--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

We are not proposing a government that imposes one religious philosophy, nor one that requires devotion to a particular creed.




However, we do see the role of church and state as being similar to that of man and wife. They are separate entities, but their relationship should be supplemental, not divisive. Each augments and respects the role of the other -- and they have separate roles.




Sterling

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why not support the Constitution then? Are you not free in religion to worship as you wish. Americans already have a duty in citizenship to defend religious freedom.




A religious State will replace our Constitution over my dead cold body.




That means freedom from religion and religious nuts.




Have you read Texas Constitution 2000?


Allan

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

We are talking about 'new wine' here, that cannot be put into old bottles. We're not trying to reshape the U.S. government or any other government. We are forming something new. We support existing governments to the extent they support freedom. But because the world generally is gravitating so much toward socialism, we see a need to start anew, not from within any existing government, but separate; and we will draw heavily from the Constitution of the United States.




Sterling

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

From: Allan Hampton


To: Sterling D. Allan, facilitator


Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:21 AM


Subject: Re: Improving even on the Constitution?






Sterling, simply ...you don't know what you are talking about. You are replacing the Law of government with your emotions. The Law government (government being those properly elected to public office, their appointees and employees and all judges) must obey is the Constitution and the federal government (Supreme Court, The President, and Congress) cannot change the Law of the Constitution. Neither can you, nor any organization you belong to. Your personal wants and emotions are a way outside of the constitutional purpose of the U.S government and your emotions and government can't be mixed to the benefit of anyone, not even yourself.




In your personal emotional life go ahead and be the benefactor of the world, but don't include the U.S. government because constitutionally it is not the benefactor, nor controller, of the world. Nor is it the mender of broken hearts. You said: "I am of the belief that with God at the helm". Considering how evil is our government and saying God is at the helm of it is extraordinary ignorant of God and government.




Judeo-Christian is a lie simply because it is an impossibility, it is like saying virgin-whore.




Why do you keep insisting Skousen is a better source of constitutional information that the Constitution itself, or the Federalist Papers. And why do you keep invoking God into the conversation on government? Everyone elected to public office (government) in America "all" swear, or affirm, to support (obey) the Constitution. They swear "NO" other allegiance. However, their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is witnessed by God and the People. God is not at the helm of our government, the Constitution is and the People are the enforcers of the Constitution.




Enforce the Constitution by voting non-democrat/republican in November.


Allan

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Allan,




I am of the belief that with God at the helm, we as a civilization gradually improve over time, despite the awful lapses into which we fall from time to time. Out of our depravity emerges a broken heart and contrite spirit and a willingness to do better as a people.




We are not the same people today that were here 200+ years ago when the Founders framed the Constitution. We have learned. We have made mistakes. We have grown. We have fallen.




The time is ripe for a new thing, building upon the framework they established.




To say a new thing is coming is not to say what we had before was bad. I'm just saying it was preparatory, even as Judaism was preparatory to Christianity. When the time was ripe, Jesus Christ came on the scene and moved the people of the earth forward in a major way.




We are at such a juncture again.




It is time to move forward and embrace even greater levels of responsibility.




Skousen is a Constitutionalist if there ever was one. Entire organizations have been founded upon his work. He is a darling of the John Birch Society.




He knows his stuff. And he quotes from the Founder's own writings in which they say that they would liked to have given us more, but that they were restrained because of the lack of preparation of the people living at that time.




There is nothing bad about moving forward.




It would be a poor parent who would not expect his or her child to do even better than they had done.




So it is with the Founders. I believe they work with God, serving as his angels, to inspire and teach us so we can do better than they were able to do.




To think that what they gave us is the best it will ever get is to damn your progress.




As for me. I believe in and am ever seeking for Greater Things.




Sterling D. Allan


www.greaterthings.com

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

From: Allan Hampton


To: Sterling D. Allan, facilitator


Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:23 AM


Subject: Re: (declined) Re: Allan Hamptom nominated for RSICC membership






"Certainly you don't mean to say that the current forms of world government now in place (namely the socialist NWO) are adequate"




No, I didn't mention adequacies of any foreign government. I did mention foreign governments are none of my business, nor are they any of your business, or the business of any American. Foreign governments are the business of the citizens of that particularly country. Like the government of America is the business of Americans and no other people.


..


"If they are not adequate, then we need to be in there showing the world what is adequate."




Who do you mean by "we"? If you mean our government needs to show them then I disagree. And ask where did our government get the authority to tell other governments what to do? All authority delegated to our federal government is articulated in the Constitution and I find nothing articulating any authority to control any foreign government.





"Hence Remnant Saints International Patriot Alliance and its Inter-Continental Congress -- to help pave the way for a world government based on freedom, not socialism."




Go ahead, but leave our government out of it.





"I would recommend that you read some works by Cleon Skousen or related,"




Is Skousen's work more explanatory about the purpose of government than the Constitution itself? Or the Federalist Papers? Does how our Founding Fathers saw themselves add to or take away from the words they wrote in the Constitution? Do you have any constitutional evidence that our Founding Fathers did not establish a Godly government?




"In the coming ideal society,"




What is better than a free society? The Constitution did in fact create a free society based on righteousness, did it not?




"we will be able to expect more of the people (and less of the government)."




What "more" do you expect of the people? The Constitution makes no demands on the people, why should you? And by what authority do have such power?




"The parameters will be different than they are now."




What parameters are you talking about that are better that those of the Constitution?




"And religious principles will play a more acknowledged role in the foundation of the laws that are framed."




Are you saying the Constitution is not based on Christian principles and does not address religious principles?




"But at RSICC, we are looking toward a more ideal society, and, by the grace of God, are helping to pave the way for its establishment."




So you are working to destroy the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of the people of America. Are you an American? I have serious doubts that you are.


Allan

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Certainly you don't mean to say that the current forms of world government now in place (namely the socialist NWO) are adequate.




If they are not adequate, then we need to be in there showing the world what is adequate.




Hence Remnant Saints International Patriot Alliance and its Inter-Continental Congress -- to help pave the way for a world government based on freedom, not socialism.




I would recommend that you read some works by Cleon Skousen or related, that show at length that the Founders saw themselves as establishing a godly government but that their hands were tied because they were working with a "moderately virtuous people." In the coming ideal society, based on righteousness, we will be able to expect more of the people (and less of the government). The parameters will be different than they are now. And religious principles will play a more acknowledged role in the foundation of the laws that are framed.




We can't do that now -- at least not with the way things are.




But at RSICC, we are looking toward a more ideal society, and, by the grace of God, are helping to pave the way for its establishment.




Sterling

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"God has told us we need to be a light to the world and the savor of men."




I have no problem with that, or you, or any individual, or group being a light. I have a problem with government being a light to save souls, or even a light for any other purpose. Our government is not a savor of men, but a protector of their (American citizens) God given Rights. You seem to either fail to understand, or completely disregard the Constitutional purpose of our government. The light America has to share with mankind is "freedom" and that light is not our government but it is our Republic. I believe you fail to understand freedom too.




The Constitution does indeed create and institute a government for American citizens based on Christianity. It is up to other people of the world to secure the government they wish to govern their country, it is not a purpose of our government to do that for them.




The Constitution does not support a world government, it creates a government for the Republic of America alone, and none other.




"Stopping at national sovereignty is not the solution when you have a world as interconnected as ours is."




Hogwash. National sovereignty has absolutely nothing to do with being "interconnected" with the world. Since creation of our government of America has been connected with the world. Congress has the Constitutional authority to "regulate foreign commerce and declare war" how much more interconnected do you wish to be?


Allan

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Allan,





God has told us we need to be a light to the world and the savor of men.





Presenting to the world a government based on the principles God has taught is doing harm?





Allowing the NWO to be the only option for world government is hugely problematic in my opinion, and is incurring the wrath of God on his chosen people who were supposed to present an alternative. Stopping at national sovereignty is not the solution when you have a world as interconnected as ours is.





Sterling

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

From: Allan Hampton


To: Sterling D. Allan, facilitator


Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:43 AM


Subject: Re: Allan Hamptom nominated for RSICC membership






Sterling, I wholeheartedly disagree. I am not the least bit interested in establishing a Kingdom of God (I'll leave that up to God), nor a religious government. I much rather enforce the U.S. Constitution and like it leave God out of government. Your agenda is doing more harm than good.






Oath of office;






Article. II.


Section. 1.


...


The President shall, ...


Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: --"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."






Article. VI.


...


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES. (All caps mine for emphasis, AH)






AND






Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...






Sterling, you don't have any better ideas for the purpose of government, nor even anything anywhere close to the Constitution.






























At 06:49 AM 1/17/2002 -0700, you wrote:






Allan,






It sounds like we have a common goal and outlook.






Here is what we are working on


http://rsicc.org


Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress






and


http://Paul2004.com


Ron Paul for President 2004






The Texas Constitution 2000 is quite similar to our Declaration of


Principles


http://www.patriotalliance.org/Platform/






I would like to invite you to join us.






Our efforts ought to be merged, from what I can tell.






Please peruse http://rsicc.org and see if it is something you would like to


be a part of.






We'd love to have you; and from the sounds of it, you were made for this.






Here is the page of what is expected of members:


http://rsicc.org/Members/Checklist/






Sterling D. Allan


facilitator, RSICC






Cc: RSICC Membership Committee










----- Original Message -----


From: "Allan Hampton"


To: "Sterling D. Allan"


Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 3:25 AM


Subject: Issues










Sterling, I no longer want to discuss political and religious issues (news


& God). I am interested only in discussing remedies for


unconstitutionality. News of the day can only reenforce what should be very


clear in any thinking American's mind and he doesn't need more


reenforcement, he needs a remedy.






What do you suggest doing about unconstitutionality? Do you have a workable


peaceful constitutional idea?






I suggest we put our best effort to spreading the word about the idea of


voting in November for a non-socialist (democrat/republican), particularly


for the House of Congress. Vote 3rd, or 10th, party. And include in our


messages the idea of helping ratify Texas Constitution 2000 (TC2K):


http://www.tcrf.com/ ...discussion group at:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freetexans/join


Allan














-----------------------------------------------------------------