“By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them” – Matthew 13:14-15.
The laws of society exist to benefit the good order of its members. Laws spring forth to establish accord within the communal hierarchy. If our nation were founded upon Godless principles, then laws would be legislated, executed, enforced, and adjudicated to legalize sin throughout the nation and beyond. Blinded by the love of contradiction, the laws of the Lawless One’s kingdom affirm the bondage of sin with a false declaration of “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. And these are ordered in turn to three human goals: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[i] The antivenom for these secular lies is correspondence to grace and conformity to God’s will. This remedy is found within the pillar and foundation of God’s Incarnation.[ii]
Suckled on Americanist Mythologies, the Blind Patriot is Unable to See the Demonic Alchemy that Lurks Behind Uncle Sam’s Babel:
“We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and the liberation of its peoples……for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty……We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind.”[iii]
President Wilson’s Declaration of War Message to Congress, April 2, 1917; Records of the United States Senate; Record Group 46; National Archives.
These toy phrases of President Woodrow Wilson’s war pitch were taken from his address to Congress on April 2, 1917. Legislators became the executor’s accomplices in the capitalization of war. The following month, they replaced the Civil War’s Conscription Act of 1863 with the tighter Selective Service Act of 1917. They ratcheted the patriotic chains a month later with the Espionage Act of 1917. As the marching band begins to beat the war drum, separate powers of Godless government are united in their singular purpose of serving Baalzebub. This was especially necessary for the soft-hearted Americans who were reluctant to join the Armageddon:
“Because only 73,000 men volunteered for service in response to President Wilson’s call to create an army of millions, the federal government was forced to institute the first draft since the Civil War. Several military leaders recognized that few people were better suited to the job of creating a vast army of conscripts than [General Hugh] Johnson, and he was brought to Washington to implement the new Selective Service System. The registration of 10 million men for compulsory military service, which resulted in 4 million actually being shipped to training camps, 117,000 killed in action, and more than 200,000 wounded, ‘was one of the most spectacular developments of the war,’ Johnson recalled. He also devised a plan to make useful the undrafted men, ‘who stood in saloons and pool rooms watching their contemporaries marching away to war.’ All deferred men who were either unemployed or engaged in ‘nonessential work’ were warned that they would be inducted into the military if they did not find work that was essential for the war effort. Johnson boasted that the ‘work or fight’ order forced 137,255 ‘bartenders, private chauffeurs, men hairdressers, and the like that are pansies’ to take jobs that the government considered essential.”[iv]
Thaddeus Russell, A Renegade History of the United States, p. 251.
The Evil One’s war would eventually gain a complicit blessing from the supreme oracles. Perversely consecrated with the titles of Justice, these oracles have often championed free speech to enable the insolence of grave sin. Curiouser and curiouser, they rule against speech when it is a clear and present danger to the four horsemen of the Enemy’s kingdom.[v] The wicked blessing of the inaugural World War has become a perpetual amusement of perdition. That blessing is continually recalled when the Deceiver’s kingdom attempts to suppress truth:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”[vi]
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 52 (1919).
This iconic quote, from a Supreme Court opinion, was initially leveled against a treasonous villain who distributed anti-war leaflets that protested the military draft of World War I. The Supreme Court consistently rules against “free speech” when speech opposes war. Speech must not hinder the manifestation of hell.
Deception revels in twisting lies as though they were true, evils as though they were good, abominations as though they were beautiful. The distribution of anti-war leaflets was a clear and present danger to the Commander and Chief’s declaration of world peace. Justice is blind to the incitement of violence that comes from forced participation in sanctioned slaughter. Contrarily, the inclination to silence the cry for fire in a theater of war causes a panic for the arbitrary powers that be. This opinion has been memorialized into a rusted cage for the confinement of reason. Opposing the inferno of war is intolerable to the demonic freedom of Godless democracy.
When the Moral Boundaries of American Society Restricted Obscenity, the Supreme Oracles Overruled Those Restraints by Invoking a Conveniently Imagined Right to Privacy:
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.”[vii]
Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 565 (1969).
In Justice John Marshall’s opinion on the Stanley v. Georgia decision, this statement followed an illogical analysis that obscenity laws are intended to prevent distribution but not private consumption. Justice Marshall began his opinion by acknowledging that the Court had previously upheld a state’s right to prevent the corruption of minds, just as it has the right to protect the well-being of bodies. However, after pointing to the “freedom” of possessing obscene materials, Justice Marshall proceeded to wave the banner of antichrist rebellion:
“It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom [of speech and press] … necessarily protects the right to receive. This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth……is fundamental to our free society.”[viii]
Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 564 (1969).
Justice Marshall ignored the incoherence of “our free society” being empowered to stop the distribution of malicious materials but denied the liberty to inhibit the possession of those materials. Justice Marshall was willfully oblivious to the clear and present danger bound to the intrinsic evil of obscene materials. The “freedom” of the individual’s private sins superseded all other considerations. According to Justice Marshall, poison may be illegal to spread throughout society, but it should never be illegal to consume privately. Society is communal outside of the home but nonexistent within the home. The individual must remain the private ruler of the individual’s private kingdom, or else the individual will not be “free.” This is the superficial logic that accompanied the fall of angels and men, that possessed the Protestant rebellion and its American revolution, and that pervades Satan’s hell-bound kingdoms.
Justice Marshall ties the Stanley v. Georgia obscenity case to Olmstead v. United States. Roy Olmstead was an infamous bootlegger whose criminal investigation involved the interception of private communications. Justice Marshall could not resist quoting the dissenting opinion of Justice Brandeis, which cherished Mr. Olmstead’s private sins:
“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.”[ix]
Brandeis, J., Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438,478 (1928).
This romantic quote was left to ring in the ears of future “freedom” interpreters. Justice Marshall swiftly placed the pornography consumer in the protective mantle of Armed Liberty[x]:
“These are the rights that appellant is asserting in the case before us. He is asserting the right to read or observe what he pleases – the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of his own home……Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.”[xi]
Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 565 (1969).
Justice Marshall failed to acknowledge that Stanley was charged with possession of obscene materials, not obscene thoughts. Georgia asserted the unconstitutional right to purge obscenity from its community. Purifying men’s depraved minds is impossible without the grace of God, but Georgia dared to control the poisonous materials that coddle depravity. Thankfully, child pornography has yet to become a right that is constitutionally protected for the satisfaction of “intellectual and emotional needs.” Sadly, our “constitutional heritage rebels” against such moral constraint.
Justice Marshall Blazed the Trail:
“We are not certain that this argument amounts to anything more than the assertion that the State has the right to control the moral content of a person’s thoughts. To some, this may be a noble purpose, but it is wholly inconsistent with the philosophy of the First Amendment. As the Court said in Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 688-689 (1959), ‘[t]his argument misconceives what it is that the Constitution protects……Whatever the power of the state to control public dissemination of ideas inimical to the public morality, it cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts.”[xii]
Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 565-566 (1969).
Justice Marshall Concludes His Opinion with a Mantra of Private Obscenity:
“Finally, we are faced with the argument that prohibition of possession of obscene materials is a necessary incident to statutory schemes prohibiting distribution. That argument is based on alleged difficulties of proving an intent to distribute or in producing evidence of actual distribution. We are not convinced that such difficulties exist, but even if they did we do not think that they would justify infringement of the individual’s right to read or observe what he pleases. Because that right is so fundamental to our scheme of individual liberty……
We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime……As we have said, the States retain broad power to regulate obscenity; that power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home.”[xiii]
Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 567-568 (1969).
Providentially, the Answer to the Disorder of Society is Revealed in the Eighth Footnote of Justice Marshall’s Opinion:
“Communities believe, and act on the belief, that obscenity is immoral, is wrong for the individual, and has no place in a decent society. They believe, too, that adults as well as children are corruptible in morals and character, and that obscenity is a source of corruption that should be eliminated. Obscenity is not suppressed primarily for the protection of others. Much of it is suppressed for the purity of the community and for the salvation and welfare of the ‘consumer.’ Obscenity, at bottom, is not crime. Obscenity is sin.”[xiv]
Henkin, Morals and the Constitution: The Sin of Obscenity. 63 Col. L. Rev. 391, 395 (1963).
Obscenity is not a crime within a Godless nation. Obscenity is a crime under God.
Though the Sacrament of Reconciliation may be perceived as a violation of the rebellious American’s privacy, it remains the only cure for our Godless nation.
[i] Solange Hertz, The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism, p.25.
[ii] 1 Timothy 3:15
[iii] President Wilson’s Declaration of War Message to Congress, April 2, 1917; Records of the United States Senate; Record Group 46; National Archives.
[iv] Thaddeus Russell, A Renegade History of the United States, p. 251.
[v] See Schenck v. U.S. (1919); Frohwerk v. U.S. (1919); Debs v. U.S. (1919); Abrams v. U.S. (1919); Gitlow v. New York (1925) *July 5, 1919 publication, that Gitlow was arrested for, supported labor strikes to cripple U.S. imperialism/militarism; Whitney v. California (1927) *uneventful 1919 convention, which Whitney was arrested for participating in, recorded minutes that do not reflect violent overthrow of government, but rather: support for release of Debs, election of Gitlow, and influence of labor unions; U.S. v. O’Brien (1968)
[vi] Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 52 (1919).
[vii] Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 565 (1969).
[viii] Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 564 (1969).
[ix] Brandeis, J., Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438,478 (1928).
[x] Senate Historical Office, “In Form and Spirit: Creating the Statue of Freedom”, December 11, 2023, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/in-form-and-spirit-creating-the-statue-of-freedom.htm
[xi] Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 565 (1969).
[xii] Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 565-566 (1969).
[xiii] Marshall, T., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 567-568 (1969).
[xiv] Henkin, Morals and the Constitution: The Sin of Obscenity. 63 Col. L. Rev. 391, 395 (1963).
