Our Leaders Want Us Dead.

It should be clear by now that experts do not agree regarding the safety or efficacy of the mRNA vaccine. There are credentialed, qualified, experienced medical professionals and scientists on both sides of this debate.

Most reading this are medical/scientific laymen. We may not necessarily have the education to argue well against an expert. Critical thinking skills, however, are invaluable in sorting this out. This is not an anti-vaccine article. I will not be lining up facts from one side and compare them to another view. Others have done this very well. The information is still available, despite desperate efforts to stifle.

I would argue that Christians are equipped to choose sides in this debate. If you are reading this and think, “Ok, here goes another anti-vaxxer,” please hear me out. What I intend to do here is to sidestep that debate for a moment and lay an ax to the root.

Consider who employs the experts. In Canada, we have a healthcare system that is controlled by the provincial governments. Federally there are mandated standards, but there is a lot of room within each province as to what is covered in their health plan and what is not. Ontario’s health plan (OHIP) has been on shaky ground long before the Covid-19 epidemic and was nearly ruined by long-term Liberal misadventures under McGuinty and Wynne.

What does this have to do with expertise regarding Covid-19? The expert split on this matter is largely along the lines of who employs the experts.

We need to look with a critical eye on the nature of our provincial government, and I do not think the following applies only to Ontario, but to Canada as a whole.

[disclaimer: I believe that God has ordained civil government as a good and just entity. See Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17]

Your elected leaders hate you and see you as a host, upon which they may feed. No matter which party is in power, or waiting in the wings to take power, you, the individual, exist only to pay taxes and to otherwise support their power.

You are a host, and the current governments in Canada, are parasites. They feed on you, and if you should resist that arrangement, you can be eliminated. Consider just a few examples:

  1. Your leaders want you dead: Canada and Ontario is pro-death for anyone who cannot contribute. It is legal and good in their eyes that a child can be vacuumed out of her mother’s womb up until the time of birth. It can be shredded alive. Abortion is so important to Canada that foreign aid to needy countries can only be granted if those countries agree to provide abortions to their citizens. Sex-selective abortions are legal in Canada, so a family that isn’t happy with a girl, they can abort the child until a son is conceived. Canada loves death. No society that loves death to this extent can have your best interests at heart. You are next.

    We need to face the fact that we are a nation of barbarians on this point alone. You must participate because your taxes pay for this. This is enough to arouse the wrath of God, which can be seen in the moral chaos that has descended upon us.

  2. Your leaders want you dead: If you are born alive, but severely disabled or become so, or merely become elderly, euthanasia is offered as healthcare. This means that you will be given “MAID,” (Medical Assistance In Dying) often as an only option. Once rare, it is now routine. As people live longer, their healthcare is more costly. You cost money! It doesn’t matter how long you paid taxes, you need to get out of the way. You pay for this.

     

    Do you yet see the trend here that is against life, and not for life?

    There’s more:

  3. Your leaders want you sterile: Civil government in Canada has placed its power behind the transgender movement to the point that children are being sterilized against their parent’s wishes, and parents who object are even jailed. Hormone treatment and physical mutilations that are irreversible will leave its victims without the ability to conceive and bear children and make them dependent on health care for the rest of their lives. Your leaders finance sterility and mutilation with your taxes in the name of health and science. There is no valid science behind the trans movement, but our leaders protect and enforce it by enacting severe penalties against those who do not acquiesce to it.

Just three examples here, abortion, euthanasia, transgenderism, but there are others.

As a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Canada and Ontario have employed a small army of scientists and medical professionals (the Science Table). These professionals are the team of experts that are essential to the governments, and lend respectability and authority to the lockdowns and to the shuttering of the economy.

In doing so, these experts have aligned themselves with a government that is clearly against life, against people, and against human thriving. This group is blind and deaf to the suffering they have caused, as is our Prime Minister and Premier. Remember, our government truly does not see the common person as anything but a host upon which they may feed. For all the endless chatter about “keeping you safe,” they care only about their own power. Neglect this fact at your peril.

The media is a whore, accepting financial bribes to repeat the message of fear and compliance. The contradictions that have been clearly evident over the past 18 months are ignored because it is very important to the powerful that the average citizen be blind and deaf to them.

Thousands of jobs have been lost, medical procedures have been canceled or postponed (often with fatal consequences), substance abuse, suicides, domestic violence, and mental illness have increased, all to keep us feeling safe.

The credentialed have argued for the lockdowns, and, being intoxicated by their power, have rented out their expertise to the highest bidder. They are the prostitutes disguised as scientists who, along with their employer, hate human life.

Should we listen to a scientist who is comfortable working for a government that kills over 270 unborn children a day? Should we listen to a scientist who is not fighting this injustice with every professional skill at their disposal? Should we obey the mandates of those who insist we pay for the death of others? Should we give credence to a scientist who is comfortable with sterilizing children?

There is a moral dimension to the scientific enterprise, and the experts who have sold themselves to rottenness are immoral. They have blinded themselves to the truth they suppress (Romans 1:18).

It may be easier to accept that many, if not most, in political power are depraved, degenerate, and lost. We’ve come to accept the dishonesty that accompanies modern politics. But medical professionals have long been placed on a pedestal in popular thinking, actually idolized so that many will accept statements such as, “the science is settled,” “follow the science,” “listen to the experts,” or “the experts have said.” We have, however, collectively forgotten two things:

1) science, by its very nature, is never settled (at least in the form used by those who would censor all dissenting opinions), and

2) scientists are human, and therefore Romans 3 applies not only to their political employers, but to them:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:9–20, ESV)

Our historical amnesia has permitted us to forget the role of science and medicine in the 1930s and 40s. Some scientists truly seek human good, but not all do. All scientists are sinners too, and this will obviously cloud their judgement. They have and will use their science for evil ends. This has nothing to do with the qualifications of the scientist. We are fools to forget this.

Without the cooperation of the scientific community, civil government could not force the destruction of human livelihoods and enforce the life that now lies before us.

Canadians have naively accepted the notion that our civic leaders care about us. They do not. It is because God’s law does not prevail that they have become a law unto themselves, and God will give them over to confusion (Romans 1). Christians need to apply the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity to experts and authorities.  When experts, authorities, and media work in unity against God’s authority, it is essential for Christians to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

The modern church in Canada has largely ignored the medical and scientific authorities from their susceptibility to the effects of sin in their work and has set herself against Christ’s authority. This has created an idol of expertise.

Speaking only to Christians here, why are you giving heed to an outfit that wants to suck you dry then dispose of your husk? Why do you think leaders who will torture an unborn child to death or snuff out the life of a weak or elderly person will tell you the truth about a vaccine? I don’t know the hearts of those experts who oppose the vaccine or are even cautious about it. They too are sinners. But I do know that they have not aligned themselves with the depraved trinity of the modern government, media, and experts of death.

Knowing their love of death, how can you trust leaders to hold our best interests?

Why Hillary Clinton’s Statement on the Rights of Persons is Worse than it Sounds.

clinton, hillary

Hillary Clinton is in the news this weekend over comments she made regarding the rights of unborn persons, or, more to the point, that in her mind the unborn person does not have constitutional rights (video here).

The exact phrase is, “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” What makes this much worse than her usual pro-abortion position is that she admits that the unborn are persons. This means that there are persons who may or may not have constitutional rights, depending upon legislation or court decisions.

This may be a slip of the tongue, betraying a belief she really shouldn’t want the public to know. In law, everyone from birth to the grave are called “persons.” She has, identified the unborn as person, but a person who has no constitutional protection. Let that soak in a minute. There is, in her thinking, a group or class of persons who do not enjoy the protection of law.

The next questions must be, “Why only that particular class of person not protected by the Constitution? Why not the disabled, the very ill, infirm, elderly, or mentally ill?” Can not this class be expanded to include “persons” who are not good fits in society, or those who are too costly look after?

The argument has changed significantly–the pro-life people have always argued that the unborn are persons, and should be treated as such under the law. The pro-abortion people have resisted that terminology, because they know that to do so is to admit that some persons have no protection, and even the most ardent pro-choice advocates weren’t ready for that.

But this weekend, their champion has taken them to this new low point, dividing all human beings into two classes: those with rights and protections, and those without. They leave the distinction to human courts and politicians.

Dred Scott

Dred Scott. Oil on canvas by Louis Schultze, 1888. Acc. # 1897.9.1. Missouri Historical Society Museum Collections. Photograph by David Schultz, 1999. NS 23864. Photograph and scan (c) 1999-2006, Missouri Historical Society.
Dred Scott. Oil on canvas by Louis Schultze, 1888. Acc. # 1897.9.1. Missouri Historical Society Museum Collections. Photograph by David Schultz, 1999. NS 23864. Photograph and scan (c) 1999-2006, Missouri Historical Society.

The infamous Dred Scott Decision of the 1857 US Supreme Court determined that a slave, taken by his master to a state (Illinois) where slavery was illegal, was still not free. This decision, reversed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, determined that as a slave, Dred Scott was chattel, or property, of his master. As such, he had no constitutional protection as a citizen, nor was he a person under the law. He had no Constitutional protection.

The Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973 has been likened to the Dred Scott case. After Roe vs. Wade, unborn children are not persons under the law, or protected as persons under the law. Francis Schaeffer addressed this problem in his How Should We Then Live? (quoting Joseph P. Witherspoon, 1916-1995, Jurisprudence Professor at Texas University School of Law):

Thus, the failure of the Court in Roe v. Wade [the abortion case] to have examined into the actual purpose and intent of the legislature in framing the fourteenth amendment and the thirteenth amendment to which it was so closely related and supplementary thereof when it was considering the meaning to be assigned to the concept of “person” was a failure to be faithful to the law or to respect the legislature which framed it. Careful research of the history of these two amendments will demonstrate to any impartial investigator that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the proposition that the principal, actual purpose of their framers was to prevent any court, and especially the Supreme Court of the United States, because of its earlier performance in the Dred Scott case, or any other institution of government, whether legislative or executive, from ever again defining the concept of person so as to exclude any class of human beings from the protection of the Constitution and the safeguards it established for the fundamental rights of human beings, including slaves, peons, Indians, aliens, women, the poor, the aged, criminals, the mentally ill or retarded, and children, including the unborn from the time of their conception.

Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 5 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 222.

Clinton’s position is that unborn children are indeed persons, but some persons remain unprotected under the law. Where Witherspoon worried that the Supreme Court’s decision of 1973 might open the door for others be deemed “non-persons” (“slaves, peons, Indians, aliens, women, the poor, the aged, criminals, the mentally ill or retarded”), Clinton has determined that personhood makes no difference. Personhood does not intrinsically bestow legal protection upon anyone.

Since the US Constitution uses the term “person” (58 times), to include those it protects, it makes sense that if a court deemed someone a non-person (Dred Scott), the protections do not apply.

What Clinton does in this statement is to suggest, unequivocally, no person or class of person is protected by the constitution as an intrinsic right. Protection is bestowed upon, or removed from, a person or persons by legislation or court order.

This is a sure and certain path to tyranny: your rights are for others to determine.

 

Why Hillary Clinton's Statement on the Rights of Persons is Worse than it Sounds.

clinton, hillary

Hillary Clinton is in the news this weekend over comments she made regarding the rights of unborn persons, or, more to the point, that in her mind the unborn person does not have constitutional rights (video here).

The exact phrase is, “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” What makes this much worse than her usual pro-abortion position is that she admits that the unborn are persons. This means that there are persons who may or may not have constitutional rights, depending upon legislation or court decisions.

This may be a slip of the tongue, betraying a belief she really shouldn’t want the public to know. In law, everyone from birth to the grave are called “persons.” She has, identified the unborn as person, but a person who has no constitutional protection. Let that soak in a minute. There is, in her thinking, a group or class of persons who do not enjoy the protection of law.

The next questions must be, “Why only that particular class of person not protected by the Constitution? Why not the disabled, the very ill, infirm, elderly, or mentally ill?” Can not this class be expanded to include “persons” who are not good fits in society, or those who are too costly look after?

The argument has changed significantly–the pro-life people have always argued that the unborn are persons, and should be treated as such under the law. The pro-abortion people have resisted that terminology, because they know that to do so is to admit that some persons have no protection, and even the most ardent pro-choice advocates weren’t ready for that.

But this weekend, their champion has taken them to this new low point, dividing all human beings into two classes: those with rights and protections, and those without. They leave the distinction to human courts and politicians.

Dred Scott

Dred Scott. Oil on canvas by Louis Schultze, 1888. Acc. # 1897.9.1. Missouri Historical Society Museum Collections. Photograph by David Schultz, 1999. NS 23864. Photograph and scan (c) 1999-2006, Missouri Historical Society.
Dred Scott. Oil on canvas by Louis Schultze, 1888. Acc. # 1897.9.1. Missouri Historical Society Museum Collections. Photograph by David Schultz, 1999. NS 23864. Photograph and scan (c) 1999-2006, Missouri Historical Society.

The infamous Dred Scott Decision of the 1857 US Supreme Court determined that a slave, taken by his master to a state (Illinois) where slavery was illegal, was still not free. This decision, reversed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, determined that as a slave, Dred Scott was chattel, or property, of his master. As such, he had no constitutional protection as a citizen, nor was he a person under the law. He had no Constitutional protection.

The Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973 has been likened to the Dred Scott case. After Roe vs. Wade, unborn children are not persons under the law, or protected as persons under the law. Francis Schaeffer addressed this problem in his How Should We Then Live? (quoting Joseph P. Witherspoon, 1916-1995, Jurisprudence Professor at Texas University School of Law):

Thus, the failure of the Court in Roe v. Wade [the abortion case] to have examined into the actual purpose and intent of the legislature in framing the fourteenth amendment and the thirteenth amendment to which it was so closely related and supplementary thereof when it was considering the meaning to be assigned to the concept of “person” was a failure to be faithful to the law or to respect the legislature which framed it. Careful research of the history of these two amendments will demonstrate to any impartial investigator that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the proposition that the principal, actual purpose of their framers was to prevent any court, and especially the Supreme Court of the United States, because of its earlier performance in the Dred Scott case, or any other institution of government, whether legislative or executive, from ever again defining the concept of person so as to exclude any class of human beings from the protection of the Constitution and the safeguards it established for the fundamental rights of human beings, including slaves, peons, Indians, aliens, women, the poor, the aged, criminals, the mentally ill or retarded, and children, including the unborn from the time of their conception.

Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 5 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 222.

Clinton’s position is that unborn children are indeed persons, but some persons remain unprotected under the law. Where Witherspoon worried that the Supreme Court’s decision of 1973 might open the door for others be deemed “non-persons” (“slaves, peons, Indians, aliens, women, the poor, the aged, criminals, the mentally ill or retarded”), Clinton has determined that personhood makes no difference. Personhood does not intrinsically bestow legal protection upon anyone.

Since the US Constitution uses the term “person” (58 times), to include those it protects, it makes sense that if a court deemed someone a non-person (Dred Scott), the protections do not apply.

What Clinton does in this statement is to suggest, unequivocally, no person or class of person is protected by the constitution as an intrinsic right. Protection is bestowed upon, or removed from, a person or persons by legislation or court order.

This is a sure and certain path to tyranny: your rights are for others to determine.