The Continental Congress 2009 has now completed the final resolutions called, 'Articles of Freedom' for downloading and the opportunity for those Americans who feel it is time to hold our government accountable, while restoring our Constitutional Republic through peaceful means, to sign the petitions and pledge:
www.givemeliberty.org
www.cc2009.us
The following link is a webinar with Bob Schultz who successfully spearheaded the Continental Congress 2009, giving us his story of his career background which led to his involvement in 'watching' the government.
He verbally documents the legal actions he was involved in over the decades to end corruption and attempting to restore the government to its Constitutional limitations.
Currently, after 14 years of grievances petitioned to the government and each one ignored, it was decided through the efforts of the 'We The People Foundation' that a formal Continental Congress take place to redress our government going back decades. This successfully took place in November, 2009.
Final resolutions called, 'Articles of Freedom' that formally list all egregious violations of the Constitution with 'instructions' to the government and what will occur if these instructions are not honored. The concept for this CC is Mahatma Ghandi's three point criteria that the people must meet in order to reclaim their country. He explains this in his webinar.
Formal presentation to all levels of government's elected officials will be made once 15 million Americans sign the pledge.
Bob Schultz explains this non-violent concept/idea of how this should restore our republic on this 165 minute webinar:
http://www.republicmagazine.com/webinar/bob-schulz-continental-congress-2009-an-update-report-on-what-occured-whats-next.html
(If these links don't work please go to the right side bar and click there)
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"The New 'Twilight Zone' -- Obama Declares Swine Flu Emergency"
I would like to pass this on to all people so we all can make informed decision on whether or not to take these untested H1N1 vaccines.
The president announced a pandemic emergency on the weekend but it appears that the science and the statistics simply do not reflect a pandemic of flu. It seems that the recommendations made by the Pharmaceutical multi-national corporations have been heavily biased to make sure everyone gets this untested vaccine.
Please click on the link to the right to Dr. Mercola interviewing Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center. They go into great depth in explaining how misinformation is being irresponsibly granted to these corporations to act as if we all should be on high alert even though the facts simply don't add up!
If anybody irresponsibly spread around an unconfirmed rumor, they would have to face the legal/civil consequences of their actions especially if what they said resulted in death or injury. We know nothing will be done to these current people involved in this.
Based upon statistics, and by the CDC DECLINING to share 'specific' information to all physicians, health care providers, or for any person's need to know about these alleged 'deaths' from swine flu that would indeed give a very different picture compared to what is being announced.
This is a very egregious misdeed done to the public. When CBC attempted to get detailed information from the CDC they actually declined to be transparent!!! How is this in the public's interest?
I am beginning to agree with Michael Badnarik when he said if he was elected president, the first thing he would do is order execution scaffolding to be build on the front lawn of the White House and begin the mass indictments, prosecutions, and sentencing to all those in the government who have committed crimes of treason, war crimes, bailouts, that led to the death, destruction and mass racketeering of Americans and foreigners from within our government.
He said you would see within a day how quickly everyone would suddenly become 'strict Constitutionalists and obey the law'!!!
The president announced a pandemic emergency on the weekend but it appears that the science and the statistics simply do not reflect a pandemic of flu. It seems that the recommendations made by the Pharmaceutical multi-national corporations have been heavily biased to make sure everyone gets this untested vaccine.
Please click on the link to the right to Dr. Mercola interviewing Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center. They go into great depth in explaining how misinformation is being irresponsibly granted to these corporations to act as if we all should be on high alert even though the facts simply don't add up!
If anybody irresponsibly spread around an unconfirmed rumor, they would have to face the legal/civil consequences of their actions especially if what they said resulted in death or injury. We know nothing will be done to these current people involved in this.
Based upon statistics, and by the CDC DECLINING to share 'specific' information to all physicians, health care providers, or for any person's need to know about these alleged 'deaths' from swine flu that would indeed give a very different picture compared to what is being announced.
This is a very egregious misdeed done to the public. When CBC attempted to get detailed information from the CDC they actually declined to be transparent!!! How is this in the public's interest?
I am beginning to agree with Michael Badnarik when he said if he was elected president, the first thing he would do is order execution scaffolding to be build on the front lawn of the White House and begin the mass indictments, prosecutions, and sentencing to all those in the government who have committed crimes of treason, war crimes, bailouts, that led to the death, destruction and mass racketeering of Americans and foreigners from within our government.
He said you would see within a day how quickly everyone would suddenly become 'strict Constitutionalists and obey the law'!!!
Monday, October 26, 2009
WHY ATHEISM IS NOT A THREAT TO RELIGION. ITS WORSE THAN THAT.
When I search 'atheism' lately, there were over 7.3 million discussions on the subject in google. I think this subject ought to be looked at carefully, especially those who like to consider themselves, publicly, 'Atheists'.
There is a lot of hubbub in the last several years especially after a professor named Richard Dawkins came out with his book, 'The God Delusion'.
Should we be afraid of 'ideas'? Well, no, not as long as they are debated and thought about and imagined how it will impact our lives. Can ideas 'threaten' our lives? Yes. It is up to us to determine how.
Isn't it ironic that the manmade power structures called, 'churches' have spent 1,800 years converting humans to believe certain 'doctrines' according to their agenda, by force if necessary, and today, we are being labeled 'delusional' if we do accept G-d as a universal, all intelligent, Creator. What is going on here?
Is this really a 'religious' debate, or is this a 'sovereignty' debate pretending to be a religious debate that should be a sovereignty debate? Are we being 'played' with here by those behind the curtain who are preparing the way for a 'new world order', a one world government?
Why is it so important to Atheists that there not be a G-d? What is all the fuss about? Can you see the Hegelian dialectic being used to 'debate' this subject? Problem, reaction, solution? Knowing this method of arguing has been used over 100 years now with astonishing success to push through things like the Federal Reserve Act, WWI and WWII, , why not keep using it. What does Hegelian arguments avoid at all costs? They avoid the 'moral'. Each time. It is based upon greater and greater abstract arguments that tend to divide people rather than argue the moral significance of something or not.
I think there is something going on here that is more than 'religion'. What is religion. Religion in its truest sense teaches humans 'moral' truths to live by. Religion is supposed to show where these moral truths come from. How we will decide right from wrong? This leads to 'philosophy', which then leads to legislation and law.
We would like to trust that our laws are 'moral' laws that protect the sovereign, inalienable rights of the individual, at least here in America. But when are laws NOT moral? In other words, if our laws DO NOT recognize and protect sovereignty of Nation, State, and the Individual, are these 'moral' laws? I do not think so.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we derive our inalienable Rights from our 'Creator'. Not humans. Not governments. But our Creator.
Atheists already would like to see to it that Bibles are no longer used to 'swear in' at court. That 'In God We Trust' is removed from coinage, anthem, pledge of allegiance, and the United States official seal. The Ten Commandments must never be near our public schools or courthouses.
If Atheists have their way they would like to see 'Creator' struck from the Declaration of Independence! The question beckons, if we have the 'Creator' removed from the Declaration, from whom do we derive our sovereign, inalienable Rights from then? Ummmmmm, I guess we wouldn't have rights then would we?
If we as a nation were to accept 'Atheism', would this affect our sovereignty? Oh I think so.
Is it important that we be 'inclusive' of Atheists? Yes. And no. Yes, as individuals they can believe what they want. Their choice is already contained within the Declaration stating the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If they wish to be Atheists they certainly can. And no. Publicly, morally, their particular view negates the entire legal founding of this country and its unique sovereign protections. That is what is key here.
But Atheists run into a legal issue with themselves when they declare their 'non-belief'. By negating their 'Creator' they effectively negated their own sovereign Rights guaranteed protected by the U.S. Constitution. Being sovereign means 'we' own our lives. Another cannot 'own' us. That includes governments. It means we are not slaves!
Because we derive our Rights from our Creator, we are free from infringement of others including governments or ruling bodies.
That is why we must never allow our political, legal, and executive jurisdictions to come under Atheism. Our government is already 'secular' within the democratic process to allow for another's differences, however our Republic was constructed upon the 'rule of law' the moral sovereignty of the individual, State, and Union of States vis a vis the rest of the world.
Who benefits from Atheism?
In my last post, 'Is Obama poised to cede our sovereignty?', apparently Obama is planning to sign over our sovereignty to his masters in a ceremony with other leaders sometime in December. This can only happen if our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were not recognized and even abolished so our legal system would be replaced with a 'global' one. One that recognized the 'sovereignty' of a one world government.
What kept tyrants from taking over the United States up until now? Our legal documents and the attitude of the American people towards those documents.
Is there reason to be concerned? I think so. I feel many of us who do understand, are being overwhelmed by the mobs. This is an Hegelian Trojan horse. An inoculation of moral confusion and the end of a 233 year old British vendetta against those who would dare to be 'free'.
There is a lot of hubbub in the last several years especially after a professor named Richard Dawkins came out with his book, 'The God Delusion'.
Should we be afraid of 'ideas'? Well, no, not as long as they are debated and thought about and imagined how it will impact our lives. Can ideas 'threaten' our lives? Yes. It is up to us to determine how.
Isn't it ironic that the manmade power structures called, 'churches' have spent 1,800 years converting humans to believe certain 'doctrines' according to their agenda, by force if necessary, and today, we are being labeled 'delusional' if we do accept G-d as a universal, all intelligent, Creator. What is going on here?
Is this really a 'religious' debate, or is this a 'sovereignty' debate pretending to be a religious debate that should be a sovereignty debate? Are we being 'played' with here by those behind the curtain who are preparing the way for a 'new world order', a one world government?
Why is it so important to Atheists that there not be a G-d? What is all the fuss about? Can you see the Hegelian dialectic being used to 'debate' this subject? Problem, reaction, solution? Knowing this method of arguing has been used over 100 years now with astonishing success to push through things like the Federal Reserve Act, WWI and WWII, , why not keep using it. What does Hegelian arguments avoid at all costs? They avoid the 'moral'. Each time. It is based upon greater and greater abstract arguments that tend to divide people rather than argue the moral significance of something or not.
I think there is something going on here that is more than 'religion'. What is religion. Religion in its truest sense teaches humans 'moral' truths to live by. Religion is supposed to show where these moral truths come from. How we will decide right from wrong? This leads to 'philosophy', which then leads to legislation and law.
We would like to trust that our laws are 'moral' laws that protect the sovereign, inalienable rights of the individual, at least here in America. But when are laws NOT moral? In other words, if our laws DO NOT recognize and protect sovereignty of Nation, State, and the Individual, are these 'moral' laws? I do not think so.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we derive our inalienable Rights from our 'Creator'. Not humans. Not governments. But our Creator.
Atheists already would like to see to it that Bibles are no longer used to 'swear in' at court. That 'In God We Trust' is removed from coinage, anthem, pledge of allegiance, and the United States official seal. The Ten Commandments must never be near our public schools or courthouses.
If Atheists have their way they would like to see 'Creator' struck from the Declaration of Independence! The question beckons, if we have the 'Creator' removed from the Declaration, from whom do we derive our sovereign, inalienable Rights from then? Ummmmmm, I guess we wouldn't have rights then would we?
If we as a nation were to accept 'Atheism', would this affect our sovereignty? Oh I think so.
Is it important that we be 'inclusive' of Atheists? Yes. And no. Yes, as individuals they can believe what they want. Their choice is already contained within the Declaration stating the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If they wish to be Atheists they certainly can. And no. Publicly, morally, their particular view negates the entire legal founding of this country and its unique sovereign protections. That is what is key here.
But Atheists run into a legal issue with themselves when they declare their 'non-belief'. By negating their 'Creator' they effectively negated their own sovereign Rights guaranteed protected by the U.S. Constitution. Being sovereign means 'we' own our lives. Another cannot 'own' us. That includes governments. It means we are not slaves!
Because we derive our Rights from our Creator, we are free from infringement of others including governments or ruling bodies.
That is why we must never allow our political, legal, and executive jurisdictions to come under Atheism. Our government is already 'secular' within the democratic process to allow for another's differences, however our Republic was constructed upon the 'rule of law' the moral sovereignty of the individual, State, and Union of States vis a vis the rest of the world.
Who benefits from Atheism?
In my last post, 'Is Obama poised to cede our sovereignty?', apparently Obama is planning to sign over our sovereignty to his masters in a ceremony with other leaders sometime in December. This can only happen if our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were not recognized and even abolished so our legal system would be replaced with a 'global' one. One that recognized the 'sovereignty' of a one world government.
What kept tyrants from taking over the United States up until now? Our legal documents and the attitude of the American people towards those documents.
Is there reason to be concerned? I think so. I feel many of us who do understand, are being overwhelmed by the mobs. This is an Hegelian Trojan horse. An inoculation of moral confusion and the end of a 233 year old British vendetta against those who would dare to be 'free'.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Is Obama Poised To Cede United States Sovereignty?
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. A draft of the petition can be read at the right side of this page.
Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.
Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Marc Emery's Prison 'Pot'cast - Episode #2
Marc Emery is not in jail just for selling pot seeds, believe it or not.
He is there because he poses a greater threat to those who oh so arrogantly rely upon slave mentality in the masses.
You see, Marc has a history going far back to the 70's. He always, always, came from a position of a 'sovereign' person in his writing and his speech, no matter what the issue.
He has never given off anything so odious as a slave mentality which feels it has to act manipulative and vie for favors from their 'master'.
That, my friends, truly threatens the 'unsound' reality in which we find ourselves.
THEY DO NOT WANT PEOPLE EMULATING HIM!!!!
Can you imagine what it would be like for all those who rely on the government and corporate welfare, including real drug criminals if the people animated their G-d given sovereignty???? Oh boy.
Animating sovereignty is one of the most revolutionary stands anyone can make and that is what Marc Emery embodies and has animated most of his life. He lives it. He breathes it. It forms the very foundation of all his thoughts, acts and deeds. He is an example for all.
He is a man embodying 'sovereign man'. Because he is sovereign, he is a responsible man and will never run from anyone who attempts to challenge his 'sovereignty'. This drives all these sons of Belial, crazy!!!! They want to bring him to his knees as a slave like everyone else and he won't do it and he is a 'way-shower' to others because of this.
Marc may be a champion for abolishing prohibition of drugs, but that is just one of his main focuses lately. The record will show he is consistent at abolishing ANYTHING that imposes ones will upon another.
That is truly working for justice because it is consistent. This is what they consider the most dangerous of all.
People out there, don't get all myopic about just drugs, this includes allllll impositions upon our sovereignty.
Sovereignty is inclusive of the term, 'The Right To Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness(read Destiny)' When one of these terms are removed from the other two, it is no longer 'sovereignty', it becomes a 'privilege'. A privilege means that one feels the must beg from those perceived to have 'power' over them. This is a fraudulent and false reality. These three terms make up a symbiotic alchemy that spells out what sovereignty is all about.
The ideas that were formed by the founding fathers of this country, even way back then, are still to this day just as revolutionary as they were back 230 years ago.
We have a template but have yet to live it fully in the spirit in which it was declared.
This may be worth keeping in mind everywhere in the world.
He is there because he poses a greater threat to those who oh so arrogantly rely upon slave mentality in the masses.
You see, Marc has a history going far back to the 70's. He always, always, came from a position of a 'sovereign' person in his writing and his speech, no matter what the issue.
He has never given off anything so odious as a slave mentality which feels it has to act manipulative and vie for favors from their 'master'.
That, my friends, truly threatens the 'unsound' reality in which we find ourselves.
THEY DO NOT WANT PEOPLE EMULATING HIM!!!!
Can you imagine what it would be like for all those who rely on the government and corporate welfare, including real drug criminals if the people animated their G-d given sovereignty???? Oh boy.
Animating sovereignty is one of the most revolutionary stands anyone can make and that is what Marc Emery embodies and has animated most of his life. He lives it. He breathes it. It forms the very foundation of all his thoughts, acts and deeds. He is an example for all.
He is a man embodying 'sovereign man'. Because he is sovereign, he is a responsible man and will never run from anyone who attempts to challenge his 'sovereignty'. This drives all these sons of Belial, crazy!!!! They want to bring him to his knees as a slave like everyone else and he won't do it and he is a 'way-shower' to others because of this.
Marc may be a champion for abolishing prohibition of drugs, but that is just one of his main focuses lately. The record will show he is consistent at abolishing ANYTHING that imposes ones will upon another.
That is truly working for justice because it is consistent. This is what they consider the most dangerous of all.
People out there, don't get all myopic about just drugs, this includes allllll impositions upon our sovereignty.
Sovereignty is inclusive of the term, 'The Right To Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness(read Destiny)' When one of these terms are removed from the other two, it is no longer 'sovereignty', it becomes a 'privilege'. A privilege means that one feels the must beg from those perceived to have 'power' over them. This is a fraudulent and false reality. These three terms make up a symbiotic alchemy that spells out what sovereignty is all about.
The ideas that were formed by the founding fathers of this country, even way back then, are still to this day just as revolutionary as they were back 230 years ago.
We have a template but have yet to live it fully in the spirit in which it was declared.
This may be worth keeping in mind everywhere in the world.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS VOTE THIS SATURDAY OCTOBER 10TH
I have provided links to the website on the right hand side here where you can educate yourself as to how to be involved and vote for your 3 Minnesota delegates who will spend 2 weeks in November in Illinois in a formal people's congress redressing the government for its egregious violations of our Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution.
Download your voter registration along with the ballot and have it notarized.
These ballots must be postmarked no later than Saturday, October 10th 2009.
Download your voter registration along with the ballot and have it notarized.
These ballots must be postmarked no later than Saturday, October 10th 2009.
Do Churches Make The Laws or Should We Reclaim Our Own Responsibility?
Though it is very true that churches have all the freedom to speak out to their parishioners, at the same time they do in fact have what is called, 'undue influence'.
This is extremely important for people to realize.
In reference to the 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists about their concerns that the 'State' could override them caused much anxiety to the churches in the early colonies because of what took place in Europe prior to coming to America.
If the King said you are all to be 'Church of England', you had two choices. Either you were Church of England or you burnt as a heretic at the stake. So America was free in that way and soon the Mayflower found its way to our shores.
The 1st amendment states clearly the State may not infringe upon the church, but the church may infringe upon the government. That is what Jefferson explained to reassure the church.
But today, like many other Americans and Canadians, I believe we have a different problem with churches and our founders didn't see it coming.
Today churches have become the very instruments of getting people to 'override' their own sovereignty!!!!
Churches have undue influence because human beings attend church innocently seeking guidance for their moral/ethical/spiritual choices in their day to day lives.
Those who are ministers, priests, pastors, chaplains, etc. wear the powerful mantle of what passes today for 'morality' and that which is spiritual.
In their weakness, people have the propensity to 'give over' that very responsible work that is the very essence of 'sovereignty': 'thinking these things out for themselves'!
Does it not empower churches to be the 'repository' of what is otherwise the inherent responsibility of each American? Therefore, do they not function like a 'central bank' who, in place of 'money', has become instead the repository of 'individual personal responsibility'? Is this not what empowers churches essentially?
Many churches who receive IRS non-profit status are supposed to give up their freedom to speak freely to their parishioners in exchange for not paying taxes, yet they ignore this for the most part.
Not that I support the Federal Reserve or the IRS, I consider them both to be based upon 'unsound reality' and Unconstitutional, but churches attempt to have their cake and eat it too.
I believe human beings are extremely vulnerable to the 'archetype' of one who appears as holding authority. Archetypes have a very, very powerful hold on our subconscious minds. If a priest says "Abortion is morally wrong. It is the killing of a human being", does this not stir the 'moral indignation' of people to rally and declare abortion 'criminal'? Do they not have the backing of their church who said so?
In that Sunday environment, are there other voices that the people hear who may disagree with the minister and argue how this view may be incorrect so that people may have a choice? Of course not. And that is what 'undue influence' is.
Why did G-d in its infinite loving intelligence make Woman the vessel of potential life if she and she alone is NOT the one to decide to birth or not to birth? Historically, has the church not held a low opinion of women in general? For a long time they believed women had no souls!
A woman who finds she has become a 'mother' must she not be the ultimate one to decide if she feels this child would be able to thrive in such a world? We know that if she felt the child was not conceived in Love and she had no support from the one who helped make the babe, she may not wish to bring a new human being into this world. Is this not her perogative?
Naturally the anguish and anxiety this causes is enormous. Most times women choose abortion. Adoption may become even more painful knowing they 'abandoned' their child somewhere out in the world and she doesn't even know if the child fared well or not or simply ended up abused by a stranger.
Who are we to judge, when only G-d judges. Are we not to forgive those who feel the need to abort? In many cases, are we being asked to hate those who choose abortion and despise the doctors who assist these mothers to abort? Some churches even go this far. Some doctors have been murdered because of this.
I have used 'abortion' as an example of how churches are instruments of the laws that pass after which we get to experience the consequences of those bad 'laws' and their 'unsoundness'.
Just replace abortion with: The Invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq, or The War On Drugs, or The War On Terror, or Billions $ must go to Israel and you will see how it is that we ended up in this mess in the first place.
Was it not churches that got people to give up 'educating their children' to the Federal government in the 1950s and 1960's during the civil rights movement? Did this not override parental responsibility of their own children and yet this was hinged with racism and 'equality'? As a result of 'guilt' created by churches, did the parents not 'give over' this extremely important responsibility that would ensure their children were fully educated as Americans?
In the end who benefited? Did Black people benefit? Or did the Federal government benefit especially being able now more than ever to 'dumb down' the population with stupid programs like, 'No child left behind'. Is this not one of the stupidest programs ever. Would you submit your child to this?
Is peer pressure not a powerful drug? You bet it is. As peer pressure takes place in the churches, it also takes place in the political parties. So few Americans complain about such blatant coercions and they should!
Only churches can get people to override their own sovereignty. Think about this.
Do you think politicians can do this? NO! Politicians carry the archetype of the sychophant, not the priest. People despise politicians.
Politicians rely on the priests and ministers to convince the people that by overriding their own sovereignty they are doing the 'right' thing.
And this is how self interested groups like the Council on Foreign Relations/Tri-Lateral Commission have gotten their way all these years and has served to transfer 'power' to the United Nations who really call the shots nowadays. They have succeeded in getting the churches under their wing. Wine them. Dine them. Invitations to their lectures etc., and probably worse.
Is this not how our Constitution has been overridden? Is this not how our neighbors have been made into politically correct enforcers of that which is morally/ethically wrong and UnConstitutional but they will parrot what they heard from a minister last Sunday.
As far as I can see we still live in the 'Dark ages'. The difference is, back then the church leaders influenced the King. People had no power whatsoever.
However, since our Declaration in 1776 spelled out our sovereignty to the world, and enforced its recognition by Washington and his revolutionary soldiers, and our Constitution was put in place to protect that, we are the ones they 'counsel' so fervently since then.
Not until most of the common man/woman reclaims their personal responsibility unto themselves, will this world be free from coercion, war and crime.
After all, if Jesus were alive today, he most likely would rebuke everything most churches stand for and he would most likely end up in prison or be killed all over again. Be honest. Would he not?
My litmus test for a church is very simple. They must take a strong stand for our Constitution and preach consistently. Why? Because our Declaration and Constitution is essentially in harmony with what Jesus himself taught: Freedom from bondage in all its myriad forms, and property rights.
After all am I not a Queen in my own right? Are you not a King in your own Right? According to our Declaration that is exactly who we are! Kings and Queens in our own right.
Live it, animate it, and defend it with your very life. Demand it to be recognized pointing to the Declaration. Otherwise it simply won't exist in our reality.
We must remind our leaders that the Constitution trumps churches and all other self interested organizations.
If we are to be worthy of those founding documents, should we not question authority and their motivations?
Was it not Voltaire who said, "If they can get you to accept absurdities, they can get you to commit atrocities?
Anisha Dunne
This is extremely important for people to realize.
In reference to the 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists about their concerns that the 'State' could override them caused much anxiety to the churches in the early colonies because of what took place in Europe prior to coming to America.
If the King said you are all to be 'Church of England', you had two choices. Either you were Church of England or you burnt as a heretic at the stake. So America was free in that way and soon the Mayflower found its way to our shores.
The 1st amendment states clearly the State may not infringe upon the church, but the church may infringe upon the government. That is what Jefferson explained to reassure the church.
But today, like many other Americans and Canadians, I believe we have a different problem with churches and our founders didn't see it coming.
Today churches have become the very instruments of getting people to 'override' their own sovereignty!!!!
Churches have undue influence because human beings attend church innocently seeking guidance for their moral/ethical/spiritual choices in their day to day lives.
Those who are ministers, priests, pastors, chaplains, etc. wear the powerful mantle of what passes today for 'morality' and that which is spiritual.
In their weakness, people have the propensity to 'give over' that very responsible work that is the very essence of 'sovereignty': 'thinking these things out for themselves'!
Does it not empower churches to be the 'repository' of what is otherwise the inherent responsibility of each American? Therefore, do they not function like a 'central bank' who, in place of 'money', has become instead the repository of 'individual personal responsibility'? Is this not what empowers churches essentially?
Many churches who receive IRS non-profit status are supposed to give up their freedom to speak freely to their parishioners in exchange for not paying taxes, yet they ignore this for the most part.
Not that I support the Federal Reserve or the IRS, I consider them both to be based upon 'unsound reality' and Unconstitutional, but churches attempt to have their cake and eat it too.
I believe human beings are extremely vulnerable to the 'archetype' of one who appears as holding authority. Archetypes have a very, very powerful hold on our subconscious minds. If a priest says "Abortion is morally wrong. It is the killing of a human being", does this not stir the 'moral indignation' of people to rally and declare abortion 'criminal'? Do they not have the backing of their church who said so?
In that Sunday environment, are there other voices that the people hear who may disagree with the minister and argue how this view may be incorrect so that people may have a choice? Of course not. And that is what 'undue influence' is.
Why did G-d in its infinite loving intelligence make Woman the vessel of potential life if she and she alone is NOT the one to decide to birth or not to birth? Historically, has the church not held a low opinion of women in general? For a long time they believed women had no souls!
A woman who finds she has become a 'mother' must she not be the ultimate one to decide if she feels this child would be able to thrive in such a world? We know that if she felt the child was not conceived in Love and she had no support from the one who helped make the babe, she may not wish to bring a new human being into this world. Is this not her perogative?
Naturally the anguish and anxiety this causes is enormous. Most times women choose abortion. Adoption may become even more painful knowing they 'abandoned' their child somewhere out in the world and she doesn't even know if the child fared well or not or simply ended up abused by a stranger.
Who are we to judge, when only G-d judges. Are we not to forgive those who feel the need to abort? In many cases, are we being asked to hate those who choose abortion and despise the doctors who assist these mothers to abort? Some churches even go this far. Some doctors have been murdered because of this.
I have used 'abortion' as an example of how churches are instruments of the laws that pass after which we get to experience the consequences of those bad 'laws' and their 'unsoundness'.
Just replace abortion with: The Invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq, or The War On Drugs, or The War On Terror, or Billions $ must go to Israel and you will see how it is that we ended up in this mess in the first place.
Was it not churches that got people to give up 'educating their children' to the Federal government in the 1950s and 1960's during the civil rights movement? Did this not override parental responsibility of their own children and yet this was hinged with racism and 'equality'? As a result of 'guilt' created by churches, did the parents not 'give over' this extremely important responsibility that would ensure their children were fully educated as Americans?
In the end who benefited? Did Black people benefit? Or did the Federal government benefit especially being able now more than ever to 'dumb down' the population with stupid programs like, 'No child left behind'. Is this not one of the stupidest programs ever. Would you submit your child to this?
Is peer pressure not a powerful drug? You bet it is. As peer pressure takes place in the churches, it also takes place in the political parties. So few Americans complain about such blatant coercions and they should!
Only churches can get people to override their own sovereignty. Think about this.
Do you think politicians can do this? NO! Politicians carry the archetype of the sychophant, not the priest. People despise politicians.
Politicians rely on the priests and ministers to convince the people that by overriding their own sovereignty they are doing the 'right' thing.
And this is how self interested groups like the Council on Foreign Relations/Tri-Lateral Commission have gotten their way all these years and has served to transfer 'power' to the United Nations who really call the shots nowadays. They have succeeded in getting the churches under their wing. Wine them. Dine them. Invitations to their lectures etc., and probably worse.
Is this not how our Constitution has been overridden? Is this not how our neighbors have been made into politically correct enforcers of that which is morally/ethically wrong and UnConstitutional but they will parrot what they heard from a minister last Sunday.
As far as I can see we still live in the 'Dark ages'. The difference is, back then the church leaders influenced the King. People had no power whatsoever.
However, since our Declaration in 1776 spelled out our sovereignty to the world, and enforced its recognition by Washington and his revolutionary soldiers, and our Constitution was put in place to protect that, we are the ones they 'counsel' so fervently since then.
Not until most of the common man/woman reclaims their personal responsibility unto themselves, will this world be free from coercion, war and crime.
After all, if Jesus were alive today, he most likely would rebuke everything most churches stand for and he would most likely end up in prison or be killed all over again. Be honest. Would he not?
My litmus test for a church is very simple. They must take a strong stand for our Constitution and preach consistently. Why? Because our Declaration and Constitution is essentially in harmony with what Jesus himself taught: Freedom from bondage in all its myriad forms, and property rights.
After all am I not a Queen in my own right? Are you not a King in your own Right? According to our Declaration that is exactly who we are! Kings and Queens in our own right.
Live it, animate it, and defend it with your very life. Demand it to be recognized pointing to the Declaration. Otherwise it simply won't exist in our reality.
We must remind our leaders that the Constitution trumps churches and all other self interested organizations.
If we are to be worthy of those founding documents, should we not question authority and their motivations?
Was it not Voltaire who said, "If they can get you to accept absurdities, they can get you to commit atrocities?
Anisha Dunne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
