In a Democratic Republic Freedom of Speech and Assembly are sacred rights, as is a clear political process.
However, as this rally showed us and this election cycle has shown us, people seem to forget what that entails, especially when one is running for office, the influence that words have. Also you have NFP groups, so called activist groups that go in and disrupt peaceful political rallies and events or symposiums and such. This is not activism, especially when that activism turns into violence, into the activist shouting down the person speaking, or shuts the event down before it even starts. I may not agree with a groups view, even loathe it, but that groups rep has the right to speak, and then my group has the right to also speak and counter that with facts to debunk any lies told by that group. That is how it must work for a true democratic republic, ideally, but it does not.
It would seem it does not in part because when you have people like Trump saying he will pay the legal fees of his followers if they brawl, in essence, mocking the press, assaulting the press, making other candidates feel that they have to go to the level of gutter to even be heard to be in the race, to get any traction, this is what you end up with. When you have someone who throws out stuff without any meat and potatoes and does so in a way that is larger than life personality, they get away with it, only they do so in a way that can seriously damage the process of civility because you can be a tough SOB and still be civil. Had I been running in the race and been of the last standing I would have been such a Biatch, but with a smile, but demanding “where is the beef?” We have the skeleton, and like Obama you make this general promise of “great”, well how, come on big boy tell us how, such a big shot, so successful, tell it like it is, tell us how big boy? I would have said it sweet and with a smile. There are ways to kick tukkus and put chinks in the armor of the opponent, but violence, not necesarily always the right or best way, even verbally.
If you are going to lead a nation, you need to be very aware of the weight your words carry, the influence they have and Trumps lame response that it was about economic anger and his refusal to take responsibility for his words and how they influence is a red flag.
As a friend, so on and so forth, encourage is all you an do.
You can care about a person, feel connected due to the common, creative cultural, even the faith component, denominator, even feel a deep psychic connection as an empath, intuitive. However, as much as this is so, and you have a sense of where you feel they can really fly on their path, you can only give the map so many times. When it seems that for whatever reason, fear of the unknown, pride, whatever, they just don’t want the road map, or are, oh I forget the word, tip of my tongue, pretending they are considering it, but really aren’t for whatever reason, there has to be a point at which you have to say “fine, keep doing it your way, and not for me to care anymore because I have my own stuff to work on.” Hard to do that when you care as a friend, in any way for a person, and you really see potential if they can get past the fear of the unknown factor and go off that cliff, trust there will be a parachute. I am not saying it’s easy to do that and being and artist and putting any of your work out there, yourself out there is not easy, raw, what you feel, think etc…whoa, even scarier, but the potential to really rock people’s world and even your own is amazing. I guess it’s not really about not caring about the person as much as it is about just letting go and trusting that if you have them in your prayers they will be able to be freed of all shackles etc… that do hold them back in every aspect of life, to a new life, and that they will be able to chart a whole new course, even when it comes to their vocational path, even within their current path.
That will be a really amazing day and time for them and those who get to see it unfold and take place.
This is more than just about an Article V Convention of States, but about holding legislators accountable. It is about getting us back to the original intent of our Constitution, not to draft a new one, replace the current one and the true opportunity for all Capitalist Federalist Limited Government Democratic Republic. It is something that people spilled blood for, sweat and blood for, sacrificed so much for, so we could have a nation not of tyranny, of monarchy of cronyism, elitism, and they knew we could make it even more of a perfect union of a Capitalist Federalist Limited Government Democratic Republic, so long as it was a government held fully accountable feet to fire by We The People, not just a small group, but all of We The People.
Please, support us with your time, with learning about the Convention of States, being part of this locally, nationally. If you can help to make NY one of the States that adopts an Article V Convention of State. NYC, my city come on board. I ask this as a fellow New Yorker and Media Liaison for the COS Project.
Courts Decide What’s “Confessional”? That’s right, this is where we are headed, thanks to transforming America. Time for a lesson in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause and the Bill of Rights.
A priest is legally fighting to keep sacred the seal of confession, which is clearly given as binding in the Bible, is as equally binding as what is told to a psychiatrist. What does this have to do with the Bill of Rights? Plenty. Let’s start with the Establishment Clause. The framers were coming at this from a very clear mindset of what they meant by no establishment religion and separation of church and state and it was very narrow corridor. They had been under a system of government that had one official Government Established Church, Church of England, and in Virginia, you either belonged to that Church, paid taxes to that Church, went faithfully to all church services etc.. or you would be fined, and life would be made miserable for you. If you disagreed, left the church, heretic, and death. It was not fun, downright signing your death warrant. If you had slight doctrinal deviations, you could perhaps get permission to set up your own chapel or meeting hall, not a church, but still had to pay tax to the official church. You were not free to follow your own religious conscience. As for marriage, the only lawful marriage was one performed in the official church of course you silly man and woman, so be a member of that other meeting hall or chapel, but when it came time to marry, baptize and all that, haul yourself over to the official church if you wanted that to be “valid and official”. Oye! After the revolution and when this nation was founded, the Constitution created, the Framers put in the establishment clause and then we got the Bill of Rights, which included Freedom of Religion. As a matter of fact, we almost didn’t have a Constitution because a number of framers were insistent that there had to be a Bill of Rights that included Freedom of Religion. Why did they feel this and what did this mean?
The Establishment Clause. Establishment is about how much the government can do to promote or establish any particular religion or faith. They wanted to avoid the situation they had lived under of forced religion upon anyone by the state. They understood a few things, which I myself have come to understand in life regarding spirituality and God. What did they understand and believe? They understood you could not coerce faith and spirituality, it had to come organically, naturally, it was a very personal journey, that the Word of God was the only Truth you needed to know was God’s Truth, you could discern Truth from that, along with reason and contemplation, that Truth came from understanding the Soul of Man belongs to God, not Caesar, their love of freedom set them on a course to live this Truth. They were not looking to wipe God out of the public or government sphere, only to insure there was no coercion, that is all. Their generation created the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, Virginia Bill of Rights and ultimately the First Amendment of the Constitution, so faith expression in the Public and Government Sphere, not Coerced, not an Established Church as it was in England, is in England, is Constitutional. To understand also look at the Case of Wisconsin VS Pelican 1888, and Marsh VS Chambers 1983. Where SCOTUS went wonky is when it came up with the unconstitutional Lemon Test: Here is what they base their decisions on whether the decision law being proposed etc… Has A Religious, Not Secular Purpose, Advances or Inhibits Religion, Entangles the Government in Religion Problem with this is it has no Constitutional Base, not a Constitutional test based on Founders Interpretation of Establishment. They say prior cases “revealed these” When did the get a Holy Spirit, Upper Room Unconstitutional Revelation? They make no detailed Constitutional or historical backing for any of this, it’s just haphazard guessing from this air that they come up with this “test”. They fail, as do many atheists, to acknowledge that our laws based on British Common Law, are based on the Old Testament Laws and The Ten Commandments and influenced by writings of John Locke who was influenced in his reasoning by the Bible.
The Exercise Clause. Free Exercise clause is about the government’s ability to interfere and control the individual’s right as regards their expression of faith. The disagreement is usually between the talking heads in the media, the Ivy Tower Academics and Politicos, the average person living their life would agree, let me believe and practice not believe, keep government out of my business, you also fellow citizen keep out of my business in terms of what I believe, or not believe. Respect my right to believe or not, don’t mock it, leave it be.
It is understood that within the Free Exercise aspect, for safety and public order, such as in Free Speech and Assembly, there have to boundaries and they have to be enforced. Human and animal sacrifice, no, threatening to kill people, mutilate, no. Freedom, but within reason. There was a case where the Amish were brought to court for not using lights at night on their buggies, but they argued it violated their faith due to the lights having to be electrical, so a compromise was reached and they use reflective tape instead. Yes religious Freedom must be honored, but it can be done often within a spirit of compromise. There are areas where it gets tricky and the Substantial Burden and Government Interest aspects is where it gets tricky, when you mix that with the very erroneous interpretation the SCOTUS and Government now has taken on Since FDR of the Commerce and General Welfare Clause, that’s another blog, you end up with a bit of problem. Who decided what the extent of burden is when you are talking about souls and salvation, theological Cannon law etc…? Courts? Cannon Church lawyers? Who? Remember if a choice between laws of God and Man, even the Bill of Rights in a way says God’s over man by giving us Freedom of Religion and saying the government can’t impose religion on us, so who decides what the burden is, and how that is measured? What about home schooling? Why does a parent have to be licensed? If all the tools are available to the child online and she has access to top notch tutors who are licensed teachers, why must the parents be licensed, the goal can still be met? Why are vouchers, which include faith based schools endorsing religion if they include schools of all faith denominations? As for moments of silence and prayer, including God in the Pledge, Congress from the very beginning had prayer before every session, so why is it any different to include it in Public education at the start of each class? God is generic, that name is generic for creator of all things, and if a particular child does not wish to say it, she can not say it.
This notion that the Framers wanted to eliminate faith from every corner of the nation, of government etc… is beyond stupidity. They simply wanted to insure there would be no Church of America, but to assume they wanted faith and God wiped out is a show of pure ignorance on anyone’s part. Please get out of ignorance and learn.http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/
It requires what won’t likely happen with immediate Convention of States and immediate revolution, non violent of course. True change as necessary requires a few things by we the people and that includes a revolution of a political kind unlike any we have had. It is one that people will likely feel scared about initially, but may be the only way.
We would have to do is understand and embrace an originalist Constitutional First Principles True Capitalist Democratic Republic, also as put forth in the Federalist Papers, by the Connecticut Plan that gave us the Constitution end all party, lobbyist and union affiliations, walk away leave them all in the dust literally, and our only allegiance be the Constitution according to the originalist etc… vision of the Framers. Why?
The problem mainly is the lobbyists and unions who in cahoots with the career and beltway politicians hold the nation in a sense hostage, don’t allow for a true free market, insurance across state lines etc… or even true immigration reform, not even the legal process of immigration to be reformed. Even the issue of government and marriage is dominated by lobbyists. The only business the government has in defining that is that it is a legal contract between two consenting adults of sound mind 18 and older. Beyond that it is up to the faith institutions. No court, no government entity has any right or business getting involved. Same with healthcare, mandating and all that crap, not government’s job. If there were no parties that had lobbyists filling their coffers, then no special interests, insurance across state lines, insurance cooperatives etc… and costs would be low. Because you have lobbyists and insurance conglomerates along with the chamber of commerce donating big to the parties, that does not happen. Immigration, we could very likely have a very efficient system, end all sanctuary cities in a heartbeat etc…, but cheap labor, that is too good to give up, so the lobbyists for businesses pressure the parties and candidates not to reform, to pretend to reform, but nothing gets really reformed.
If we want a real true opportunity for all Democratic Republic and don’t be dumb enough to want direct democracy because with humans not possible, let’s be realistic. If we want a true Democratic Republic then we have to have true Capitalism, that means we have to get rid of 90% of the bureaucracy and that means political parties and their chokehold on everything. We have to get rid of the unions that are in cahoots with the insurance companies and I don’t see them fighting for a true capitalist, major immigration overhaul that enforces legal immigration etc.. Why? Then where would they be? They would lose a lot of their members because when members realized that a lot of their funds are not used for member care, but Democratic Party or Republican Party Lobbying, membership would be lost, a portion of it. Basically, we have to start from scratch in a sense, scary I know, but necessary. Loyalty to strictly the Constitution, Bill or Rights and separation of powers of the branches, no exceptions unless war were declared upon us directly and executive order required by the President, no other option.
Unless we have a revolution, of some kind and we stop going by Party Loyalty and go by Constitutional Federalist Democratic Republic Loyalty this nation is screwed royalty and unless we end the Liberal Progressive induced divisions of race etc.. fostered upon society we are also screwed.
I am really glad I went back, revisited that chapter.
I find that I am really glad I revisited that chapter, and that I can recall it with good feeling, thoughts and any notions I had about differences of liberal and conservative are not really differences not in the way I perceived. I think going back and recording more songs from that chapter is something I will do and stay along the lines of Jazz, R&B, also go into Gospel at some point. I don’t think that person will come back into my life, have not had contact with them for a good while, so doubt they will.
However, it is good to know that they remain in my heart in a positive way, as a positive memory, not with any negativity, bitterness, anger. It says a lot about one’s maturity I think and growth if one can have someone in one’s heart etc… in a positive way, even if you never see them again, even if they never come into your life ever again. The fact that I can record more songs that they inspired, have positive feelings, thoughts, even if there are twinges of sadness, more so about how we handled things so badly, were so not ready for each other when we met. I had a long journey to make to self discovery, identity, to being who I am as an artist, person. Now that I am where I am, I can record all those songs inspired by that person, and have them in my heart etc… in good ways and even if I never see them again, and if I move on to a new relationship at any point, there is no anger etc.. from this to darken that, dampen that. Whatever happens, the recording of this Sky Eyes Recollections CD has been a blessing.