Archive for October, 2010

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

October 19, 2010
A synopsis of my analysis of the protection of religion—-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therein:
1) Using the word “respect” rather than “abridge” means congress can disrespect Islam. This implies knowledge that most religion is good. And that it is good religion is free from government laws.
2) Congress may not institute any religion.
3) Free exercise includes the use of religion or its teachings by individuals to help them in their job; this is called administrative conscience. As most religion is good, its teaching should and could be used by the individual in government, or anywhere it may help; that is what free exercise of religion is. Any limitation on one’s use of religious teaching is clearly a restriction of free exercise of religion.
I would like to teach you something. Religion is good. It can be corrupted, but it is meant to be good. The state has a more nefarious origin. Insofar as it is devoid of religion by taking everything at face value, organizing people not by spiritual ideas, but in direct contradiction, particularly elected governments, to the kingdom of god or the peak of truth being an accurate rendition of the human race. Religion is about truth to counter the severe lies of the state regarding everyone.
Wars are 90% of the time involving states, not religions. The great lie that religions start war, is just completely not true, and gives a fine example, or propaganda, pure and simple, that falsely implies, Vietnam, Korea, (both unnecessary wars) ww2, ww2 the Spanish American war? The civil war, the war with the Indians—-these were all wars of the state and government—and this fine example and exposure of propaganda, shows you just how etched propaganda is in the liberal mind. It is a highly oppressed thought pattern to associate war with religions, when the state has such a problem with war.
Often though, religion is a part of the state, and this is not too bad. Czarist Russia, The Byzantine Empire, Ancient Hebrews, traditional tribes, druids that ran legal systems, the papal state, the roman republic, all demonstrated confidence in the wisdom of religion being intimate with government. Far more so than the mere protection of religious practice, these governments were endowed with religion close to government.
 Closeness was demonstrated by building huge couches out of stone for Zeus to chill on when the Roman Republic won a campaign. The Roman Republic also had sacred geese, they would try to feed, before battle, and if the geese didn’t eat, then no battle. Likewise the religion of augury, interpreting as symbolic, events and issues; sometimes wise men would spill an animals guts, and try to foretell the future based on the way the guts looked and landed. Also, there would be animal and even human sacrifices, when things were going bad or the chips were down.

 Things were bad enough, that the notion of a higher power was an evil one, that required sacrifice. Life was fearful. The Kingdom of God was not a term then, and identifying it didn’t seem allowed; yet ultimately, that is the fear

America, a political movement, moved by people and history Christian, was not a religious movement; though the land was strange and they were across a giant sea. In many respects, through the centuries, Christianity, and other religions, have identified and tailored a place for themselves, outside government, and as such, as providing a service specific for the refutation and spiritual contrast of the letters of government. The term “The Kingdom of God” refutes, elections, disbelieves actions of government, shows an entirely different basis for decisions making and concern, than what the governments operate on now. Sin refers to the dysfunctional society we are in. The light of the path protestantism offers, seems to be of a world outside government, acknowledging the kingdom of god, and generating its needs and discussion sidestepping and under or not bothered by the radar of government. While Christianity and religion seeks to service people and society and speak to what is not seen so well, in face of an unspiritual government upon an primordially spiritual earth—we can not side step the noble ideals of political science; ultimately government and religion have the same goals of a better earth, The former need step over it assumptions to spiritual assertions, and the latter may need some power to implement and manifest spirituality and good things.

The first amendment does not say abridge, it says respect. “Congress shall make no law ‘respecting’ establishments of religion. And this choice of words is specifically to deal with a violent movement like Islam, or biting religion like vampires. If the law said ‘abridge’ then if a movement claiming to be religious threatened American society, then there would be no law that could be made to abridge it. If the first amendment reads, as it does, no law respecting religion, well then, congress may very well by this trick of legal assertion, make a law disrespecting a certain religion, and I really think you see the tricky thinking of our founders here.

I also think the argument that Islam is a political state, not a religion, is necessary to the debate. What other religion has a class system where the non Muslims have less rights, and in history, was the class that paid taxes? Right there, that pedestrian imposition upon a spiritual domain, of religion, precludes it as a religion. What other religion mandates frequent public prayer? Is that not more a bowing to the state and status quo, an obligation that reduces questioning, or at least unites questioning into one frequent mass movement, thus risking it in other venues, by the eyes of this behavior of frequent prayer gathering. There have been a thousand religions since 1000 bc, but we know so few of them. But the best definition of an uncorrupted religion, is that it gives teachings you may try to apply to improve your life. From religion, you may manifest goals. It is the opposite of oppression, it is meant to be as liberating as any activity providing learning.

Islam spread by arms and political rights. They were the Barbary pirates, whose America’s first war was with. They genocided Armenia, and terrorized Greece, persecuting other religions, as a political expression of total control, in contradiction to the free thinking spirituality engenders. All the other empires spread from state, not religious, so the image of conquering is also a political, not religious image. In the classical world, religions were always gaining and losing popularity and spreading to new places. Far from discouraging new religions, ancient cities traditionally invited cool religions from other places. There was a myriad of religion back then, and government would not think of not having anything to do and not utilizing the more successful ones to help government with its trials and tribulations.

The fault with provincial understandings of Islam is the assumption that societies need money. They don’t. Societies got along for years without money, and there is no intrisnic association of society with money. That people don’t work together and focus on common values, speaks badly of the west. More tribal societies that meet together more often as members, are clearly superior on that count. Thus seeing Islam as a means to sell us oil, for the koran promotes money and westernization, shows us the manipulation of arab land by Islam; for without it, who is to say the arab tribes would use money or part with oil?

But this religious horde, like the Visigoths and Romans, no doubt, is easy to control, because as the human is transformed to the human being within a kingdom of god, so the will to these movements come from a metaphysic, and negotiation of the universe and afterlife. These are historical statements, metaphors for larger pictures, of course, but not to be taken at face value as being a combination of a million little autonomous wills. No, these situations are controlled by metaphysics, and constitute metaphysics.

So the term The Kingdom of God, can not be outlawed, or we would lose a facile faculty of communication. It is vital. Religion is meant to be protected from the intrusions of government. No government in its right mind would abridge good religion. And the free exercise of religion must extend where an individual might find it useful.

While no law may favor one religion, certainly administrative conscience, and individuals may apply the learning of a spiritual portion of their life, to better do their job. Otherwise free exercise would be certainly prohibited. If religion can help a government, and probably many can, unofficially, doing so, must be free exercise of religion, anything less, is clearly not free.

Then we must examine the phrase Congress makes no law, then must no one make a law. In other words if congress may not abridge speech, can facets of society? If congress may not abridge speech, how can it allow contracts such as the buy out of apartment dwellers in Brooklyn by Atlantic Yards that include restrictions upon the apartment dwellers speaking out on the issue? American ideals of unsuppressed speech should extend to their tarnishments of self suppression for money. Some things are off the table in a free land, because a free land has a code. If congress can make no law, surely it would have issues with contracts suppressing speech on relevant topics; even if that suppression is self-decided on, it may still be illegal, in America, by the ideal of protected speech.

Likewise to say the mosque can be built because congress may not respect religion may local officials? Though this analogy ignores the word respect allows disrespect. And through history there have been evil negative movements speared by one ideology, embodied a one or several leaders, and this metaphysic is dangerous and not be what America becomes. And it is good and natural for government to pursue truth. One figures it would be natural for journalism as well.

Yet Journalism has not uncovered that while the threat of hell and promise of heaven is within Greek mythology and Islam, a great deal of religions are about the here and now and transformation. There is no reference to heaven and hell in the old and new testament. There is the term The Kingdom of Heaven, but it is an operating force, a place afterlife, but being a part of the metaphysical creation of this life, and metaphysical as well.

Journalism never spelled out the reformation was a reaction to the morbid corrupt fixation of roman Catholicism, at the expense of the teaching which both explains how such could be merely written, and Easter, which celebrates his being seen. How could he die for you and be seen on Sunday? That is what motivated the reformation. It is a great evil to let atheism remove spirituality from the democratic party, and journalism, and history. But at least history is understood as metaphysical and atheistic of necessity. To not consider relying on religion to make the case for the practice of religion as appropriate within government, is not good, for it rules out what ease Christian terminology and literacy provides an intelligent society. A service calling everything the world of sin insofar as it is incorporated in isolation, oppression and lies, casts down the government’s pedestrian assertions and operating assumptions; but only that wanting the false would benefit by keeping the spiritual so out of politics.

 Every single atheist I’ve ever known, or met, was raised catholic and so turned off from religion by its morbid and corrupt fascination, as to hate all religions, even though just that aspect of catholocism reduced his religion interest.

In any event, we should be looking on how we understand religion, than understanding these words of the first amendment, deconstructed as they are to protect religion. For it is in our knowledge and use of religion, that we see the vitality of its protection by government. Undoubtedly this protection has fallen, as an education that obscures spirituality arisen, as a media proclaiming truth trumpets nightly an essential cover up of the kingdom of god. If The Kingdom of God is true, which it is, then everything on the news is essentially made up. This is a lot of violence and unpleasant manifestations of universe discomfort. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the situation.

How is separation done? By a demonization of religion; so the final denial of truth in an increasingly technological and removed society, may be completed and we forget altogether that there is something more than the material world, quietly important and transforming the human to human being, in very cause of our metaphysical hardship we struggle to master. And within metaphysics are we capable of discussing as society what religion is?

Societies are limited historically.
 
What would a law respecting a religion be, anyway. Would a law respecting Christianity require a recognition of the kingdom of god, and how you are created to be of the world of man, but also, very close to god, the kingdom of god, or gods and goddesses. Truly, a law respecting Christianity would order the combination of the god, with the man, so society may go, in respect and recognition of the kingdom of god.
Surely a law respecting the jews, by congress, would be the assertion and recognition of tribal powers, or a recognition of judeo legal autonomy, or a recognition of Hebrew or encouraging journalistic writing.
Surely a law respecting the hindu would make a federal holiday out of respecting the stars and the universe above; perhaps promote discussion of the atman and brahman sort of thing, pipe in Indian music at some shopping malls.
So there are many potential laws respecting a great many religions that could be made, if this law is shown to be strikely contrived in its use of the word “respect”. And by showing how this word is meant to refrain us from blanket freedom, we may have the opportunity to see how that the respect of religions is good, and creative society should promote a direction of spiritual direction.
You know the second king of Rome, Numa, was the wisest man the romans could find after romulus disappeared in a cloud on a hill inspecting the troops one late afternoon. Numa lived in a cave and studied the stars and numbers and generally stayed his own business. So the Romans knew he was the real thing, for on making him king, his first act was to make every other day a federal holiday. And this led to a long happy reign of no end.
What law would respect druidism; creation of privat druid courts. What law would respect the pagan? Letting the most rusticated make some determinations with the stars and weather so. What law would the wiccans like? Nice parties outdoors that last weekends, where people understand Wicca.
In short the recognition of this wordplay by our founders, is a stepping stone to citations of all the useful good things different religions do. It is just an evaluation of the word “respect” and how it differs from the word, “abridge”.

Moreover, if you clearly see the different assumptions in religion, than government, then you see the convenient metaphysical cordoning of religion, religion accepts. Religion accepts government, though government stands against what Protestantism should stand for, which is rational people aware of the kingdom of god, perfectly capable of running their own, far better, society.

If you really scrutinize our bill of rights protection of religion; the separation of church and state starts there by excluding government institutionalization or promotion or anything actually respecting, not disrespecting, establishments of religion, through laws of congress. Bad government starts with an atheistic rejection of spirituality and stronger grip on the representation of the being, as more than being, even as we fully admit the protection of religion by the first amendment; we also see how the movement that has ravaged spirituality through religion has impetus from the first amendment’s own lack of further protection; creates a vacum where sucks through atheistic spirits.
The first amendment should actually be the oposite of its current protection of religious means and support laws that respect religion and demonstrate an inherent recognized worth of most religion therein even pleasantly increase the contrast between religions, as freeing the states would increase the contrast of states. The flaccid notion religions don’t like other religions would end once and for all.
When we discuss the wording, and notice the word “respect” suddenly a world of new meaning comes up. Not only can state like monogamous religions like Islam be disrespected by american law, but actual laws respecting good religion are forbidden. Thus as recognize a use of the law as a negative authority on Islam, we notice the gaping hole in the law promoting healthy religious use and exposure; of specific good citable ideas behind religion. We see a nefarious nature of America, mythologized one way, and lacking in another. The birth of America, or her federal government, far from presented on a check on intracine state warfar, and provide common defense, is presented as an ideal form of government. Our form of government is also presented as inspired by our founders, and their own thought. When actually it is very based on the roman republic, probably for its expansive imperial quality over native tribes. It protects local peaceful assembly decision-making, though in America this has been overrun by state constitution’s incorporation of towns with local officials. There is a senate of a hundred members. There are two political parties, called by then, plebes and patricians. There is an executive branch. There are elections for official posts. There are primary and candidate nominating procedures. There was a vice-president. There was a judiciary. This was the republic of Rome for many centuries before Christ.
There are significant differences, the judiciary was staffed by the lower class. There could be more than one president at a time and the term was for a year. The president traveled with the army when there was a war. Everyone was also a member of one of twenty tribes. War was more routine.
So any representation of our founder’s work framing government must include its basis in the known history of the roman republic. That’s where ignorance starts, in passing over the basis of our federal constitution as original, when it is based on a classical form of government that existed elsewhere from Rome as well; such as Carthage, and Italian Tribes with a City.
The word itself of God, to know it is the universe, seems a word of the oppressed by the universe, rather than consciously aware of the universe as oppressive.

An Attorney General’s Office, is fit to recognize the Kingdom of God; but then it would see the legislative as based upon a foolish misrepresentation of the people. What would an attorney general’s office actually do in the face of The Kingdom of God? Would they still want local decision making in peaceful assemblies?

This may evoke the popular case for popular kings, as opposed to elected officials.

The lack of allowing for simple laws of respect for establishments of religion, is where an erroneous notion of seperation of church and state may actually originate. Nor does this wording inhibit the religious conscience of the administrator or actor in their job. All the wise respect illuminating good aspects of religion. The repression masquerading as liberation may lead to historical change and restore the good name of religion. For bad government, or an overemphasis on what is false and lack of recognition of what is true, overlooks what is not seen, and responsible.

 

       Regarding the issue of Arizona issuing tax credits for schools: That is a law respecting establishments of religion: but if we are really bound to the letter of the law: For one thing it is a law made by a state, not by congress: And two, it is a law respecting all religions, not just an establishment of religion; but all establishments of religion that care to offer educational venue.

And finally what would the one law respecting christianity be. To acknowledge a situation on earth government has ignored and not registered much? And what would its effect be? To enable society to get closer to discuss earth and spiritual issues, and through the terminology of several religions?  

Does something about Cain and Abel not make sense to you?

October 8, 2010

An enlightened Lord would choose vegetables over meat. The choice of meat may suggest a suffering lord.

The decision is testified as to having angered the organic grower, but organic growers are nonviolent; the nature of plant care, and vegetable production, decreases anger, because the organic grower learns not to get upset, upsetting as growing for market or many can be; because there are natural laws, which determine what causes getting upset, we need to learn, not get upset at, and organic growing and farming, requires a sense of humor—so it roils me to hear stories in some old testament that a farmer got angry and killed a meat-producer.

It seems more logical to me, that shepherds and slaughterers be more prone to violence than the farmer, and more likely to be offended if the lord chose vegetables, and that the farmer is neither disposed to anger or violence.

So what does this say about those who spoke the ancient language of Hebrew, and had required reading, and understood the authority of religion, separation of history and society? Bonds are grounded in thinking for yourself towards ability to think around lies that may never be cleaned up.

Or, you go into the inner sanctums of the most sacred temple and change the story to the lord chose vegetables, and the shepherd got angry and killed the organic grower—and this doesn’t make sense either, because an organic grower is stronger having a harder work, than a shepherd. So you have a slippery slope the Jews have never climbed back up stemming from a story between a grower and a shepherd/slaughterer who have an antagonism which doesn’t exist in experience, though the slaughterer may be volatile, the organic grower is sympathetic to livestock raisers who frankly are exceptionally mature people, if strange slightly.

This harks back to the spiritual basis of society being how little meat you are relying on. Which it seems was replaced by a culture of lying, (which the illogicalities of this story indicate this story is a lie) through writing, popularized by the old testament. A return to simpler agrarian times is consistent with less writing, and greater patriarchy. So the story must be changed to the destruction of writing, by agrarianism; in a feud where in the story of Cain and Able lies the genesis of the overtaking of writing by honesty.

But how do you deal with that? As a descendant of Abraham, are you able to handle this issue, or do you have to recuse yourself? At some point are not all the descendants bound into some vast anthropological experiment? I don’t know. If you are within the culture of writing, and holding back honesty, then you have no more right to make a comment, than a real estate agent showing property, unless what you say is factual.

At the same time, who is optimistic enough to prophesize the fall of writing falsehoods, the fall of writing without testifying using the terminology of the New Testament, and beyond; when far from being able to escape lies, we live in a miserable universe that traditionally causes fear. Is there a trade between agrarianism and writing, involving the number of saved? I think the potential myriad of unexplored nuances within, these metaphysics, step over that question, and you may find a path here.

Not only is the light of the food producing community mocked here, but the story seems to go more like this: One brother offered the lord a false society ruled by writing; and another offered the Lord a more messy perhaps society, but one dominated by agriculture and relationship with animals. That the Lord chose western civilization now, if we can still lay that claim, indicates how scary the universe is. As history wrought wars on more honest economies, so we must police our own contracts; for changes that affect them.

A Step in their Favor

October 6, 2010

DE WHITES IN THEIR EYE DON’T LOOK SO GOOD, CAPTAIN

I may prance about and threaten to take Trenton, so they will say, “Trenton has fallen into the hands of Vic,” the way George Washington morally ambiguously surprised the Hessians on Christmas eve, at Trenton, who fled back to the Brits stationed in Princeton, who then engaged in a running battle with the revolutionarily destined forces, where the colonialists retreated back to Trenton and the Delaware River, then at night, tired, marched 10 miles around the southern side of things, and snuck up on them Brits from the other side; decisively.

No, the upper class is firmly in control of Trenton. There is nothing to worry about. Power is so concentrated, given freely by all to few who streamline decision making and wisdom, so we benefit from it faster, that no more trickles down to the street, than water from a rock tightly gripped by the upper class.

If they are the upper class. “Of course they are the upper class,” you say, “they’re always been the upper class, they are in power, their ancestors were critical founding fathers. They get us out of trouble when all seem impossible, are surprisingly tough and resilient, tend to be religious, but out of necessity, get away with things, but also have a good side. These people have been about through history. Everyone knows there are three classes, these days.”

Well, no, my friend, I say, these appointed deliberative bodies upon legislative ethical standards might be said to be apparatchiks, or communist party hacks, parts of a state supporting itself, against individual interests of all including their own; and under an influence of media that makes them fear courage, and virtue and fighting for good versus evil. And with the Kingdom of God as such easily moved by the thousands of writers at this very moment to be influenced away from anything that might provoke positive change, because there is a decision to render the world this way—it is an elaborate, even pointed production—and good may not crack through with its light, unless circumstances favor it, and those are tough odds.

Apparatchiks, simply fulfill the work the higher power intends, the Christian emphasis on working through to truth, is not substantively emphasized. In other words, while I believe the powers of Trenton are severely inhibited by a fear and grip of the media, ultimately, it is not that they are cowards, in their inability to relate to the people, or do what is obviously right but they are completely controlled by a governing metaphysic that makes everyone not act in their own interests or behave logically or go to their neighbor or try to create a better community or assert the kingdom of god and truth of earth regarding the universe and afterlife and being of the human.

To defeat the communion that authority is right, and the silent communion that things are the way they should be; distinguish between being fearful, and the larger factor that a mind and metaphysic represents society in a thousand wrong ways. Almost everything is wrong and untruthful, that’s the point.

Likewise, to take on the authority of power communing that all is all right, essentially, spiritual knowledge is essential. The atheism which is the gist and point of communism is the weak spot spiritual knowledge preys on to achieve its goals while not offending anyone; for spiritual knowledge of larger unseen forces, not of mortal man, has forgiveness inherent; and forgiveness decreases tension and stress and anxiety. At the same time, particularily among corrupted systems, there can be a reactionary anger to the frustrated assertion of truth that comes not from the people or officials involved, but a dark universe that rules their mind and has difficulty admitting wrong where it is. In a sense, we may liberally speculate the universe never wanted to go along with this ridiculous rendition of the Kingdom of God as society, and somehow its very control is of a coercive device by the kingdom of heaven that may ultimately benefit earth and the human race. Conversely, we may say the universe derives an enjoyment from a denial of truth consistent with its creation of truth this way to the human being. I do not know whether the universe is ruling so rigidly on its own, or as the lesser of two evils so determined by the kingdom of heaven.

But lets take something from the top. Elections are fraudulent, the kingdom of god does not vote. Something makes up those tallies, and the choice of candidates is ridiculously highly limited as is their proximity to true relevance, truth, God. Ancient Societies, who ideals of government we strived to excel, got around this problem, through frequent and rotating appointments; very short terms, no elections, just appointments, most people experience appointment.

In this the appointed and public body of former judges, state senators, and upper class sorts I do not know, The Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standard, designed to deliberate ethical standards upon the legislative branch: this not being unduly influenced by the stiff wind of elections, has got to be a step in their favor. One has to look at the man not the party, his issues, and how well a party rallies round him; one has to look and answer the question which party or movement would be best able to take society to the higher level of truth, a more discussed economy, and kinder and better raising of young, the values of good society, truth and manifestation itself.

The initial part of the meeting seemed about issuing advisory opinions as if an advisory opinion might be issued on the issue of legislators sponsoring legislation their law firms probably would benefit from. The ethics committee of the executive branch issues advisory opinions and investigates claims, two roles it seems to have confused regarding my own correspondence. But it almost seems to have done that on purpose to be annoying and push thought away from the issues, like a hatchet job, where the hatchet is thrown and hits wood, but the eyes are screwed tight shut and dull ensuing thud nothing like the ringing bells of truth.

The body wondered whether advisory opinions limited future investigations, and revisiting issues, as well as how binding to the subject and the deliberative body, are advisory opinions. Sort of a non issue, if you ask me. Jurisprudence is always refined and evolving and strives for contracts with itself.

The talk about advocating as a member of the state for constituents or entities was relevant to the complaint discussed in the second half of the meeting.

Our deliberative body, was of big famous men within the state, known of by those within the voices of this political circle. They were all too old to know of me, it seemed. There was one women, and one token minority, who looked a little like Obama.

They were deliberating definitions, and debating form. You can like the way thoughts are organized, the battle of good versus evil. Is the appearance of impropriety which by code is citable as instrumental towards being able to work with the public, really significant impropriety? I think the issue is those in politics simply must not be about making money, but about truth. In other words, part of the profession involves some absolution of the need for money—that’s just the profession, so it is not sullied, by other interests; and that may require clarification, politics and a humble lifestyle are consistent. If you want to spend the year making more money, don’t be a legislature. If you want to pursue centrist ethical behavior that benefit’s the state, be in office.

The problem in N.J. is the democrats control everything. Even with Christie, they seem to control the tempo of the game, most town councils are mostly if not all democrat. Even the thoughts in ones heads, senses felt; unless awakened to smell and feel what really is. And when there is such one party domination, that is looked down upon by the millions writing, because they see something that does not want to be bipartisan and that is just stupid so things are made worse. You want the parties being checks on each other, you want the debate of two sides, you don’t want to vilify the other half of your country, that sort of thing, shows how one party rule makes no sense. And because the million writers can’t relate or understand such democratic dominance in N.J., one party societies are condemned to be worse societies than the bipartisan ones that are a step up in many places, and you can’t drive to Trenton without thinking this, even as the many people messed up by this one party assumption are not even aware their messedupedness is caused by their being claimed by the democrat party, or even echoing that claim. While there are firm republicans because the republican party at a local and state level is more responsive, and because the democrats don’t communicate or even understand; there aren’t In other words, many are not aware of the dysfunctionalized dominated quality of the democratic party by the millions of writers who act to keep it, through fear, from wisdom.

This is a good opportunity to make the case that courage, which is the guardian of us all, is based on a knowledge of what keeps the courageous safe. Success is different than folly, if there are legitamate fears, then one should not go forth. If one is aware of what the kingdom of god means, and can go forth citing accordingly then he should go forth. If one is confident of victory, advance, but if one is wary of defeat, do not engage in folly.

But anyway I thought, if I could just explain why the situation in NJ is so, and if there was an article about it, so the claim could be made that the people were educated about it therein, maybe the denial psychic state could be remedied. In other words, if whatever looks down on us, on our sins and blessings, and so judges us; if such could be aware of the cause of our sin, might not that divert attention from us as the deservers of this cruel fate; Like a river looking the other way and seeing an inlet, so might the apprehension of why the river has gone the way it has, cause it to flow away from us, and guide us kinder.

Because there is a reason for our fate, a cause of one man, and if you didn’t know it, Frank Hague is why NJ can be worse. Frank Hague was mayor of jersey city, he lost the governorship to Wilson in 1912? 1908 but ruled NJ establishing mayoral systems replacing peaceful assemblies through the 1900’s. He had his own personal police force, or so they say, a ton of patronage jobs, and established a democratic party domain of local government, He was mayor till 1956 or something. The state constitution of 1947 incorporated towns with local officials, but peaceful assembly decisions were dying off through the first decades of the 1900’s. The history of the replacement of peaceful assemblies in towns like Princeton with other forms of local control, such as from the state, as it used to be is fascinating, and missing, proving censored or at least selected, history. There is not much on local government by our founders, merely two back handed references: Peaceful Assembly is not stated as where local decisions are made—-and the reservation of powers to the state or the people does not explicitly exclude local officials, even as such directly implies exclusion. Somehow the focus of concern on federalism, and recognition of statehood, overshadowing of local rule, harks back to the patriarchal days where there was no government on that desert and families and clans stayed together.

The reason why one must be republican, is that the democratic, as this machine was built, because completely unresponsive and aloof and away; the way this deliberative body felt at times, whereas republicans are responsive in a beer drinking Christian ineffective way; but still believing and showing faith in the values of communication. We are the ruling party trying to make things as good as we may. If you have different ways, try. But Democrats today and traditionally are much less responsive and accessible, and that is just true. The ancient tradition of the richer being more religious and therefore more nice, is cemented every time the democratic party and atheism are together. That progress and godliness are any different, is an example of the foolish manipulation of the party of the people by the media to induce a dysfunctional behavior in the direction of genuine progress, improvement,

This slide into evil, is facilitated by our ruler, a corrupt system the mere turning to makes slide into place a hundred wrong things. If the press knew and reported how Frank Hague turned N.J. into a state run by long term democrat mayors and their parties, and took us from peaceful assemblies to the local elect and appointed, and the claim can be made, the people have read this, there may be a space in the mind created where the million writers might know the cause of N.J.’s oppression, and so not condemn our society as insensible, but working towards a resurrection out of our dark ages. Can the exposure of Frank, explain the machine? You have to understand the mere turning to evil is slippery enough to enable the control of local elections throughout N.J., if it can be believed, that is enough, to leap with faith, and turn elections. Because elections are made up, this is a publicity machine, and the mayors are reelected time after time for generations, like it’s a good logical thing too, this is a publicity machine, where the reflection from the top on the way down, is more important than what is really going on way down. And once bipartisanness is rejected, or so it seems, that is a very stupid thing no person can be against it and want good. For things to change, we must be able to claim, the people know Frank Hague, which requires a movie or an article or some media that claims an audience. God knows about Frank Hague, but he hasn’t told contemporary people through the media and till he does, the million of people writing aren’t going to understand how the democratic party in N.J. can want to have so few republicans in congress, and at all, in local councils.

The room is a beautiful room, with nice lathed wood, and paintings of streaked skies over the Delaware, and that senate floor carpet looking carpet, with a little 3 or 4 row gallery of chairs, with a uniform nearby, and a big square of tables with a courtyard in the middle, for the deliberating citizens. Most people have a tie, there is a television camera only focused on the square perimeter table setting, the deliberators seem of the same generation, and removed from usual. For me it is also a uniquely NJ marked foray into the political legal by that I am the worst dressed. Surprisingly often, from greyhound buses, to family reunions, I am among the best dressed; once I biked wearing a tie. At these deliberative affairs, I am worst dressed, even though I have a button down shirt and I don’t wear jeans—I am really hoping success does not require suits. It’s like I’m the midway point either I am near the bottom of the top, or the top of the bottom.

This is not much business reminded to two local finance board cases I read, having a case in their division as well; both involved mayors making money simply through a greater awareness of financial opportunity through the purview of the proceedings of their office; one became aware of an event requiring catering, she caters, and the other involved the purchasing of a parking lot—both innocuous business opportunities—the case in the second half was to involve a state senator they claim sponsored legislation his law firm would derive compensation from the work the legislation sponsored.

It is important to differentiate having a case, from the pressure you may feel against your case. There can be an argument against your case, which is fair, but there can also just be pressure against your case the way evil pressures good and it is important to know the difference. I feel clearly the moral message is a humble lifestyle is consistent with the politician, the profession requires people without a bent for making money, or needing the extra catering gig, or needing additional law work, or gaining from awareness of the significance of a parking lot. It is quite easy and proper to send a message to officials that you were elected to govern, not make money, and you just have to understand that allows you to focus on governing more. Just serve one term if making money is more important to you.

Now the pattern seems to be, in these local finance board cases, that they allow you to make the case, and then the judge who the case is before decides for the bad guys, as if finding out about such opportunities can be exploited by your insider view, and the fine message defeated. The case does not sway the judge, and that’s a bad feeling. They give opinions based on facts, they say, and the fact is there were invitations for competing bids, and the fact is this parking lot has nothing to do with nothing; but the feeling is what they operate from and the feeling is that they are made to fear, because their mind is near the mind of the press with its many scary slanders upon the kingdom of god, and the fear makes them find their own life important, and then they are so important they can not condemn another official or appointment like themselves, because they are too important to inflict damage, as if we’re all not men, upon another person who might turn on them, but more too important to see beyond themselves into a knowledge of good and its ripples, and light and harmony. And these cases always have a town lawyer the mayor consults as to the legality of his behavior; and this town lawyer always says it’s fine if this and this is met.

What is obviously lost is the notion of compromise, and rooting for virtue. This does not happen because of fear. I say the fear is ultimately media generated as it generates impressions of people, and representations of society, that do not mix with experience.

I had a flier to try to hand out, but I was too respectful of the deliberation to even consider how to do that. I also had a copy of the letter to give to the executive director who chaired these meetings and told people when to sit, and made it ok to break, so I could meter feed. I was glad I did not bring a drum, and bike here and try to hand out fliers in the street. Power is here, in this fine committee room, there is no power on the street, just god walking by, doing what god does, and all the power is given to this committee room and that is much nicer than haranguing men and scaring women on the street trying to drum and hand out fliers on the abridgement of peaceful assembly by local officials and state constitution.

The republicans are more like my hippier friends. That is what is supposed to be sort of amazing. This paralysis of their behavior keeps them from acting in their own interests and the interests of the people and perversely defending the status quo and a government of officials who are not pointing each other towards virtue versus evil. I try to analyze this psychology. For it is a citable phenomena and needs to be psychologically addressed. The people are paralyzed too, we don’t act in our own interests, or understand earth, the obligation to discuss and decide our lives with others and make earth here better. Really this comes from humans working with humans; in our world it is claimed to be catalyzed by government, but in reality government is just a rarefied part of the show. All the power has been squeezed out of the rock of Trenton, there is none left on the street. Even though there are many nice places amid the fine architecture and sculpture to have a sign, drum and pass out fliers.

And lets be honest protesting on the street is no picnic. Often it requires a little booze and I end up yelling at all the rude uncaring people. Far better to have a streamlined form for change in this committee room than coerce a people drawn of power like a dry rock.

Then there was a ten minute break which was much longer, and then the Camden county NAACP had their say about legislation authorizing towns to give the requirements to build affordable housing to other towns or cities. The NAACP argued not only has this version of affordable housing caused segregation, Camden going from 15 to 85 percent black because of affordable housing. They complained this sponsor of the bill represented two municipalities who would give his law firm more work adjudicating arrangements from this bill—that this was a conflict of interest, and that two years ago, Mr. Lesniak voted against the right to sell off affordable housing obligations, and now he was sponsoring legislation just the opposite. I infer he wasn’t representing the two towns who retain his services two years ago.

Affordable housing is an example of the tricks the democrats play, announcing it as vitally necessary, but many states don’t offer it; indeed the beneficial diversity and harmony of community can be engendered righteously and naturally by an honest economy; moreover affordable housing is just a boon for more builders and investors, not those into conformist and similar housing that frequently enough is approved over farm or cultural area preferred as it was, rather than just being made money off of. It confuses destruction with the environment with providing affordable housing, under the assumption such is needed, when it is clear, there is the kingdom of god, and this government more an implement towards the sacrifice of NJ’s greenery and sensibility than a process that truly cares, or is long run merit. The legislation of affordable housing was a boon to builders not the poor and disguised the exploitation of NJ as only those that masquerade as could can, like a secret bully secretly stealing your heart.

And it is fairly obvious that sponsoring legislation your law firm benefits from or even might, is a motive that should be scrutinized. But the whole affordable housing mandate is so shifty and ridiculous, gauging a legitimate argument for anything having to do with it is hard. Anyway the NAACP said it causes segregation and seems to imply it is very questionable and does not want more affordable housing in Camden where such would be sold to, but that it is more appropriate in better areas of NJ, if anywhere. Of course we all need to talk together but this oppression is such upon me.

The committee on ethical standards said this wasn’t a direct interest but an indirect interest—as if government and making money needn’t be scrupulously separate, as I said, if you want to make money, don’t hold office, you can’t do both. They also said the offending provision was struck down, but didn’t read what that provision was or how it set in. (this is one of the bets in the article. What the offending provision said. For I vainly at the end tried to catch a few with my flier before the elevator, rather than ask the young counsel what in tarnation was that offending provision). The young counsel to the committee read the opinion or advise of counsel to the committee, and it was a bad feeling, not standing up for interests of disassociation with evil looking things, or cleaning up with morality and virtue, but nothing can be wrong or go wrong sort of thinking in Trenton and in the judiciary, (Everything is too big too fail sort of feeling) this bad feeling is par for the course, they express sympathy and talk about being limited by the law, but don’t really give a darn about setting a moral tone and saying politics and making money are two separate professions. You make more money as a doctor than as a farmer, the farmer benefits by respect from society, healthy outdoor life on many acres, wholesome work, it’s all a metaphysic of give and take, that we are big boys is ignored in the totalitarian ignorance of virtue and guidance and I analyze the psychology of it comes from the thousands of writer lying about the kingdom of god, going near the mind of these deliberating people, and not knowing Frank Hague caused this one-sided structured so state, so blames the officials that they act in fear of doing anything because their too important to be hurt—-Too BIG to fail, should refer to what big politicians fearing punishment for foolish wars, giving senate seats, ties to defense contractors, allowing third terms despite personal and financial interest—that Nixon killed Kennedy, or this justice the lower class doesn’t blink at, national figures big shots, for some reason, the whole countries stock will go down if truths and responsibilities shine.

This totally contradicts the roman republic, which though with a senate and yearly executive, had a judiciary of the lower class aimed precisely at the patrician’s behavior in office; This is what we don’t have, the highest order of politicians is precisely not targeted despite the liability of foolish destruction, shifting offices to afford fairer elections, presidential candidates killing presidents—general managers getting kick backs from overpaid south American players, these instead of being the compass of virtue, becomes too big to fail—and its all a show, these guys are getting choked up about a show, and its not these guys it’s the media that’s afraid to take on the big public figures they hide behind. Its also completely ridiculous the justice department, the federal justice department, the state justice department, comes out of the executive branch. It should come out of the judiciary and be aimed at the executive branch and legislative branch, force them to create a better society, blame them for society’s ills, and in the roman republic it was staffed solely with people from the lower, aka plebian, class; the rich people in power were not even allowed to be jurists; they had too much riding on the way things were going to be trusted with fair judgment of the situation.

Meanwhile the key provision failing to comply with the NAACP situation is not read or cited and I got to reach them to find out, and that’s no easy task because they are an appointed committee —–I’m not even sure they have an office. Upon being reminded of this sort of situation, of party state apparatus supporting each other in some great fear of being vilified by the Trentonian newspaper.

And you know immediately which way is going, all the weight of Trenton is behind the deliberative body, and you immediately, just immediate know, that feeling sinks in so fast and true, there is nothing Justin (the testifier and guest jurist from Camden) could say from the whole thing beyond explicitly shedding light on the whole thing not seeming right, and a bit lengthy autobiography, and the judge showed sympathy and what not understood the idea of the complaint, but as always, you got to out evil these bastards, and Justin just didn’t have that leveraged understanding: A leveraged differentiation between legislative concern and letter of the law; letter of the law, Ha, we prosecute folly, Mr. judges, folly, folly that leads the world astray, folly that takes the power invested in it, and makes it worse, folly that worsens the health of society; folly is the broad ideal all true lawyers hate and whose battle the letters of the law can only add up to. The argument that the impact of this is unknown, ignores the probability that it’s a good bet, This is unbelievably bad.

And it makes me wonder what these apparatchiks will rip up to do my letter; arguing they are influenced by another interest not the people’s or government; and that psychologically, remedied, by blaming the media, the issue of peaceful assembly, which truly benefits and unites all, can be focused on. I mean my thing is ten times worse. They can’t even consider it. It will blow their mind. I realized this pithy letter I held in my hands to offer to give directly then and there as well as mail it, whatever it was, my memory of it wilting and melting under the no nonsense hold of the deliberation, it was inadequate, you have to tell these people exactly what you want in the simplest questions possible; There are no ventures to the outposts of general theory here, or what they are supposed to be doing; its just lay it on the line and force them to respond.

Now I read the local news from Yahoo every day, and as there are two localities I enjoy, maybe I miss a local one now and then, and my Tacoma radio is broke so I no longer get talk radio, but I had never heard of this issue, relevant as the issue be of a state senator sponsoring legislation, clients of his law firm, whose compensation, he benefits from; entirely legit, why any snaky upperclassman, would ask more innocent looking brethren to sponsor such bills, so as to maintain a low profile. But apparently that plan didn’t work, …but the issue, could this sort of circumstance be run if it was in the media–would it even come to pass? —-Could the committee breath a little bit and take umbrage upon greed and evil as the informative burden was now known and shared by more—public dissemination lightens the load and shares the burden–and this is exactly what is not happening, Media is about more truths not reaching the air, than putting truths before the air—it is censorship shrouded in excitement, rather than the pursuit of truth as it self-bills itself. Look at the pages of thought upon politics, government, and the few words on the subject of the press other than it must be free, which it is not, because it is promoting thoughtlessness, not thought, ignorance through censorship—these are not free acts at all, there is no capitalistic right to abuse the press, and less so to call it freedom; a free press lies in proving the current press is not free, and show how against the law it is in its selection and ignorance of important and historical facts; from Frank Hagues’ creation of N.J. to the 12 year old drinking age in France, to the local decisions in new England towns to make decisions in 236. Now there is no consortium of mortals making the press so low life—obviously a higher power does it, and this is not a positive construing of a higher power either, it is the notion of god we fear; another false manipulation by national media has been how God is good, there’s a loving god, which Jesus is but Jesus is just one religion of a thousand over the years, and many of them had more capricious down right evil gods they would sacrifice animals to so as not to get hurt. Those Christian theologians focusing on history around Jesus, are better served learning other religions of those times.

These people are beyond my threat, because the concept of good versus evil seems fairly wiped out. Wanting to clean up, disassociate, live humbly,, know the fake ===this is all missing here. This isn’t the upper-class, this is communism justifying itself through a higher power that is not good controlling the minds, who just represent the being as human, in some sacrifice for the misery of outer space. This isn’t good ole boy, it’s too stupid. This is firkin communism, born of pollen against peaceful assemblies leading to mayoral rule spread to a state not relating at all, and spurred by the amputation of the state by the federal in 1787.

And it is ironic how this architecture is surrounded by traditionally black neighborhoods. They know. They see the white light. That this is in judicial minutes is wonderful, but not enough of the same effect as if published in the media—The whispering winds against upheaval, caused by the very flutters that might blow them to the wind—they stir deliberative bodies to a paralyzed effect. We go from the ideal of citizenship, to a top down button up of deliberation, an immovable object against truth, millions writing,

This whole issue of what speaks for people must needs serious examined.

An ignorant society is likely to be a censored society. There is a sinful misrepresentation of religious service and spiritual representation on TV. Heck, there is a sinful corruption of the gospel by John and Paul. So writing has always been easy to corrupt for evil effect. You ever notice how no one smokes a joint on a sitcom? Or how great Mexico actually is? And how bars are confused with clubs? Our history books did not teach us about the transition of local government in N.J. from peaceful assembly, to local elect. Nor is possible to explain how New England Town Meetings, like Amherst Mass, with their famous quorums of 236, as if that’s not an alien phrase they don’t want you to know the information of power, why don’t they tackle an insensitive economy and oppressive education? Why can’t they just get together and say why don’t we discuss education and the economy, is there not something we can do to show community and become more realistic? Why haven’t we, what is the frickin problem? Oh, its because of the kingdom of god, well, that’s a serious concern, lets discuss it, it means we are not what we would more naturally be. This is a serious situation. Then someone else would have to frickin speak. The lack of these essential social conjectures, is consistent with a dominance of writing amounting to a censorship of what can manifest in the mind of the individual Writing, which claims to be most truthful and important, is not only the opposite, but where the oppression stems from in our sensitive metaphysic between the kingdom of god, heaven, and that universe we must effect compassion for.

It is not government, for then you would know where the seed comes from. Look at all the newscasters from fox, they are all the same, they can not exist as individuals beyond their secret fox news party. Can Glenn Beck make people rally behind him? I’m willing to bet no. What is rarely seen, is rarely seen for a reason.

But politicians can. Politicians can and do exist outside their party and understand their job as to rally their party around them, and be different from other politicians who rally the same party around them. Bill O’Reilly does not rally and galvanize. Oh there is a lot of hullabaloo, but really one can say of both the federal government and talk radio, just what really have you done? In that sense both talk radio and the democratic party nationally have been unsuccessful at ending Mexicans, and ending war, ending homosexuality and stopping foreclosures. In fact, talk radio doesn’t attack homosexuality, or should I say, try to help homosexuals, nor did any federally elected government official foreclose on his home, not one I believe. But then again, I don’t really even know any homeowners….everyone is on a farm or in an apartment off the street. There is a claim Anderson galvanizes and rallies his little spirit, without ever touching the mandatory fact that minorities must be bused in event they don’t have cars and a hurricane hits. New Orleans is not the gulf coast of Florida where everyone has a car. But does he really rally and galvanize? No, because non of them can be independent of their network. So unless their networks control the news, to their benefit, and this is without much interaction from the people, or correlation into the real concerns of real people. Look at them as politicians, then look at a real politician. You can see the difference.