As politicians in the two-party electoral process have found it beneficial telling the people what they want to hear, philosophers in the American Movement have strengthened the foundation of the underlying order by telling the people what they don't want to hear. In the end, while those in tyranny are the only ones who benefit from the electoral process, the people have benefited at the speed of the American Movement which is very slow but sure.
This is so because, in order too arrive at the truth, we must walk upon a foundation which is both painful and uphill; whereas, a lie has no underlying foundation for its support. In order for it to exist, it must cause chaos and confusion by marketing the notion that it is possible to live a constant life of downhill leisure and be happy -- have ones cake and eat it too so to speak. This chaos and confusion are helped along by the false dichotomies or false conflicts that have been dramatized by tyranny. As I've already mentioned in another post, the true American dichotomy is the one that pits a majority made up of disadvantaged people against a minority made up of a select few. As the people are trying to control tyranny from a disadvantaged position at the bottom of a mountain, in contrast, tyranny at the mountaintop have lots of free leisure time on their hands to maintain their advantage.
What the disadvantaged have going for them are those superior opponents who convert over to their side as was once the case with such notable characters like Confucius, the Buddha, Socrates, and Plato during ancient times, and notable characters like the Chosen Vessel Paul, Martin Luther, John Locke, Jeanne Rousseau, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson during more modern times. In comparison to the converts, Jesus Christ will always bring the people to rejoicing by defeating evil with His littlest finger. Again, Christ, being the ultimate charmer, will always take care of evil with his littlest of fingers.
If it is indeed true that it is the people who solve problems by working them out, then why is our government seeming to do everything it can to do away with the ability of the people to work? This goes back to my question pertaining to men in authority and the puzzling question of how on earth such fully grown adults could find pleasure in taking advantage of small boys. Indeed, it should be clear in their consciences that the contempt of stumbling up these children of God is the most serious of offenses! The only reason such a person would take pleasure in defeating a small boy in the game of life is that he or she is a drunkard. In case you doubt what I say, it was typical during a time not too very long ago for Emperors, kings, and even the Holy Catholic popes to keep in their possession the souls of young women and small boys for their sexual pleasures. The two ways in which these people become such drunkards is either by intoxicating themselves on liquor or by doing the same on the false powers of manipulation.
The toxic false powers of manipulation exist today because our government has legislated laws in serious contempt of the people's Civil Purpose. .
martes, 30 de abril de 2013
lunes, 29 de abril de 2013
As I mentioned in a prior post, after our Founders gathered to reduce rationally towards a natural law in the Declaration of Independence, it became a formal document. As a result, they were then justified in their gathering to elaborate, with this action being the opposite of reduction, regarding the establishment of legal documentation within The U.S. Constitution.
Look, I think this is a huge breakthrough. Again, while the Declaration of Independence is a formal document, the U.S. Constitution should be considered legal documentation because of it. When both were taken into account, the United States was considered cut off from the rest of the world.
As The Declaration of Independence became our formal divorce from a rightful king --. by way of deeming him a tyrant unfit to govern over the people -- it also became a foundation for a whole new order; meanwhile, The U.S. Constitution became our legal remarriage to a more perfect Union, a "necessary tyranny," establishing its soverignty upon the base of that new order, or on the basis of the prior formal divorce. Both the formal order and the new laws were necessary in order for the people to control tyranny. As laws were created in the past to advance tyranny to the detriment of the people, our Founders established rights as a detriment to tyranny and to the advantage of the people.
In essence, to the rest of the religious world, the United States became a whore. It has often been said that the United States violated legal precedence when divorcing herself out from under the rule of a rightful king. Ironically, as the present lawyer class ruling over the United States thinks nothing of abandoning the people from rightful citizens with a Civil Purpose to that of mere legal clients no better than illegal aliens, we are fast becoming just one of many nameless and faceless prostitutes under the rule of the old world order.
Indeed, these people calling themselves lawyers have muddled up the underlying meaning of what it means to be an American! When lawyers profoundly qualify themselves as lawyers by marketing as glorious their own natural abilities as sufficient foundations for them to stand upon, they disqualify every person within society including themselves.
For example, back when contentment was the major concern of the people, when a quality product was considered the major common prerequisite within every package, and the customer was always considered the boss, it was the people who certified whether someone had a valuable expertise in society. Ever since such virtues as liberty and equality have risen to become the new responsibilities to be handled by government have lawyers taken over the responsibility of who should or should not be qualified as an expert.
Do you have a problem? Call a downtown lawyer. In order to solve your problem, the downtown lawyer will call a state lawyer. In turn, the state lawyer will call a federal lawyer. Again, in turn, the federal lawyer will call the Attorney General of the United States. And, finally, the Attorney General will ask the president of the United States what is is that you should do.
By installing themselves as frauds, these impostors have cut the American people off from our ancestors, from our Founding Fathers, and from the new order they established separating us from the world.
This is why our society has become corrupted.
Understand, our Founders were neither addressing a commoner people nor a tyrant when writing The Declaration of Independence; but, rather, they were addressing the Almighty Himself. Indeed, they were referring to us, in a sense, for, as they performed the little masterpiece, they were acting as the People in matters concerning the behavior of a tyrant.
So, as Americans, we should all consider ourselves as the attorneys for our Founding Fathers as they will one day stand under judgement of the Truth.
That is what a true American lawyer or attorney should be and the way we all should be as Americans.
Indeed, these lawyers now qualifying themselves as lawyers should all be considered impostors. In other words, it wasn't the intentions of our Founding Fathers to have every part of our government deep in ruin because of layer upon layer of lawyers, but to create a government of representatives, senators, administrators, and judges.
Again, the purposes in establishing this new post of Prime Minister of the United States is to hold our Government to a higher standard and to a greater penalty under judgement of the Truth, to hold the Supreme Court in contempt of the People's Civil Purpose, to be the leading delegate and spokesman for the very least among the people, and to develop a new type of official to elect into government office other than a lawyer.
Look, I think this is a huge breakthrough. Again, while the Declaration of Independence is a formal document, the U.S. Constitution should be considered legal documentation because of it. When both were taken into account, the United States was considered cut off from the rest of the world.
As The Declaration of Independence became our formal divorce from a rightful king --. by way of deeming him a tyrant unfit to govern over the people -- it also became a foundation for a whole new order; meanwhile, The U.S. Constitution became our legal remarriage to a more perfect Union, a "necessary tyranny," establishing its soverignty upon the base of that new order, or on the basis of the prior formal divorce. Both the formal order and the new laws were necessary in order for the people to control tyranny. As laws were created in the past to advance tyranny to the detriment of the people, our Founders established rights as a detriment to tyranny and to the advantage of the people.
In essence, to the rest of the religious world, the United States became a whore. It has often been said that the United States violated legal precedence when divorcing herself out from under the rule of a rightful king. Ironically, as the present lawyer class ruling over the United States thinks nothing of abandoning the people from rightful citizens with a Civil Purpose to that of mere legal clients no better than illegal aliens, we are fast becoming just one of many nameless and faceless prostitutes under the rule of the old world order.
Indeed, these people calling themselves lawyers have muddled up the underlying meaning of what it means to be an American! When lawyers profoundly qualify themselves as lawyers by marketing as glorious their own natural abilities as sufficient foundations for them to stand upon, they disqualify every person within society including themselves.
For example, back when contentment was the major concern of the people, when a quality product was considered the major common prerequisite within every package, and the customer was always considered the boss, it was the people who certified whether someone had a valuable expertise in society. Ever since such virtues as liberty and equality have risen to become the new responsibilities to be handled by government have lawyers taken over the responsibility of who should or should not be qualified as an expert.
Do you have a problem? Call a downtown lawyer. In order to solve your problem, the downtown lawyer will call a state lawyer. In turn, the state lawyer will call a federal lawyer. Again, in turn, the federal lawyer will call the Attorney General of the United States. And, finally, the Attorney General will ask the president of the United States what is is that you should do.
By installing themselves as frauds, these impostors have cut the American people off from our ancestors, from our Founding Fathers, and from the new order they established separating us from the world.
This is why our society has become corrupted.
Understand, our Founders were neither addressing a commoner people nor a tyrant when writing The Declaration of Independence; but, rather, they were addressing the Almighty Himself. Indeed, they were referring to us, in a sense, for, as they performed the little masterpiece, they were acting as the People in matters concerning the behavior of a tyrant.
So, as Americans, we should all consider ourselves as the attorneys for our Founding Fathers as they will one day stand under judgement of the Truth.
That is what a true American lawyer or attorney should be and the way we all should be as Americans.
Indeed, these lawyers now qualifying themselves as lawyers should all be considered impostors. In other words, it wasn't the intentions of our Founding Fathers to have every part of our government deep in ruin because of layer upon layer of lawyers, but to create a government of representatives, senators, administrators, and judges.
Again, the purposes in establishing this new post of Prime Minister of the United States is to hold our Government to a higher standard and to a greater penalty under judgement of the Truth, to hold the Supreme Court in contempt of the People's Civil Purpose, to be the leading delegate and spokesman for the very least among the people, and to develop a new type of official to elect into government office other than a lawyer.
viernes, 26 de abril de 2013
As the U.S. Congress is an offshoot of an Old World institution created many years ago in Rome to implement laws to address issues, the purpose of the Supreme Court today should be to advance the people's Civil Purpose by dissolving issues.
In other words, the more the issues, the better the situation is for tyranny and the business of law: The less the issues, the better the situation is for the people and their Civil Purpose.
In other words, the more the issues, the better the situation is for tyranny and the business of law: The less the issues, the better the situation is for the people and their Civil Purpose.
In other words, by the people restricting the Supreme Court to ruling solely on what is or is not in contempt regarding the necessary advancement of the people's Civil Purpose, with this being the Supreme Order of the land, then Congress would be delegated the responsibility on all lessor matters concerning the supreme law of the land.
After all, although the claim might sound wrong and a bit paradoxical, government has never been controlled by the implementation of laws; but, rather, people controlled government in the past by conscience.
Similarly, the Supreme Court would be most profitable concerning the advancement of the people's Civil Purpose by restricting their focus upon the rights of the people as they relate to the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, this would delegate all other lessor matters (and thus power as well) back into the hands of the sovereign states. During this time of transitioning, the president's power would also be limited ideally as was the original intentions of our Founders and as was the original executive practice of our first president George Washington who would go on to set an ideal precedent during his time in office.
After all, although the claim might sound wrong and a bit paradoxical, government has never been controlled by the implementation of laws; but, rather, people controlled government in the past by conscience.
Similarly, the Supreme Court would be most profitable concerning the advancement of the people's Civil Purpose by restricting their focus upon the rights of the people as they relate to the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, this would delegate all other lessor matters (and thus power as well) back into the hands of the sovereign states. During this time of transitioning, the president's power would also be limited ideally as was the original intentions of our Founders and as was the original executive practice of our first president George Washington who would go on to set an ideal precedent during his time in office.
In relationship to the present government, the Prime Minister of these United States should always narrow his or her view to differentiating between what is the true American dichotomy and what are those many false dichotomies created in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose, with the latter being distractions perpetuated by tyranny, with this tyranny including every part of government: its many levels on the federal, state and local, its branches, its bureaucracies, its departments, its military, its aristocratic free enterprises (corporations), its intelligence agencies, the media corporations it controls and so on.
All these entities have been allowed to exist as necessary-tyrannies for the purpose of advancing the people's Civil Purpose.
All these entities have been allowed to exist as necessary-tyrannies for the purpose of advancing the people's Civil Purpose.
As tyranny will forever stumble up the children of God by the fabrications of false dichotomies, with these being conflicts between black and white, old against young, male versus female, homo against heterosexuality, and so on, the American dichotomy itself, the one true conflict which has endured forever, pits a majority made up of disadvantaged and desperate people attempting not to destroy, mind you, but, to simply gain control over a tyranny of a few.
As the wind blows, so will the side of chaos continue instituting its endless laws in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose, in opposition to the deeper meaning of what are the laws of nature at the foundation of our Democratic Republic, with this contempt being against the hard sought after natural law our Founders established, an Order bought for us and preserved so dearly with the precious blood of many.
In the end, it is the Commandment of the Almighty Himself that even in the most desolate of places, that there be no excuses, that there is a primary duty of every government, that each and every one of them are to serve the people they rule by providing them with something to eat! Beyond this, the authority of the people's Civil-Purpose resides in the heart of every mother, that it is a prerequisite for each and everyone of her children, with these being the most precious parts of her, that they will advance exponentially in gaining better contentment for themselves.
jueves, 25 de abril de 2013
Being a Christian, I've been considering prepositions in how they must be used linguistically for correct understanding. In introducing a person, place, or thing, the preposition "a" must first be used to introduce it as a stranger. Afterwards, the person, place, or thing can then be described with the more personal "the."
Example:
A boy went past (with this being an independent clause and a complete sentence with a subject noun and a predicate verb) on a bicycle (with this being a dependent clause).
In other words, I shouldn't say "A boy on a bicycle . . .."; but, rather, I should think in terms of "On a bicycle, a boy went past."
Now that this has been established, allow me to shine a little light on something I think is very important.
If I were the very lowest son of man among the people, the offspring of the most worthless for example, I would tend to view everyone as greater than myself. As a result of viewing all as God, I wouldn't ever classify a person with the impersonal preposition "a."
See, I'm thinking here about His usage of the prepositions thee, thou, thine and thy.
While one must introduce a person, place, or thing, or even a single god if such is among a godhood with the impersonal preposition "a," the correct way to introduce the existence of one God is always with the formal and personal preposition "the" as "The God," or just "God."
The reason Jesus would use such prepositions as "thee, thou, thine, and thy," a reason which might have been lost in history is, perhaps, for the reason He is the Son of man, the least One of the very least, or the Offspring of the most worthless.
To play the part of the Father, Jesus during the time of His three year *ministry chose twelve disciples randomly to serve as His sons. Before commenting more on this subject, I'm going to have to read up a bit.
Let me just say that, after the last supper, the disciples had already been elevated to the status of Apostles when they were with the Lord in the garden of Gethsemane. The reason for this is because Jesus had already Willed Himself existentially into mankind as His purpose by the breaking of Himself into bread and by the shedding of His blood as wine. The significance here is even after they were elevated as apostles, the former disciples still couldn't perceive the Lord Jesus Christ as the very least Son of man.
*While by Jewish law He would have to minister, in the true meaning of the word, the power of the Holy Spirit is only given to serve. I might be wrong about all this actually. I just find it interesting.
Example:
A boy went past (with this being an independent clause and a complete sentence with a subject noun and a predicate verb) on a bicycle (with this being a dependent clause).
In other words, I shouldn't say "A boy on a bicycle . . .."; but, rather, I should think in terms of "On a bicycle, a boy went past."
Now that this has been established, allow me to shine a little light on something I think is very important.
If I were the very lowest son of man among the people, the offspring of the most worthless for example, I would tend to view everyone as greater than myself. As a result of viewing all as God, I wouldn't ever classify a person with the impersonal preposition "a."
See, I'm thinking here about His usage of the prepositions thee, thou, thine and thy.
While one must introduce a person, place, or thing, or even a single god if such is among a godhood with the impersonal preposition "a," the correct way to introduce the existence of one God is always with the formal and personal preposition "the" as "The God," or just "God."
The reason Jesus would use such prepositions as "thee, thou, thine, and thy," a reason which might have been lost in history is, perhaps, for the reason He is the Son of man, the least One of the very least, or the Offspring of the most worthless.
To play the part of the Father, Jesus during the time of His three year *ministry chose twelve disciples randomly to serve as His sons. Before commenting more on this subject, I'm going to have to read up a bit.
Let me just say that, after the last supper, the disciples had already been elevated to the status of Apostles when they were with the Lord in the garden of Gethsemane. The reason for this is because Jesus had already Willed Himself existentially into mankind as His purpose by the breaking of Himself into bread and by the shedding of His blood as wine. The significance here is even after they were elevated as apostles, the former disciples still couldn't perceive the Lord Jesus Christ as the very least Son of man.
*While by Jewish law He would have to minister, in the true meaning of the word, the power of the Holy Spirit is only given to serve. I might be wrong about all this actually. I just find it interesting.
In order to deliver this letter to a federal government which has grown out of reach of the People, I, William M. Jones (Uncle Emanuel Watkins), as the representative of the very least among the people and as the attorney for our Founding Fathers as they will one day have to stand under judgement of the Truth, have created and taken on the new position of Prime Minister of these United States.
I do feel this letter is so special in importance that it needs to have a lot of effort and care put into it. In fact, the writing of this letter to the federal government, and to that of the Supreme Court in general, is the culmination of my work which has now spanned more than eight years. The small step that is about to happen, a major advancement over the American Movement, is my recognition and development of our American Civil Purpose.
This is tantamount to thinking outside of a legal institution, the box in which we have, once again, managed to imprison ourselves.
As on occasion my pondering stumbles upon something significant as pieces of the puzzle that I feel will need to be addressed to the Supreme Court, I am going to start listing them:
As the purpose of Congress is the Old World notion of solving problems by the use of law, the purpose of the Supreme Court should be to advance the people's Civil Purpose by dissolving issues.
I do feel this letter is so special in importance that it needs to have a lot of effort and care put into it. In fact, the writing of this letter to the federal government, and to that of the Supreme Court in general, is the culmination of my work which has now spanned more than eight years. The small step that is about to happen, a major advancement over the American Movement, is my recognition and development of our American Civil Purpose.
This is tantamount to thinking outside of a legal institution, the box in which we have, once again, managed to imprison ourselves.
As on occasion my pondering stumbles upon something significant as pieces of the puzzle that I feel will need to be addressed to the Supreme Court, I am going to start listing them:
As the purpose of Congress is the Old World notion of solving problems by the use of law, the purpose of the Supreme Court should be to advance the people's Civil Purpose by dissolving issues.
miércoles, 24 de abril de 2013
In the last post, it is shown how our Founders wrote a formal document with the most careful of considerations, conveying in a natural law a meaning in the term 'endowment' in an alternate paradoxical way expressing it during very trying times in a way that is understood today to include all men as both male and female.
Because of the way it establishes a whole new foundation by reducing towards that of the unapproachable Truth, the Declaration of Independence is a formal document. In contrast, because it receives it justification from the establishment of a new order within the aforementioned formal document, the U.S. Constitution is legal documentation. These two combined become a New World establishment set apart from the prior legal precedence of the Old World, as both of them are substantiated under judgement of the Truth by the natural law our Founders declared when divorcing the people out from under tyranny.
Therefore, our Founders first laid down a formal order as a base or a foundation as just cause for divorcing the people out from under the rule of tyranny. They then established upon that formal base a legal remarriage to a more perfect Union.
You see, a subtle difference exists between what should be considered a formal order and what should be considered a legal law. For as our Founding Fathers set about crafting the Formal Document of The Declaration of Independence by the utilizing the metaphysical scientific method of Natural Law, they narrowed and reduced their way conclusively to that of a whole new order. In contrast, after establishing the whole new order as a base, they then erected the legal documentation of the U.S. Constitution upon that base gathering to, just the opposite, elaborate and expound.
In the many years that have followed, the next major advancement over both the formal document of The Declaration of Independence and the legal documentation of the U.S. Constitution wasn't the two-party system, as a lawyer might argue, but it was the advent of American Transcendentalism and the American Movement -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Thoreau, and Samuel Clemens for example.
As I have often said, the greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of alterations to that which we already possess as our inheritance.
Because of the way it establishes a whole new foundation by reducing towards that of the unapproachable Truth, the Declaration of Independence is a formal document. In contrast, because it receives it justification from the establishment of a new order within the aforementioned formal document, the U.S. Constitution is legal documentation. These two combined become a New World establishment set apart from the prior legal precedence of the Old World, as both of them are substantiated under judgement of the Truth by the natural law our Founders declared when divorcing the people out from under tyranny.
Therefore, our Founders first laid down a formal order as a base or a foundation as just cause for divorcing the people out from under the rule of tyranny. They then established upon that formal base a legal remarriage to a more perfect Union.
You see, a subtle difference exists between what should be considered a formal order and what should be considered a legal law. For as our Founding Fathers set about crafting the Formal Document of The Declaration of Independence by the utilizing the metaphysical scientific method of Natural Law, they narrowed and reduced their way conclusively to that of a whole new order. In contrast, after establishing the whole new order as a base, they then erected the legal documentation of the U.S. Constitution upon that base gathering to, just the opposite, elaborate and expound.
In the many years that have followed, the next major advancement over both the formal document of The Declaration of Independence and the legal documentation of the U.S. Constitution wasn't the two-party system, as a lawyer might argue, but it was the advent of American Transcendentalism and the American Movement -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Thoreau, and Samuel Clemens for example.
As I have often said, the greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of alterations to that which we already possess as our inheritance.
martes, 23 de abril de 2013
Again, I am truly serving you today as your Prime Minister of the United States as I have yet to find another who understands how such a person should represent the very least among all men:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nor have I yet to find another who is serving as the attorney for our Founding Founders as they once gathered together in fellowship to sign their names to a formal document while standing under judgement of the Truth:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
As the president over these United States is empowered necessarily so by the U.S. Constitution regarding those practical and necessary false powers of manipulation, being as our Founders established the model of the Federal government as an ever perfecting more perfect Union, or as a necessary tyranny to rule over the people; in contrast, the Prime Minister of these United States derives his or her authority from the ultimate power, being as he or she represents the Great Burden within the very least among us, with this Truth being the one true king, and the highest of authority.
As part of his or her responsibilities, the Prime Minister of these United States should do their utmost not to speak directly to any media representing the tyrannies of the world, or to any representing even the necessary tyranny our Founders established. In other words, as long as there has been breath upon the earth, so have the emperors and the kings utilized their media to constantly remind the common people how it is they in royalty who are the blessed owners of all the property, and even the owners of all the possessions as such is on their property. Even today the media works for tyranny by constantly reminding the worthless of their lowly places in life.
Before addressing any of the modern commercial medias, the Prime Minister of these United States should, first and foremost, reduce to reading to them the press of the people as it is the utmost natural law taking precedence over all other intelligence, influences, and propaganda:
For the sake of tolerance, according to the ultimate power of the Truth, it is truly the very least among us who own all the property and the possessions; meanwhile, in contrast, it is those in royalty who are the true trespassing borrowers.
After pronouncing this natural law, the Prime Minister should then feel themselves bound to further clarify this warning:
I, as your Prime Minister, am bound to remind all men that it isn't the people who should be fearful of the end of the world, of their supposed demise resulting from such catastrophes as comets and meteors, or from volcanoes perhaps, or from solar radiation bursts, from polar shifts, from nuclear destruction, and so on; but, it is those in tyranny who should fear the end time for it is going to be tyranny that is destroyed.
Indeed, as we have always lived in the past, and just as we are still living today seemingly irresponsible as children of God seeking after happiness, so will we always be easily stumbled up by the intentions of evil doers, or by those empowered with the false powers of manipulation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nor have I yet to find another who is serving as the attorney for our Founding Founders as they once gathered together in fellowship to sign their names to a formal document while standing under judgement of the Truth:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
As the president over these United States is empowered necessarily so by the U.S. Constitution regarding those practical and necessary false powers of manipulation, being as our Founders established the model of the Federal government as an ever perfecting more perfect Union, or as a necessary tyranny to rule over the people; in contrast, the Prime Minister of these United States derives his or her authority from the ultimate power, being as he or she represents the Great Burden within the very least among us, with this Truth being the one true king, and the highest of authority.
As part of his or her responsibilities, the Prime Minister of these United States should do their utmost not to speak directly to any media representing the tyrannies of the world, or to any representing even the necessary tyranny our Founders established. In other words, as long as there has been breath upon the earth, so have the emperors and the kings utilized their media to constantly remind the common people how it is they in royalty who are the blessed owners of all the property, and even the owners of all the possessions as such is on their property. Even today the media works for tyranny by constantly reminding the worthless of their lowly places in life.
Before addressing any of the modern commercial medias, the Prime Minister of these United States should, first and foremost, reduce to reading to them the press of the people as it is the utmost natural law taking precedence over all other intelligence, influences, and propaganda:
For the sake of tolerance, according to the ultimate power of the Truth, it is truly the very least among us who own all the property and the possessions; meanwhile, in contrast, it is those in royalty who are the true trespassing borrowers.
After pronouncing this natural law, the Prime Minister should then feel themselves bound to further clarify this warning:
I, as your Prime Minister, am bound to remind all men that it isn't the people who should be fearful of the end of the world, of their supposed demise resulting from such catastrophes as comets and meteors, or from volcanoes perhaps, or from solar radiation bursts, from polar shifts, from nuclear destruction, and so on; but, it is those in tyranny who should fear the end time for it is going to be tyranny that is destroyed.
Indeed, as we have always lived in the past, and just as we are still living today seemingly irresponsible as children of God seeking after happiness, so will we always be easily stumbled up by the intentions of evil doers, or by those empowered with the false powers of manipulation.
domingo, 21 de abril de 2013
The office of the U.S. president today, commonly known as either the administration or the executive branch, have become workers of inequity -- stumblers up of the Children of God. These would be those who are irreverent towards the past by standing arrogantly upon their own abilities as their very own foundation, those who agitate divisiveness within the Union, those who secretly represent a mysterious agenda in blatant contempt of the people's Civil Purpose, and those who, as a bastion of lawyers supporting a two party system, represent only a portion of the people as political factions of liberals or conservatives, and / or Democrats or Republicans. In contrast, as your interim Prime Minister of these United States, I do swear to act as an American first and foremost by strengthening the whole Union by representing all fifty states in the best interests of all men in the United States.
An ideal person to serve as a Prime Minister to these fifty states would be a Native American as they would have a vested interest in maintaining a strong Union in the interests of future posterity as they would have no other place to flee beyond our borders to call their home. Of course, in order to develop another type of individual to represent the people, the Prime Minister of the fifty states needs to be someone other than a lawyer as his or her quest should be to raise the people from their present level of legal clients to that of citizens empowered with their rightful Civil Purpose. As the main function of this Prime Minister would be to work to strengthen the bond between the fifty states, his or her restricted duty should also be to strengthen our relationship with our direct neighbors such as Mexico, Canada, and Cuba.
The three branches of the Federal government today have deceived the people by controlling the commercial media to the benefit of tyranny and to the detriment of the people's Civil Purpose: Indeed, while they often refer to themselves as members of the people, in truth, they truly represent a few in both a military nobility and an established aristocracy of entitled individuals. Let me state that again. The Federal government today only says that it represents the majority. In contrast to this tyranny, the Prime Minister should avoid the commercial media as he or she should be one of the few major figureheads voicing what has long been the ignored press of the very least in society.
As our Founders established our government while as members of the people and as the states are the ones themselves that ratified the U.S. Constitution making it official, so should the people today come together to create the position of Prime Minister of the United States.
In the meantime, while we develop this new position, I will gladly serve as the Interim.
An ideal person to serve as a Prime Minister to these fifty states would be a Native American as they would have a vested interest in maintaining a strong Union in the interests of future posterity as they would have no other place to flee beyond our borders to call their home. Of course, in order to develop another type of individual to represent the people, the Prime Minister of the fifty states needs to be someone other than a lawyer as his or her quest should be to raise the people from their present level of legal clients to that of citizens empowered with their rightful Civil Purpose. As the main function of this Prime Minister would be to work to strengthen the bond between the fifty states, his or her restricted duty should also be to strengthen our relationship with our direct neighbors such as Mexico, Canada, and Cuba.
The three branches of the Federal government today have deceived the people by controlling the commercial media to the benefit of tyranny and to the detriment of the people's Civil Purpose: Indeed, while they often refer to themselves as members of the people, in truth, they truly represent a few in both a military nobility and an established aristocracy of entitled individuals. Let me state that again. The Federal government today only says that it represents the majority. In contrast to this tyranny, the Prime Minister should avoid the commercial media as he or she should be one of the few major figureheads voicing what has long been the ignored press of the very least in society.
As our Founders established our government while as members of the people and as the states are the ones themselves that ratified the U.S. Constitution making it official, so should the people today come together to create the position of Prime Minister of the United States.
In the meantime, while we develop this new position, I will gladly serve as the Interim.
viernes, 19 de abril de 2013
On this nineteenth day of April in the year 2013, I being the person of William M. Jones II. (Uncle Emanuel Watkins) as the attorney for our Founding Fathers under God's judgement, and as the representative of the very least one among the people, that I swear to being a legal citizen of the United States, and, as such, do now take on the role of interim Prime Minister of the Union - of the fifty sovereign states, or of nations, standing together United as a virgin people from the rest of the world to the extent that "all men" are to be included into our society.
As it was the commoner people who created the government of the United States, so do I today create the role of Prime Minister of the United States for the express duties of strengthening the Union, of limiting the role of government, and of advancing the people's Civil Purpose, with this latter function pertaining to that new order our Founding Father's declared a natural law within the formal document of The Declaration of Independence.
Any attempt by the Federal government of these United States to stumble up the children of God by usurping this newly created position will be deemed a serious offense in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose.
Fd. Uncle Emanuel Watkins
Interim Prime Minister of the United States
As it was the commoner people who created the government of the United States, so do I today create the role of Prime Minister of the United States for the express duties of strengthening the Union, of limiting the role of government, and of advancing the people's Civil Purpose, with this latter function pertaining to that new order our Founding Father's declared a natural law within the formal document of The Declaration of Independence.
Any attempt by the Federal government of these United States to stumble up the children of God by usurping this newly created position will be deemed a serious offense in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose.
Fd. Uncle Emanuel Watkins
Interim Prime Minister of the United States
miércoles, 17 de abril de 2013
To narrow to what is the main intention of every man in power, to what is and has always been their true best interests, and to what is their natural appetites as childish old men, the modern emperors and kings in today's governments are no different in how they have sold out by becoming workers of inequity and stumblers up of the children of God, with these actions having been undertaken by them in order to reduce the people back to mere commoners, to that of a state of tyranny, and to those times which the wicked cherish the most about the past when, for their carnal sexual pleasure, the rulers of old (indeed, this indictment here includes even the Pope himself) kept confined in harems the souls of many young women and small boys.
As there exists no man alive above this intention, as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the only way to prove oneself as a government official under His judgement and His people is by doing ones best to both limit the size of government and its authority.
As it is with gravity and things falling, events in history never corrupt at a constant rate, but exponentially so, meaning that these United States have began to fall apart at an accelerated rate.
As there exists no man alive above this intention, as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the only way to prove oneself as a government official under His judgement and His people is by doing ones best to both limit the size of government and its authority.
As it is with gravity and things falling, events in history never corrupt at a constant rate, but exponentially so, meaning that these United States have began to fall apart at an accelerated rate.
domingo, 14 de abril de 2013
I just realized something significant of late regarding the differences between the terms of law and order. While the meaning of "law" might seem the more virtuous of the two, it is the meaning of "order" which involves a rational process of reducing towards the unapproachable "Truth" itself.
Therefore, in the rethinking of these terms scientifically within the formula (2+0)1/2,
While the variable 2 would express the natural order towards the unapproachable Truth, the variable 0 would express spontaneity along with those laws created in such a chaos, and 1/2 would oscillate the two to the sum of 1.
So, in science, what has always been called a natural law should now be thought of more as a natural order. In considering both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, both of their works deal with natural order as they reduce in a direction towards the conclusion of an unapproachable, ultimate Truth.
In other words, in defending our Founding Fathers under judgement of the Truth, I'm going to make my argument on many levels.
On the physical level, reality reduces metaphysically to: (2+0)1/2, with this formula reducing to an undeniable conclusion that is incomprehensible. Therefore, as it is required to do so in such cases pertaining to natural law (natural order), I am also including this further elaboration of an analysis: "No matter may ever touch, but a force."
On the biological level, as the natural order can't reduce to two parts, then the final-cause in reality can't be both "to know" something and "to reproduce" something. Therefore, the purpose on the biological level of reality is to "sense exponentially with greater quality." Along the way, the developments of "knowing" and "reproduction" became necessary advancements to achieve the final cause.
On the chemical level, reducing down to the most basic of elements, as gravity is an attraction between matter, it is also a repelling force between matter called Center-Point friction. Or, to explain this most basic element in other words, regardless of the amount of force that attracts matter together head to head, Center-Point friction will repel it from side to side.
On the level of the cosmological, the Fathering-Effect parents the universe from long distances, with expanding stars obeying the laws of nature, with this being chaos, and rudimentary stars determining the controlling order of the universe, with this being Natural Order.
An important reason why government has become evil today is because of modern theoretical science. As our Founders were existential in making the people central in importance concerning government, modern science came along with a complexity of confusion the likes which have worked to reduce the people down to mere animals no more important than others. American science shouldn't deal in matters of right or wrong, or true or false, concerning the relationship between science and the people; but, existentially speaking, the most important question regarding the worth of science is whether it is a benefit to tyranny or a benefit to the people.
In the end, modern theoretical science has worked to the benefit of tyranny and to the detriment of the people.
Therefore, in the rethinking of these terms scientifically within the formula (2+0)1/2,
While the variable 2 would express the natural order towards the unapproachable Truth, the variable 0 would express spontaneity along with those laws created in such a chaos, and 1/2 would oscillate the two to the sum of 1.
So, in science, what has always been called a natural law should now be thought of more as a natural order. In considering both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, both of their works deal with natural order as they reduce in a direction towards the conclusion of an unapproachable, ultimate Truth.
In other words, in defending our Founding Fathers under judgement of the Truth, I'm going to make my argument on many levels.
On the physical level, reality reduces metaphysically to: (2+0)1/2, with this formula reducing to an undeniable conclusion that is incomprehensible. Therefore, as it is required to do so in such cases pertaining to natural law (natural order), I am also including this further elaboration of an analysis: "No matter may ever touch, but a force."
On the biological level, as the natural order can't reduce to two parts, then the final-cause in reality can't be both "to know" something and "to reproduce" something. Therefore, the purpose on the biological level of reality is to "sense exponentially with greater quality." Along the way, the developments of "knowing" and "reproduction" became necessary advancements to achieve the final cause.
On the chemical level, reducing down to the most basic of elements, as gravity is an attraction between matter, it is also a repelling force between matter called Center-Point friction. Or, to explain this most basic element in other words, regardless of the amount of force that attracts matter together head to head, Center-Point friction will repel it from side to side.
On the level of the cosmological, the Fathering-Effect parents the universe from long distances, with expanding stars obeying the laws of nature, with this being chaos, and rudimentary stars determining the controlling order of the universe, with this being Natural Order.
An important reason why government has become evil today is because of modern theoretical science. As our Founders were existential in making the people central in importance concerning government, modern science came along with a complexity of confusion the likes which have worked to reduce the people down to mere animals no more important than others. American science shouldn't deal in matters of right or wrong, or true or false, concerning the relationship between science and the people; but, existentially speaking, the most important question regarding the worth of science is whether it is a benefit to tyranny or a benefit to the people.
In the end, modern theoretical science has worked to the benefit of tyranny and to the detriment of the people.
viernes, 12 de abril de 2013
Regarding the differences between what is a people's declaration of sovereignty, a romantic endeavor already undertaken a few years ago, and what is this present people's proclamation of sovereignty being offered up?
In the first instance, the declaration of sovereignty threatens to utilize the false powers of manipulation in order to do something to persuade and usurp tyranny of its authority. Problem is, while this would justify tyranny in utilizing even more evil tactics against the people, the people themselves have never prospered and will never prosper by utilizing this type of methodology.
In contrast, in the second instance, a proclamation of sovereignty will work as it is a decree from the highest of authority and therefore utilizes the ultimate power of the Truth in order to bind government, with this being a necessary tyranny, by holding them beyond just accountable for their actions to that of a higher standard and a greater penalty.
There are two clear choices: Either government can implement laws to advance the order of our Civil Purpose; or, government can implement laws to destroy the order of our Civil Purpose. It is the order itself that opposes chaos, not the institution of laws as laws themselves are part of the chaos. While the primary order of an ever more perfect Union would be in opposition to the laws, idealistically speaking, the people must incorporate and utilize them for the purpose of advancing our Civil Purpose. Therefore, the institution of laws should be considered a "necessary tyranny" for the advancement of the new order established by our Founders when, in the Declaration of Independence, they justly divorced us out from under tyranny by the declaration of a natural law - with this being our American Civil Purpose.
In the first instance, the declaration of sovereignty threatens to utilize the false powers of manipulation in order to do something to persuade and usurp tyranny of its authority. Problem is, while this would justify tyranny in utilizing even more evil tactics against the people, the people themselves have never prospered and will never prosper by utilizing this type of methodology.
In contrast, in the second instance, a proclamation of sovereignty will work as it is a decree from the highest of authority and therefore utilizes the ultimate power of the Truth in order to bind government, with this being a necessary tyranny, by holding them beyond just accountable for their actions to that of a higher standard and a greater penalty.
There are two clear choices: Either government can implement laws to advance the order of our Civil Purpose; or, government can implement laws to destroy the order of our Civil Purpose. It is the order itself that opposes chaos, not the institution of laws as laws themselves are part of the chaos. While the primary order of an ever more perfect Union would be in opposition to the laws, idealistically speaking, the people must incorporate and utilize them for the purpose of advancing our Civil Purpose. Therefore, the institution of laws should be considered a "necessary tyranny" for the advancement of the new order established by our Founders when, in the Declaration of Independence, they justly divorced us out from under tyranny by the declaration of a natural law - with this being our American Civil Purpose.
miércoles, 10 de abril de 2013
The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty
Being a natural viewpoint of mature people, as when they were children they learned over time to favor the blood of their parents and families over that of strangers, the nameless and faceless in society tend to subordinate themselves by elevating "star" people to the status of celebrities. In determining the far ends of a political spectrum the likes which has resulted over time, as on one end of it are these nameless and faceless who, out of fear, would tend to leaning towards honoring and praising a prince by valuing him even more so than his kingly father; meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum are those in tyranny who, out of a sense of entitlement, would tend to leaning in just the opposite direction towards dishonoring and condemning a mere son of man, with him being the male offspring from commoners, by valuing him even less so than those deemed nameless and faceless.
In contrast, our Founders were more than just our American representatives when addressing tyranny, as they acted together in fellowship on the side of these kinds of nameless and faceless, for the sake of the whole of 'one people,' and, indeed, even for the sake of the complete inclusiveness of 'all men.' Therefore, as our Founding Fathers were so envisioned during the age of Enlightenment to lower themselves from their high social-statuses of rightful Aristocratic Gentlemen, (indeed, they do say within The Declaration of Independence that: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,. . ..) so do the American people proclaim the highest of sovereign power, as James Madison himself once said we possess, as we stand today as representatives acting on the behalf of those very least ones among us, with these being the out castes, the untouchables, and beyond even these miser souls towards that Great Burden they have within them, with this Truth being the one true King of kings.
Realizing something significant in the above paragraph, let's pause to think about our American Founders and how they were so willing to mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor, only because the focus of Declaration of Independence itself was affixed upon a natural law, a singular order, and upon a collective heart, and not upon endless numbers of interpretations of law within infinite numbers of partisan legal minds.
As a declaration is made by someone acting in submission to a higher authority, in comparison, a proclamation has to usher forth either directly or indirectly from the highest of authority. As a king is, at best, an indirect means of expressing the highest authority, it would have been a requirement of him to elaborate thoughtfully on any of the proclamations that were dispensed by him to those nameless and faceless living within his kingdom. Indeed, in contrast, our Founders, in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence, created an extensive natural law, a whole new order so to speak, even pausing to justify it by both reducing towards an unalienable conclusion, and then by further explaining what was basically an incomprehensible conclusion with that of an analysis while utilizing the proper means of linguistics when doing so.
On one level, acts of evil should be justification enough. Indeed, following the list of grievances that were documented towards the heart of The Declaration of Independence concerning the thoughtless behavior of king George III., our Founders concluded: A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Understand, the above reasoning alone isn't sufficient enough to fully substantiate a natural law.
Aside from them being righteous in divorcing the American people out from under the persecutions of tyranny, our Founders had to show two kinds of conclusions by first justifying he natural law by reducing towards "one people," and then further justify it by the additions of the elaborating analysis: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .."
Again, as it was their intentions to declare a Natural Law that would cut us off from the prior traditions of legal precedence, our Founders had to produce two types of justification with one being an incomprehensible narrowing towards a single heart, thus making the natural law undeniable, and the other being an analysis explaining it to partisan minds while utilizing proper linguistics.
This is how the scientific method of natural law worked.
In other words, in order to keep the king from claiming ignorance, our Founders within The Declaration of Independence substantiated the natural law by including both a narrowed incomprehensible conclusion, which was the nature of such, and a clear analysis elaborating on that conclusion.
Lest anyone doubt the new order of this natural law, I refer to the very opening of The Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, . . ..
Clearly, as they attempted an incredible achievement within the formal document towards a society of "one people" and later, lest anyone misunderstand them, towards the inclusion of "all men," so it wasn't our Founders original intentions to include, as the lawyers have since deemed it so, just some of the people and some of the men - with the term men here, or mankind, being an expression of both male and female; but, regarding the establishment of our Civil Purpose, there existed a proliferation of confusion before, during, immediately following, and ever since our Founders gathered together in fellowship to sign their names to The Declaration of Independence..
What the American people have begun to realize lately is how chaos isn't an absolute spontaneity devoid of any laws; rather, chaos is a phenomenon that happens when laws are instituted for the sake of laws without any regards for a singular order.
Paradoxically, reduced to its essence, war is an endeavor waged between those who, on one side, desire simply to increase the contentment of others, and those who, on the other side, manipulate government for personal gain by the eloquent spouting of such emotional causes as liberty and equality. In the case of those leaning towards the increase of contentment for all, they have come to realize how both liberty and equality have to exist as prerequisites in order to advance our Civil Purpose.
Therefore, intelligent Americans should first reduce to common ground extensively before allowing any elaborating judgments to commence forth in their discussions. In other words, sophisticates can live quite well boxed up inside a legal world of laws without them ever having to take the effort to thoughtfully reduce towards that of the controlling order. At the same time, there is a difference between reducing down to what is in a person's best interest, with this being a false power of manipulation, and reducing down towards what is thoughtful, with this being towards the unapproachable Truth itself, the ultimate power.
Yet, many are still being made ashamed by a confused segment of our society, even though the people are not here to be responsible in the ways of the prerequisite virtues of liberty and inequality, but in the advancement of our Civil Purpose. Paradoxically, as increasing the contentment of her children exponentially is a mature necessity that will cause a mother to go to war even to the extent that she will take her own life and the lives of her children if she fails, the establishment of liberty and equality as causes is an immature goal of a child and one that has made a mockery and fools of these United States.
Under Construction * * *
Being a natural viewpoint of mature people, as when they were children they learned over time to favor the blood of their parents and families over that of strangers, the nameless and faceless in society tend to subordinate themselves by elevating "star" people to the status of celebrities. In determining the far ends of a political spectrum the likes which has resulted over time, as on one end of it are these nameless and faceless who, out of fear, would tend to leaning towards honoring and praising a prince by valuing him even more so than his kingly father; meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum are those in tyranny who, out of a sense of entitlement, would tend to leaning in just the opposite direction towards dishonoring and condemning a mere son of man, with him being the male offspring from commoners, by valuing him even less so than those deemed nameless and faceless.
In contrast, our Founders were more than just our American representatives when addressing tyranny, as they acted together in fellowship on the side of these kinds of nameless and faceless, for the sake of the whole of 'one people,' and, indeed, even for the sake of the complete inclusiveness of 'all men.' Therefore, as our Founding Fathers were so envisioned during the age of Enlightenment to lower themselves from their high social-statuses of rightful Aristocratic Gentlemen, (indeed, they do say within The Declaration of Independence that: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,. . ..) so do the American people proclaim the highest of sovereign power, as James Madison himself once said we possess, as we stand today as representatives acting on the behalf of those very least ones among us, with these being the out castes, the untouchables, and beyond even these miser souls towards that Great Burden they have within them, with this Truth being the one true King of kings.
Realizing something significant in the above paragraph, let's pause to think about our American Founders and how they were so willing to mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor, only because the focus of Declaration of Independence itself was affixed upon a natural law, a singular order, and upon a collective heart, and not upon endless numbers of interpretations of law within infinite numbers of partisan legal minds.
As a declaration is made by someone acting in submission to a higher authority, in comparison, a proclamation has to usher forth either directly or indirectly from the highest of authority. As a king is, at best, an indirect means of expressing the highest authority, it would have been a requirement of him to elaborate thoughtfully on any of the proclamations that were dispensed by him to those nameless and faceless living within his kingdom. Indeed, in contrast, our Founders, in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence, created an extensive natural law, a whole new order so to speak, even pausing to justify it by both reducing towards an unalienable conclusion, and then by further explaining what was basically an incomprehensible conclusion with that of an analysis while utilizing the proper means of linguistics when doing so.
On one level, acts of evil should be justification enough. Indeed, following the list of grievances that were documented towards the heart of The Declaration of Independence concerning the thoughtless behavior of king George III., our Founders concluded: A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Understand, the above reasoning alone isn't sufficient enough to fully substantiate a natural law.
Aside from them being righteous in divorcing the American people out from under the persecutions of tyranny, our Founders had to show two kinds of conclusions by first justifying he natural law by reducing towards "one people," and then further justify it by the additions of the elaborating analysis: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .."
Again, as it was their intentions to declare a Natural Law that would cut us off from the prior traditions of legal precedence, our Founders had to produce two types of justification with one being an incomprehensible narrowing towards a single heart, thus making the natural law undeniable, and the other being an analysis explaining it to partisan minds while utilizing proper linguistics.
This is how the scientific method of natural law worked.
In other words, in order to keep the king from claiming ignorance, our Founders within The Declaration of Independence substantiated the natural law by including both a narrowed incomprehensible conclusion, which was the nature of such, and a clear analysis elaborating on that conclusion.
Lest anyone doubt the new order of this natural law, I refer to the very opening of The Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, . . ..
Clearly, as they attempted an incredible achievement within the formal document towards a society of "one people" and later, lest anyone misunderstand them, towards the inclusion of "all men," so it wasn't our Founders original intentions to include, as the lawyers have since deemed it so, just some of the people and some of the men - with the term men here, or mankind, being an expression of both male and female; but, regarding the establishment of our Civil Purpose, there existed a proliferation of confusion before, during, immediately following, and ever since our Founders gathered together in fellowship to sign their names to The Declaration of Independence..
What the American people have begun to realize lately is how chaos isn't an absolute spontaneity devoid of any laws; rather, chaos is a phenomenon that happens when laws are instituted for the sake of laws without any regards for a singular order.
Paradoxically, reduced to its essence, war is an endeavor waged between those who, on one side, desire simply to increase the contentment of others, and those who, on the other side, manipulate government for personal gain by the eloquent spouting of such emotional causes as liberty and equality. In the case of those leaning towards the increase of contentment for all, they have come to realize how both liberty and equality have to exist as prerequisites in order to advance our Civil Purpose.
Therefore, intelligent Americans should first reduce to common ground extensively before allowing any elaborating judgments to commence forth in their discussions. In other words, sophisticates can live quite well boxed up inside a legal world of laws without them ever having to take the effort to thoughtfully reduce towards that of the controlling order. At the same time, there is a difference between reducing down to what is in a person's best interest, with this being a false power of manipulation, and reducing down towards what is thoughtful, with this being towards the unapproachable Truth itself, the ultimate power.
Yet, many are still being made ashamed by a confused segment of our society, even though the people are not here to be responsible in the ways of the prerequisite virtues of liberty and inequality, but in the advancement of our Civil Purpose. Paradoxically, as increasing the contentment of her children exponentially is a mature necessity that will cause a mother to go to war even to the extent that she will take her own life and the lives of her children if she fails, the establishment of liberty and equality as causes is an immature goal of a child and one that has made a mockery and fools of these United States.
Under Construction * * *
lunes, 8 de abril de 2013
The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty
Being a natural viewpoint of the people, as children will learn over time to favor the blood of their parents and their own families, so will the nameless and faceless tend towards elevating those stars in their society to celebrity status. In determining the far ends of this political spectrum, as the nameless and the faceless will lean towards honoring and praising a prince by valuing him more so than even his kingly father, or else; on the other end of it, from their opposing point of view, tyranny will lean towards dishonoring and condemning a mere son of man, with him being the male offspring of uncomely ones, by valuing him less so than even those nameless and faceless of whom he ushered from.
In contrast, our Founders were more than just our American representatives when addressing tyranny, as they acted together in fellowship for the sake of these kinds of nameless and faceless, for the sake of a whole 'one people,' and, indeed, even for the sake of the complete inclusiveness of 'all men.' Therefore, as our Founding Fathers were so envisioned during the age of Enlightenment to lower themselves from their high social-statuses of rightful aristocratic gentlemen, indeed, it does say within this formal document that: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor, so do we the American people proclaim the highest of sovereign power, as James Madison himself once said that we possess, standing today as representatives of the very least among us, with these being the out castes, the untouchables, and beyond even these miser souls towards that Great Burden they have within them, with this Truth being the one true king of kings.
As a declaration is made by someone acting in submission to a higher authority, in comparison, a proclamation has to usher forth either directly or indirectly from the highest of authority. As a king would not have had to elaborate on any of the short proclamations that he authorized to be handed down to his subordinates, in contrast, our Founders, in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence, created an extensive natural law, a whole new order so to speak, pausing to both reduce towards an unalienable conclusion and then to also analyze that conclusion rationally in self-evident, linguistic terms.
Following the list of grievances documented towards the heart of The Declaration of Independence with these concerning the behavior of king George III., our Founders concluded: A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Aside from our Founders being righteous in divorcing "a free people" out from the persecutions of tyranny, for no other reason, as mentioned above, than such contempt would have never been committed by a rightful ruler, they were further justified by the way they reduced towards our Civil Purpose in a rational way towards "one people," and then further justified by the way they added an analysis that further elaborated: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .."
Again, as a natural law requires two forms of justification with one of them being a process of narrowing conclusively towards one undeniable collective, bipartisan heart, it requires another form of a linguistic analysis to be included as well one which is rational to the extent that, after further elaboration of the incomprehensible reduced conclusion, it won't then be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconveyed by the partisan mind.
In other words, in order to keep the king from claiming ignorance, our Founders within The Declaration of Independence substantiated the natural law by including both a narrowed down conclusion and a clear analysis elaborating on that conclusion.
Lest anyone doubt this natural law, with this being the new order that our Founding Fathers established for us as our American Civil Purpose, I refer to the very opening of The Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, . . ..
Clearly, as they attempted an incredible achievement within the formal document towards a society of "one people" and later, lest anyone misunderstand them, towards the inclusion of "all men," so it wasn't our Founders original intentions to include, as the lawyers have since deemed it so, just some of the people and some of the men - with the term men here, or mankind, being an expression of both male and female; but, regarding the establishment of our Civil Purpose, there existed a proliferation of confusion before, during, immediately following, and ever since our Founders gathering together in fellowship to sign their names to The Declaration of Independence.
Under Construction
Being a natural viewpoint of the people, as children will learn over time to favor the blood of their parents and their own families, so will the nameless and faceless tend towards elevating those stars in their society to celebrity status. In determining the far ends of this political spectrum, as the nameless and the faceless will lean towards honoring and praising a prince by valuing him more so than even his kingly father, or else; on the other end of it, from their opposing point of view, tyranny will lean towards dishonoring and condemning a mere son of man, with him being the male offspring of uncomely ones, by valuing him less so than even those nameless and faceless of whom he ushered from.
In contrast, our Founders were more than just our American representatives when addressing tyranny, as they acted together in fellowship for the sake of these kinds of nameless and faceless, for the sake of a whole 'one people,' and, indeed, even for the sake of the complete inclusiveness of 'all men.' Therefore, as our Founding Fathers were so envisioned during the age of Enlightenment to lower themselves from their high social-statuses of rightful aristocratic gentlemen, indeed, it does say within this formal document that: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor, so do we the American people proclaim the highest of sovereign power, as James Madison himself once said that we possess, standing today as representatives of the very least among us, with these being the out castes, the untouchables, and beyond even these miser souls towards that Great Burden they have within them, with this Truth being the one true king of kings.
As a declaration is made by someone acting in submission to a higher authority, in comparison, a proclamation has to usher forth either directly or indirectly from the highest of authority. As a king would not have had to elaborate on any of the short proclamations that he authorized to be handed down to his subordinates, in contrast, our Founders, in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence, created an extensive natural law, a whole new order so to speak, pausing to both reduce towards an unalienable conclusion and then to also analyze that conclusion rationally in self-evident, linguistic terms.
Following the list of grievances documented towards the heart of The Declaration of Independence with these concerning the behavior of king George III., our Founders concluded: A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Aside from our Founders being righteous in divorcing "a free people" out from the persecutions of tyranny, for no other reason, as mentioned above, than such contempt would have never been committed by a rightful ruler, they were further justified by the way they reduced towards our Civil Purpose in a rational way towards "one people," and then further justified by the way they added an analysis that further elaborated: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .."
Again, as a natural law requires two forms of justification with one of them being a process of narrowing conclusively towards one undeniable collective, bipartisan heart, it requires another form of a linguistic analysis to be included as well one which is rational to the extent that, after further elaboration of the incomprehensible reduced conclusion, it won't then be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconveyed by the partisan mind.
In other words, in order to keep the king from claiming ignorance, our Founders within The Declaration of Independence substantiated the natural law by including both a narrowed down conclusion and a clear analysis elaborating on that conclusion.
Lest anyone doubt this natural law, with this being the new order that our Founding Fathers established for us as our American Civil Purpose, I refer to the very opening of The Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, . . ..
Clearly, as they attempted an incredible achievement within the formal document towards a society of "one people" and later, lest anyone misunderstand them, towards the inclusion of "all men," so it wasn't our Founders original intentions to include, as the lawyers have since deemed it so, just some of the people and some of the men - with the term men here, or mankind, being an expression of both male and female; but, regarding the establishment of our Civil Purpose, there existed a proliferation of confusion before, during, immediately following, and ever since our Founders gathering together in fellowship to sign their names to The Declaration of Independence.
Under Construction
viernes, 5 de abril de 2013
I've been thinking about how to write this letter to be sent to every government within these United States. The proclamation contained within it will work to hold our leaders more than just accountable for their actions to the extent of binding their consciences to that of a higher standard and to a greater penalty under judgement of the Truth.
Here is an outline of how the little booklet utilized to present the letter might look:
Title: Our American Civil Purpose - The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty, by Uncle Emanuel Watkins
Opening quote inside the front binder declaring:
In defiance of this modern era now and her cognitive and physical sciences, and in contrast to all the political spouting today of pretty words encouraging vain hoping unto further grief, and to all the meaningless change being perpetuated just for the sake of change, all which has led to the stumbling up of God's children I might add, in our American hearts and souls we perceive that the greatest of benefits to those who are disadvantaged are those derived from the most careful of clarifications and from the most precious of alterations to that which we have already received as an inheritance from our ancestors.
Part 1.
The actual finished letter itself presented firstly and up front addressing to our Governments of these United States proclaiming to them The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty
1. A preamble relating the contents of the People's Proclamation to our Founders and the new order they established as a natural law within The Declaration of Independence.
a) Defining the difference between what is a proclamation and a declaration.
b) While a king in his proclamations would not have to be thoughtful, our Founders in their declarations analyzed their actions in a self-evident fashion.
c) Our Founders also presented a reduced rational conclusion in an unalienable fashion justifying the natural law by reducing towards the unapproachable "oneness" of the Truth.
d) The actual natural law itself.
2. Enlightening the consciences of our government by introducing who is the sovereign king revealing Him as the Great Burden within the very least one among the people, by defining the new order within The Declaration of Independence as the people's Civil Purpose, and by contrasting what is the ultimate power of the Truth over those lessor false powers of manipulation.
3. A natural law defining what government is while forgiving congress for their past contempt, while necessarily limiting the power of the president, and while directing the supreme court away from sitting over what is or is not constitutional thus delegating that function to the lessor court of congress.
4. Reappointing the Supreme Court to sit over as judges concerning matter relating to what is or is not in contempt of the advancement of the people's Civil Purpose.
5.. The proclamation itself binding our governments of these United States to a higher standard and to a greater penalty under the judgement of the Truth.
Part 2.
A following introduction
1. How I would explain the significance of what is the present United States to the people of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle if they were alive today.
2. Defining what are the advancements of our United States and the Republic's significant events.
Under Construction
Here is an outline of how the little booklet utilized to present the letter might look:
Title: Our American Civil Purpose - The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty, by Uncle Emanuel Watkins
Opening quote inside the front binder declaring:
In defiance of this modern era now and her cognitive and physical sciences, and in contrast to all the political spouting today of pretty words encouraging vain hoping unto further grief, and to all the meaningless change being perpetuated just for the sake of change, all which has led to the stumbling up of God's children I might add, in our American hearts and souls we perceive that the greatest of benefits to those who are disadvantaged are those derived from the most careful of clarifications and from the most precious of alterations to that which we have already received as an inheritance from our ancestors.
Part 1.
The actual finished letter itself presented firstly and up front addressing to our Governments of these United States proclaiming to them The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty
1. A preamble relating the contents of the People's Proclamation to our Founders and the new order they established as a natural law within The Declaration of Independence.
a) Defining the difference between what is a proclamation and a declaration.
b) While a king in his proclamations would not have to be thoughtful, our Founders in their declarations analyzed their actions in a self-evident fashion.
c) Our Founders also presented a reduced rational conclusion in an unalienable fashion justifying the natural law by reducing towards the unapproachable "oneness" of the Truth.
d) The actual natural law itself.
2. Enlightening the consciences of our government by introducing who is the sovereign king revealing Him as the Great Burden within the very least one among the people, by defining the new order within The Declaration of Independence as the people's Civil Purpose, and by contrasting what is the ultimate power of the Truth over those lessor false powers of manipulation.
3. A natural law defining what government is while forgiving congress for their past contempt, while necessarily limiting the power of the president, and while directing the supreme court away from sitting over what is or is not constitutional thus delegating that function to the lessor court of congress.
4. Reappointing the Supreme Court to sit over as judges concerning matter relating to what is or is not in contempt of the advancement of the people's Civil Purpose.
5.. The proclamation itself binding our governments of these United States to a higher standard and to a greater penalty under the judgement of the Truth.
Part 2.
A following introduction
1. How I would explain the significance of what is the present United States to the people of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle if they were alive today.
2. Defining what are the advancements of our United States and the Republic's significant events.
Under Construction
jueves, 4 de abril de 2013
This is how the system of these United States has progressed:
1) Our Founders declared a new order within the formal document of The Declaration of Independence.
2) Our Founders were then justified in creating the legal documentation of the U.S. Constitution to advance the new order.
3) *The unofficial American Movement, a process which happened wholly outside of the electoral process, was later established to return the people to the revering of our Founders, to the legal document of the U.S. Constitution they established, and of the formal document of The Declaration of Independence from which within they declared a new order -- our American Civil Purpose.
So, in the past, the people declared their independence, created a constitution, established the American Movement process, seceded from the Union, and fought a civil war.
As many a romantic would like to try, there is no reason to repeat these events - chase our tails around in endless circles so to speak.
The Declaration of Independence should be considered "formal" because our Founders reduced down by utilizing such terms as "one people" and "all men."
The U.S. Constitution then becomes the "legal" clarifications of how to best advance our new order, with this being our Civil Purpose, because of how our Founders were justified under the highest authority (the Truth) in divorcing us out from under the former tyranny.
As our Founders developed a rational government by reducing to one, those within the infancy of the Federal government quickly corrupted this achievement by the development of a "two" party system.
Therefore, against the threat of their bullying us around into thinking otherwise, we should consider government today to be irrational (this is no small matter). As such, this means no contempt is ever committed against the law for the sake of law alone.
Rather, the only true contempt is any legislative, administrative, and / or judicial motion enacted by government to hinder and stumble up the advancement of our Civil Purpose.
This is why the Supreme Court should shun its present menial task concerning the law and whether such is or is not constitutional, for the far simpler yet much higher duty of judges sitting over what is or is not in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose.
*Notice how the development of the "two party" system is not included?
1) Our Founders declared a new order within the formal document of The Declaration of Independence.
2) Our Founders were then justified in creating the legal documentation of the U.S. Constitution to advance the new order.
3) *The unofficial American Movement, a process which happened wholly outside of the electoral process, was later established to return the people to the revering of our Founders, to the legal document of the U.S. Constitution they established, and of the formal document of The Declaration of Independence from which within they declared a new order -- our American Civil Purpose.
So, in the past, the people declared their independence, created a constitution, established the American Movement process, seceded from the Union, and fought a civil war.
As many a romantic would like to try, there is no reason to repeat these events - chase our tails around in endless circles so to speak.
The Declaration of Independence should be considered "formal" because our Founders reduced down by utilizing such terms as "one people" and "all men."
The U.S. Constitution then becomes the "legal" clarifications of how to best advance our new order, with this being our Civil Purpose, because of how our Founders were justified under the highest authority (the Truth) in divorcing us out from under the former tyranny.
As our Founders developed a rational government by reducing to one, those within the infancy of the Federal government quickly corrupted this achievement by the development of a "two" party system.
Therefore, against the threat of their bullying us around into thinking otherwise, we should consider government today to be irrational (this is no small matter). As such, this means no contempt is ever committed against the law for the sake of law alone.
Rather, the only true contempt is any legislative, administrative, and / or judicial motion enacted by government to hinder and stumble up the advancement of our Civil Purpose.
This is why the Supreme Court should shun its present menial task concerning the law and whether such is or is not constitutional, for the far simpler yet much higher duty of judges sitting over what is or is not in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose.
*Notice how the development of the "two party" system is not included?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)