Why We Have Law

1 min read

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners… (1 Timothy 1:8-9a).

In a recent post on The Muslim Question, I made the point that Mohammedans only understand strength and violence, and I meant what I said. I advocated their removal from Western Society en masse.   One commenter argued that we should “kill them all” and  that “we [need to] start applying force.”  I replied that we, here at MOTW, are speaking about working within the law, not outside of it.

I am not watering down my initial assertion at all. I am speaking of how we go about accomplishing that.

Understand what I am, and am not, saying. I am saying that Muslims need to be hit in the mouth and hard. They need to experience the response that their actions warrant, and be returned to their places of origin, leaving our shores for good. I am not saying that we, as individuals, need to take to the streets to do this.  We have legal systems in place for a reason.

We may not always like the way the system works, and there may well be areas that do not work properly, but this is the appropriate method for accomplish this task. We are calling on our government to step up. If the current holders of congressional seats will not do what needs to be done, then we need to elect people who will.

We are not advocating vigilantism. That sort of behavior is wrong-headed and counter productive. If you try to take matters into your own hands, then you will end up in jail or dead. That is not beneficial for anyone.

Pressure your congressmen and senators. Contact the president. Work within the legal system to push for repatriation of Muslims, but do not take violence into your own hands, unless you are defending yourself in a specific situation where you have been physically attacked.

This has always been our position here at MOTW. If you look at the linked article above, you will see that I spoke about President Trump’s Executive Orders and how they should be expanded. This is working within the law.

Law is good. It restrains the ungodly impulses of those who would act outside it. If you are trying to work outside the law, then according to scripture, you are acting ungodly and sinfully.

Lead Scheduler at MOTW. Husband, Father, but most importantly, a man of God. Possesses more degrees that most people find useful.


  1. For those of you reading this article, I am the commenter in question. While I did use the term “kill them all…”, it was quite obviously done so as an intentional pun, though I believe it goes without saying, an intentional pun is a joke, and I would appreciate an acknowledgement of such.
    The term ‘vigilantism’ has gotten a bad name in the last 50 years, mainly, in my opinion, due to its portrayals in the media and pop-culture. It can, undoubtedly be bad, though it is not inherently so. If one reads my comments on the article, you’ll see that I was not advocating for an individual to take action, that would be as you said ‘..not beneficial for anyone’, and would likely result in that individual’s arrest or death. Quite to the contrary, I was advocating for we as a group to take action. John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington were all individuals whom one could categorize as vigilantes in their day, but they, along with many others, acted as a group, and rightfully so.
    Imagine 1,000 courageous individuals, with the necessary implements, arriving in Dearborn, MI, for the purpose of removing the Orcs; I would wager(assuming there are as many of us as I would like to believe) that within 24-48 hours, there would then be 10,000, and within a further 24-48 hour period there very well may be 100,000 of us. That is not a group of vigilantes, but an army. If it was good enough for the aforementioned Founding Fathers, it should be good enough for us.
    With regard to the law(s), the vast majority of them are un-Godly, enacted by Institutions who are themselves, un-Godly, run by un-Godly individuals, and therefore lack moral authority. Further to this point, I believe it is folly to put one’s faith in the laws man; abortion being a perfect example, as not only are there laws which support its practice but court decisions (Roe v. Wade) that have declared it a right! The Hart-Cellar Immigration act of 1965 being another great example, and likely the cause of our present situation, as it provided the conduit for our invasion. You mentioned Trump’s Executive actions, which were totally justified, but were shutdown in their tracks by activist judges.
    It is ironic (projection at its finest) that Hillary Clinton claimed that there was a group within this country that was totally irredeemable, though contrary to her assertion that it was the so-called ‘basket of deplorables’ (of which I am a proud member), rather it is our government institutions that are irredeemable. It is akin to playing poker with a deck stacked against you, while your adversaries are using loaded dice to play a game of Backgammon.
    I am not advocating for violence so much as recognizing that we indeed have no choice.
    Do you really believe this can be legislated out of our Civilization?
    This is a war, and there is absolutely no way, based on the current situation as well as history, that this can end favorably without bloodshed. The longer it takes for that unsavory action to occur, the worse it will ultimately be, and I would much prefer that we, as Men of the West, do it sooner rather than later, lest it be our sons instead of us. The buck must stop here.

    • Do you forget the whole issue of “taxation without representation”? The issue of the founding fathers was that they had no real legal recourse.
      Again, we do not, and will not, advocate mob violence. This is not the place for that sort of ideology.

      • “The issue of the founding fathers was that they had no real legal recourse.” Neither do we! Give me an example of theoretical legal recourse open to us, as well as it actually succeeding. It does not exist, the system is too corrupt. You are continuing to conflate recognizing the inevitable with advocacy for mob violence, which you seem hell bent on ignoring. What I am advocating for is to be proactive, in the interest of mitigating the bloodshed that is inevitable. Bad news is not like wine, it doesn’t get better with age.
        You can continue to bitch about the fact that your car has no brakes, but until you take action to fix it, not only do you run the risk of crashing and burning, but all you are really accomplishing is the establishment of an echo chamber of complaint and needles risk to life and limb.
        Words are impotent without action.

        • You have made your point. Now you can stop. No one at this site is interested in your proposed action.

          • That’s all you have? The courage of men has indeed apparently failed. Fine, so be it, I will let this dead horse lie, and as they say “let the folks at home decide”. Mark words, it is not if, but when, and longer it takes, the worse it will be.
            Sincerely, God Bless.

          • to be fair, while I am certain that none of the writers are interested in taking ‘citizen militia’ action, the readership you have tapped into believes that a government is given power by it’s people… Which means that if we are unwilling to take direct action to protect ourselves proactively, neither will our government. Why should they bother?

        • The idea of legal recourse is preposterous when the issue is literally state sponsored Islamization.

  2. Theo, I like a lot of your articles, but this is just wrong.
    Muslims are not ‘criminals’. The law is irrelevant to someone that is willing to suicide for the glory of allah. Anyone that has ever fought muslims knows this very well… They are not criminals, they are THE ENEMY.
    You do not fight an enemy by trusting ‘peacekeepers’ or sheriffs. They are not citizens, they do not care about our laws.
    You fight ‘enemies’ by KILLING them. Not with lawsuits, but with bullets and knives and explosives.

    • This is ignorant of history. In pitched battle, the objective is to kill the enemy, until it surrenders. If one can get the enemy to surrender before killing, that is preferred. We highlighted Sgt. Alvin York a while back here, and his most impressive accomplishment was in getting a superior German force to SURRENDER. He captured them and sent them to POW camps. He did not mercilessly kill them all.
      Again, We will allow no more comments calling for wholesale slaughter on this issue. If you post another one, I will spam it.

    • No. I let them say their piece, and then they kept going, after being told to stop. Our site. Our rules. If you read the comments here, we have plenty of people who disagree.

    • No.
      And your attitude is part of the reason why we are in the mess today. Hard lines must exist. Consequences in alignment of the infraction must be upheld.
      I get their frustrations. But this isn’t their site, nor their articles. Theophrastus spelled out the rules he found acceptable. Violation of those rules resulted in the previously indicated response.
      They are more than welcome to comment on anything else, or start their own sites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous Story

Book Review: Balkan Worlds: The First and Last Europe

Next Story

Death to the NCAA, Part I

Latest from Culture