who were critical of him. He even deported a member of Congress, Clement L. VanLandingham of Ohio because VanLandingham criticized Lincoln's policies. He created new states without the consent of the citizens of those states.

[John Weaver] He censored, tapped, telegraphed communications. He nationalized the railroads. He ordered federal troops to interfere with local elections. He confiscated private property. He confiscated firearms. He did all this and more in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, which he took an oath to uphold. By the way, I told you that Lincoln was the man who began executive orders, but Lincoln was also the man who invented war powers out of thin air. He justified his unconstitutional acts by discovering in the Constitution presidential powers that no president before him had ever discovered. Even James Madison, the father of the Constitution, had never ever discovered these amazing war powers. You see, Lincoln believed that he could safely ignore the Constitution in order to save the Constitution. It was his willingness to use force that allowed him to get away with basically destroying our Constitution.

[John Weaver] I want you to remember something, folks. I want you to remember that force does not equal authority. Force does not equal authority. I could come up to Chester, and I could pull out a.357 Magnum and stick it to his temple and say, give me all your money. And he would give me all of his money. But although I have the power to take his money, does not mean I have the right or the authority to take his money.

[John Weaver] There's a difference between those two things. Might does not make right. And simply because someone has the power to do something, does not mean that that individual has the authority to do something.

[John Weaver] Now, I want to take my time this morning, and I really only want to cover two points. I want to demonstrate the truth of the title of this message. The more things change, the more they remain the same. I want you to see that what is happening today happened under Lincoln in the 1860s. In reality, if I had the time, which I don't have, I could probably spend three or four more messages just showing you the simple truth. But let me tell you, one of the first and foremost unconstitutional acts of Abraham Lincoln was that he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Now, everyone in here should know what the writ of habeas corpus is.

[John Weaver] That's when a man is arrested and someone thinks that he was arrested wrongly. You supply the writ, you file the writ. And the court says, you produce the body, you bring him back here, we're going to see whether or not things were done right. Well, on April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and this suspension remained in effect throughout his administration. Now, the suspension of habeas corpus was vested only in the power of Congress, not in the executive branch. Even the Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall, issued an opinion. Here's what he said. If the public safety should require the suspension of habeas corpus, it is for the legislature to say so. Judge Roger Taney, who was also a Supreme Court Justice later on, concurred with Marshall. In fact, Judge Taney said this. Judge Taney said that Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension resulted in, and I quote, It resulted in that the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws.

[John Weaver] But every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer and whose military district he may happen to be found." So he says, when the red is suspended, when you no longer have the right, then you are literally at the mercy of the army of a dictator. Now, I want you to understand that the military officers were given liberty to arrest and imprison at their pleasure under Abraham Lincoln. And they were given the liberty to arrest and imprison without charges and without a trial, without a warrant, without anything.

[John Weaver] Now, don't think for one moment that these military officers just simply arrested those who they believed were genuinely treasonous. No. Let me give you some of the things that people were arrested for. I'm going to list 11 of them. Men and women were arrested for, number one, discouraging voluntary enlistments in the Union Army. But Lord, here's someone that objected to the war, and you didn't think young men should gine up. And so you discouraged men from enlisting in the Union Army. Well, you could be arrested and imprisoned by a military officer for discouraging voluntary enlistments, for being a noisy secessionist. A noisy secessionist, does that mean having a party at two o'clock in the morning? No!

[John Weaver] It means that you're speaking out and saying, well, hey, wait a minute, I believe the South has a right to secede. Well, you're a noisy secessionist. And so you could be arrested for that. Selling Confederate trinkets? Listen to this one. Hoorahing for Jeff Davis. People were arrested for saying, hoorah, hoorah for Jeff Davis. Number five, for expressing a political view contrary to Lincoln. Number six, writing and printing articles not favoring Lincoln and his policies. Oh, I wish I could give you the list of newspapers that were closed down by Lincoln. An innumerable list. Editors, publishers arrested for writing articles contrary to Lincoln and his policies. Number seven, failing to pray for Lincoln. One pastor in Alexandria, Virginia was arrested in the pulpit because he refused to pray specifically for Abraham Lincoln, my name.

[John Weaver] I kind of like what General Ewell said, however. When General Ewell was on his way to Gettysburg, there's a little town south of Gettysburg, I forget its name, we've been through it many times, but he went in and took control of that town. And so, he was in control, getting supplies for all of his Confederate men, and some of the pastors in that town came to General Ewell and they asked him, Would it be alright if they had Sunday services?

[John Weaver] He said, well, of course. The churches may remain open. He said, I would like to attend myself. Then the next question was this, well, would you object if we offered a prayer for Abraham Lincoln? He said, of course not. I know of no other man who needs more prayers than he does. But here was a pastor in Alexandria, Virginia who was arrested for failing to pray for Lincoln. You could be arrested for expressing a desire for peace, for being a peace activist, or, number 11, for being suspected of just simply being disloyal. So if someone said that you were disloyal, then of course you could be arrested. In Maryland alone, in the state of Maryland, 31 legislators, 31 state legislators, And the mayor of Baltimore and one of the United States congressmen were all arrested for failing to support Lincoln and his policies. That's just in Maryland alone. 31 state legislators. See, Lincoln thought that Maryland was going to succeed as well.

[John Weaver] And he wanted to stop that. So he went in and arrested them. And when they had an election, The right men won. He immediately stepped in and arrested those. The others had to literally flee from their lives. The number of citizens arrested by Lincoln and his men and held without trial is staggering. Some suggest that it was as high as 40,000.

[John Weaver] Now we're talking about northerners, not southerners. This was 40,000 of his own people. Whatever the number, I don't care if it was only two, that would be too high. But I'll tell you what, the number was so high that Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor was so full it became known as the American Bastille. I have a book entitled The American Bastille. The book is about three three-and-a-half inches thick, and all it is is the stories of men and women who were arrested and thrown in Fort Lafayette without trial, without charges, without a warrant, put there by Lincoln.

[John Weaver] Now, I want to read something to you. This is one of the things that got my mind thinking. This article is written by William Norman Grigg. It is entitled, Suspending Habeas Corpus. You say, well, Lincoln did that, but I mean, that's not going on today. Listen to the headlines. The Bush administration claims the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, without trial, a suspension of habeas corpus guarantee on which our justice system is founded.

[John Weaver] Now, please, I'm not talking about those Afghanis who are at Guantanamo Bay. I'm not referring to them, but listen to this. He begins the article, he says, some things are true even if the Washington Post says them. Reviewing the Bush's administration conduct in the case of accused terrorist Yasser Issam Hamdi, a June 20th Post editorial concluded that under the powers claimed by the Bush administration, listen carefully, any American could be locked up indefinitely without a lawyer on the President's say-so. Hamdi was among the Taliban and Al-Qaeda personnel captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. After Hamdi was transported to the United States Detention Center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it was learned that he had been born in Louisiana and may retain United States citizenship.

[John Weaver] He was relocated to a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, where he's been held incommunicado. As an American citizen, he would have the right to legal counsel. A federal judge ordered the administration to allow federal public defender Frank Dunham to have access to Hanley.

[John Weaver] Now, I'm not going to read all this. You may read it later. But now there is a real war going on between Bush and the court system. According to the Bush administration's brief, here's Bush's position. The military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants. including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right to access to counsel or to challenge their detention. Furthermore, the brief continues, listen carefully, the court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination, because by doing so they would intrude on the President's plenary authority as Commander-in-Chief. In other words, The Bush position is this, if I declare you an enemy combatant, even if you were born in the United States, even if you have United States citizenship, you do not have a right to a lawyer, you do not have a right to a trial, I can hold you and imprison you indefinitely.

[John Weaver] And the article goes on to say, this position is in essence a suspension of the writ of Avis Corpus. I'm going to read just this one paragraph. It says, herein lies the chief law of the administration's case. Only Congress, not the president or military authorities acting in his control, can declare war. And furthermore, the president does not enjoy plenary, that is, absolute or unqualified authority, in his role as commander-in-chief. And as we've already seen, only Congress has the power to suspend the writ, not the president. The Bush administration has essentially resurrected the Lincoln administration's claim that a military commander acting under presidential orders can be the supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive within this area of responsibility. That assertion was made to defend the Lincoln administration's creation of military tribunals to prosecute suspected Confederate agents and Northern civilians accused of disloyalty. So what is Bush doing? Bush is trying to resurrect the same war powers, the same plenary powers that Lincoln had. He's just saying, look, here it is.

[John Weaver] So in this case, here is a man born in Louisiana who is a United States citizen. Yes, he may be a Muslim and he may have been fighting over there, but Bush is saying, look, I don't care who he is. I have the right to declare him an enemy combatant. And wherever he was born, he has no right to a trial, no right to a lawyer. I can put him in prison indefinitely. All on my word.

[John Weaver] Now, let me point out something else that is associated with this. Everyone in this room has heard about the Posse Comitatus Act. Now, the Posse Comitatus Act was actually passed by Congress during the period of Reconstruction that would prevent army officers, military men, from exercising any control over the civilians or over civilian law. Let me read to you one part of the Posse Comitatus Act. It says this. Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Forces of posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the law shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years of both.

[John Weaver] Now may I ask you what Janet Reno and Bill Clinton did in Waco? What did they do at Ruby Ridge? They used army personnel in attacking American civilians and trying to enforce civilian law, which is totally against the Posse Comitatus Act. And here it says they shall be fined and imprisoned not more than two years. Now, I want to read two paragraphs that was published in the Washington Law Journal on this Posse Comitatus Act. Listen carefully. In response to the military presence in the southern states during the Reconstruction era, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the use of the Army in civilian law enforcement. The Act embodies the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority and currently forbids the use of the Army and Air Force to enforce civilian laws. In the last 15 years, Congress has deliberately eroded this principle by involving the military in drug interdiction at our borders. Within one week of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton proposed an exception, the Posse Comitatus Act, to allow the military to aid civilian authorities in investigating investigations involving weapons of mass destruction.

[John Weaver] In addition to this proposal, Congress also considered legislation to directly involve federal troops enforcing customs and immigration laws at the border. In the 1996 presidential campaign, candidate Bob Dole pledged to increase the role of the military in the drug war, and candidate Lamar Alexander even proposed replacing the Immigration Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol with a new branch of the armed forces.

[John Weaver] Now, all this is in the Washington Law Journal. Now, the point I'm trying to make, and some of you have seen the film, 9-1-1, The Road to Tyranny. Did you know that there have been Army troops conducting roadblocks in numerous states in this country, checking licenses, checking registration, checking insurance, Inevitably, and I've got some of the documentation with me, but there have been state after state where they go in and literally take over and do an operation or an exercise or a practice for two or three days, sometimes without the knowledge of the people, sometimes without even the knowledge of the law enforcement. Do you remember it was in North Carolina that a policeman shot and killed, was it two army men? Because they were having an exercise there and they tried to take his gun. He didn't know what was going on. He shot him and killed him. Now, the point I'm trying to make is, why in the world do you think that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, and by the way, the only difference is between the two, Bush appears more moral.

[John Weaver] That's really the only difference. I'll tell you this, we have gone downhill further under Bush than we ever did under Clinton. We've gone downhill quicker under Bush than we have under Clinton. As wicked and as vile as Clinton was.

[John Weaver] Now, the growing haste of these with which the military then is considered as a panacea for domestic problems will only further undermine the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, it's only going to be a matter of time before we're going to be seeing military openly in our streets. You say, how in the world can you say that? Well, I've got a couple of documents. Look at this one. Headline, United States mulls military's domestic role.

[John Weaver] Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism, hmm. made government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, which is now largely prohibited by federal law, President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, and seizures of evidence, and other political activity on United States soils. Bush is saying, look, we need to consider using the military on a day-to-day basis. Ridge went on to say that this goes against our instincts as a country, but the government's wise to examine the law. Ridge says, and clearly if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitas. Two influential Democratic Senators agree with Bush and Ridge that the law ought to be reviewed.

[John Weaver] But express no interest in granting the military new powers to arrest American citizens. Then here's Michigan Democratic Senator Levin. He says, I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be a more supportive and assisting role than they have been up to now, providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting citizens. Well, you know, once you get them, what in the world are they going to do?

[John Weaver] Listen to this second article very quickly. The United States may debate giving military law enforcement power. I'm not going to read all of this, but once again, here they are saying that they're going to do it, generally. That goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest, Ridge said on late edition of the Cable News Network. Discussing it does not mean that it will ever be used, or the discussion will conclude that it even should be used.

[John Weaver] Let me ask you a question. I'm going to say this a little bit later. Have you ever noticed that when the government says they're not going to do something, you can mark it down. That's exactly what they're going to do. Now listen. The Bush administration already has taken steps to investigate giving the military a larger domestic security role. Here is Senator Joseph Biden. Biden said he may revive a proposal he sponsored with former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn to revise the reconstructionary limits of the Army, Navy, and later the Air Force's law enforcement, and later the Air Force's law enforcement authorities. That plan was prompted by the bombing of Oklahoma City Federal Building by domestic terrorists. So he says, we're going to revive this. We're going to do something about this. We're going to see if we can't get the military back involved in everyday citizens' lives.

[John Weaver] So how in the world, how in the world can they do this? And the answer is, not by authority, but simply by power. And let me say this again, you've got to remember, whenever the government denies something, that's exactly what they were going to do. It was Lincoln who first suspended Habeas Corpus. And then it was Lincoln who first then used the military to arrest the citizens without trial, without warrant, without charge.

[John Weaver] The more things change, the more they remain the same. It happened under Lincoln, and it's happening today. Secondly, and this may surprise you, but it was under Lincoln, and it was Lincoln who first set up a domestic spy network. Lincoln just simply did not wish to be opposed.

[John Weaver] Now there were many Northerners who were sympathetic with the South, and many Northerners who wanted an end to the war. Such sympathizers were derisively referred to as Copperheads. Everybody knows what a Copperhead is, he's a poisonous snake, extremely poisonous, dangerous, because unlike a rattlesnake, he doesn't rattle before he bites, he just bites. Okay? So they were derisively referred to as Copperheads. But now some of these Copperheads, in order to protect themselves, in order to help the South, they formed secret societies such as the Knights of the Golden Circle and the Order of the American Knights. And in order to destroy these societies and infiltrate them and to silence them, it was Lincoln and his State Department and his War Department that initiated the spy network. Now listen carefully. Lincoln coordinated surveillance through a network of special agents, U.S.

[John Weaver] Marshals, Pinkerton detectives, local police, military officials, and private informers. Citizen informers. One such citizen or private informer was a man by the name of John T. Robinson who lived at 22 North Howard Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Here's what Robinson did. He stood at a public polling place, that is when people were going to vote, and informed the authorities of one of his neighbors for helping to incite a riot on April the 19th. He accused another of bearing arms on April the 20th. and he accused a third of insulting soldiers. All three were arrested. Now, it did not matter to John Robinson that the federal soldiers had invaded Maryland and were interfering with a lawful state election. Robinson just simply considered himself loyal and his neighbors disloyal. Let me put it another way. He considered himself politically correct. And his neighbors were not politically correct.

[John Weaver] You see, it was reported that Secretary of State William Seward bragged to Lord Lyon, the British ambassador, of his arbitrary power in arresting citizens. Listen to what Seward said. Now he's bragging, remember, to the British ambassador, Lord Lyon. Here's what he says. I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York. And no power on earth except that of the President of the United States can release them.

[John Weaver] Can the Queen of England do as much? Now let me ask you, is that arbitrary power? Yes. Is that an abuse of arbitrary power? And the answer is yes.

[John Weaver] Now, I'm going to read something to you in just a moment. But some of you have heard the news of the TIPS program introduced by President Bush. They want you to, it's called Terrorism Information and Prevention System. You see, President Bush wants to use citizens to snoop and to spy on each other. Well, see, Lincoln did that.

[John Weaver] Now, the interesting thing is they keep saying that there's not going to be a database. We will just forward it to the proper authorities. Let me ask you a question. Is there anyone in this room Or does anyone in this room know anyone else who is capable of remembering perfectly every name, date, place, and bit of information he or she has ever received? Well, no. And the older you get, the more you have to write notes to yourself. See? Why? You have to keep a database just so you can remember. And if you try to tell me that when we begin to inform on each other, there's not going to be something written down, something kept as to the informer and the information and the ones informed against.

[John Weaver] You've got to be out of your mind. Now, let me read this to you. I'm very quickly going through these. Administration mom on snooping program. The Bush administration says information published this week regarding a new government informant program was premature and that officials are nowhere near ready to implement it. But however, you can go to www.citizencorps.gov and you can get all this yourself. He said it's Operation Tips, a new anti-terrorism information program designed as a terrorism information and prevention system.

[John Weaver] And so what he wants to do is basically this. They said all this stuff got out premature, and it was ridiculous. The program is still under development. According to the Herald Report, the administration, under the guise of President Bush's Citizens Corps Volunteer Program, began in the wake of the September 11th attacks, is seeking to recruit up to one million mail carriers utility workers, and others who have frequent access to private homes as terrorist informants.

[John Weaver] By the way, lest I forget to tell you this, those of you who have not been so enraged as I have over this, you know when Dixie along with some of the other stores just recently began giving you a card that you could have savings if you would use their card. I went to the manager. I went into Winn-Dixie. I already said I wasn't going to shop there when they did that. So I forgot and I went in one day and I looked there and I saw I was getting some tomatoes and it was this price without the card and this price if you have the card. I was so incensed. I turned around.

[John Weaver] I said, I'm not shopping here. And I was walking out and lo and behold, who happened to step into my path but the store manager. And I said, sir, I'm going to tell you something. I resent. the fact that you have to have a card here to shop. I said, my buying of groceries is private. It's not for sale. It's not your information. I don't do it for marketing. I said, I want you to know I will not be shopping at Winn-Dixie anymore because of this. I said, if you advertise a sale, it should be open to anyone at any time. I said, I'm not shopping here anymore. And of course, there's one local store in our town says shop here without a card, you know, and that's where we started shopping.

[John Weaver] Well, I gave Alice yesterday, or the day before now, a seven-page report that one food line company turned over all of their saving cards customers to the feds to investigate as possible terrorists. Because now you're buying a detergent, And buying anything of which possibly a bomb could be made, ammonia and all this kind of stuff, tinfoil, will be under the scrutiny of the feds. Not just the IRS, but the Justice Department. A seven-page report turned over all the records.

[John Weaver] The government didn't even ask for them. Just patriotic. Turn them all over. Well, anyhow. So, he wants up to a million mail carriers, etc. TIPS is scheduled to be launched in late summer or early fall of 2002. The goal of the program is to establish a reliable and comprehensive national system for reporting suspicious and potentially terroristic related activity. Other reports claim the government will initiate TIPS under the auspices of a 10-city trial program.

[John Weaver] The officials are not saying which cities will be involved. Also, officials have refused to explain how a federal informant program could pass constitutional muster, while a similar state or local program likely would not. The TIPS website says information data gathered by several industries would be collected at a single central reporting center. Deny a database now, if you would. Let me go on to another one here. Here's another one. ACLU Operation Tips Breeds Peeping Toms. The planned program to a prompt rebuke from the American Civil Liberties Union. The administration apparently wants to implement a program that will turn local cable or gas electrical technicians into government informants. Or government sanctioned peeping toms. The ACLU said it was worried that these volunteers would in fact be searching people's homes without a warrant, that resources would be wasted on a flood of useless tips, and the program would encourage vigilantism and racial profiling. The project is initially planned to begin in August in 10 selected cities. Let me read you another one. Planned Volunteer Informant Corps elicits 1984 fears.

[John Weaver] The Terrorism Information Prevention System Operation Tips, a national reporting pilot program is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities. They're going to use at least 4% of the Americans initially to be informants. The program will allow volunteers whose routines make them well positioned to recognize suspect activities to report the same to the Justice Department who is running the project. The Justice Department will enter the information into a database. which will then be broadly available within the department and to state and local agencies and to local police forces. At local and state levels, the program will be coordinated by the FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[John Weaver] Let's see, the ACLU once again says this is an end run around the Constitution. Critics say that having Americans act as domestic informants is reminiscent of the infamous Stasi, the now disbanded Communist East German Secret Police Service, etc. John Whitehead, who is a good man, the Executive Director of the Rutherford Institute, agreed, this is George Orwell's 1984. It's absolutely horrible and very dangerous idea, he said. It's making Americans into government snoops.

[John Weaver] Now, with all the criticism that has come up on this TIPS project, look at this headline. Justice Department forges ahead with TIPS despite Army ban. Now, not ARMY, this is Dick Army, who is the congressman. He says, I don't want anything to do with it. But still. House Majority Leader Dick Armey inserted last week a ban on the program and the bill. But they say, hey, I don't care whether you ban it or not, we're going to continue with this. This is our project and we're going to have it.

[John Weaver] Now let me show you how ridiculous this gets. This is just one illustration, and I got this off the news. Military jets escort plane after passenger seen passing notes. New York, where else? I'm sorry, Joyce. New York, military jets escorted a plane to LaGuardia Airport on Tuesday night after a passenger became alarmed by others passing notes, officials said. Around 10.45 p.m., about 15 minutes from before American Transair flight 204 was due to arrive at LaGuardia from Chicago, a passenger told a flight attendant that seven other passengers were engaged in suspicious activity, passing notes to each other and changing seats. I hope she never comes around my grandkids. Anyhow, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey spokesman Alan Hicks said early Wednesday, the flight attendant notified the pilot who alerted Federal Aviation Authorities, two F-16 fighter jets escorted the plane of Boeing 757 with 98 passengers plus a crew to the ground. The plane landed five minutes late, but no one was hurt. The seven passengers, who are from India, were released early Wednesday, Port Authority said.

[John Weaver] They belong to a well-known Indian performance group, and they may have been rehearsing or discussing a performance when they attracted suspicion. So, you know, actors say, here's what we're going to do. And so two military jets now. Why? Because someone became suspicious.

[John Weaver] Now folks, the point I'm trying to make is this. does not common sense does not our own personal desire for safety and protection would that not be sufficient to lead any American who actually believed he was seeing or observing terroristic action to report that to someone who could stop it and do something about it would you not do that without a I would if I saw someone trying to blow up a building I'm going to call the sheriff I'm going to call someone who can stop him If I don't happen to have a weapon with me where I could stop him, I'd do something. I mean, that's common sense.

[John Weaver] Must I be suspicious of every farmer who buys ammonium nitrate for his crops? Must I be suspicious of every plumber who carries with him a truckload of PVC pipe which he uses daily in his occupation? Instead of Americans spying on Americans, Why do we not just keep those people out of our country who are trying to harm us? Isn't that simple? It's not any citizen that I know that issues passports and visas and allow foreigners into our country. It's our own government that does so. If any spying is to be done, it ought to be the citizens of this country eyeballing our government to make sure that it does not exceed its constitutional limits. That's the spying that needs to be done.

[John Weaver] Let me give you, some of you read Chuck Baldwin's Food for Thought. This is his July the 19th article. He says, it should be obvious to everyone by now, wittingly or not, George W. Bush is in the process of creating a communist style form of government in the United States. As details emerge regarding his new Department of Homeland Security, We discover that Bush and his band of belligerent brothers have begun the process of turning the federal government into a gargantuan police state. Now listen, according to press reports, and I'm reading this, according to press reports, Bush plans to do the following. Number one, merge 22 federal police and emergency agencies into his new Department of Homeland Security. Now please understand now, these are all going to be under the federal control under George W. Bush or whoever is president. Number two, create standardized myometric travel documents. In other words, it's going to be basically a national ID one way or the other. Number three, develop screening tools to predict human behavior such as hostile intent.

[John Weaver] So now, I'm going to arrest John because I think he thought about robbing a bank. A pre-crime. Number four, allow federal police to search and seize at will. They already do that anyhow. Number five, allow federal police to incarcerate and indefinitely hold suspects without arrest or warrant and with no legal recourse by the person seized. Implement a national driver's license. Allow the United States military to conduct lethal operations on United States soil.

[John Weaver] That's what the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits right now. That's why they're talking about doing away with it. Allow the President to unilaterally procure taxpayer dollars without the consent of Congress. Allow the federal government to act in secret. Number 10, create a domestic informant program whereby millions of Americans are authorized to spy on their fellow citizens on behalf of the federal government. According to the Sydney Morning Herald and other news outlets, Bush plans to enlist, are you listening, 1 in 24 Americans into a new citizen spy department.

[John Weaver] The East German police never had such an performance system. Let me tell you something, folks. If you think, for one instance, if I believe the man who comes by and reads my meter is going to be snooping around and looking and trying to suspect me, I'm not going to let him on my property. It's just that simple. I'm not going to let a TV repairman come. If I think he's going to turn me in for having a shotgun in my front room, Lord have mercy. Do you see what I'm saying? If this tips program goes through, you won't be able to turn around.

[John Weaver] Well, let me point out the fact, Dean Sprague in his book, Freedom Under Lincoln, writes this, listen carefully. At the outbreak of the war, the federal government was not a real source of power. Just remember that. At the outbreak of the war, the federal government was not a real source of power. But when the arm of the Lincoln administration reached into Cooperstown, New York and took away George Brown, when it slipped into Freedom, Maine and speared away Robert Elliott, when it proved powerful enough to send three citizens of North Branch, Michigan to Fort Lafayette and imprisoned without any recourse to law a man in Des Moines, Iowa, it was apparent that the federal executive had real power.

[John Weaver] The balance of power inexorably changed and altered the fundamental workings of the American political system. Father Abraham had been born to the American people. What did he just get through saying? Lincoln changed the nature of our government. Inasmuch as the War of Northern Aggression was fought to preserve the Union, it was an explicit denial of the American Revolution. How could that be? Because the American Revolution was and is indeed proof positive of the fundamental right of secession. What did we do? We seceded from England. And when Lincoln says, I'm fighting to preserve the Union, he's denying the principle of the American Revolution. William Appleman Williams says this, put simply, Put simply, the cause of the Civil War was the refusal of Lincoln and other Northerners to honor the revolutionary right of self-determination, the touchstone of the American Revolution.

[John Weaver] The London Times, in September 13, 1862, hit the nail on the head when it wrote this. Listen. If Northerners had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, The result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of democracy. But when Republicans put empire above liberty and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that the nature at Washington was precisely the same as the nature at St. Petersburg, Russia. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all of its constituent states, but when it was upheld, like any other empire, by force of arms. Now that was the London Times. The London Times says, look, the Republican administration, that's Lincoln's administration, put empire above liberty. And when they did so, when they invaded the South, The London Times says it was revealing that the nature at Washington, D.C. was exactly the same as the nature of St. Petersburg, Russia. Totalitarian, dictatorial, and tyrannical. And the proof, the London Times says, that our Republic ceased in the War of 1861 through 1865 was because union was preserved by force of arms.

[John Weaver] There was an empire built that had not previously existed. Now, let me ask you a question. How did Lincoln effectively change our republic into an empire? The answer is by war. How did Lincoln establish a centralized power-hungry bureaucratic government. The answer is by war. Randolph Bourne correctly stated, listen to this quote, war is the health of the state. Now how can war be considered to be the health of the state? Well in two ways.

[John Weaver] Number one, during war governments always expand its powers swells its base, increases taxes, regulates controls, and suppresses liberty and freedom, all in the name of doing it for the good of our country. Number two, after the war is over, there is never a return of the government to its pre-war size. It continues and adds to its usurped authority until it has assumed almost total control over everything.

[John Weaver] Now, I want you to understand, it really does not even have to be an actual war for this little trick to work. For instance, does anyone in here remember our government's war against illiteracy? Has literacy been eradicated? No, but now what do we have? Government controlled education. I'm sure some of you, because I do, I remember our war on poverty. Well, does poverty still exist? Yes, but now we have a totally governmentally controlled economy. Well, what about the war against drugs? Well, we have more drugs than ever before.

[John Weaver] And the truth of the matter is this. If our government was really genuinely seriously about stopping all the drug trafficking, all it has to do is get out of the business itself. Our CIA imports more drugs than you can shake a stick at. Probably many other agencies as well. No. You see, the phony war on drugs is a way to control people, control medicines, control our lives, and at the same time keep our prisons full of cheap labor. Do you know that percentage-wise there are more people in prison in America than any other country in the world? Does anybody ever remember the war against crime? Well, we have more crime than we've ever had before. And the biggest criminals are now in government. You see, phony wars are just as good as actual wars.

[John Weaver] And the war on terrorism, look, if you would, at the power that President Bush has arrogated to himself, that he has demanded of Congress, And look, if you would, at the bureaucracies that are being established. It is not less government, it is more government. More government simply equates to more control. Loss of freedom. George Fitzhugh said it best. If you don't remember anything else from this message today, remember what George Fitzhugh said.

[John Weaver] This is back in the 1800s. He said, freedom is an evil that government is intended to correct. And brother, it corrects it very well. That is unbiblical government. That's what I would put in. Freedom is an evil that unbiblical government is intended to correct.

[John Weaver] Now, when you look at what is happening today, like I say, I wish I had time to just continue. But when you look at what is happening today, I want you to remember this simple truth. The more things change, the more they remain the same. And when you look at Bush and you look at Lincoln, you can simply say, been there, done that. What Lincoln started, Bush is finishing.

[John Weaver] One centralized, totalitarian, tyrannical, gargantuan police state. You see folks, the leopard cannot change his thoughts. The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin. The sinner cannot change his nature. One thing you should learn, and learn it well, our salvation is not in government. Our salvation is only in the grace of God. And if you and I do not work for a Christian government based upon the Word of God, built upon the grace and the mercy and the sovereignty of God, all we'll ever have is what Lincoln and Bush can give us. Change comes through grace.

[John Weaver] and through faith in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone. Now, I'll tell you, you talk about a new world order, I will tell you when we will have the new world order, when Jesus Christ returns literally, visibly, and bodily, and we'll have one then that will be genuine and real. Let's pray. Father, we ask you today to speak to our hearts, teach us, Build us up in the most holy faith, enable us to live for Thee, and enable us, Lord, to be aware of what's going on and understand that we should not make the mistakes of our forefathers.

[John Weaver] It's not that history repeats itself. It's that we're sinners, we're forgetful, we're silly, we're stupid, and we allow wickedness to continue when we should never allow it. Give us grace, Lord, to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.

The Desire For Power #2

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	11802123815
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Power, Nations, and Constitutional Order: Where We Are & How We Got Here
Genre	Sermon
Date	2002-07-28
Dictation Name
Book	Book 021: The Desire For Power — Chapter 2
Source Timed Segments	98

Formatted Transcript

Introduction: The Unchangeable Nature of Sin

Weaver reads Jeremiah 13:23 to illustrate that just as a leopard cannot change its spots, a sinner cannot change his sinful nature. Human inability to do good is total.

Jeremiah chapter 13, and today we're going to be reading verse 23. Jeremiah 13 and verse 23. The Word of God says,

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 13:23

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil."

Now look at it very carefully. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" What's the answer? No. "Can the leopard change his spots?" No. "Then may you also do good that are accustomed or practiced to do evil." There are some things that are humanly impossible to change. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin. Neither can a white American. I mean, it's just a simple statement. But then he goes on to say, "Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil." Just like the leopard cannot change its spots, or the Ethiopian cannot change his skin, likewise, a sinner cannot change himself. Those who are practiced, those who are habitually and accustomed to sinning can only sin.

Total Depravity and Total Inability

Expounding Romans 8:7-8, Weaver teaches that the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God's law, so those in the flesh cannot please God. This explains why sinners and sinful governments do not change.

Now, I can quote this passage, but I do want you to turn very quickly to the book of Romans 8 and look at verses 7 and 8. Romans 8, verses 7 and 8. Watch carefully. You're talking about a passage that really shows total depravity and total inability. Here it is. Romans 8. And note, if you would please, verse 7. God says,

Scripture Reading — Romans 8:7-8

"Because the carnal mind, that's the natural mind, the fleshly mind, the mind that you were born with. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God."

May I remind you that the word enmity is an extremely strong word for hatred. So he literally says, "Because the carnal or the fleshly mind is hatred against God," look carefully,

Scripture Reading — Romans 8:7-8

"for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

And then he climaxes that truth with verse 8,

Scripture Reading — Romans 8:7-8

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

So those who have nothing but the flesh are incapable of pleasing God. Now once you understand this simple principle of total depravity and total inability, you not only understand why sinners do not change and cannot change, you also understand why sinful governments do not change.

Because they are run by sinful, fallen, helpless, depraved men. I don't think I need to enunciate this truth, but civil service does not change a man into a saint. And the truth of the matter is, the opposite is true. The more power a sinner gets, the more corrupt he becomes, as I demonstrated last week from Psalm 62.

Now, each of us have heard the expression, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Now, the expression really indicates that in reality, although there is an appearance of change, in reality, there is no change. The change only appears to be, but it is not real. And so, with the appearance of change, then you have business as usual.

The Illusion of Political Change

Weaver critiques the Republican 'Contract with America' and Democratic promises, asserting that both parties are corrupt and that 'the more things change, the more they remain the same.' He contrasts the pagan cyclical view of history with the biblical linear view.

Now, a good illustration of that, and some of you will remember it, is a truth that was given to us in the Republican Revolution and the Contract with America. Remember Newt Gingrich? Remember the Republicans who were clamoring about how excessively gigantic government was and that they were going to reduce government, they were the administration that were going to downsize government, they were going to cut expenses, they were going to reduce taxes. Need I say that the more things have changed, the more they remain the same? So the Republican Contract with America did not change one single thing. Remember, if you would please, how all the Democrats blamed all the problems on the Republicans, and they assured us that when they got into office, things were going to be different. It's amazing how different things remain the same, isn't it? Now, I mention both Republicans and Democrats for a reason.

I want to be politically correct, because I want to be an equal opportunity offender, okay? Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between either one of them. Both of them are absolutely corrupt, both parties, and have totally left not only the Word of God, but even the Constitution. Now, many of us have heard the statement, and I want to correct you if you think this, many of us have heard the statement, "History repeats itself." Whenever you use that, I want you to understand that that is a pagan concept. It is pagan to the core. In other words, the pagans believed in the cyclical view of history. That is, things, history, just went round and round, and that's how you came up with "history repeats itself," because the pagans viewed history as a vicious, non-ending circle. From the biblical perspective, history is linear.

That is, it has a straight line. There is a definite beginning. And it progresses to a definite end. Now Acts chapter 15 and verse 18 substantiates this truth. Because there the Word of God says,

Scripture Reading — Acts 15:18

"Known unto God are all of His works from the beginning of the world."

So when God created the world, God knew exactly what He was going to do. He knew exactly how He was going to end everything. So there's a definite beginning and there's a definite ending. So history is not cyclical. History is linear. God has not only ordained the end, but He's also ordained the beginning, and He's also ordained everything that is in between. So the correct thing to say is not "history repeats itself," but the correct thing to say would be this: One thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. The reason we believe history repeats itself is not because history is cyclical, but because we make the same mistakes, commit the same sins, fall into the same traps that our forefathers did. The problem is not cyclical, but it's sin and stupidity. You got that? It's not that it's going around, it's that we're still sinners and we're still stupid in thinking that we can sin against God and get by with it.

Lincoln's Transformation of the Republic

Weaver argues that the Civil War was a contest between decentralized and centralized government. He details Lincoln's adoption of Henry Clay's 'American System' of centralized government, high tariffs, and a national bank, which led to national debt, corruption, and empire.

Well, the truth of the matter is this. We, as a republic, have been conquered many years ago. In fact, the very nature of our government itself was changed by the War of Northern Aggression. Alexander Hamilton Stephens, in his book—actually there are two books, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States—said this, and I want you to listen. Remember now, Alexander Hamilton Stephens was Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Here's what he said: "The contest which ended in the war was indeed a contest between two opposing principles." "But not such as bore upon the policy of African subordination. They were principles deeply underlying all considerations of that sort. They involved the very nature and organic structure of the government itself. The conflict on this question of slavery in the federal councils from the beginning was not a contest between the advocates or opponents of that peculiar institution, but a contest, as stated before, between the supporters of a strictly federated, that is, a decentralized government on the one hand, and a thoroughly national or centralized one on the other hand." So Alexander Hamilton Stephens says yes, they held up slavery as an issue. But what he was saying is this, it was really not the issue. The issue was a contest between two opposing principles. One wanted a decentralized government and the other wanted an extremely structured and centralized or national government.

Now Abraham Lincoln was not simply a follower of the philosophy and the politics of Henry Clay, but Abraham Lincoln viewed himself as Henry Clay's successor. Now, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and a number of other men were great centralizers. They wanted a strong national government. Let me tell you basically what these men propounded. First of all, Clay and all those who believed like him fought for a central government to promote what they called economic growth, but they were to promote that economic growth by internal improvements. Now what they meant by internal improvements was this: governmental subsidies. It was actually British mercantilism, that is the government is going to have the power to improve the states. The government's going to have the power to run the interstate highways through the states. The government's going to have the power to have the canals in the states. All at the expense of the taxpayers, at the expense of the citizens, but it's not the states who are doing it. It is not the citizens who are doing it.

It is the federal government that is going to do it. So the federal government then would be calling all the shots and not the states and not the citizens. Not only did they believe in a strong central government, they believed in what is known as protectionism. That is, they wanted high tariffs.

Now what the tariffs would do would prevent outside competition for the North. Anytime you have a high tariff, the losers are always going to be the consumers. And in this instance, it was the southern consumers. Because here's what the North wanted. The North wanted a high tariff to protect foreign competition. Now you've got to remember all the manufacturing industry was basically in the North, very little in the South. And so here the South has all of their cotton and all their plantation, all their agricultural crops, and so they take these agricultural products and they will ship them then to England. Well, instead of England giving cold hard cash, England then would trade manufactured goods. So that means that when the Southerners brought the manufactured goods back in, since they were from England, there was a high tariff. That means the Southerners were still having to pay, even though they brought them back in a bargain or in a swap. And if they wanted cash, then they had to reduce their product so they could get cold hard cash.

Either way you looked at it, the South was losing. And so, Henry Clay and all of his cronies wanted not only a centralized government, but a strong protectionist tariff. And by the way, some of you will remember that in history, which was known as the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. That led to the nullification crisis in South Carolina, where John C. Calhoun said, "No, you've passed this law, it's unconstitutional, we're going to nullify it." And there was almost a war in 1828 over the abomination of the tariff. So they wanted a strong central government, they wanted protection, and they wanted a national bank. Many of you probably do not know, but it was Andrew Jackson, President Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, that actually kept the national bank out of the United States twice.

Once he prevented it from even coming to existence, and secondly, when it did come into existence, he refused to renew the charter or have the charter renewed. He says, "What we do not need in this country is a national bank." Now, I want you to listen to what Jackson said in refusing to renew the charter of the national bank. In vetoing it, here's what he said: "Distinction in a society will always exist under every just government." Now you just pause and think about that. "Distinctions in a society will always exist under every just government." "Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gift of heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by the law. But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society, the farmers, mechanics, and laborers, who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to

themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their governments." Did you hear what he said? He said, when a government begins to give subsidies, monopolies, special privileges to a select few, the average citizen has a right to complain of the injustice in their government. Andrew Jackson denounced the National Bank as dangerous to the liberty of the American people because it represented a fantastic centralization of economic and political power under private control. Would you like to know who runs the money in this country? It is certainly not the United States Treasury. It is certainly not Congress. It's the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank in private hands.

Now, please understand that these three points—a centralized government, a high tariff or protection, especially for the northern manufacturing industries, and a national bank—Henry Clay himself referred to these points as the American System. That's what he fought for. That's exactly what Abraham Lincoln fought for. And this American System was nothing less than British mercantilism, which would bring to our country—now watch—it would bring to our country national debt, political corruption, and a court party or a political elite to America. Did it bring those three things to America? Well, of course it did. Thus, our republic was basically transformed then into an empire.

Now Lincoln remained a staunch protectionist, he promoted internal improvements, and he insisted upon high tariffs. There is an illustration that I gave in one of those messages in that series, "Where We Are and How We Got Here," where Lincoln was being offered a way out without having the war, but all Lincoln could reply was this: "My tariff, my tariff, what about my tariffs?" He was for tariffs. In fact, what Lincoln did was this. He used the war to force his agenda upon America. Now, although there are many Northerners who may have believed in and held the same positions that Lincoln did, it was Lincoln who actually initiated the American System and changed the nature of our government.

Lincoln as Dictator: Suspension of Habeas Corpus

Weaver provides evidence that Lincoln was a dictator who suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands without trial, and arrested citizens for political dissent. He quotes historians who admit Lincoln's dictatorial powers.

Now let me make a statement, then I'm going to give you some quotes that may surprise you, but here it is. Lincoln was a dictator. I could say that another way. Lincoln was a tyrant. But not only was Lincoln a dictator, many Lincoln admirers openly and readily admit that Lincoln was a dictator, albeit they say that he was a benevolent dictator. Clinton Rossiter in his book Constitutional Dictatorship said this: "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms." "One man was the government of the United States. Lincoln was a great dictator. This great constitutional dictator was self-appointed." And here's the man who supports Lincoln. In 1900, James Ford Rhodes, who practically worshipped Lincoln, wrote this. Listen: "Never have the power of a dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands." But at least he's admitting that he's a dictator. James G. Randall declared, "If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent one."

Well, I got news for you. I don't even want a benevolent dictator, you know. Now, let me ask you, which would you rather me do? Have you rather look at me and say, angrily, forcefully, "You will give me your money or I'll sonar me to take it." Or had you rather me smile and say, "Please give me your money, but you're going to give it to me either way I ask." What's the difference? I'm just asking nicely. One time I may be a benevolent one, but I'm still stealing from you. Doesn't matter.

But anyhow, Lincoln was most certainly a dictator. He initiated a war against the South without consulting Congress. He declared martial law. He blocked southern ports, which was unconstitutional. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration. He imprisoned thousands of Northerners without trial and without charges. He arrested and imprisoned newspaper publishers and editors who were critical of him. He even deported a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, because Vallandigham criticized Lincoln's policies. He created new states without the consent of the citizens of those states.

He censored, tapped telegraph communications. He nationalized the railroads. He ordered federal troops to interfere with local elections. He confiscated private property. He confiscated firearms. He did all this and more in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, which he took an oath to uphold. By the way, I told you that Lincoln was the man who began executive orders, but Lincoln was also the man who invented war powers out of thin air. He justified his unconstitutional acts by discovering in the Constitution presidential powers that no president before him had ever discovered. Even James Madison, the father of the Constitution, had never ever discovered these amazing war powers. You see, Lincoln believed that he could safely ignore the Constitution in order to save the Constitution. It was his willingness to use force that allowed him to get away with basically destroying our Constitution.

I want you to remember something, folks. I want you to remember that force does not equal authority. Force does not equal authority. I could come up to Chester, and I could pull out a .357 Magnum and stick it to his temple and say, "Give me all your money." And he would give me all of his money. But although I have the power to take his money, does not mean I have the right or the authority to take his money. There's a difference between those two things. Might does not make right. And simply because someone has the power to do something, does not mean that that individual has the authority to do something.

Now, I want to take my time this morning, and I really only want to cover two points. I want to demonstrate the truth of the title of this message: "The more things change, the more they remain the same." I want you to see that what is happening today happened under Lincoln in the 1860s. In reality, if I had the time, which I don't have, I could probably spend three or four more messages just showing you the simple truth. But let me tell you, one of the first and foremost unconstitutional acts of Abraham Lincoln was that he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Now, everyone in here should know what the writ of habeas corpus is. That's when a man is arrested and someone thinks that he was arrested wrongly. You supply the writ, you file the writ. And the court says, "You produce the body, you bring him back here, we're going to see whether or not things were done right." Well, on April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and this suspension remained in effect throughout his administration. Now, the suspension of habeas corpus was vested only in the power of Congress, not in the executive branch. Even the Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall, issued an opinion. Here's what he said: "If the public safety should require the suspension of habeas corpus, it is for the legislature to say so." Judge Roger Taney, who was also a Supreme Court Justice later on, concurred with Marshall. In fact, Judge Taney said this. Judge Taney said that Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension resulted in, and I quote, "It resulted in that the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws."

Modern Parallels: Bush and the Erosion of Liberty

Weaver draws direct parallels between Lincoln's actions and the Bush administration's post-9/11 policies, including the claim of power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, the TIPS domestic spy program, and efforts to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act.

Now, I want to read something to you. This is one of the things that got my mind thinking. This article is written by William Norman Grigg. It is entitled, "Suspending Habeas Corpus." You say, "Well, Lincoln did that, but I mean, that's not going on today." Listen to the headlines. "The Bush administration claims the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, without trial, a suspension of habeas corpus guarantee on which our justice system is founded."

Now, please, I'm not talking about those Afghanis who are at Guantanamo Bay. I'm not referring to them, but listen to this. He begins the article, he says, "Some things are true even if the Washington Post says them. Reviewing the Bush administration's conduct in the case of accused terrorist Yasser Issam Hamdi, a June 20th Post editorial concluded that under the powers claimed by the Bush administration, listen carefully, any American could be locked up indefinitely without a lawyer on the President's say-so. Hamdi was among the Taliban and Al-Qaeda personnel captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. After Hamdi was transported to the United States Detention Center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it was learned that he had been born in Louisiana and may retain United States citizenship." "He was relocated to a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, where he's been held incommunicado. As an American citizen, he would have the right to legal counsel. A federal judge ordered the administration to allow federal public defender Frank Dunham to have access to Hamdi."

Now, I'm not going to read all this. You may read it later. But now there is a real war going on between Bush and the court system. According to the Bush administration's brief, here's Bush's position. "The military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants, including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right to access to counsel or to challenge their detention. Furthermore, the brief continues, listen carefully, the court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination, because by doing so they would intrude on the President's plenary authority as Commander-in-Chief." In other words, the Bush position is this: if I declare you an enemy combatant, even if you were born in the United States, even if you have United States citizenship, you do not have a right to a lawyer, you do not have a right to a trial, I can hold you and imprison you indefinitely.

And the article goes on to say, "This position is in essence a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus." I'm going to read just this one paragraph. It says, "Herein lies the chief flaw of the administration's case. Only Congress, not the president or military authorities acting in his control, can declare war. And furthermore, the president does not enjoy plenary, that is, absolute or unqualified authority, in his role as commander-in-chief. And as we've already seen, only Congress has the power to suspend the writ, not the president. The Bush administration has essentially resurrected the Lincoln administration's claim that a military commander acting under presidential orders can be the supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive within this area of responsibility. That assertion was made to defend the Lincoln administration's creation of military tribunals to prosecute suspected Confederate agents and Northern civilians accused of disloyalty." So what is Bush doing? Bush is trying to resurrect the same war powers, the same plenary powers that Lincoln had. He's just saying, "Look, here it is."

So in this case, here is a man born in Louisiana who is a United States citizen. Yes, he may be a Muslim and he may have been fighting over there, but Bush is saying, "Look, I don't care who he is. I have the right to declare him an enemy combatant. And wherever he was born, he has no right to a trial, no right to a lawyer. I can put him in prison indefinitely. All on my word."

Now, let me point out something else that is associated with this. Everyone in this room has heard about the Posse Comitatus Act. Now, the Posse Comitatus Act was actually passed by Congress during the period of Reconstruction that would prevent army officers, military men, from exercising any control over the civilians or over civilian law. Let me read to you one part of the Posse Comitatus Act. It says this: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the law shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Now may I ask you what Janet Reno and Bill Clinton did in Waco? What did they do at Ruby Ridge? They used army personnel in attacking American civilians and trying to enforce civilian law, which is totally against the Posse Comitatus Act. And here it says they shall be fined and imprisoned not more than two years. Now, I want to read two paragraphs that were published in the Washington Law Journal on this Posse Comitatus Act. Listen carefully. "In response to the military presence in the southern states during the Reconstruction era, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the use of the Army in civilian law enforcement. The Act embodies the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority and currently forbids the use of the Army and Air Force to enforce civilian laws. In the last 15 years, Congress has deliberately eroded this principle by involving the military in drug interdiction at our borders. Within one week of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton proposed an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act to allow the military to aid civilian authorities in investigations involving weapons of mass destruction."

"In addition to this proposal, Congress also considered legislation to directly involve federal troops enforcing customs and immigration laws at the border. In the 1996 presidential campaign, candidate Bob Dole pledged to increase the role of the military in the drug war, and candidate Lamar Alexander even proposed replacing the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol with a new branch of the armed forces." Now, all this is in the Washington Law Journal. Now, the point I'm trying to make, and some of you have seen the film, 9-1-1: The Road to Tyranny. Did you know that there have been Army troops conducting roadblocks in numerous states in this country, checking licenses, checking registration, checking insurance? Inevitably, and I've got some of the documentation with me, but there have been state after state where they go in and literally take over and do an operation or an exercise or a practice for two or three days, sometimes without the knowledge of the people, sometimes without even the knowledge of the law enforcement. Do you remember it was in North Carolina that a policeman shot and killed, was it two army men? Because they were having an exercise there and they tried to take his gun. He didn't know what was going on. He shot him and killed him. Now, the point I'm trying to make is, why in the world do you think that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration—and by the way, the only difference is between the two, Bush appears more moral.

That's really the only difference. I'll tell you this, we have gone downhill further under Bush than we ever did under Clinton. We've gone downhill quicker under Bush than we have under Clinton. As wicked and as vile as Clinton was.

Now, the growing haste with which the military then is considered as a panacea for domestic problems will only further undermine the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, it's only going to be a matter of time before we're going to be seeing military openly in our streets. You say, "How in the world can you say that?" Well, I've got a couple of documents. Look at this one. Headline: "United States mulls military's domestic role." "Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism, hmm, made government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, which is now largely prohibited by federal law. President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, and seizures of evidence, and other police activity on United States soil." Bush is saying, "Look, we need to consider using the military on a day-to-day basis." Ridge went on to say that this goes against our instincts as a country, but the government's wise to examine the law. Ridge says, "And clearly if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus." Two influential Democratic Senators agree with Bush and Ridge that the law ought to be reviewed.

But express no interest in granting the military new powers to arrest American citizens. Then here's Michigan Democratic Senator Levin. He says, "I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be a more supportive and assisting role than they have been up to now, providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting citizens." Well, you know, once you get them, what in the world are they going to do? Listen to this second article very quickly. "The United States may debate giving military law enforcement power." I'm not going to read all of this, but once again, here they are saying that they're going to do it, generally. "That goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest," Ridge said on late edition of the Cable News Network. "Discussing it does not mean that it will ever be used, or the discussion will conclude that it even should be used."

Let me ask you a question. I'm going to say this a little bit later. Have you ever noticed that when the government says they're not going to do something, you can mark it down. That's exactly what they're going to do. Now listen. "The Bush administration already has taken steps to investigate giving the military a larger domestic security role." Here is Senator Joseph Biden. Biden said he may revive a proposal he sponsored with former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn to revise the reconstruction-era limits of the Army, Navy, and later the Air Force's law enforcement authorities. That plan was prompted by the bombing of Oklahoma City Federal Building by domestic terrorists. So he says, "We're going to revive this. We're going to do something about this. We're going to see if we can't get the military back involved in everyday citizens' lives."

So how in the world, how in the world can they do this? And the answer is, not by authority, but simply by power. And let me say this again, you've got to remember, whenever the government denies something, that's exactly what they were going to do. It was Lincoln who first suspended habeas corpus. And then it was Lincoln who first then used the military to arrest the citizens without trial, without warrant, without charge. The more things change, the more they remain the same. It happened under Lincoln, and it's happening today. Secondly, and this may surprise you, but it was under Lincoln, and it was Lincoln who first set up a domestic spy network. Lincoln just simply did not wish to be opposed.

Now there were many Northerners who were sympathetic with the South, and many Northerners who wanted an end to the war. Such sympathizers were derisively referred to as Copperheads. Everybody knows what a Copperhead is, he's a poisonous snake, extremely poisonous, dangerous, because unlike a rattlesnake, he doesn't rattle before he bites, he just bites. Okay? So they were derisively referred to as Copperheads. But now some of these Copperheads, in order to protect themselves, in order to help the South, they formed secret societies such as the Knights of the Golden Circle and the Order of the American Knights. And in order to destroy these societies and infiltrate them and to silence them, it was Lincoln and his State Department and his War Department that initiated the spy network. Now listen carefully. Lincoln coordinated surveillance through a network of special agents, U.S.

Marshals, Pinkerton detectives, local police, military officials, and private informers. Citizen informers. One such citizen or private informer was a man by the name of John T. Robinson who lived at 22 North Howard Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Here's what Robinson did. He stood at a public polling place, that is when people were going to vote, and informed the authorities of one of his neighbors for helping to incite a riot on April the 19th. He accused another of bearing arms on April the 20th. And he accused a third of insulting soldiers. All three were arrested. Now, it did not matter to John Robinson that the federal soldiers had invaded Maryland and were interfering with a lawful state election. Robinson just simply considered himself loyal and his neighbors disloyal. Let me put it another way. He considered himself politically correct. And his neighbors were not politically correct.

You see, it was reported that Secretary of State William Seward bragged to Lord Lyons, the British ambassador, of his arbitrary power in arresting citizens. Listen to what Seward said. Now he's bragging, remember, to the British ambassador, Lord Lyons. Here's what he says: "I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York. And no power on earth except that of the President of the United States can release them." "Can the Queen of England do as much?" Now let me ask you, is that arbitrary power? Yes. Is that an abuse of arbitrary power? And the answer is yes.

Now, I'm going to read something to you in just a moment. But some of you have heard the news of the TIPS program introduced by President Bush. They want you to—it's called Terrorism Information and Prevention System. You see, President Bush wants to use citizens to snoop and to spy on each other. Well, see, Lincoln did that.

Now, the interesting thing is they keep saying that there's not going to be a database. We will just forward it to the proper authorities. Let me ask you a question. Is there anyone in this room, or does anyone in this room know anyone else who is capable of remembering perfectly every name, date, place, and bit of information he or she has ever received? Well, no. And the older you get, the more you have to write notes to yourself. See? Why? You have to keep a database just so you can remember. And if you try to tell me that when we begin to inform on each other, there's not going to be something written down, something kept as to the informer and the information and the ones informed against.

You've got to be out of your mind. Now, let me read this to you. I'm very quickly going through these. "Administration mum on snooping program. The Bush administration says information published this week regarding a new government informant program was premature and that officials are nowhere near ready to implement it." But however, you can go to www.citizencorps.gov and you can get all this yourself. He said it's Operation TIPS, a new anti-terrorism information program designed as a terrorism information and prevention system. And so what he wants to do is basically this. They said all this stuff got out premature, and it was ridiculous. The program is still under development. According to the Herald Report, the administration, under the guise of President Bush's Citizens Corps Volunteer Program, began in the wake of the September 11th attacks, is seeking to recruit up to one million mail carriers, utility workers, and others who have frequent access to private homes as terrorist informants.

By the way, lest I forget to tell you this, those of you who have not been so enraged as I have over this, you know when Winn-Dixie along with some of the other stores just recently began giving you a card that you could have savings if you would use their card. I went to the manager. I went into Winn-Dixie. I already said I wasn't going to shop there when they did that. So I forgot and I went in one day and I looked there and I saw I was getting some tomatoes and it was this price without the card and this price if you have the card. I was so incensed. I turned around.

I said, "I'm not shopping here." And I was walking out and lo and behold, who happened to step into my path but the store manager. And I said, "Sir, I'm going to tell you something. I resent the fact that you have to have a card here to shop. I said, my buying of groceries is private. It's not for sale. It's not your information. I don't do it for marketing. I said, I want you to know I will not be shopping at Winn-Dixie anymore because of this. I said, if you advertise a sale, it should be open to anyone at any time. I said, I'm not shopping here anymore." And of course, there's one local store in our town says "shop here without a card," you know, and that's where we started shopping.

Well, I gave Alice yesterday, or the day before now, a seven-page report that one food line company turned over all of their savings card customers to the feds to investigate as possible terrorists. Because now you're buying a detergent, and buying anything of which possibly a bomb could be made, ammonia and all this kind of stuff, tinfoil, will be under the scrutiny of the feds. Not just the IRS, but the Justice Department. A seven-page report turned over all the records. The government didn't even ask for them. Just patriotic. Turn them all over. Well, anyhow. So, he wants up to a million mail carriers, etc. TIPS is scheduled to be launched in late summer or early fall of 2002. The goal of the program is to establish a reliable and comprehensive national system for reporting suspicious and potentially terroristic related activity. Other reports claim the government will initiate TIPS under the auspices of a 10-city trial program.

The officials are not saying which cities will be involved. Also, officials have refused to explain how a federal informant program could pass constitutional muster, while a similar state or local program likely would not. The TIPS website says information data gathered by several industries would be collected at a single central reporting center. Deny a database now, if you would. Let me go on to another one here. Here's another one. "ACLU: Operation TIPS Breeds Peeping Toms. The planned program drew a prompt rebuke from the American Civil Liberties Union. The administration apparently wants to implement a program that will turn local cable or gas electrical technicians into government informants. Or government sanctioned peeping toms." The ACLU said it was worried that these volunteers would in fact be searching people's homes without a warrant, that resources would be wasted on a flood of useless tips, and the program would encourage vigilantism and racial profiling. The project is initially planned to begin in August in 10 selected cities. Let me read you another one. "Planned Volunteer Informant Corps elicits 1984 fears."

"The Terrorism Information Prevention System Operation TIPS, a national reporting pilot program is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities. They're going to use at least 4% of the Americans initially to be informants. The program will allow volunteers whose routines make them well positioned to recognize suspect activities to report the same to the Justice Department who is running the project. The Justice Department will enter the information into a database, which will then be broadly available within the department and to state and local agencies and to local police forces. At local and state levels, the program will be coordinated by the FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency." Let's see, the ACLU once again says this is an end run around the Constitution. Critics say that having Americans act as domestic informants is reminiscent of the infamous Stasi, the now disbanded Communist East German Secret Police Service, etc. John Whitehead, who is a good man, the Executive Director of the Rutherford Institute, agreed, "This is George Orwell's 1984. It's absolutely horrible and very dangerous idea," he said. "It's making Americans into government snoops."

Now, with all the criticism that has come up on this TIPS project, look at this headline. "Justice Department forges ahead with TIPS despite Armey ban." Now, not ARMY, this is Dick Armey, who is the congressman. He says, "I don't want anything to do with it." But still. House Majority Leader Dick Armey inserted last week a ban on the program in the bill. But they say, "Hey, I don't care whether you ban it or not, we're going to continue with this. This is our project and we're going to have it."

War as the Engine of State Growth

Weaver explains that war allows governments to expand power permanently. He cites phony wars on poverty, drugs, and terrorism as mechanisms for increasing control, and quotes Randolph Bourne: 'War is the health of the state.'

There was an empire built that had not previously existed. Now, let me ask you a question. How did Lincoln effectively change our republic into an empire? The answer is by war. How did Lincoln establish a centralized power-hungry bureaucratic government? The answer is by war. Randolph Bourne correctly stated, listen to this quote, "War is the health of the state." Now how can war be considered to be the health of the state? Well in two ways.

Number one, during war governments always expand their powers, swell their base, increase taxes, regulate, control, and suppress liberty and freedom, all in the name of doing it for the good of our country. Number two, after the war is over, there is never a return of the government to its pre-war size. It continues and adds to its usurped authority until it has assumed almost total control over everything. Now, I want you to understand, it really does not even have to be an actual war for this little trick to work. For instance, does anyone in here remember our government's war against illiteracy? Has literacy been eradicated? No, but now what do we have? Government controlled education. I'm sure some of you, because I do, I remember our war on poverty. Well, does poverty still exist? Yes, but now we have a totally governmentally controlled economy. Well, what about the war against drugs? Well, we have more drugs than ever before.

And the truth of the matter is this. If our government was really genuinely serious about stopping all the drug trafficking, all it has to do is get out of the business itself. Our CIA imports more drugs than you can shake a stick at. Probably many other agencies as well. No. You see, the phony war on drugs is a way to control people, control medicines, control our lives, and at the same time keep our prisons full of cheap labor. Do you know that percentage-wise there are more people in prison in America than any other country in the world? Does anybody ever remember the war against crime? Well, we have more crime than we've ever had before. And the biggest criminals are now in government. You see, phony wars are just as good as actual wars.

And the war on terrorism, look, if you would, at the power that President Bush has arrogated to himself, that he has demanded of Congress, and look, if you would, at the bureaucracies that are being established. It is not less government, it is more government. More government simply equates to more control. Loss of freedom. George Fitzhugh said it best. If you don't remember anything else from this message today, remember what George Fitzhugh said.

Conclusion: Salvation Only in Christ

Weaver concludes that the leopard cannot change his spots, and only the grace of God in Jesus Christ can bring true change. He calls for a Christian government based on God's Word and looks forward to Christ's return.

This is back in the 1800s. He said, "Freedom is an evil that government is intended to correct." And brother, it corrects it very well. That is unbiblical government. That's what I would put in. Freedom is an evil that unbiblical government is intended to correct.

Now, when you look at what is happening today, like I say, I wish I had time to just continue. But when you look at what is happening today, I want you to remember this simple truth. The more things change, the more they remain the same. And when you look at Bush and you look at Lincoln, you can simply say, "Been there, done that." What Lincoln started, Bush is finishing. One centralized, totalitarian, tyrannical, gargantuan police state. You see folks, the leopard cannot change his spots. The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin. The sinner cannot change his nature. One thing you should learn, and learn it well, our salvation is not in government. Our salvation is only in the grace of God. And if you and I do not work for a Christian government based upon the Word of God, built upon the grace and the mercy and the sovereignty of God, all we'll ever have is what Lincoln and Bush can give us. Change comes through grace.

and through faith in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone. Now, I'll tell you, you talk about a new world order, I will tell you when we will have the new world order, when Jesus Christ returns literally, visibly, and bodily, and we'll have one then that will be genuine and real. Let's pray. Father, we ask you today to speak to our hearts, teach us, build us up in the most holy faith, enable us to live for Thee, and enable us, Lord, to be aware of what's going on and understand that we should not make the mistakes of our forefathers. It's not that history repeats itself. It's that we're sinners, we're forgetful, we're silly, we're stupid, and we allow wickedness to continue when we should never allow it. Give us grace, Lord, to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Total Depravity and Human Inability

Summary: Fallen humans are incapable of changing their sinful nature or doing good apart from God's grace.

Evidence: Weaver expounds Jeremiah 13:23 and Romans 8:7-8 to show that sinners cannot change themselves, just as a leopard cannot change its spots.

The Corrupting Nature of Power

Summary: Sinful rulers become more corrupt as they gain power, and governments run by fallen men inevitably become tyrannical.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'The more power a sinner gets, the more corrupt he becomes,' and illustrates this with Lincoln's dictatorial actions.

Historical Repetition of Tyranny

Summary: The unconstitutional acts of Lincoln are being repeated by the Bush administration, demonstrating that 'the more things change, the more they remain the same.'

Evidence: Weaver compares Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and spy networks to Bush's enemy combatant detentions and Operation TIPS.

War as a Tool for Government Expansion

Summary: Governments use war, real or phony, to permanently expand their power, increase taxes, and suppress liberty.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Randolph Bourne, 'War is the health of the state,' and cites wars on poverty, drugs, and terrorism as examples.

The Illusion of Political Solutions

Summary: Both major political parties are corrupt and incapable of bringing true change; salvation is not in government but in Christ alone.

Evidence: Weaver says there is 'not a dime's worth of difference' between Republicans and Democrats, and that 'our salvation is not in government.'

The Necessity of Grace for Change

Summary: True transformation of individuals and society comes only through the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ.

Evidence: Weaver concludes, 'Change comes through grace and through faith in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone.'

Key Arguments

Sinners cannot change themselves

Summary: Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, those accustomed to doing evil cannot do good. This is total inability rooted in total depravity.

Evidence: Weaver cites Jeremiah 13:23 and Romans 8:7-8, emphasizing that the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God's law.

Lincoln was a dictator who destroyed the Constitution

Summary: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands without trial, censored the press, and created war powers out of thin air, transforming the republic into an empire.

Evidence: Weaver lists 11 reasons for arrest under Lincoln and quotes historians who call him a dictator, such as Clinton Rossiter and James Ford Rhodes.

Bush is repeating Lincoln's tyranny

Summary: The Bush administration claims power to detain citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants, promotes domestic spying, and seeks to erode Posse Comitatus, mirroring Lincoln's actions.

Evidence: Weaver reads from articles about the Hamdi case, Operation TIPS, and discussions on revising Posse Comitatus, directly comparing them to Lincoln's policies.

War permanently expands government power

Summary: During war, governments expand powers, and after war they never return to pre-war size. Phony wars like the war on drugs serve the same purpose.

Evidence: Weaver explains that the war on illiteracy led to government-controlled education, and the war on poverty led to a government-controlled economy.

The Civil War denied the American Revolution

Summary: By forcing the South to remain in the Union, Lincoln denied the revolutionary right of self-determination, which was the basis for American independence from England.

Evidence: Weaver quotes William Appleman Williams and the London Times, which stated that the Union was upheld 'like any other empire, by force of arms.'

Political parties are equally corrupt

Summary: Both Republicans and Democrats have abandoned the Constitution and the Word of God, and neither offers a solution to tyranny.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'there's not a dime's worth of difference between either one of them. Both of them are absolutely corrupt.'

Scripture References

Jeremiah 13:23

Context: Weaver uses this verse to establish the principle that sinners cannot change their nature, just as a leopard cannot change its spots.

Jeremiah 22:21

Context: God says that Israel's manner from youth has been to disobey His voice, illustrating habitual sinfulness.

Romans 8:7-8

Context: The carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to His law; those in the flesh cannot please God. This supports total depravity and inability.

Acts 15:18

Context: Known unto God are all His works from the beginning, supporting the linear view of history with a definite beginning and end.

Historical References

Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (1861)

Context: Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, and it remained suspended throughout his administration, leading to mass arrests without trial.

Henry Clay's American System

Context: Clay advocated for a centralized government, high protective tariffs, and a national bank, which Lincoln later implemented, transforming the republic into an empire.

Andrew Jackson's veto of the National Bank

Context: Jackson refused to renew the charter of the national bank, arguing it created artificial distinctions and was dangerous to liberty.

Tariff of Abominations (1828) and Nullification Crisis

Context: The high tariff led to South Carolina's nullification crisis, nearly causing war, and exemplified the conflict between centralized and decentralized government.

Fort Lafayette as the 'American Bastille'

Context: During the Civil War, Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor was filled with political prisoners arrested without trial, earning it the nickname.

Posse Comitatus Act (1878)

Context: Passed during Reconstruction to prohibit military involvement in civilian law enforcement, this act has been eroded by recent administrations.

Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System)

Context: A Bush administration program to recruit millions of citizens as domestic informants, criticized as reminiscent of East German Stasi.

Clement L. Vallandigham's deportation

Context: Lincoln deported Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio for criticizing his policies, illustrating suppression of political dissent.

Important Quotes

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil.

Significance: This is the foundational scripture for the sermon, establishing the principle of total inability and the unchangeable nature of sin.

The more power a sinner gets, the more corrupt he becomes.

Significance: This summarizes the sermon's thesis about the corrupting influence of power on sinful human nature.

War is the health of the state.

Significance: This quote from Randolph Bourne encapsulates the argument that governments use war to expand power permanently.

Freedom is an evil that government is intended to correct.

Significance: Weaver uses this quote from George Fitzhugh to describe the nature of unbiblical, tyrannical government.

Discussion Questions

How does the doctrine of total depravity affect our expectations for political leaders and governments?

Context: Weaver argues that sinful rulers cannot change and become more corrupt with power, based on Romans 8:7-8.

In what ways did Lincoln's actions during the Civil War set precedents for modern executive power?

Context: Weaver details Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, military arrests, and suppression of dissent.

Is there a legitimate biblical basis for comparing modern government programs to biblical warnings about tyranny?

Context: Weaver compares Operation TIPS to Lincoln's spy networks and quotes Scripture on human inability.

How should Christians respond when government expands its power in the name of security?

Context: Weaver discusses the erosion of Posse Comitatus and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

What does it mean that 'war is the health of the state,' and how have phony wars been used to increase government control?

Context: Weaver explains that wars, real or fabricated, permanently expand government power and reduce liberty.

How can we maintain a biblical hope for societal change without placing our trust in political parties?

Context: Weaver concludes that salvation is only in Christ and calls for a government based on God's Word.

Applications

Recognize human inability and depend on God's grace

Summary: Acknowledge that neither individuals nor governments can change their sinful nature apart from the grace of God in Christ.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'Change comes through grace and through faith in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone.'

Be vigilant against governmental overreach

Summary: Citizens should watch their government to ensure it does not exceed constitutional limits, rather than spying on each other.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'If any spying is to be done, it ought to be the citizens of this country eyeballing our government to make sure that it does not exceed its constitutional limits.'

Do not trust in political parties for salvation

Summary: Both major parties are corrupt and have abandoned God's Word; true hope is not in elections but in Christ's return.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'Our salvation is not in government. Our salvation is only in the grace of God.'

Learn from history to avoid repeating sins

Summary: Christians should study history to recognize patterns of tyranny and not be 'silly' or 'stupid' in allowing wickedness to continue.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'One thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history... because we make the same mistakes, commit the same sins.'

Resist the erosion of liberty in the name of security

Summary: Programs like Operation TIPS and the weakening of Posse Comitatus should be opposed as steps toward a police state.

Evidence: Weaver warns that the TIPS program will turn Americans into 'government snoops' and lead to a 'gargantuan police state.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T04:22:45Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T16:44:16Z

Clean Transcript

The Desire For Power #2

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

Jeremiah chapter 13, and today we're going to be reading verse 23. Jeremiah 13 and verse 23. The Word of God says, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil."
#1 | 0:06 to 0:31 | cleaned
Now look at it very carefully. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" What's the answer? No. "Can the leopard change his spots?" No. "Then may you also do good that are accustomed or practiced to do evil." There are some things that are humanly impossible to change. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin. Neither can a white American. I mean, it's just a simple statement. But then he goes on to say, "Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil." Just like the leopard cannot change its spots, or the Ethiopian cannot change his skin, likewise, a sinner cannot change himself. Those who are practiced, those who are habitually and accustomed to sinning can only sin.
#2 | 0:31 to 1:24 | cleaned
If you will look in Jeremiah 22 and verse 21, the Lord says something similar. Jeremiah 22 in verse 21, God says, "I spake unto thee in thy prosperity, but thou saidest, I will not hear." Now, look what God says. "This has been thy manner from my youth that thou obeyest not my voice." Now, this has been my manner from my youth that thou obeyest not my voice. So sinners, then, are not only incapable of changing themselves, they are habitual sinners and are contrary to God. The truth is, fallen men do not change themselves. Fallen men cannot change themselves because they're incapable of doing so.
#3 | 1:25 to 2:10 | cleaned
Now, I can quote this passage, but I do want you to turn very quickly to the book of Romans 8 and look at verses 7 and 8. Romans 8, verses 7 and 8. Watch carefully. You're talking about a passage that really shows total depravity and total inability. Here it is. Romans 8. And note, if you would please, verse 7. God says, "Because the carnal mind, that's the natural mind, the fleshly mind, the mind that you were born with. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God." May I remind you that the word enmity is an extremely strong word for hatred. So he literally says, "Because the carnal or the fleshly mind is hatred against God," look carefully, "for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." And then he climaxes that truth with verse 8, "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." So those who have nothing but the flesh are incapable of pleasing God. Now once you understand this simple principle of total depravity and total inability, you not only understand why sinners do not change and cannot change, you also understand why sinful governments do not change.
#4 | 2:10 to 3:29 | cleaned
Because they are run by sinful, fallen, helpless, depraved men. I don't think I need to enunciate this truth, but civil service does not change a man into a saint. And the truth of the matter is, the opposite is true. The more power a sinner gets, the more corrupt he becomes, as I demonstrated last week from Psalm 62.
#5 | 3:30 to 3:56 | cleaned
Now, each of us have heard the expression, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Now, the expression really indicates that in reality, although there is an appearance of change, in reality, there is no change. The change only appears to be, but it is not real. And so, with the appearance of change, then you have business as usual.
#6 | 3:56 to 4:21 | cleaned
Now, a good illustration of that, and some of you will remember it, is a truth that was given to us in the Republican Revolution and the Contract with America. Remember Newt Gingrich? Remember the Republicans who were clamoring about how excessively gigantic government was and that they were going to reduce government, they were the administration that were going to downsize government, they were going to cut expenses, they were going to reduce taxes.
#7 | 4:21 to 4:54 | cleaned
Need I say that the more things have changed, the more they remain the same? So the Republican Contract with America did not change one single thing. Remember, if you would please, how all the Democrats blamed all the problems on the Republicans, and they assured us that when they got into office, things were going to be different. It's amazing how different things remain the same, isn't it? Now, I mention both Republicans and Democrats for a reason.
#8 | 4:56 to 5:29 | cleaned
I want to be politically correct, because I want to be an equal opportunity offender, okay? Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between either one of them. Both of them are absolutely corrupt, both parties, and have totally left not only the Word of God, but even the Constitution. Now, many of us have heard the statement, and I want to correct you if you think this, many of us have heard the statement, "History repeats itself." Whenever you use that, I want you to understand that that is a pagan concept. It is pagan to the core. In other words, the pagans believed in the cyclical view of history. That is, things, history, just went round and round, and that's how you came up with "history repeats itself," because the pagans viewed history as a vicious, non-ending circle. From the biblical perspective, history is linear.
#9 | 5:31 to 6:30 | cleaned
That is, it has a straight line. There is a definite beginning. And it progresses to a definite end.
#10 | 6:30 to 6:37 | cleaned
Now Acts chapter 15 and verse 18 substantiates this truth. Because there the Word of God says, "Known unto God are all of His works from the beginning of the world." So when God created the world, God knew exactly what He was going to do. He knew exactly how He was going to end everything. So there's a definite beginning and there's a definite ending. So history is not cyclical. History is linear. God has not only ordained the end, but He's also ordained the beginning, and He's also ordained everything that is in between. So the correct thing to say is not "history repeats itself," but the correct thing to say would be this: One thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. The reason we believe history repeats itself is not because history is cyclical, but because we make the same mistakes, commit the same sins, fall into the same traps that our forefathers did. The problem is not cyclical, but it's sin and stupidity. You got that? It's not that it's going around, it's that we're still sinners and we're still stupid in thinking that we can sin against God and get by with it.
#11 | 6:38 to 7:58 | cleaned
So, you could also paraphrase another common saying, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Now, let me ask you a question because Mark asked me coming over here today, "What brought last week's message and this message to your mind?" and I'll share it with you. Because some of the information that I got that I'm going to be quoting and showing you in just a moment, some of the information that I got, I stopped and I thought, "You know, this has been done before. I remember this. I recognize this." And so I want to show you basically that what is happening in our country today, you could in essence say, "We've been there, done that." Now, why is it that we're so blind today as to what's actually going on?
#12 | 7:59 to 8:56 | cleaned
Is it simply ignorance or is it willful blindness? Or is it the fact that people are just apathetic and really don't care? There's another possibility. There's the possibility that some really do not believe that what is happening in this country could happen in this country. There are people who genuinely believe that we, as Americans, are somehow above failure, we are above defeat, we are above tyranny and totalitarianism. That that could never, ever happen in this country.
#13 | 8:56 to 9:30 | cleaned
Well, the truth of the matter is this. We, as a republic, have been conquered many years ago. In fact, the very nature of our government itself was changed by the War of Northern Aggression. Alexander Hamilton Stephens, in his book—actually there are two books, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States—said this, and I want you to listen. Remember now, Alexander Hamilton Stephens was Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Here's what he said: "The contest which ended in the war was indeed a contest between two opposing principles."
#14 | 9:31 to 10:16 | cleaned
"But not such as bore upon the policy of African subordination. They were principles deeply underlying all considerations of that sort. They involved the very nature and organic structure of the government itself. The conflict on this question of slavery in the federal councils from the beginning was not a contest between the advocates or opponents of that peculiar institution, but a contest, as stated before, between the supporters of a strictly federated, that is, a decentralized government on the one hand, and a thoroughly national or centralized one on the other hand." So Alexander Hamilton Stephens says yes, they held up slavery as an issue. But what he was saying is this, it was really not the issue. The issue was a contest between two opposing principles. One wanted a decentralized government and the other wanted an extremely structured and centralized or national government.
#15 | 10:18 to 11:20 | cleaned
Now Abraham Lincoln was not simply a follower of the philosophy and the politics of Henry Clay, but Abraham Lincoln viewed himself as Henry Clay's successor. Now, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and a number of other men were great centralizers. They wanted a strong national government. Let me tell you basically what these men propounded. First of all, Clay and all those who believed like him fought for a central government to promote what they called economic growth, but they were to promote that economic growth by internal improvements. Now what they meant by internal improvements was this: governmental subsidies. It was actually British mercantilism, that is the government is going to have the power to improve the states. The government's going to have the power to run the interstate highways through the states. The government's going to have the power to have the canals in the states. All at the expense of the taxpayers, at the expense of the citizens, but it's not the states who are doing it. It is not the citizens who are doing it.
#16 | 11:21 to 12:41 | cleaned
It is the federal government that is going to do it. So the federal government then would be calling all the shots and not the states and not the citizens. Not only did they believe in a strong central government, they believed in what is known as protectionism. That is, they wanted high tariffs.
#17 | 12:41 to 13:00 | cleaned
Now what the tariffs would do would prevent outside competition for the North. Anytime you have a high tariff, the losers are always going to be the consumers. And in this instance, it was the southern consumers. Because here's what the North wanted. The North wanted a high tariff to protect foreign competition. Now you've got to remember all the manufacturing industry was basically in the North, very little in the South. And so here the South has all of their cotton and all their plantation, all their agricultural crops, and so they take these agricultural products and they will ship them then to England. Well, instead of England giving cold hard cash, England then would trade manufactured goods. So that means that when the Southerners brought the manufactured goods back in, since they were from England, there was a high tariff. That means the Southerners were still having to pay, even though they brought them back in a bargain or in a swap. And if they wanted cash, then they had to reduce their product so they could get cold hard cash.
#18 | 13:00 to 14:14 | cleaned
Either way you looked at it, the South was losing. And so, Henry Clay and all of his cronies wanted not only a centralized government, but a strong protectionist tariff. And by the way, some of you will remember that in history, which was known as the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. That led to the nullification crisis in South Carolina, where John C. Calhoun said, "No, you've passed this law, it's unconstitutional, we're going to nullify it." And there was almost a war in 1828 over the abomination of the tariff. So they wanted a strong central government, they wanted protection, and they wanted a national bank. Many of you probably do not know, but it was Andrew Jackson, President Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, that actually kept the national bank out of the United States twice.
#19 | 14:14 to 15:16 | cleaned
Once he prevented it from even coming to existence, and secondly, when it did come into existence, he refused to renew the charter or have the charter renewed. He says, "What we do not need in this country is a national bank." Now, I want you to listen to what Jackson said in refusing to renew the charter of the national bank. In vetoing it, here's what he said: "Distinction in a society will always exist under every just government." Now you just pause and think about that. "Distinctions in a society will always exist under every just government."
#20 | 15:16 to 15:53 | cleaned
"Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gift of heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by the law. But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society, the farmers, mechanics, and laborers, who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to
#21 | 15:54 to 16:37 | cleaned
themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their governments." Did you hear what he said? He said, when a government begins to give subsidies, monopolies, special privileges to a select few, the average citizen has a right to complain of the injustice in their government. Andrew Jackson denounced the National Bank as dangerous to the liberty of the American people because it represented a fantastic centralization of economic and political power under private control.
#22 | 16:37 to 17:23 | cleaned
Would you like to know who runs the money in this country? It is certainly not the United States Treasury. It is certainly not Congress. It's the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank in private hands.
#23 | 17:26 to 17:45 | cleaned
Now, please understand that these three points—a centralized government, a high tariff or protection, especially for the northern manufacturing industries, and a national bank—Henry Clay himself referred to these points as the American System. That's what he fought for. That's exactly what Abraham Lincoln fought for. And this American System was nothing less than British mercantilism, which would bring to our country—now watch—it would bring to our country national debt, political corruption, and a court party or a political elite to America. Did it bring those three things to America?
#24 | 17:46 to 18:34 | cleaned
Well, of course it did. Thus, our republic was basically transformed then into an empire.
#25 | 18:34 to 18:41 | cleaned
Now Lincoln remained a staunch protectionist, he promoted internal improvements, and he insisted upon high tariffs. There is an illustration that I gave in one of those messages in that series, "Where We Are and How We Got Here," where Lincoln was being offered a way out without having the war, but all Lincoln could reply was this: "My tariff, my tariff, what about my tariffs?" He was for tariffs. In fact, what Lincoln did was this. He used the war to force his agenda upon America. Now, although there are many Northerners who may have believed in and held the same positions that Lincoln did, it was Lincoln who actually initiated the American System and changed the nature of our government.
#26 | 18:41 to 19:34 | cleaned
Now let me make a statement, then I'm going to give you some quotes that may surprise you, but here it is. Lincoln was a dictator. I could say that another way. Lincoln was a tyrant. But not only was Lincoln a dictator, many Lincoln admirers openly and readily admit that Lincoln was a dictator, albeit they say that he was a benevolent dictator. Clinton Rossiter in his book Constitutional Dictatorship said this: "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms."
#27 | 19:35 to 20:12 | cleaned
"One man was the government of the United States. Lincoln was a great dictator. This great constitutional dictator was self-appointed." And here's the man who supports Lincoln. In 1900, James Ford Rhodes, who practically worshipped Lincoln, wrote this. Listen: "Never have the power of a dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands." But at least he's admitting that he's a dictator. James G. Randall declared, "If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent one."
#28 | 20:13 to 20:50 | cleaned
Well, I got news for you. I don't even want a benevolent dictator, you know.
#29 | 20:51 to 20:55 | cleaned
Now, let me ask you, which would you rather me do? Have you rather look at me and say, angrily, forcefully, "You will give me your money or I'll sonar me to take it." Or had you rather me smile and say, "Please give me your money, but you're going to give it to me either way I ask." What's the difference? I'm just asking nicely. One time I may be a benevolent one, but I'm still stealing from you. Doesn't matter.
#30 | 20:57 to 21:25 | cleaned
But anyhow, Lincoln was most certainly a dictator. He initiated a war against the South without consulting Congress. He declared martial law. He blocked southern ports, which was unconstitutional. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration. He imprisoned thousands of Northerners without trial and without charges. He arrested and imprisoned newspaper publishers and editors who were critical of him. He even deported a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, because Vallandigham criticized Lincoln's policies. He created new states without the consent of the citizens of those states.
#31 | 21:26 to 22:09 | cleaned
He censored, tapped telegraph communications. He nationalized the railroads. He ordered federal troops to interfere with local elections. He confiscated private property. He confiscated firearms. He did all this and more in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, which he took an oath to uphold. By the way, I told you that Lincoln was the man who began executive orders, but Lincoln was also the man who invented war powers out of thin air. He justified his unconstitutional acts by discovering in the Constitution presidential powers that no president before him had ever discovered. Even James Madison, the father of the Constitution, had never ever discovered these amazing war powers. You see, Lincoln believed that he could safely ignore the Constitution in order to save the Constitution. It was his willingness to use force that allowed him to get away with basically destroying our Constitution.
#32 | 22:10 to 23:19 | cleaned
I want you to remember something, folks. I want you to remember that force does not equal authority. Force does not equal authority. I could come up to Chester, and I could pull out a .357 Magnum and stick it to his temple and say, "Give me all your money." And he would give me all of his money. But although I have the power to take his money, does not mean I have the right or the authority to take his money.
#33 | 23:20 to 23:57 | cleaned
There's a difference between those two things. Might does not make right. And simply because someone has the power to do something, does not mean that that individual has the authority to do something.
#34 | 23:57 to 24:10 | cleaned
Now, I want to take my time this morning, and I really only want to cover two points. I want to demonstrate the truth of the title of this message: "The more things change, the more they remain the same." I want you to see that what is happening today happened under Lincoln in the 1860s. In reality, if I had the time, which I don't have, I could probably spend three or four more messages just showing you the simple truth. But let me tell you, one of the first and foremost unconstitutional acts of Abraham Lincoln was that he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Now, everyone in here should know what the writ of habeas corpus is.
#35 | 24:10 to 25:05 | cleaned
That's when a man is arrested and someone thinks that he was arrested wrongly. You supply the writ, you file the writ. And the court says, "You produce the body, you bring him back here, we're going to see whether or not things were done right." Well, on April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and this suspension remained in effect throughout his administration. Now, the suspension of habeas corpus was vested only in the power of Congress, not in the executive branch. Even the Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall, issued an opinion. Here's what he said: "If the public safety should require the suspension of habeas corpus, it is for the legislature to say so." Judge Roger Taney, who was also a Supreme Court Justice later on, concurred with Marshall. In fact, Judge Taney said this. Judge Taney said that Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension resulted in, and I quote, "It resulted in that the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws."
#36 | 25:05 to 26:11 | cleaned
"But every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found." So he says, when the writ is suspended, when you no longer have the right, then you are literally at the mercy of the army of a dictator. Now, I want you to understand that the military officers were given liberty to arrest and imprison at their pleasure under Abraham Lincoln. And they were given the liberty to arrest and imprison without charges and without a trial, without a warrant, without anything.
#37 | 26:12 to 27:01 | cleaned
Now, don't think for one moment that these military officers just simply arrested those who they believed were genuinely treasonous. No. Let me give you some of the things that people were arrested for. I'm going to list 11 of them. Men and women were arrested for, number one, discouraging voluntary enlistments in the Union Army. But Lord, here's someone that objected to the war, and you didn't think young men should sign up. And so you discouraged men from enlisting in the Union Army. Well, you could be arrested and imprisoned by a military officer for discouraging voluntary enlistments, for being a noisy secessionist. A noisy secessionist, does that mean having a party at two o'clock in the morning? No!
#38 | 27:03 to 27:58 | cleaned
It means that you're speaking out and saying, "Well, hey, wait a minute, I believe the South has a right to secede." Well, you're a noisy secessionist. And so you could be arrested for that. Selling Confederate trinkets? Listen to this one. Hoorahing for Jeff Davis. People were arrested for saying, "Hoorah, hoorah for Jeff Davis." Number five, for expressing a political view contrary to Lincoln. Number six, writing and printing articles not favoring Lincoln and his policies. Oh, I wish I could give you the list of newspapers that were closed down by Lincoln. An innumerable list. Editors, publishers arrested for writing articles contrary to Lincoln and his policies. Number seven, failing to pray for Lincoln. One pastor in Alexandria, Virginia was arrested in the pulpit because he refused to pray specifically for Abraham Lincoln by name.
#39 | 27:59 to 29:12 | cleaned
I kind of like what General Ewell said, however. When General Ewell was on his way to Gettysburg, there's a little town south of Gettysburg, I forget its name, we've been through it many times, but he went in and took control of that town. And so, he was in control, getting supplies for all of his Confederate men, and some of the pastors in that town came to General Ewell and they asked him, "Would it be alright if they had Sunday services?"
#40 | 29:14 to 29:52 | cleaned
He said, "Well, of course. The churches may remain open." He said, "I would like to attend myself." Then the next question was this, "Well, would you object if we offered a prayer for Abraham Lincoln?" He said, "Of course not. I know of no other man who needs more prayers than he does." But here was a pastor in Alexandria, Virginia who was arrested for failing to pray for Lincoln. You could be arrested for expressing a desire for peace, for being a peace activist, or, number 11, for being suspected of just simply being disloyal. So if someone said that you were disloyal, then of course you could be arrested. In Maryland alone, in the state of Maryland, 31 legislators, 31 state legislators, and the mayor of Baltimore and one of the United States congressmen were all arrested for failing to support Lincoln and his policies. That's just in Maryland alone. 31 state legislators. See, Lincoln thought that Maryland was going to secede as well.
#41 | 29:52 to 31:05 | cleaned
And he wanted to stop that. So he went in and arrested them. And when they had an election, the right men won. He immediately stepped in and arrested those. The others had to literally flee for their lives. The number of citizens arrested by Lincoln and his men and held without trial is staggering. Some suggest that it was as high as 40,000.
#42 | 31:06 to 31:32 | cleaned
Now we're talking about Northerners, not Southerners. This was 40,000 of his own people. Whatever the number, I don't care if it was only two, that would be too high. But I'll tell you what, the number was so high that Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor was so full it became known as the American Bastille. I have a book entitled The American Bastille. The book is about three, three-and-a-half inches thick, and all it is is the stories of men and women who were arrested and thrown in Fort Lafayette without trial, without charges, without a warrant, put there by Lincoln.
#43 | 31:32 to 32:28 | cleaned
Now, I want to read something to you. This is one of the things that got my mind thinking. This article is written by William Norman Grigg. It is entitled, "Suspending Habeas Corpus." You say, "Well, Lincoln did that, but I mean, that's not going on today." Listen to the headlines. "The Bush administration claims the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, without trial, a suspension of habeas corpus guarantee on which our justice system is founded."
#44 | 32:28 to 33:01 | cleaned
Now, please, I'm not talking about those Afghanis who are at Guantanamo Bay. I'm not referring to them, but listen to this. He begins the article, he says, "Some things are true even if the Washington Post says them. Reviewing the Bush administration's conduct in the case of accused terrorist Yasser Issam Hamdi, a June 20th Post editorial concluded that under the powers claimed by the Bush administration, listen carefully, any American could be locked up indefinitely without a lawyer on the President's say-so. Hamdi was among the Taliban and Al-Qaeda personnel captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. After Hamdi was transported to the United States Detention Center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it was learned that he had been born in Louisiana and may retain United States citizenship."
#45 | 33:02 to 34:03 | cleaned
"He was relocated to a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, where he's been held incommunicado. As an American citizen, he would have the right to legal counsel. A federal judge ordered the administration to allow federal public defender Frank Dunham to have access to Hamdi."
#46 | 34:04 to 34:23 | cleaned
Now, I'm not going to read all this. You may read it later. But now there is a real war going on between Bush and the court system. According to the Bush administration's brief, here's Bush's position. "The military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants, including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right to access to counsel or to challenge their detention. Furthermore, the brief continues, listen carefully, the court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination, because by doing so they would intrude on the President's plenary authority as Commander-in-Chief." In other words, the Bush position is this: if I declare you an enemy combatant, even if you were born in the United States, even if you have United States citizenship, you do not have a right to a lawyer, you do not have a right to a trial, I can hold you and imprison you indefinitely.
#47 | 34:23 to 35:32 | cleaned
And the article goes on to say, "This position is in essence a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus." I'm going to read just this one paragraph. It says, "Herein lies the chief flaw of the administration's case. Only Congress, not the president or military authorities acting in his control, can declare war. And furthermore, the president does not enjoy plenary, that is, absolute or unqualified authority, in his role as commander-in-chief. And as we've already seen, only Congress has the power to suspend the writ, not the president. The Bush administration has essentially resurrected the Lincoln administration's claim that a military commander acting under presidential orders can be the supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive within this area of responsibility. That assertion was made to defend the Lincoln administration's creation of military tribunals to prosecute suspected Confederate agents and Northern civilians accused of disloyalty." So what is Bush doing? Bush is trying to resurrect the same war powers, the same plenary powers that Lincoln had. He's just saying, "Look, here it is."
#48 | 35:33 to 36:52 | cleaned
So in this case, here is a man born in Louisiana who is a United States citizen. Yes, he may be a Muslim and he may have been fighting over there, but Bush is saying, "Look, I don't care who he is. I have the right to declare him an enemy combatant. And wherever he was born, he has no right to a trial, no right to a lawyer. I can put him in prison indefinitely. All on my word."
#49 | 36:53 to 37:23 | cleaned
Now, let me point out something else that is associated with this. Everyone in this room has heard about the Posse Comitatus Act. Now, the Posse Comitatus Act was actually passed by Congress during the period of Reconstruction that would prevent army officers, military men, from exercising any control over the civilians or over civilian law. Let me read to you one part of the Posse Comitatus Act. It says this: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the law shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
#50 | 37:25 to 38:31 | cleaned
Now may I ask you what Janet Reno and Bill Clinton did in Waco? What did they do at Ruby Ridge? They used army personnel in attacking American civilians and trying to enforce civilian law, which is totally against the Posse Comitatus Act. And here it says they shall be fined and imprisoned not more than two years. Now, I want to read two paragraphs that were published in the Washington Law Journal on this Posse Comitatus Act. Listen carefully. "In response to the military presence in the southern states during the Reconstruction era, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the use of the Army in civilian law enforcement. The Act embodies the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority and currently forbids the use of the Army and Air Force to enforce civilian laws. In the last 15 years, Congress has deliberately eroded this principle by involving the military in drug interdiction at our borders. Within one week of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton proposed an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act to allow the military to aid civilian authorities in investigations involving weapons of mass destruction."
#51 | 38:32 to 40:02 | cleaned
"In addition to this proposal, Congress also considered legislation to directly involve federal troops enforcing customs and immigration laws at the border. In the 1996 presidential campaign, candidate Bob Dole pledged to increase the role of the military in the drug war, and candidate Lamar Alexander even proposed replacing the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol with a new branch of the armed forces."
#52 | 40:03 to 40:31 | cleaned
Now, all this is in the Washington Law Journal. Now, the point I'm trying to make, and some of you have seen the film, 9-1-1: The Road to Tyranny. Did you know that there have been Army troops conducting roadblocks in numerous states in this country, checking licenses, checking registration, checking insurance? Inevitably, and I've got some of the documentation with me, but there have been state after state where they go in and literally take over and do an operation or an exercise or a practice for two or three days, sometimes without the knowledge of the people, sometimes without even the knowledge of the law enforcement. Do you remember it was in North Carolina that a policeman shot and killed, was it two army men? Because they were having an exercise there and they tried to take his gun. He didn't know what was going on. He shot him and killed him. Now, the point I'm trying to make is, why in the world do you think that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration—and by the way, the only difference is between the two, Bush appears more moral.
#53 | 40:32 to 41:57 | cleaned
That's really the only difference. I'll tell you this, we have gone downhill further under Bush than we ever did under Clinton. We've gone downhill quicker under Bush than we have under Clinton. As wicked and as vile as Clinton was.
#54 | 41:58 to 42:13 | cleaned
Now, the growing haste with which the military then is considered as a panacea for domestic problems will only further undermine the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, it's only going to be a matter of time before we're going to be seeing military openly in our streets. You say, "How in the world can you say that?" Well, I've got a couple of documents. Look at this one. Headline: "United States mulls military's domestic role."
#55 | 42:14 to 42:44 | cleaned
"Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge says the threat of terrorism, hmm, made government planners to consider using the military for domestic law enforcement, which is now largely prohibited by federal law. President Bush has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, and seizures of evidence, and other police activity on United States soil." Bush is saying, "Look, we need to consider using the military on a day-to-day basis." Ridge went on to say that this goes against our instincts as a country, but the government's wise to examine the law. Ridge says, "And clearly if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus." Two influential Democratic Senators agree with Bush and Ridge that the law ought to be reviewed.
#56 | 42:46 to 43:47 | cleaned
But express no interest in granting the military new powers to arrest American citizens. Then here's Michigan Democratic Senator Levin. He says, "I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be a more supportive and assisting role than they have been up to now, providing equipment, providing training, those kind of things which do not involve arresting citizens." Well, you know, once you get them, what in the world are they going to do?
#57 | 43:49 to 44:19 | cleaned
Listen to this second article very quickly. "The United States may debate giving military law enforcement power." I'm not going to read all of this, but once again, here they are saying that they're going to do it, generally. "That goes against our instincts as a country to empower the military with the ability to arrest," Ridge said on late edition of the Cable News Network. "Discussing it does not mean that it will ever be used, or the discussion will conclude that it even should be used."
#58 | 44:21 to 44:50 | cleaned
Let me ask you a question. I'm going to say this a little bit later. Have you ever noticed that when the government says they're not going to do something, you can mark it down. That's exactly what they're going to do. Now listen. "The Bush administration already has taken steps to investigate giving the military a larger domestic security role." Here is Senator Joseph Biden. Biden said he may revive a proposal he sponsored with former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn to revise the reconstruction-era limits of the Army, Navy, and later the Air Force's law enforcement authorities. That plan was prompted by the bombing of Oklahoma City Federal Building by domestic terrorists. So he says, "We're going to revive this. We're going to do something about this. We're going to see if we can't get the military back involved in everyday citizens' lives."
#59 | 44:50 to 45:49 | cleaned
So how in the world, how in the world can they do this? And the answer is, not by authority, but simply by power. And let me say this again, you've got to remember, whenever the government denies something, that's exactly what they were going to do. It was Lincoln who first suspended habeas corpus. And then it was Lincoln who first then used the military to arrest the citizens without trial, without warrant, without charge.
#60 | 45:50 to 46:28 | cleaned
The more things change, the more they remain the same. It happened under Lincoln, and it's happening today. Secondly, and this may surprise you, but it was under Lincoln, and it was Lincoln who first set up a domestic spy network. Lincoln just simply did not wish to be opposed.
#61 | 46:31 to 46:58 | cleaned
Now there were many Northerners who were sympathetic with the South, and many Northerners who wanted an end to the war. Such sympathizers were derisively referred to as Copperheads. Everybody knows what a Copperhead is, he's a poisonous snake, extremely poisonous, dangerous, because unlike a rattlesnake, he doesn't rattle before he bites, he just bites. Okay? So they were derisively referred to as Copperheads. But now some of these Copperheads, in order to protect themselves, in order to help the South, they formed secret societies such as the Knights of the Golden Circle and the Order of the American Knights. And in order to destroy these societies and infiltrate them and to silence them, it was Lincoln and his State Department and his War Department that initiated the spy network. Now listen carefully. Lincoln coordinated surveillance through a network of special agents, U.S.
#62 | 46:59 to 48:07 | cleaned
Marshals, Pinkerton detectives, local police, military officials, and private informers. Citizen informers. One such citizen or private informer was a man by the name of John T. Robinson who lived at 22 North Howard Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Here's what Robinson did. He stood at a public polling place, that is when people were going to vote, and informed the authorities of one of his neighbors for helping to incite a riot on April the 19th. He accused another of bearing arms on April the 20th. And he accused a third of insulting soldiers. All three were arrested. Now, it did not matter to John Robinson that the federal soldiers had invaded Maryland and were interfering with a lawful state election. Robinson just simply considered himself loyal and his neighbors disloyal. Let me put it another way. He considered himself politically correct. And his neighbors were not politically correct.
#63 | 48:07 to 49:35 | cleaned
You see, it was reported that Secretary of State William Seward bragged to Lord Lyons, the British ambassador, of his arbitrary power in arresting citizens. Listen to what Seward said. Now he's bragging, remember, to the British ambassador, Lord Lyons. Here's what he says: "I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York. And no power on earth except that of the President of the United States can release them."
#64 | 49:36 to 50:12 | cleaned
"Can the Queen of England do as much?" Now let me ask you, is that arbitrary power? Yes. Is that an abuse of arbitrary power? And the answer is yes.
#65 | 50:13 to 50:29 | cleaned
Now, I'm going to read something to you in just a moment. But some of you have heard the news of the TIPS program introduced by President Bush. They want you to—it's called Terrorism Information and Prevention System. You see, President Bush wants to use citizens to snoop and to spy on each other. Well, see, Lincoln did that.
#66 | 50:31 to 51:02 | cleaned
Now, the interesting thing is they keep saying that there's not going to be a database. We will just forward it to the proper authorities. Let me ask you a question. Is there anyone in this room, or does anyone in this room know anyone else who is capable of remembering perfectly every name, date, place, and bit of information he or she has ever received? Well, no. And the older you get, the more you have to write notes to yourself. See? Why? You have to keep a database just so you can remember. And if you try to tell me that when we begin to inform on each other, there's not going to be something written down, something kept as to the informer and the information and the ones informed against.
#67 | 51:05 to 52:03 | cleaned
You've got to be out of your mind. Now, let me read this to you. I'm very quickly going through these. "Administration mum on snooping program. The Bush administration says information published this week regarding a new government informant program was premature and that officials are nowhere near ready to implement it." But however, you can go to www.citizencorps.gov and you can get all this yourself. He said it's Operation TIPS, a new anti-terrorism information program designed as a terrorism information and prevention system.
#68 | 52:04 to 52:43 | cleaned
And so what he wants to do is basically this. They said all this stuff got out premature, and it was ridiculous. The program is still under development. According to the Herald Report, the administration, under the guise of President Bush's Citizens Corps Volunteer Program, began in the wake of the September 11th attacks, is seeking to recruit up to one million mail carriers, utility workers, and others who have frequent access to private homes as terrorist informants.
#69 | 52:43 to 53:13 | cleaned
By the way, lest I forget to tell you this, those of you who have not been so enraged as I have over this, you know when Winn-Dixie along with some of the other stores just recently began giving you a card that you could have savings if you would use their card. I went to the manager. I went into Winn-Dixie. I already said I wasn't going to shop there when they did that. So I forgot and I went in one day and I looked there and I saw I was getting some tomatoes and it was this price without the card and this price if you have the card. I was so incensed. I turned around.
#70 | 53:16 to 53:55 | cleaned
I said, "I'm not shopping here." And I was walking out and lo and behold, who happened to step into my path but the store manager. And I said, "Sir, I'm going to tell you something. I resent the fact that you have to have a card here to shop. I said, my buying of groceries is private. It's not for sale. It's not your information. I don't do it for marketing. I said, I want you to know I will not be shopping at Winn-Dixie anymore because of this. I said, if you advertise a sale, it should be open to anyone at any time. I said, I'm not shopping here anymore." And of course, there's one local store in our town says "shop here without a card," you know, and that's where we started shopping.
#71 | 53:55 to 54:35 | cleaned
Well, I gave Alice yesterday, or the day before now, a seven-page report that one food line company turned over all of their savings card customers to the feds to investigate as possible terrorists. Because now you're buying a detergent, and buying anything of which possibly a bomb could be made, ammonia and all this kind of stuff, tinfoil, will be under the scrutiny of the feds. Not just the IRS, but the Justice Department. A seven-page report turned over all the records.
#72 | 54:36 to 55:24 | cleaned
The government didn't even ask for them. Just patriotic. Turn them all over. Well, anyhow. So, he wants up to a million mail carriers, etc. TIPS is scheduled to be launched in late summer or early fall of 2002. The goal of the program is to establish a reliable and comprehensive national system for reporting suspicious and potentially terroristic related activity. Other reports claim the government will initiate TIPS under the auspices of a 10-city trial program.
#73 | 55:24 to 55:57 | cleaned
The officials are not saying which cities will be involved. Also, officials have refused to explain how a federal informant program could pass constitutional muster, while a similar state or local program likely would not. The TIPS website says information data gathered by several industries would be collected at a single central reporting center. Deny a database now, if you would. Let me go on to another one here. Here's another one. "ACLU: Operation TIPS Breeds Peeping Toms. The planned program drew a prompt rebuke from the American Civil Liberties Union. The administration apparently wants to implement a program that will turn local cable or gas electrical technicians into government informants. Or government sanctioned peeping toms." The ACLU said it was worried that these volunteers would in fact be searching people's homes without a warrant, that resources would be wasted on a flood of useless tips, and the program would encourage vigilantism and racial profiling. The project is initially planned to begin in August in 10 selected cities. Let me read you another one. "Planned Volunteer Informant Corps elicits 1984 fears."
#74 | 55:58 to 57:17 | cleaned
"The Terrorism Information Prevention System Operation TIPS, a national reporting pilot program is scheduled to start next month in 10 cities. They're going to use at least 4% of the Americans initially to be informants. The program will allow volunteers whose routines make them well positioned to recognize suspect activities to report the same to the Justice Department who is running the project. The Justice Department will enter the information into a database, which will then be broadly available within the department and to state and local agencies and to local police forces. At local and state levels, the program will be coordinated by the FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency."
#75 | 57:19 to 58:02 | cleaned
Let's see, the ACLU once again says this is an end run around the Constitution. Critics say that having Americans act as domestic informants is reminiscent of the infamous Stasi, the now disbanded Communist East German Secret Police Service, etc. John Whitehead, who is a good man, the Executive Director of the Rutherford Institute, agreed, "This is George Orwell's 1984. It's absolutely horrible and very dangerous idea," he said. "It's making Americans into government snoops."
#76 | 58:04 to 58:33 | cleaned
Now, with all the criticism that has come up on this TIPS project, look at this headline. "Justice Department forges ahead with TIPS despite Armey ban." Now, not ARMY, this is Dick Armey, who is the congressman. He says, "I don't want anything to do with it." But still. House Majority Leader Dick Armey inserted last week a ban on the program in the bill. But they say, "Hey, I don't care whether you ban it or not, we're going to continue with this. This is our project and we're going to have it."
#77 | 58:34 to 59:11 | cleaned
Now let me show you how ridiculous this gets. This is just one illustration, and I got this off the news. "Military jets escort plane after passenger seen passing notes. New York, where else? I'm sorry, Joyce. New York, military jets escorted a plane to LaGuardia Airport on Tuesday night after a passenger became alarmed by others passing notes, officials said. Around 10:45 p.m., about 15 minutes before American Transair flight 204 was due to arrive at LaGuardia from Chicago, a passenger told a flight attendant that seven other passengers were engaged in suspicious activity, passing notes to each other and changing seats." I hope she never comes around my grandkids. Anyhow, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey spokesman Alan Hicks said early Wednesday, the flight attendant notified the pilot who alerted Federal Aviation Authorities, two F-16 fighter jets escorted the plane, a Boeing 757 with 98 passengers plus a crew, to the ground. The plane landed five minutes late, but no one was hurt. The seven passengers, who are from India, were released early Wednesday, Port Authority said.
#78 | 59:11 to 1:00:34 | cleaned
They belong to a well-known Indian performance group, and they may have been rehearsing or discussing a performance when they attracted suspicion. So, you know, actors say, "Here's what we're going to do." And so two military jets now. Why? Because someone became suspicious.
#79 | 1:00:35 to 1:00:56 | cleaned
Now folks, the point I'm trying to make is this. Does not common sense, does not our own personal desire for safety and protection, would that not be sufficient to lead any American who actually believed he was seeing or observing terroristic action to report that to someone who could stop it and do something about it? Would you not do that without a program? I would. If I saw someone trying to blow up a building, I'm going to call the sheriff. I'm going to call someone who can stop him. If I don't happen to have a weapon with me where I could stop him, I'd do something. I mean, that's common sense.
#80 | 1:00:58 to 1:01:41 | cleaned
Must I be suspicious of every farmer who buys ammonium nitrate for his crops? Must I be suspicious of every plumber who carries with him a truckload of PVC pipe which he uses daily in his occupation? Instead of Americans spying on Americans, why do we not just keep those people out of our country who are trying to harm us? Isn't that simple? It's not any citizen that I know that issues passports and visas and allow foreigners into our country. It's our own government that does so. If any spying is to be done, it ought to be the citizens of this country eyeballing our government to make sure that it does not exceed its constitutional limits. That's the spying that needs to be done.
#81 | 1:01:42 to 1:02:35 | cleaned
Let me give you, some of you read Chuck Baldwin's Food for Thought. This is his July the 19th article. He says, "It should be obvious to everyone by now, wittingly or not, George W. Bush is in the process of creating a communist style form of government in the United States. As details emerge regarding his new Department of Homeland Security, we discover that Bush and his band of belligerent brothers have begun the process of turning the federal government into a gargantuan police state." Now listen, according to press reports, and I'm reading this, according to press reports, Bush plans to do the following. Number one, merge 22 federal police and emergency agencies into his new Department of Homeland Security. Now please understand now, these are all going to be under the federal control under George W. Bush or whoever is president. Number two, create standardized biometric travel documents. In other words, it's going to be basically a national ID one way or the other. Number three, develop screening tools to predict human behavior such as hostile intent.
#82 | 1:02:35 to 1:03:57 | cleaned
So now, I'm going to arrest John because I think he thought about robbing a bank. A pre-crime. Number four, allow federal police to search and seize at will. They already do that anyhow. Number five, allow federal police to incarcerate and indefinitely hold suspects without arrest or warrant and with no legal recourse by the person seized. Implement a national driver's license. Allow the United States military to conduct lethal operations on United States soil.
#83 | 1:04:01 to 1:04:35 | cleaned
That's what the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits right now. That's why they're talking about doing away with it. Allow the President to unilaterally procure taxpayer dollars without the consent of Congress. Allow the federal government to act in secret. Number 10, create a domestic informant program whereby millions of Americans are authorized to spy on their fellow citizens on behalf of the federal government. According to the Sydney Morning Herald and other news outlets, Bush plans to enlist, are you listening, 1 in 24 Americans into a new citizen spy department.
#84 | 1:04:36 to 1:05:18 | cleaned
The East German police never had such an informant system. Let me tell you something, folks. If you think, for one instance, if I believe the man who comes by and reads my meter is going to be snooping around and looking and trying to suspect me, I'm not going to let him on my property. It's just that simple. I'm not going to let a TV repairman come. If I think he's going to turn me in for having a shotgun in my front room, Lord have mercy. Do you see what I'm saying? If this TIPS program goes through, you won't be able to turn around.
#85 | 1:05:21 to 1:06:10 | cleaned
Well, let me point out the fact, Dean Sprague in his book, Freedom Under Lincoln, writes this, listen carefully. "At the outbreak of the war, the federal government was not a real source of power." Just remember that. At the outbreak of the war, the federal government was not a real source of power. "But when the arm of the Lincoln administration reached into Cooperstown, New York and took away George Brown, when it slipped into Freedom, Maine and speared away Robert Elliott, when it proved powerful enough to send three citizens of North Branch, Michigan to Fort Lafayette and imprisoned without any recourse to law a man in Des Moines, Iowa, it was apparent that the federal executive had real power."
#86 | 1:06:12 to 1:06:58 | cleaned
"The balance of power inexorably changed and altered the fundamental workings of the American political system. Father Abraham had been born to the American people." What did he just get through saying? Lincoln changed the nature of our government. Inasmuch as the War of Northern Aggression was fought to preserve the Union, it was an explicit denial of the American Revolution. How could that be? Because the American Revolution was and is indeed proof positive of the fundamental right of secession. What did we do? We seceded from England. And when Lincoln says, "I'm fighting to preserve the Union," he's denying the principle of the American Revolution. William Appleman Williams says this, "Put simply, the cause of the Civil War was the refusal of Lincoln and other Northerners to honor the revolutionary right of self-determination, the touchstone of the American Revolution."
#87 | 1:06:58 to 1:08:07 | cleaned
The London Times, in September 13, 1862, hit the nail on the head when it wrote this. Listen. "If Northerners had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of democracy. But when Republicans put empire above liberty and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that the nature at Washington was precisely the same as the nature at St. Petersburg, Russia. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all of its constituent states, but when it was upheld, like any other empire, by force of arms." Now that was the London Times. The London Times says, look, the Republican administration, that's Lincoln's administration, put empire above liberty. And when they did so, when they invaded the South, the London Times says it was revealing that the nature at Washington, D.C. was exactly the same as the nature of St. Petersburg, Russia. Totalitarian, dictatorial, and tyrannical. And the proof, the London Times says, that our Republic ceased in the War of 1861 through 1865 was because union was preserved by force of arms.
#88 | 1:08:10 to 1:09:57 | cleaned
There was an empire built that had not previously existed. Now, let me ask you a question. How did Lincoln effectively change our republic into an empire? The answer is by war. How did Lincoln establish a centralized power-hungry bureaucratic government? The answer is by war. Randolph Bourne correctly stated, listen to this quote, "War is the health of the state." Now how can war be considered to be the health of the state? Well in two ways.
#89 | 1:09:58 to 1:10:42 | cleaned
Number one, during war governments always expand their powers, swell their base, increase taxes, regulate, control, and suppress liberty and freedom, all in the name of doing it for the good of our country. Number two, after the war is over, there is never a return of the government to its pre-war size. It continues and adds to its usurped authority until it has assumed almost total control over everything.
#90 | 1:10:42 to 1:11:20 | cleaned
Now, I want you to understand, it really does not even have to be an actual war for this little trick to work. For instance, does anyone in here remember our government's war against illiteracy? Has literacy been eradicated? No, but now what do we have? Government controlled education. I'm sure some of you, because I do, I remember our war on poverty. Well, does poverty still exist? Yes, but now we have a totally governmentally controlled economy. Well, what about the war against drugs? Well, we have more drugs than ever before.
#91 | 1:11:21 to 1:12:12 | cleaned
And the truth of the matter is this. If our government was really genuinely serious about stopping all the drug trafficking, all it has to do is get out of the business itself. Our CIA imports more drugs than you can shake a stick at. Probably many other agencies as well. No. You see, the phony war on drugs is a way to control people, control medicines, control our lives, and at the same time keep our prisons full of cheap labor. Do you know that percentage-wise there are more people in prison in America than any other country in the world? Does anybody ever remember the war against crime? Well, we have more crime than we've ever had before. And the biggest criminals are now in government. You see, phony wars are just as good as actual wars.
#92 | 1:12:13 to 1:13:25 | cleaned
And the war on terrorism, look, if you would, at the power that President Bush has arrogated to himself, that he has demanded of Congress, and look, if you would, at the bureaucracies that are being established. It is not less government, it is more government. More government simply equates to more control. Loss of freedom. George Fitzhugh said it best. If you don't remember anything else from this message today, remember what George Fitzhugh said.
#93 | 1:13:26 to 1:14:01 | cleaned
This is back in the 1800s. He said, "Freedom is an evil that government is intended to correct." And brother, it corrects it very well. That is unbiblical government. That's what I would put in. Freedom is an evil that unbiblical government is intended to correct.
#94 | 1:14:01 to 1:14:24 | cleaned
Now, when you look at what is happening today, like I say, I wish I had time to just continue. But when you look at what is happening today, I want you to remember this simple truth. The more things change, the more they remain the same. And when you look at Bush and you look at Lincoln, you can simply say, "Been there, done that." What Lincoln started, Bush is finishing.
#95 | 1:14:24 to 1:15:00 | cleaned
One centralized, totalitarian, tyrannical, gargantuan police state. You see folks, the leopard cannot change his spots. The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin. The sinner cannot change his nature. One thing you should learn, and learn it well, our salvation is not in government. Our salvation is only in the grace of God. And if you and I do not work for a Christian government based upon the Word of God, built upon the grace and the mercy and the sovereignty of God, all we'll ever have is what Lincoln and Bush can give us. Change comes through grace.
#96 | 1:15:07 to 1:16:16 | cleaned
and through faith in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone. Now, I'll tell you, you talk about a new world order, I will tell you when we will have the new world order, when Jesus Christ returns literally, visibly, and bodily, and we'll have one then that will be genuine and real. Let's pray. Father, we ask you today to speak to our hearts, teach us, build us up in the most holy faith, enable us to live for Thee, and enable us, Lord, to be aware of what's going on and understand that we should not make the mistakes of our forefathers.
#97 | 1:16:18 to 1:16:58 | cleaned
It's not that history repeats itself. It's that we're sinners, we're forgetful, we're silly, we're stupid, and we allow wickedness to continue when we should never allow it. Give us grace, Lord, to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.
#98 | 1:17:00 to 1:17:18 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T04:22:45Z

The Desire For Power #2

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

John Weaver argues that fallen human nature is incapable of self-reformation, using Jeremiah 13:23 and Romans 8:7-8 to establish total depravity and inability. He applies this principle to governments, asserting that sinful rulers inevitably become more corrupt with power. The sermon draws extensive parallels between the unconstitutional actions of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and the expanding powers of the George W. Bush administration, particularly regarding suspension of habeas corpus, domestic spying programs like Operation TIPS, and erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act. Weaver contends that Lincoln transformed the American republic into a centralized empire through war, and that Bush is completing that transformation into a police state. He concludes that true change comes only through the grace of God in Jesus Christ, not through political means.

Introduction: The Unchangeable Nature of Sin

Weaver reads Jeremiah 13:23 to illustrate that just as a leopard cannot change its spots, a sinner cannot change his sinful nature. Human inability to do good is total.

Jeremiah chapter 13, and today we're going to be reading verse 23. Jeremiah 13 and verse 23. The Word of God says,

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 13:23

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil."

Total Depravity and Total Inability

Scripture Reading — Romans 8:7-8

"Because the carnal mind, that's the natural mind, the fleshly mind, the mind that you were born with. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God."

May I remind you that the word enmity is an extremely strong word for hatred. So he literally says, "Because the carnal or the fleshly mind is hatred against God," look carefully,

Scripture Reading — Romans 8:7-8

"for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

And then he climaxes that truth with verse 8,

Scripture Reading — Romans 8:7-8

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

The Illusion of Political Change

That is, it has a straight line. There is a definite beginning. And it progresses to a definite end. Now Acts chapter 15 and verse 18 substantiates this truth. Because there the Word of God says,

Scripture Reading — Acts 15:18

"Known unto God are all of His works from the beginning of the world."

Lincoln's Transformation of the Republic

Lincoln as Dictator: Suspension of Habeas Corpus

Modern Parallels: Bush and the Erosion of Liberty

War as the Engine of State Growth

Conclusion: Salvation Only in Christ

The Desire For Power #2

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	11802123815
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Power, Nations, and Constitutional Order: Where We Are & How We Got Here
Genre	Sermon
Date	2002-07-28
Dictation Name
Book	Book 021: The Desire For Power — Chapter 2
Source Timed Segments	98

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction: The Unchangeable Nature of Sin: Weaver reads Jeremiah 13:23 to illustrate that just as a leopard cannot change its spots, a sinner cannot change his sinful nature. Human inability to do good is total.
Total Depravity and Total Inability: Expounding Romans 8:7-8, Weaver teaches that the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God's law, so those in the flesh cannot please God. This explains why sinners and sinful governments do not change.
The Illusion of Political Change: Weaver critiques the Republican 'Contract with America' and Democratic promises, asserting that both parties are corrupt and that 'the more things change, the more they remain the same.' He contrasts the pagan cyclical view of history with the biblical linear view.
Lincoln's Transformation of the Republic: Weaver argues that the Civil War was a contest between decentralized and centralized government. He details Lincoln's adoption of Henry Clay's 'American System' of centralized government, high tariffs, and a national bank, which led to national debt, corruption, and empire.
Lincoln as Dictator: Suspension of Habeas Corpus: Weaver provides evidence that Lincoln was a dictator who suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands without trial, and arrested citizens for political dissent. He quotes historians who admit Lincoln's dictatorial powers.
Modern Parallels: Bush and the Erosion of Liberty: Weaver draws direct parallels between Lincoln's actions and the Bush administration's post-9/11 policies, including the claim of power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, the TIPS domestic spy program, and efforts to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act.
War as the Engine of State Growth: Weaver explains that war allows governments to expand power permanently. He cites phony wars on poverty, drugs, and terrorism as mechanisms for increasing control, and quotes Randolph Bourne: 'War is the health of the state.'
Conclusion: Salvation Only in Christ: Weaver concludes that the leopard cannot change his spots, and only the grace of God in Jesus Christ can bring true change. He calls for a Christian government based on God's Word and looks forward to Christ's return.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

Sinners cannot change themselves

Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, those accustomed to doing evil cannot do good. This is total inability rooted in total depravity.

Weaver cites Jeremiah 13:23 and Romans 8:7-8, emphasizing that the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God's law.

Lincoln was a dictator who destroyed the Constitution

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands without trial, censored the press, and created war powers out of thin air, transforming the republic into an empire.

Weaver lists 11 reasons for arrest under Lincoln and quotes historians who call him a dictator, such as Clinton Rossiter and James Ford Rhodes.

Bush is repeating Lincoln's tyranny

The Bush administration claims power to detain citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants, promotes domestic spying, and seeks to erode Posse Comitatus, mirroring Lincoln's actions.

Weaver reads from articles about the Hamdi case, Operation TIPS, and discussions on revising Posse Comitatus, directly comparing them to Lincoln's policies.

War permanently expands government power

During war, governments expand powers, and after war they never return to pre-war size. Phony wars like the war on drugs serve the same purpose.

Weaver explains that the war on illiteracy led to government-controlled education, and the war on poverty led to a government-controlled economy.

The Civil War denied the American Revolution

By forcing the South to remain in the Union, Lincoln denied the revolutionary right of self-determination, which was the basis for American independence from England.

Weaver quotes William Appleman Williams and the London Times, which stated that the Union was upheld 'like any other empire, by force of arms.'

Political parties are equally corrupt

Both Republicans and Democrats have abandoned the Constitution and the Word of God, and neither offers a solution to tyranny.

Weaver states, 'there's not a dime's worth of difference between either one of them. Both of them are absolutely corrupt.'

Scripture References

Jeremiah 13:23: Weaver uses this verse to establish the principle that sinners cannot change their nature, just as a leopard cannot change its spots.
Jeremiah 22:21: God says that Israel's manner from youth has been to disobey His voice, illustrating habitual sinfulness.
Romans 8:7-8: The carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to His law; those in the flesh cannot please God. This supports total depravity and inability.
Acts 15:18: Known unto God are all His works from the beginning, supporting the linear view of history with a definite beginning and end.

Historical References

Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (1861): Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, and it remained suspended throughout his administration, leading to mass arrests without trial.
Henry Clay's American System: Clay advocated for a centralized government, high protective tariffs, and a national bank, which Lincoln later implemented, transforming the republic into an empire.
Andrew Jackson's veto of the National Bank: Jackson refused to renew the charter of the national bank, arguing it created artificial distinctions and was dangerous to liberty.
Tariff of Abominations (1828) and Nullification Crisis: The high tariff led to South Carolina's nullification crisis, nearly causing war, and exemplified the conflict between centralized and decentralized government.
Fort Lafayette as the 'American Bastille': During the Civil War, Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor was filled with political prisoners arrested without trial, earning it the nickname.
Posse Comitatus Act (1878): Passed during Reconstruction to prohibit military involvement in civilian law enforcement, this act has been eroded by recent administrations.
Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System): A Bush administration program to recruit millions of citizens as domestic informants, criticized as reminiscent of East German Stasi.
Clement L. Vallandigham's deportation: Lincoln deported Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio for criticizing his policies, illustrating suppression of political dissent.

Important Quotes

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good that are accustomed to do evil.

This is the foundational scripture for the sermon, establishing the principle of total inability and the unchangeable nature of sin.

The more power a sinner gets, the more corrupt he becomes.

This summarizes the sermon's thesis about the corrupting influence of power on sinful human nature.

War is the health of the state.

This quote from Randolph Bourne encapsulates the argument that governments use war to expand power permanently.

Freedom is an evil that government is intended to correct.

Weaver uses this quote from George Fitzhugh to describe the nature of unbiblical, tyrannical government.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

How does the doctrine of total depravity affect our expectations for political leaders and governments?

[Context]

Weaver argues that sinful rulers cannot change and become more corrupt with power, based on Romans 8:7-8.

[Question]

In what ways did Lincoln's actions during the Civil War set precedents for modern executive power?

[Context]

Weaver details Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, military arrests, and suppression of dissent.

[Question]

Is there a legitimate biblical basis for comparing modern government programs to biblical warnings about tyranny?

[Context]

Weaver compares Operation TIPS to Lincoln's spy networks and quotes Scripture on human inability.

[Question]

How should Christians respond when government expands its power in the name of security?

[Context]

Weaver discusses the erosion of Posse Comitatus and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

[Question]

What does it mean that 'war is the health of the state,' and how have phony wars been used to increase government control?

[Context]

Weaver explains that wars, real or fabricated, permanently expand government power and reduce liberty.

[Question]

How can we maintain a biblical hope for societal change without placing our trust in political parties?

[Context]

Weaver concludes that salvation is only in Christ and calls for a government based on God's Word.

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T16:44:16Z