Saving Marriage the Constitutional Way

A recent conversation online prompted me to write a spirited defense of marriage in a most unusual way. For, roughly, the past 100 years we have been indoctrinated to believe that our rights come from the government and the Constitution grants those rights. However, that indoctrination is wrong and I’ll show how the best way to save marriage is by getting the government out of it.

When the Constitution of the United States was written, it presumed that all rights not delegated to the federal government preexisted the formation of said government. The issue of marriage was left to the people and the states. Marriages performed between the 1620s til 1850s was a private concern that was covered under a simple contract. The government was not involved in the slightest and the advantages of marriage was held under Common Law.

The contract specified what the husband and the wife would provide to each other as well as their responsibilities under the contract. This included such things as who was responsible for earning money and paying the bills to who would care for the children etc… It even gave the details of what happened in case the marriage broke down. This continued until the middle of the 1850s then something began to happen. That something was miscegenation or the marriage of a white person to a minority person.

Why were marriage laws important that it required a new class of laws? Historically speaking, minorities were not citizens and the laws were a control measure to severely restrict the marriages between whites and minorities. It was done for purely racist reasons and to keep minorities from having equality under the law. In many legal cases of the era, the courts were quite honest in stating that minorities did not have rights because they were not citizens. However, not all minorities were treated in this manner. The majority of the racism was directed at blacks.

Now under the 14th Amendment, blacks were granted equal rights and equal access to the law. For reference here is the 14th Amendment Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This brings them in line with what was written in Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. The clause says, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Since the 14th Amendment stated that all persons are now citizens of the United States and the state of their residence this should have overturned all of the marriage laws in place to prevent whites and blacks from intermarrying. It didn’t and it wasn’t until Loving v. Virginia (1967) to overturn this part of the law. However, the law requiring marriage licenses was left on the books. Why? Simple, for control over the people.

As stated before, white people got married without a marriage license for about 230 years. Why? Because the government lacked the authority to perform such an act. In the Constitution of the United States, there are delegated powers to the federal government with some prohibitions upon the states. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it grant the federal government to be involved in marriages. It also lacks the power to give out special benefits to one particular class. The term “general welfare” literally means for the good of all. A law that hands special benefits to one group over another fails as it is not for everyone. This is why the 14th Amendment Section 1 and Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 says that every citizen is entitled to all privileges and rights. The government cannot make laws to benefit solely one group at the expense of others.

Now this is further reinforced with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth says that the listing of certain rights in the Bill of Rights cannot be used to deny or restrict other rights held by the people. The Tenth says that any delegation of power not listed in the Constitution of the United States is held by the states or the people.

Since we are a Constitutional Republic, this means that we cannot deny rights and privileges to one group at the expense of others. We cannot promote one group above other groups because we have majority rule with minority rights protection. Minority as used here means those that do not have the majority in power. The reason why is quite simple as it is the people that all power is derived from. See my article regarding the power of the people for further details.

This is just for the Constitutional side of things. What about the theological argument? Simple, Paul and Christ taught us that we are to follow the laws of the land and to live in harmony with them. This is in Romans 13:1-2.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

As Christians we are to follow the laws of the land because God put them into place. Failure to adhere to the Constitution of the United States is a sin and Christians are in rebellion. Yes, the verses say governing authority, but in our system of government that is the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. The government that does not abide by the supreme law of the land is in rebellion against God. This is why the founding fathers rested the entire principles of our government upon Judaeo-Christianity.

To save marriage, the only conclusion that we can come to that is consistent with the teachings God and with the Constitution of the United States is to get the government out of it. Christians should not be advocating rebellion against God by giving out special benefits to them alone on what is marriage. This is promoting sin and God will not look kindly upon those that promote sin. If proponents of marriage as instituted by God insist upon using force of the government to uphold their beliefs and deny others the same benefits then they are in violation of God’s Word and His Law. Make no mistake, I am not apologizing or advocating of sinful behavior in regards to same-sex marriage. I am making a defense of the Constitution of the United States and how it is supposed to operate under equal protection of the law and equal rights plus privileges.

We cannot deny those the same benefits that we enjoy because it makes them less than equal. Would God be for Christians making non-Christians less than equal? No, this is why the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and made it consistent with the teachings of God. They knew that the supreme law of the land must be consistent with the teachings of God, especially regarding equality. Now, before anyone says that they didn’t achieve equality in their lifetimes I will say correct. They could only do so much and left it up to future generations to do this.

In summation, as Christians we must advocate for getting the government out of marriage and remove the special benefits that we enjoy under the law. It is the Christian and Godly thing to do.


Presidential Succession Act or Why Lyin Ryan and all Establishment Politicos Need To Go

Most people do not realize that at the start of the Cold War there was a law passed that defined the succession of the President if he became incapacitated or died while in office. This was done to ensure that the government could function without the president or vice president. Now people think that this means that succession goes only through cabinet positions, but that is only half of the story.

The Act specifies that the succession will be Vice President>Speaker of the House>President Pro Tempore>Cabinet Positions. Think about this, if Trump and Pence are so hated by the establishment that there was an assassination done of both men. Who will become the 47th President of the United States? Under this Act, that job would fall to Lyin Ryan as Speaker of the House.

Since Lyin Ryan, by extension most of the establishment politicos, is all in favor of the policies of Obama and Hilliary Klintoncratic that should give any voter pause. If Trump and Pence are elected and die in office, Lyin Ryan steps up. Hilliary may have been beaten in the election, but her and Obama’s legacies will still continue under these establishment politicos. This makes the race by Paul Nehlan very important for all of the country and not just the first district of Wisconsin.

Say that Lyin Ryan gets his tenth term and suffers a mishap. Under the succession that will fall to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. That individual currently is Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Orrin Hatch is a big government globalist like Ryan is. He too would continue the destruction of our beloved Republic. He’s a big fan of big government and loves those “bribes” from the donor class.

This is why we must maintain vigilance over our elected officials because of Trump’s running the light is shining on these traitors to the people. He is lighting the way and showing us the people what has been in the dark for so long. Thus, I beg of all liberty loving citizen to vote against the establishment and elect Paul Nehlan. Our country may depend upon it if the globalist establishment decide to remove Trump and Pence after their election.

“That is not who we are…” Or Why Lyin Ryan is a traitor

To show how of touch Lyin Ryan is with our values of our country let’s compare him to a really famous president. That president is Thomas Jefferson who dealt with Muslims during the Barbary Pirates War.

Jefferson declared war against the pirates and kicked the snot out of them. They were refused entry into the United States.

Ryan wrote: “As I have said on numerous occasions, a religious test for entering our country is not reflective of these fundamental values. I reject it.”

Lyin Ryan is out of touch when it comes to a foreign political ideology that masks as a religion.

Let’s look at the Constitution itself on whether there can be Sharia law here or not.

Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

I see only civil, criminal, and admiralty law. There is no mention of Sharia law, so that part of Islam is incompatible with the United States. Let’s look at another clause.

Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

The Constitution quite clearly states that every state shall be guaranteed a Republican form of government. That leaves out Islam since it is not a Republican form of government. Take a look at that next phrase where it says that the federal government would protect the states from foreign invasion. Under the Quran, Muslims can perform jihad via immigration and overtake the host country. That is an invasion.

In light of this, we can state unequivocally that Lyin Ryan is a traitor to this country and the citizens of these United States. He needs to be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and executed for his crime. We the citizens of these United States will no longer tolerate lawlessness and disorder from our elected officials.

 There is also the matter of the 1952 immigration law that prohibits Muslims from immigrating in the first place. The Congressmen that passed the bill knew that Islam is incompatible with our system of government. This is why they banned them. They also knew that Islam was not a religion, but a political ideology that disguises itself as a religion.

Saving Our Constitutional Republic

I have been giving this quite a bit of thought on how to return us back to where the government was the servant. The only lawful way to do this and to avoid the abuse of reinterpretation of the current Constitution of the United States is through the passage of amendments through a convention of the states. Here is my list of new Amendments and actions that will restore us back to our original boundaries of a constitutional government.

1. Abolish the 16th and 17th Amendments.
2. Abolish the Federal Reserve Act.
3. Abolish the current legal tender laws.
4. Place us back on the gold standard.
5. Seize all the money and gold from the central banks using RICO and Asset Forfeiture laws. Part of this action will be the US, state, and local governments repudiating their debts to these central bankers as the debts were incurred under the color of fraud on the part of the banks.

Add Constitutional Amendments for:

Abolishing of Lobbyists/Special Interest Groups.

Abolishing of Corporations and returning us back to partnerships and proprietorships.

Making for profit banking institutions illegal and having credit unions/non-profits be the only way for the storage and/or loaning of money.

Abolish the use of foundations to impact government policy.

Add term limits for every government position both elected and appointed.

Abolish government unions.

Add term limits to military general staff officers and require all military personnel to go through courses on the Constitution of the United States to inform them fully of their requirements under their oath of enlistment.

All government employees must attend and pass a class on the Constitution of the United States with a score of 90% or better.

The election of State Vigilance Committees that have the express power to try and convict government employees that fail to uphold their oath of office as being treason.

Require all bills to be single issue only and in plain English.

A balanced budget amendment.

An amendment to fortify the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States that states in plain English that any act of the federal government must have a clear delegation of power in the Constitution of the United States.

An amendment to immediately cede any and all land within a state to the respective state government as required under prior acts regarding territories coming into the union.

Add an amendment that clearly states that a state can leave the union by a repeal of the original state ratification. The only requirement for completion is the state government must pay for any and all improvements to the US Treasury prior to secession.

An amendment that abolishes all laws that give preferential treatment to one group over another. All people must be equal under the law as required by Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 and the 14th Amendment. Laws are for the good of the whole not certain subsections.

An amendment that abolishes marriage laws and licenses. The people are sovereigns. As such, a simple contract is enough to ensure the transmission of inheritance and the rights held by spouses in regards to health care etc…

An amendment that requires Congress to fully arm law abiding citizens with military hardware and forcing the state governments to recreate Constitutional militias. Also remove the BATFE and all their regulations that prohibit the people from being able to own military hardware, including all tax schemes.

An amendment that removes the power to determine constitutionality from the federal Judiciary as it belongs to the state or the people.

The federal government can only pass laws that have a delegation of power in the Constitution of the United States. Any laws passed by the federal government affecting the states not found in the powers delegated is to be interpreted as being only for property owned by the federal government. No more of the encroachment on the powers of the state governments and the rights of the citizens of the several states.

The removal of United States citizenship. The people should be citizens only of their state of residence. Under citizenship of the United States, the federal government has been able to pass some of the most odious laws on the states and their citizens.

This would reverse the trend of the past 103 years since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th/17th Amendments.

Revenue generation will be confined to goods coming into the US and through the use of taxes based upon enumeration. States will be forbidden from having an income tax and no more taxes placed on goods from other states. The only exception is for the payment of inspections. Any and all money generated by a state government the exceeds the amount needed to pay for the inspections will go to the US Treasury as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.


Destroying the Narrative: Government Ruler-ship?

We have been raised to believe the narrative that the government has ruler-ship over us; the people. This is completely incorrect. This article details the history of English Law and what changed after the War of Independence. It’s a very simple history that is reflected in our founding documents and in our laws. These documents seize a power that shocked the world and altered it forever.

In 1066, William the Conqueror captured England and declared that all that he saw was his. By this declaration he made himself king over everything. It reduced the people of England from being citizens to subjects. A citizen is an equal under the law while a subject is a person under the control of another. This is the beginning of English law and our starting point for the War of Independence. A subject could be deprived of all their rights and property with no legal recourse. After all, they were owned by the crown. As such, when the colonies declared independence they set the precedent back 700 years.

During the centuries from 1066, the nobility sprung up that were allowed to control the lands around them. Eventually, they had assumed property ownership with the crown’s permission. They were still subjects, but they were better off than the common people. They were responsible for maintaining control over these lands and to pay their taxes to the crown. If the crown became too tyrannical, the nobles would rise up with their armies and fight back. This lead to the Magna Carta being signed and started the whole business concerning rights. How the power breakdown under The Divine Right of Kings looked like:






The Declaration of Independence in no uncertain terms that the people in the colonies are equal to the king. They were citizens and not subjects. This caused a shock in Europe, because here were a bunch of commoners declaring that they were equals to all the nobility. Part of the declaration, it lays out that all rights come our humanity and that the role of the government is to secure those rights. This foundation provided the framework for what was to follow. By operating through the individual states and in a Congress they created a contract of mutual protection in the form of the Articles of Confederation.

This is how the Declaration of Independence changed the power structure:



Local government


State government


Congress of the Confederation

Each state held exclusive powers and the Congress could not infringe upon it. These states guarded these powers jealously and would not give them up without a fight. Under the Articles, the Congress required a 100% majority on all laws that were passed. Congress could not raise money through taxation and definitely could not tell another state what to do internally. Congress, also, could not coin money as it was a right reserved to the individual states. They did, however, fulfill the primary objective of winning the war.

In 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was convened under the authority of the Congress of the Confederation. This was in direct response to the Annapolis Convention of the prior year. After the war, the states began issuing fiat currency to pay for everything. Cost of goods and services increased due to inflation to a dangerous rate while unemployment skyrocketed. Being that the states were still agrarian that this forced many farmers to lose their farms to the bankers. In response to this, Captain Shays lead a rebellion to stop the tax men from seizing their farms. He lead his men to seize courthouses and forced them to not conduct business. This stalled the seizures as no cases could be heard.

Captain Shays was a decorated veteran of the War of Independence. His service was exemplary. Their petitions to the state legislature lead to inflation as Massachusetts printed more and more money. Veterans were promised a pension for their service and this was the money that was used to pay off their loans to the banks. Due to the devaluation of the money, it required more and more money for payment.

Congress of the Confederation met in Annapolis to discuss how to ensure that another rebellion didn’t occur. They decided the best course of action was to convene another convention with state delegates to hammer out amendments to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates at Philadelphia decided that instead of writing new amendments they would write a new federal government. Once the writing was done the delegates sent the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation for approval. They did so and it took until 1789 for it to be fully ratified. Under the Constitution of the United States the power structure changed to the following:



Local government


State government


Federal government

As you can see, the power structure remained the same as it did after the Declaration of Independence. The only difference was the removal of the Congress of the Confederation to the United States federal government. In the first session of the Congress of the United States, they passed the Organic Act. The act fixed the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Northwest Territory Act into law. They did not alter the relationship between the people and the government.

Today, the government has manipulated people, through “education”, into believing that their rights come from the government and not their humanity. This has given rise to all the arguments about “civil rights” and ignoring natural rights. A civil right is nothing more than a relabel for a privilege. A privilege is where the government can take it away either through executive order, legislative law, or judicial decree. A natural right cannot be taken away as the people hold all the power. The people created the government to safeguard their rights and liberties from all enemies.

How the government controls people is through the use of permits and licenses. Both words have similar legal definitions which is, “the act to do something without permission is illegal.” Funny, but the federal government only has roughly 20 powers delegated to it by the states. The states have powers delegated to it by the people while the remaining power is held by the people. Now this is all supported by the Constitution of the United States and the individual state constitutions.

Here is a sample from Missouri’s Constitution.

Section 1. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.

In both of those clauses, it establishes that all power comes from the people and that the government originates from them. Government’s sole object is to promote the general welfare of

Defeating the Narrative: Gun Control

America today suffers from a problem. It is the intentional use of a narrative to push for more and more federal control over the people. No one has the courage to stand up to them to tell the truth. I’m no longer afraid to speak up and fulfill my oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. In this article I will explore the truth behind the law on gun control and use it to defeat the arguments that we need it.

The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right existed before the Constitution was written and the founding fathers knew it to be true. The establishment forgets that there were two other federal governments prior to the ratification in 1789 of the Constitution. The first was Continental Congress that was in power from 1774-1789 and was three incarnations. The first two sessions of the Continental Congress met and created the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation, the federal government was a legislative body with no real authority over the individual states.

During that fifteen year span, the people had the right to keep and bear arms. This is important because it was this right that lead directly to the War of Independence. The first shots of that war was in Lexington and Concord in response to the British Army’s intention to seize the armory there. This was in 1775 and the armory was operated by the citizens of each town. The British government was trying to seize the weapons from the people to subjugate them in order to enforce the prior tax acts.

At the Philadelphia Convention, all of the delegates there knew and understood that the people had the right to keep and bear arms. They wouldn’t touch that right since it was because of that right they were free of the British Empire. Due to the lack of a Bill of Rights, many states refused to ratify the Constitution until they received assurances that the first act of the new Congress of the United States would pass one.

The delegates knew and understood that the War of Independence was not just to put a new central government in place of the old one. On the contrary, they knew that by winning the war that they had elevated themselves to the position of a king/queen. The people are the rulers now and the government derives its powers from the people. It is not the government gives people’s rights. This turns the people from being free to being government slaves to live and die at its whim. The government has no authority other than what was grated to it by the state governments under the Constitution on behalf of the people of their state.

Now the most common argument used by the left, and ignored by most everyone in the media, is that the founding fathers could not have known where firearms technology would lead. This is a false claim since Continental Congress/Congress of the Confederation passed bills that were in the realm of firearm research. This research was for multiple barrel and other multi-shot firearms to be used during the War of Independence. They were fully aware of where firearms technology would lead. This is why they used the word “Arms” in the Second Amendment. The word as they defined it meant weapons of war and armor for defense. It mentions nothing about flintlocks or percussion cap weapons. It just says weapons of war.

The next argument is that the people should not be able to have access to military hardware. This is also incorrect, because from the earliest times as a colony till the passage of the Dick Act of 1903 that established the National Guard there was always a militia. The militia is comprised of all male citizens between the ages of 17 to 45. Today, it would be all citizens. These citizens were to be armed with military hardware and they were up until the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1932. Full automatic weapons were not banned until 1984. Between 1932 and 1984, the federal government used tax stamps and licensing on the sale of firearms to prevent people from buying them. Even today, a law abiding citizen with a Class C Federal Firearms License and pay the tax stamp on each full automatic, destructive device, etc… can own them. They still do. In 1984, the federal government banned the sale of new full automatic weapons to citizens.

This ban runs contrary to what the Second Amendment says. The right to keep and bear military hardware is not to be restricted or removed from law abiding citizens. Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16, it states that Congress is responsible for setting the training standards of the militia and for arming them. Yes, you heard that right. This clause mandates that Congress must appropriate money to arm the law abiding citizens with military hardware.

The militia is defined as the Organized and the Unorganized under Title 10 Section 331. The Organized militia is the National Guard and Militia. It must be pointed out that in Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990) that the court held that the National Guard is part of the federal military system and is not a militia. Their reasoning was that because the National Guard is trained and funded by the federal government they are not part of the state militia.

Now the Unorganized militia is defined as all males between the ages of 17 and 45. This leaves it open for the states to define their individual militias. The majority of states do have laws on the books that defines the militia that is different than the federal law. In any case, the militia is all law abiding citizens between the ages set by the individual states. Since law abiding citizens are the militia then they have a right to purchase firearms, including military hardware. In 1934, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Miller v. United States that the militia must have access and use the same weapons and armor that the military does. This has been repeatedly upheld since then.

Another argument used, is that the police are there to protect you. This is false. Starting with South v. Maryland (1856), the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not legally obligated to protect the individual citizen. It is up to the citizen to do that themselves. The counter to this argument is that we have the right to self defense to protect our right to life. The police are not legally obligated or required to protect a citizen from criminals. By pushing their gun control agenda, they are ignoring the laws in the states and court rulings. It is a fantasy that they believe in.

Two more classic arguments the left uses is that it is common sense to have gun control and we must show a need. Common sense is that only criminals who have been tried and convicted can have their rights removed. This is consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s protection against the government taking away the rights of the people without a criminal trial. Hammer at them about the real common sense using the defenses listed.

For the “need” argument, it’s easy to turn that around. Substitute the right to keep and bear arms with another protected right listed in the Bill of Rights. My favorites are the right to a trial, right to own property, right to have an attorney for a criminal case, and the right to demand the government show probable cause to have committed a crime. I ask them if they truly need those rights? They cannot defeat the argument since the law abiding citizen does not have to show a need to exercise their rights. It does show that the government must show a need to have an abiding interest in proving a criminal act will be committed by all law abiding citizens.

The final argument to debunk is that firearms are for hunting and sport. This is also incorrect. One of the first acts of the Congress of the United States was to pass the Organic Act. The Organic Act contains three things and is part of the law of the United States. They are the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Northwest Territory Act. Under the Declaration of Independence, it lists a very unique right which is the right to alter and abolish the government. This right is protected by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution where it says that the rights not listed are not to be used to restrict or remove others held by the people. If we are disarmed how are we to protect ourselves from criminals and a tyrannical government? We can’t and it forces the people to live under “absolute despotism”.

The points defeats any argument for gun control and forces the left to defend its narrative. We, the people, need to begin doing this and hold the left, the media, and the politicians to the supreme law of the land. We have to turn the narrative on its head and put out the truth. No more hiding and no more deflections that run contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

God Bless You and Yours,

Rev. Richard L. Littles