RE: US Attorney General is confusing fictional statutes and regulations with Spiritual, Natural Law.
Separation of church and state would prevent all this confusion. Session's job is not to execute God's law, he is supposed to defend the Law of the Land, man's law, the Constitution and the US Code.
I replied to another post on this and I am not typing this all over again...
Yep. I keep asking people, no one answers... If I decide to do something I KNOW is illegal, say rob a bank. Now, I think the FED is a criminal enterprise, our fiat currency is against the Constitution, these banks are evil and I do not approve of them, but I do know robbing them is illegal. Still, I am going to rob it and I am taking my child with me because I have the moral high ground here...
Well, people with GUNS come after me so I hop in the car and take off, and while luding police I wreck my car and injure my child...
IS THIS THE BANK'S FAULT?!
I am all about self-governance. If we are ready to have that talk, then set the illegal immigrants loose! However, if people want a GOVERNMENT to "keep them safe" THIS IS HOW THAT IS DONE.
They broke the law, the knew they were breaking the law, and they decided to bring kids along...
exactly, it's sad to see otherwise reasonable people so snookered by this obvious ploy to distract and upset people.
I think it is an error to suggest that Session is defending the 'Law of the Land'. The law he is defending is the law of the sea. The 'country' he is acting as Attorney General for, is nothing but a corporation. Session is a feudal servant following orders from his feudal masters who have usurp the land and enslaved the people upon that land. The border they are trying to protect is nothing but a corporate line on a map. They were able to do that through ignorance as they acquired consent from the people to being governed by these masters. The 'laws' that he is protecting is ones created by the feudal masters 'society' that was created by a small group of men.
So you asked the question:
There is a huge difference between doing something that is 'illegal' and 'unlawful'. Doing something illegal assumes that you consented to being governed by a fictional construct we call 'government'. If you consent to be governed by those man made fictional constructs, then you agree to be subject to their rules. If you steal from the fed, that is a violation of their statutes and regulations which you agreed to be subject to. As such you are responsible for the outcomes of your actions.
However, stealing from the Fed it is also unlawful because spiritual law dictates that we are not to steal. If you flee and hurt your child, then you are responsible.
Your whole scenario is full of violence which violates spiritual law. However, if you revoke your consent to being governed by them, declare peace and be peaceful, then you are fulfilling spiritual law even though your actions may violate their statutes and regulations on a daily basis. Because you are no longer governed by them, all of that becomes irrelevant because it does not apply to you.
To be clear, the states monopoly on coercion and violence does not give it a free pass when it comes to spiritual laws. People consenting to be governed by that military force does not give them a free pass either. The state claims that they can engage in coercion and violence in order to maintain their power, statutes and regulations. Suggesting that people violated their statutes and regulations still does not validate their violent and abusive behaviour. Violence is violence, no matter what authority said it was legal.
Just because something is legal does not make it lawful. Legal is almost always violent, abusive and coercive, due to the nature of the state. That is why spirit lead people cannot participate with that shit. It violates spiritual law by its very nature. That is why I often write about how it is the domain of the devil.
If people want the government to 'keep them safe', then so be it. But that is not going to stop me from confronting people on the fact that the government is violent, abusive and evil. I will not go to war against those who engage in this violence. However, I will rebuke everyone involved for participating in that shit. I will stand as a witness to the violence as none of this demonstrates what love thy neighbour is all about.
I am a bit surprised you failed to see the "Devil's advocate" argument I am making, perhaps you did not read to the end?
I do not support any of this nonsense, I am an advocate of self governance. The people who DEMAND a government to keep them safe need to accept the FULL responsibility for the consequences of their choices... This is how a government protects its people.
Actually I did read to the very end. In fact I read it two or three times. It did not come across that way to me. I saw your comment about self-governance, but I did not 'see' your "devil's advocate" argument in the way it was presented.
I agree with you. If people DEMAND that the government keep them safe, they must also recognize that they are petitioning the state to engage in violence against others to do that. That means any violence that takes place, whether it be children being ripped from the arms of their parents, bombs dropping on villages, etc is also the responsibility of the people as well as those who physically do the act of violence.
It is also the peoples responsibility to ask questions to ensure they get full disclosure so that they can get informed consent. The vast majority fail to do that and few fail to know how to do it.
I admit I am feeling pretty cynical at this point, but this... "I am all about self-governance. If we are ready to have that talk, then set the illegal immigrants loose! However, if people want a GOVERNMENT to "keep them safe" THIS IS HOW THAT IS DONE."