God or Government?

The Conspiracy that will be examined in this volume has been in existence for many years. Comprehending how it could survive for such a long period of time has been difficult.

One explanation of its lengthy existence was offered by George Orwell, the British Socialist, who wrote Animal Farm and 1984, two books on the subject of absolute power in the hands of a few. He wrote:

"The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided the hierarchical structure remains always the same."

The method by which the Conspiracy recruits new members to replace those who retire or die is explained by Norman Dodd, an investigator and researcher into the existence of the Conspiracy. Mr. Dodd explained:

"The careers of men are watched. The men who indicate that they would be especially capable in terms of the aims of this group are approached quietly and invited into the inner circles. They are watched as they carry out assignments and eventually they are drawn into it under circumstances which make it virtually impossible for them to ever get out of it."

What is the ultimate goal of the Conspiracy? If total power is the final object, then, any system which maximizes power into the hands of a few is the system to be desired. In terms of government, then, the ultimate form of power is Communism. This is the seat of the maximum power over the economy and of the individual. The Conspirators: "want big government because they understand that Socialism (and Communism as well) is not a humanitarian system for redistributing wealth, but for concentrating and controlling it. They also recognize it as a system for concentrating and controlling people."

It is common for detractors of this position to claim that the last thing that the wealthy of the world want is government control over or ownership of the factors of production. But, as we shall see, Socialism or Communism offers the Conspiracy the greatest vehicle for concentrating and controlling the wealth. This is the ultimate goal of these planners: power over not only the wealth of the world, but also the producers of that wealth, the people themselves. So the Conspiracy uses government to get control of the government, and total government control is their goal.

If government is being used by the Conspiracy to consolidate power into its hands, it behooves those who wish to preserve their freedoms to understand the very nature and function of government. Once the character of government is understood, efforts can be directed against the increase in governmental powers over both the national economy and the lives of its citizens.

A good place to begin such a study is to examine the two sources claimed to be the source of human rights. There are only two, presuming that it is admitted that humans do indeed have rights: either man himself, or someone or something external to man himself, a Creator.

Many of America's founding fathers were aware of the difference between these two alternatives. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, stated his concern and understanding thus: "The God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

However, the corresponding alternative explanation argues that our rights come from government, the creature of man himself. This contention holds that man creates government to give man his rights.

A stem warning for those who do not distinguish between these two alternatives came from William Penn. He wrote: "If men will not be governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants."

There are four references to a Creator in the Declaration of Independence, but certain of America's leaders are now asking that God must be separated from the affairs of the government. If this separation is made, as Mr. Penn indicated, the people will be governed by tyrants, and future tyrants will do all that they can to separate a belief in God from the existence of government

A good example of the philosophy that governments grant human rights to their citizens is found in the International Covenants on Human Rights, passed in 1966 by the United Nations. It reads, in part:

"The States parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State, in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law. . . ."

This document, passed unanimously by all of the parties voting, including the United States, concluded that man's rights are granted by the government. It further concluded that these rights could be limited by law; in other words, that which the government grants can be controlled by the granting body, the government. That which the government gives can also be taken away.

Man's rights under this thought are not very secure. Governments can change, and with the change, man's rights can disappear. Knowledge of this fact did not escape America's founding fathers, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

Here, then, is the other theory of the source of man's rights: they are given to man by his Creator. Man's rights are inalienable (defined as incapable of being transferred) which means that they cannot be taken away by anyone except the entity that gave the rights in the first place: in this case, the Creator.

So here are the two competing and contradictory theories about the rights of man: one holds that they are given by the Creator, and therefore can only be removed by the entity that created them in the first place; the other holds that man's rights come from man himself and therefore can be limited or removed by man or by other men, as "determined by law."

Therefore, the man who wishes to protect his rights from those who wish to limit them must protect himself and his human rights by creating an agency that has the power to exceed that exerted by those who violate human rights. The agency created is called government. But granting power to government to protect human rights also grants power to those who can abuse it as a vehicle to destroy or limit the rights of the people who created the government.

Those who wrote the Constitution realized that this tendency existed when they wrote the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The purpose of these amendments is to restrict the power of the government to violate the rights of the citizens of the nation. The founding fathers wrote these restrictions with phrases like:

"Congress shall pass no law."

"The right of the people. . . shall not be infringed."

"No person shall be . . . deprived."

"The accused shall enjoy the right"

Notice that these are not restrictions on human rights, but are restrictions on the activities of governments.

If rights are granted by the Creator of those rights, what are rights granted by government? It becomes important to distinguish between a Right and a Privilege by defining these two terms.

A Right is a freedom to act morally without asking permission; A Privilege is a freedom to act morally but only after permission has been granted by some governmental entity.

Perhaps a good illustration of the misuse of human rights occurred during World War II when the German government, acting through its leader, Adolf Hitler, decided that certain of the people did not have the right to life, and decrees were issued to exterminate those who the government felt had no human rights.

The right to life, then, granted to each individual by his Creator, no longer was a right in Germany, it had become a privilege. Man lived by permission of the government, which had the power to limit and even curtail the human right to life.

The human rights that the individual wishes to protect are simple in nature, and include the right to Life, Liberty and Property.

These three rights are in essence only one right: the right to Life.

These rights are in accord with man's basic nature. Man ( the author will use the generic term "man" to mean all of humanity, both male and female) is created hungry and needs to produce food to sustain his life. Without the right to keep what he has produced (his property) man will surely starve to death. Not only must man be allowed to keep the products of his labors, he must be free to produce the property he needs for his sustenance (the right known as Liberty.)

Governments do not need to take man's life to kill him. Governments can remove man's right to property or the freedom to produce the property needed to maintain his life. A government that restricts man's ability to keep what he produces (his property) has an equal ability to kill a man as surely as a government that takes his life wantonly (such as in the case of Germany.) As will be shown in subsequent chapters, there are government entities that restrict man's right to property or his right to liberty without terminating his life directly. But the effect is still the same.

One of the objections of "pro-life" supporters, those opposed to the government legalizing abortion, is that government is now justifying the termination of life because the life has been termed "unwanted" by its mother. This was the reason offered by Hitler for his decision to terminate the lives of countless millions of individuals in Germany. The Jews and others were "unwanted" and therefore the government could take away their right to live.

As will be illustrated later, the Communists wish to abolish "private property," or the individual's right to keep what he produces.

One who spoke in favor of the concept of private property was Abraham Lincoln, who said:

"Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."