How many subscriptions are quietly draining your bank account every month?
Netflix. Spotify. YouTube Premium. ChatGPT. Disney+. Before you know it, you're paying hundreds every year for services you use every day. See if you can cut those costs without giving them up. Find out here.
THE ADVOCATE OR JUDAS?
1.The word sometimes translated in the Bible as ‘advocate’ denoted a person who came and stood beside someone to help in a time of need. People today usually think of an advocate as one who pleads on behalf of another in a court of law, but only occasionally does the Bible use the word in this legal sense (e.g. 1 John 2:1 ).
2. 1 John 2:1-2 1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
3. Bible Dictionaries – Easton’s Bible Dictionary – Advocate
Advocate [N] [B] [S]
(Gr. parakletos), one who pleads another’s cause, who helps another by defending or comforting him. It is a name given by Christ three times to the Holy Ghost ( John 14:16 ; 15:26 ; 16:7 , where the Greek word is rendered “Comforter,” q.v.). It is applied to Christ in 1 John 2:1 , where the same Greek word is rendered “Advocate,” the rendering which it should have in all the places where it occurs. Tertullus “the orator” ( Acts 24:1 ) was a Roman advocate whom the Jews employed to accuse Paul before Felix.
It is possible Judge Michael Luttig could be seen as an advocate in the legal sense. He is not the Holy Spirit but is it possible; what he spoke as information for the evil image was actually helping in the will of the people. But since he is a conservative judge, he could also be seen as a Judas.
In these committee hearings what has become apparent is they are going for the third bite at the apple. They were irresponsible in the two fraud impeachment trials to prevent the president from being in or winning the next election in 2020 in this history.
They did not want to let the will of the people through a fair election process determine the president of their choice. This led to some things that they did that need to be investigated and what they have done with a need to cover that up. This illegitimate trial they are doing is the next effort in depriving a citizen pursing the presidency as provided by the constitution and depriving the citizens their choice.
This is the reason they launched two impeachments as an attack on the American people and now this January 6th committee to cover up what they have done to the country the last four years. This is the third attack by the False Prophet on the American people through her disciples in the committee.
This in fact is what the Judge is saying when he refers to the clear and present danger of the trump allies and supporters. This is a reference to the committee and the house of representatives in how they see the country or at least more than half the country that voted for Trump. How can citizens be a clear and present danger for wanting the truth on the electors in 7 states. Any illegal vote is one too many.
At work our boss did zero tolerance. I engineered a way to make that happen and nobody liked it even the boss. But once they got used to it as a way to work, they found it beneficial. It was simple. I created a system of accountability for their work at every stage of its development. I heard screaming for changing their world. Then one day when our lead person went to the real world of working people, he came back and said this is the way you have to work in a professional environment. It helped him succeed.
This committee has been nonstop, and they want to lose it all because their base wants them to climb in the ditch to find the truth which does not exist. For this reason, they have and continue to deny due process and not have the other side on the committee. They have just put in some tokens who do not represent the other side. This is the tyranny the Framers were trying to avoid in their time because they understood this.
I have included the constitution for those that have not read it or know it. In some respects, there is very little the constitution says about what they are and have been doing for 4 years and it would be difficult to put into an understanding of law. Other than to say with law theory you need two sides, to look for a truth with or without the evidence. If there is only one side, then there is no truth regardless of the evidence.
They are doing exactly what the FBI did in their investigation without a predicate and based on a false dossier they misused and brought the law in to question including the FISA judges.
With inflation, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Taiwan, Russia and energy costs and green world they cannot pay for, and the mask mandate, forced vaccination, paying people not to work, shut down of an economy, increase in taxes, they seem to be able to maintain focus on their biggest fear the will of the people to choose Donald J. Trump and his allies. Which they will tell you he is the big lie and a clear and present danger.
Today’s hearing is or was hilarious. It would seem that this poor young woman is telling us the President was trying to break free and drive the car himself to the OTR and lead his people and he was not afraid of his people. That would make sense when you have someone that really cares about his people. I could not stop laughing when I heard he threw his meal against the wall, and she had to wipe it up.
I would note, what is surprising about this 25-year-old young women is during her deposition with the committee at least three times she started to laugh during their filming.
This does not square with when she said she was afraid that day. Maybe she was laughing at this committee for eating this up like a bunch of seagulls at the beach. It did me to hear what she said about the Pres. What she said about Mark Meadows just sitting there with his phone and not responding is what everyone in today’s world does. It was like he was zoned out. Not quite like being in a stupor over his phone. While according to her the Capitol was falling down. I bet Putin is licking his chops about this in his plans to invade America with this kind of intel.
I am sure Bill Barr would not think that part of his job description. I mean to help the Pres. drive the car and lead his people. I would suppose someone would have to hold the flag in that operation. I too did not think they were doing anything wrong from what I saw. Even if they were in trees just get a stick and knock them down. If Nancy and the committee want to play dignified, then what about all the burning and looting the year before. Was that dignified. Or when Nancy was recently straight arming that little girl over a photo. Not really dignified for an 80-yearold bitty.
The only gun fire that day was that police officer that shot through the window, and you can see the police next to the women that got killed were not afraid of the gunfire because those suckers were expecting it and no one went to help Ashley Babbitt the whole time I be watching the video.
I think Pelosi knew some crazy people were coming to the capitol and did not arrange for security to take advantage of the election vote count. She was responsible for the capitol security that day. Pelosi always playing the moves.
THE CONSTITUTION
What are the components of the constitution. They are the executive, the legislative, the judicial and the
will of the people. There are four and the will of the people were needed to become a citizen in being
admitted in this system of governance. This would be the balance of power in the rule of law
and not the rule of man.
What is the meaning of the rule of law and its oath?
As intended by the constitution theory of governance.
THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION
by Edwin Meese III
Honorary Chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board
Part of the reason for the Constitution enduring strength is that it is the complement of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration provided the philosophical basis for a government that exercises legitimate power by the” consent of the governed,” and it defined the conditions of a free people, whose rights and liberty are derived from their Creator. The Constitution delineated the structure of government and the rues for its operation, consistent with the creed of human liberty proclaimed in the Declaration.
We shall treat our Constitution, not as a mere compact or league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to be) as a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people of the United States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is altered, amended, or abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out in the instrument itself.
By diffusion of power— horizontally among the three separate branches of the federal government and vertically in the allocation of power between the central government and the states—- the Constitution’s Framers devised a structure of government strong enough to ensure the nation’s future strength and prosperity but without sufficient power to threaten the livery of the people.
Several important themes permeated the completed draft of the Constitution. The first, reflecting the mandate of the Declaration of Independence was the recognition that the ultimate authority of a legitimate government depends on the consent of a free people. Thomas Jefferson had set forth the basic principle in his famous formulation: Rights, that these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That “all men are created equal” means that they are equally endowed with the unalienable rights. Nature does not single out who is to govern and who is to be governed; there is no divine right of kings. Nor are rights a legal privilege or the benevolence of some ruling class. Fundamental rights exist by nature, prior to government and conventional laws. It is because these individual rights are left unsecured that governments are instituted among men.
Consent is the means by which equality is made politically operable and whereby arbitrary power is thwarted. The natural standard for judging if a government is legitimate is where that government rests on the consent of the governed. Any political powers not derived from the consent of the governed are, by the laws of nature, illegitimate and hence unjust.
The “consent of the governed” stands in contrast to the “will of the majority,” a view more current in European democracies. The consent of the governed describes a situation in which the people are self-governing in their communities, religions, and social institutions and into which limited government a vast social space in which men and women, in their individual and corporate idea that all decisions are ultimately political and are routed through the government. Thus, limited government is not just a desirable objective; it is the essential bedrock, of the American polity.
A second fundamental element of the Constitution is concept of checks and balances.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men and over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. Experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
These “auxiliary precautions” constitute the improved science of politics offered by the Framers and form the basis of their “republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.”
The diseases most incident to republican government” were basically two; democratic tyranny and democratic ineptitude. The first was the problem of the majority faction, the abuse of minority and individual rights by an “interested and overbearing” majority. The second was the problem of making a democratic form of government efficient and effective.
The goal was limited but energetic government. The constitutional object was, as the late constitutional scholar Herbert Storing said, “a design of government with the powers to act and a structure to make it act wisely and responsibly.”
Central to their institutional scheme was the principle of separation of powers. As Madison bluntly put it in the Federalist No. 47, the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of powers should be separate and distinct,” for as he also wrote,
The accumulation of all powered, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
Madison described in the Federalist NO, 51 how structure and human nature could be marshaled to protect liberty:
The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.
Thus, the separation of powers frustrates designs for power and at the same time creates an incentive to collaborate and cooperate, listening conflict and concretizing a practical community of interest among political leaders. Equally important to the constitutional design was the concept of federalism.
The institutional design was to divide sovereignty between two different levels of political entities the nation and the states. This would prevent unhealthy concentration of power in a single government. It would provide a “double security….to the rights of people.” Federalism along with the separation of powers, the Framers thought would be the be the basic principled matrix of constitutional liberty. “The different governments,” Madison concluded, “will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”
The Constitution is our most fundamental law. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land.” Its translation into the legal rules under which we live occurs through the actions of all government entities, federal and state, what we know as “constitutional law” is the creation not only of the decisions of the Supreme Court, but also of the various congresses and of the president.
But as the constitutional historian Charles Warren once noted, what is most important to remember is that “however the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution which is the law, not the decisions of the Court.”
This recognition of the distinction between constitutional law and the Constitution itself produces the conclusion that constitutional decisions, including those of the Supreme Court, need not be seen as the last words in constitutional construction. A correlative point is that constitutional interpretation is not the business of courts alone but is also, and properly, the business of all branches of government. Each of the three coordinate branches of government created and empowered by the Constitution—the executive and legislative no less than the judicial—has the duty to interpret the Constitution in the performance of its official functions. In fact, every official takes a solemn oath precisely to that effect.
The Constitution—- the original documents of 1787 plus its amendments—-is and must be understood to be the standard against which all laws, policies, and deliberate will of the people, against which the actions of government officials must be squared. In the end, the continued success and vitality of our democratic republic depends on our fidelity to, and the faithful exposition and interpretation of the Constitution, our great charter of liberty.
INTRODUCTION INTO THE CONSTITUTION
by Matthew Spalding
The Constitution begins with a preamble, or introductory clause, asserting the authority—-“We the People” —-that establishes the document and “ordains” or orders it into effect. This is very different from the Articles of Confederation in understanding of the constitutional sovereignty underlying the documents. The Preamble then proclaims the ends or purposes for which the Constitution is formed.
After the Preamble, the rest of the Constitution—-being a practical document to create a framework of law—-describes the powers, procedures, and institutions of government. The Constitution is divided into seven parts, or articles, each dealing with a general subject. Each article is further divided into sections and clause. The first three articles create three distinct branches of government: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. These three branches correspond to the three primary functions of governing: to make laws, to execute and enforce the laws, and to uphold (judge or judicate) the rule of those laws by applying them to particular cases.
The Constitution creates three branches of equal rank in relation to each other. No branch is higher or lower than any other, and no branch controls the others: each has independent authority and unique power.
The order—-legislature, executive, judiciary—-is important, however, moving from the most to the least “democratic” (that is, from the most to the least directly chosen by the people). The Constitution lodges the basic power of government in the legislature not only because it is the branch most directly representative of popular opinion, but also because the very essence of governing according to the rule of law is centered on the legitimate authority to make laws.
The Constitution creates a government of delegated and enumerated powers. Despite the popular term “states’ rights,” no government (federal, state, county, or local) actually possesses any rights at all.
Recall from the Declaration of Independence that persons are endowed with unalienable rights. Governments possess only powers, which in legitimate governments are derived from the consent of the governed.
In particular, governments have only those powers that are given (or delegated) to them by the people. The concept of enumerated (or listed) powers follows from the concept of delegated powers, as the functional purpose of a constitution is to write down and assign the powers granted to government. The delegation of powers to government and a written agreement as to the extent (and limits) of those powers are critical elements of lenited constitutional government.
The status of the states within the constitutional system is defined in Article IV, which requires that every state give its “Full Faith and Credit” to the laws and decisions of every other state and that citizens of each state enjoy all privileges and immunities of citizenship in every other state—-an both of which are conducive to establishing the rule of law. It also provides for the admission of new states to the union as states, not colonies, on an equal footing with the original thirteen—-an exceedingly important distinction responsible for America’s successful growth as a nation of states rather than as a colonial empire. Finally, Article IV stipulates that the United States will guarantee to each state a republican form of government and protect the states from invasion and, upon request, domestic violence.
Article V provides a process for amending the Constitution. Here we see the American Concept that the Constitution is fundamental law that can be changed, thus allowing for constitutional reform and adaptation, but only by a popular decision-making process and not by ordinary legislation or judicial decree. Neither an exclusively federal nor an exclusively state action, the amendment process is a shared responsibility of both Congress and the states representing the American people.
Article VI ensures that America’s legal system—-especially the federal and state courts—is centered on the United States Constitution. It begins by recognizing the debts that existed prior to the Constitution, which is to say it recognizes that the United States existed before the United States Constitution. More important, makes the Constitution and the laws and the treaties made pursuant to it the “supreme Law of the Land.” Finally, Article VI bans religious tests for office and instead binds all federal and state office holders, by oath to the Constitution.
Article VII requires the Constitution to be ratified by the state conventions rather than state legislatures, again pointing to the document’s legitimacy in the sovereignty of the people acting in their state capacity. It also dates the Constitution in the “Year of our Lord “1787 and “of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth,” thereby locating the document in time according to the religious traditions of “Western civilization and the birth of the United States as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
Auxiliary precautions
In addition to the formal provisions of the document, there are three important but unstated mechanisms at work in the Constitution: the extended republic, the separation of powers, and federalism. These auxiliary precautions by the founder form the basis what they called in The Federalist No.10 “a republican remedy for the diseases most incident in republican government.
The effect of representation—of individual citizens being represented in the in the government rather than in the direct participatory democracy—is to refine and moderate public opinion through a deliberative process. Extending the Republic, literally increasing the size of the nation, would take in a greater number and variety of opinions, making it harder for a majority to form on narrow interest’s contrary to the common good. The Founders also knew, as Madison explained in The Federalist No. 48, that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
And although national powers were clearly enhanced by the Constitution, the federal government was to exercise only delegated powers, the remainder being reserved to the states or the people. While they harbored no doctrinaire aversion to government as such, the Framers remained distrustful of government in general and of a centralized federal government in particular. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined,” Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 45. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” In the same way that the separation of powers works within the federal and state constitutions, federalism is the basic operational structure of American constitutional government as a whole and provides the process by which the two levels of government check each other.
A Bill of Rights
There had been some discussion at the Constitutional Convention of a bill of rights, but the proposal was rejected on the grounds that there was no need for a bill of rights in federal constitution of limited powers (unlike the state constitutions of extensive reserved powers) and that enumerating rights would imply powers not delegated.
The First Amendment guarantees substantive political rights involving religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, recognizing certain areas that are to be free from federal government interference. Likewise, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The next six amendments deal with more procedural political rights, mostly restraints on criminal procedure that regulate exercise of government’s law enforcement power so that it is not arbitrary or excessive.
The Bill of Rights also includes important property protections/ The Second Amendment prohibits confiscation of arms, and the Third Amendment prohibits the lodging of troops in any home. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, papers, and effects, and the Eight Amendment prohibits excessive bail and fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment, an additional protection of property in one’s person. Most significantly of course, the Fifth Amendment says that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendment briefly encapsulate the twofold theory of the Constitution and address the confusion that may arise in misleading the other amendments to imply unlimited federal powers. The purpose of the constitution is to protect rights that stem not from the government but from our human nature and thus belong to the people themselves, and to limit the powers of the national government to those delegated to it by the people through the constitution.
The election of 1800 which was deduced by the House of Representatives because of a tied electoral vote, led to the enactment of the 12th amendment (1804), which provided for the separate balloting of the president and vice president.
A NOTE ON THE ORIGINALIST PERSPECTIVE
by David F. forte
Written constitutionalism implies that those who make ( legislature), adjudicate (the courts), and enforce ( the executive) the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the United States Constitution—-the “supreme Law of the Land”—–as it was understood by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and its amendments. “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited: and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”
In its stead grew a theory of the Constitution as a “living document” with no fixed meaning, subject to changing interpretations according to the “spirit of the times,”
or more particularly, by the views of the judges who decide the cases. That looser standard came to dominate constitutional interpretation particularly during the second half of the twentieth century.
Confronting the theory of the “living Constitution.” A number of scholars began disputing the grounding of much of the modern Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, particularly in the areas of religion, criminal procedure, and abortion. In 1985, Attorney General Edwin Meese III delivered a series of speeches challenging the then dominant view of constitutional jurisprudence. He called for judges to embrace a “jurisprudence of original intention.” While scholars were researching into the original understanding of particular clauses of the Constitution, the debate over originalism as a theory of interpretation grew apace. Originalism in the literature today is in fact the major interpretive theory with which all sides contend. As noted, some originalist responded to their critics by developing what has been termed the “New Originalism” or the “Doctrine of Original Public Meaning.”
Originalism is championed for a number of fundamental reasons. Frist, it comports the nature of a constitution, which binds and limits any particular generation from ruling to the passions of the times. The Framers of the Constitution of 1787 knew what they were about, forming a frame of government for “ourselves and our Posterity.”
Second Originalism supports legitimate popular government that is accountable. The Framers believed that a form of government accountable to the people, leaving the people fundamentally in charge of their own destinies.
Third Originalism accords with the constitutional purpose of limiting government. It understands the several parts of the federal government to be creatures of the Constitution and to have no legitimate existence outside of the Constitution. The authority of the entities extends no further than what was devolved upon them by the Constitution. The constitution is fixed, and as the supreme legislature derives is Power and Authority from the Constitution, it cannot overleap the Bounds of it without destroying its own foundation.
Fourth, it follows that originalism limits the judiciary.
Why does it otherwise direct the judges to take an oath to support it?
Fifth, supported by recent research, originalism comports with the understanding of what our Constitution was to be by the people who formed and ratified that document.
Sixth, originalism properly pursued, is not result-oriented, whereas non originalist writing is patently so.
Originalism does not remove controversy or disagreement, but it does cabin it within a principled constitutional tradition that makes real the Rule of Law. Without that, we are destined as Aristotle warned long ago, to fall into the “rule of men.”
CITATIONS
The Heritage Guide to The Constitution
I. Spalding, Matthew, editor. II, Forte, David F., editor. III. Heritage Foundation (Washington D.C.) IV. Title: Guide to the Constitution.
Foreword by Edwin Meese III Honorary Chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board
1. Edwin Meese page 1-6
2. Matthew Spalding page 7-15
3. David F. Forte page 21-26
Published in the United States by Regnery Publishing, 2014
Thursday, 6/16/2022 10:16:14 PM
THE ADVOCATE OR JUDAS?
1.The word sometimes translated in the Bible as ‘advocate’ denoted a person who came and stood beside someone to help in a time of need. People today usually think of an advocate as one who pleads on behalf of another in a court of law, but only occasionally does the Bible use the word in this legal sense (e.g. 1 John 2:1 ).
2. 1 John 2:1-2 1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
3. Bible Dictionaries – Easton’s Bible Dictionary – Advocate
Advocate [N] [B] [S]
(Gr. parakletos), one who pleads another’s cause, who helps another by defending or comforting him. It is a name given by Christ three times to the Holy Ghost ( John 14:16 ; 15:26 ; 16:7 , where the Greek word is rendered “Comforter,” q.v.). It is applied to Christ in 1 John 2:1 , where the same Greek word is rendered “Advocate,” the rendering which it should have in all the places where it occurs. Tertullus “the orator” ( Acts 24:1 ) was a Roman advocate whom the Jews employed to accuse Paul before Felix.
It is possible Judge Michael Luttig could be seen as an advocate in the legal sense. He is not the Holy Spirit but is it possible; what he spoke as information for the evil image was actually helping in the will of the people. But since he is a conservative judge, he could also be seen as a Judas.
Flashback: Hermit of Loreto’s 1985 Premonition: President
Donald Trump Will Lead America Back to God (VIDEO)
THE PREMISE: A NEW THEORY OF CONSPIRACY
The crisis of the constitution is simple. There are four branches. The guardians are the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. The oath of office is to uphold the constitution. The fourth branch is the broken will.
The law of the land would be the federal. The states would join the law of the land. The people through the states would be the guarded by the law of the land through the states.
In this way the many would keep the one accountable to the law of the land. The 3-component system of power in the federal would be accountable to the one. The one represented in the city of the guardians would be the executive.
The legislature would be the representation of the many. The will of the many would be manifest in the one. While they are different, they are the same in principle. The legislature would be the representation of the many as a separate power from the one of the many.
The judges were to uphold the constitution. The key to understanding this is the 3 bodies of government were to be the constitution and they could not have a separate existence. It would be a way of keeping check at every level to represent the will of the people as the embodiment of the constitution.
This meant that the house and the senate could not think for themselves but and only for the people they represented or were supposed to represent. The executive was the sole power of the people above the legislature to ensure domestic tranquility.
To ensure domestic tranquility the executive was given the power of the military and or the commander in chief and the military was to uphold the constitution for the land and all the people.
One man or person does not make a good enemy of the people unless of course he is destructing the country through domestic and foreign policy. The chance of poor leadership that breaks the country and leaves nothing left to destruct would only prevail for four years.
Unless of course you have a legislature in the house and senate that would act as a separate existence from the constitution and declare tyranny and attack the American people then the commander in chief could declare martial law. It would be a safety valve for a true leader and wise king, but the law of the land ensures that tenure is only four hears. Therefore, a not real king unless it was by wisdom. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
But the legislature today has a tenure until they have more than lined their pockets with the Dark Graveyard Reality illusions. This in theory is against the existence of the constitution they were supposed to be through their oath to the constitution. Power in the vortex of the mind corrupts absolutely.
OLDES BUT GOODIES TIME: A FLASH BACK TO THE PAST.
The judges were a representation of biblical figurehead.
The legislative were to be a representation of the many of one.
The executive was to be the only place true chance could take place.
There is where is the one from the many would be win or lose.
Martial law would be to ensure that win or lose would prevail in the one.
This is the reason why today we see the House of Representatives declared
war on the many because of the one. This was to be the greatest test of the U.S. constitution, if it ever got to that point.
This is why who ever that guy was said give me liberty or give death. He well understood that in the wrong hands power would become absolute and turn to destruction and that is where we are today with the false prophet and the antichrist.
Nancy is in here 80’s and well past the age of reasoned thought and she is like Eve and has run amock with her free will and claim to power from the Tree of knowledge and she has many disciples from all those years in the swamp. Also, AOC here protégé always looks to me that her forehead looks like that of the zika mosquito. Yessierey, its baba, louey time.
Mike Pence was supposed to be the one to uphold the constitution and he betrayed all the people and listened to the Washington swamp and chicken shits from Chicago. When you have 7 states that were not certified then you do not have a free and fair election.
The preceding events by the house and senate was proof of that in the two impeachment trials with no case. They lost sight of the constitution they were supposed to be and acted on their own behalf. They were not acting on my behalf. They should have let and been the constitution they took an oath to uphold through a fair and free election. Instead, they tried to get rid of an elected president by the will of the people and then tried to keep him from future elections. That is the war of insurgency by the house and senate against the constitution. That is not civil war it is anarchy, treason, tyranny, through insurgency.
This is why I think Judge Michael Luttig was delivering the message to the world, what this war by the legislature is about. This is some of what he said.
Statement of
J. Michael Luttig
before
The United States House Select Committee
on the January 6, 2021, Attack on the United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
June 16, 2022
_____________________________
Honorable Members of the House Select Committee — A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife’s edge. America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other — over our democracy. January 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, January 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for America’s democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day. A peaceful end to these wars is desperately needed. The war for our democracy could lead to the peaceful end to the war for America’s cultural heart and soul. But if a peaceful end to the war for America’s democracy is not achievable, there is little chance for a peaceful end to that war. The settlement of this war over our democracy is necessary to the settlement of any war that will ever come to America, whether from her shores or to her shores. Though disinclined for the moment, as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.
Like our war from a distant time, these twin wars are “testing whether th[is] nation or any nation . . . so conceived in Liberty . . . can long endure.” We must hope that January 6 was the final battle of at least the deadly war for America’s democracy.
1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
These senseless wars are of our own making, and they are now being waged throughout the land, in our city centers and town squares, in our streets and in our schools, where we work and where we play, in our houses of worship — even within our own families. These wars were conceived and instigated from our Nation’s Capital by our own political leaders collectively and they have been cynically prosecuted by them to fever pitch, now to the point that they have recklessly put America herself at stake. America is now the stake in these unholy wars. Serious thinkers about the American experiment who are not given to apocalyptic prophesying question whether America is on the verge of a literal civil war. But is even this figurative civil war to be our generation’s legacy to posterity? These wars that we are waging against each other are immoral wars, not moral ones, being immorally waged over morality itself. We Americans no longer agree on what is right or wrong, what is to be valued and what is not, what is acceptable behavior and not, and what is and is not tolerable discourse in civilized society. Let alone do we agree on how we want to be governed or by whom, or where we go from here and with what shared national ideals, values, beliefs, purposes, goals, and objectives — if any at all. America is adrift. We pray that it is only for this fleeting moment that she has lost her way, until we Americans can once again come to our senses.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The war on democracy instigated by the former president and his political party allies on January 6 was the natural and foreseeable culmination of the war for America. It was the final fateful day for the execution of a well-developed plan by the former president to overturn the 2020 presidential election at any cost, so that he could cling to power that the American People had decided to confer upon his successor, the next president of the United States instead. Knowing full well that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, the former president and his allies and supporters falsely claimed and proclaimed to the nation that he had won the election, and then he and they set about to overturn the election that he and they knew the former president had lost.
2
The treacherous plan was no less ambitious than to steal America’s democracy.
Called to Washington D.C. that day by the president, the president himself, and the president’s followers, supporters, and allies gathered near The White House for a “Stop the Steal” rally. The president maintained at that rally that the 2020 presidential election had been “fraudulently stolen” from him. The president addressed his faithful followers thus: “We’re going to the Capitol. . . . We’re going to try and give them [the Republicans in the Congress, presumably] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. . . . We will never give up. We will never concede.”
Inflamed, the gathered mob marched up the hill from The White House to the United States Capitol to protest, disrupt and prevent the counting of the electoral votes for the presidency, which the president falsely charged were wrongly about to be counted by the Congress in his political opponent’s winning favor and in his own losing favor. Once staged at the Capitol, the mob soon erected gallows on the United States Capitol grounds, chanting that Vice President Mike Pence should be hanged. Hanged, the mob chanted, for “cowardly” refusing the president’s lawless entreaties that his Vice President declare their president reelected, against the will of the American People, though he had lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote for the presidency.
There were many cowards on the battlefield on January 6. The Vice President was not among them.
Soon thereafter, the rioters stormed the Capitol itself, breaching, occupying, and ransacking the temple of our democracy for seemingly endless wrenching hours — at the precise democratic moment when the Congress of the United States convened in Joint Session to begin the constitutional counting of the votes for the presidency of the United States.
Not until over three hours after the riot had begun, and then only after the siege had achieved what by that time was its truncated objective to interrupt and indefinitely delay the counting of the vote, did the president finally yield to the pleas and prayers from his own family, friends, and political allies, and grudgingly ask his supporters in a hastily forced video tweet to disperse and return to their homes.
3
The Nation wept during the evening of January 6, as the Capitol police began to clear and resecure the Capitol at day’s end. Finally, at 8:00 p.m. on January 6, seven hours after the siege on the Capitol had begun, Vice President Pence gaveled the Joint Session back into order with measured, understated resolve: “Today was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol. . . . Let’s get back to work.”
January 6 was a dark day in the history of the United States, too.
It was not until the next day, January 7, 2021, at 3:42 a.m. in the morning — almost fifteen hours after the Joint Session had first been gaveled into session by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — that the Vice President finally declared that Joe Biden had been elected the 46th President of the United States. On January 6, 2021, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not to be a peaceful transfer of power — for the first time in the history of our Republic.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Over a year and a half later, in continued defiance of our democracy, both the former president and his political party allies still maintain that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him, despite all evidence — all evidence now –that that is simply false. All the while, this false and reckless insistence that the former president won the 2020 presidential election has laid waste to Americans’ confidence in their national elections. More alarming still is that the former president pledges that his reelection will not be “stolen” from him next time around, and his Republican Party allies and supporters obeisantly pledge the same.
False claims that our elections have been stolen from us corrupt our democracy, as they corrupt us. To continue to insist and persist in the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen is itself an affront to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States — an affront without precedent.
America can withstand attacks on her democracy from without. She is helpless to withstand them from within. The relentless assaults on America and its democracy from within, such as January 6, which designedly call into question the very legitimacy of the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy, are simply not contemplated by the Constitution of the United States and are therefore not provided for by that Great Charter for our governance.
America is not in constitutional crisis until and unless the Constitution and the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy are under withering, unsustainable, and unendurable attack from within. Then, and only then, is the constitutional order in hopeless constitutional disorder. Only then is America in peril.
8
This is what he closed with, and this is what he said that makes him a Judas or an Advocate. What he does not say is what caused this. He gives us a narrative in the most general sense. Or does he?
Closing the hearing, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the Democratic committee chair, asked Luttig to say what he meant by calling Trump and his supporters a clear and present danger.
Luttig said: “Almost two years after that fateful day … Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.”
“That’s not because of what happened on January 6. It is because to this very day the former president and his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican party presidential candidate were to lose that election, they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.
According to the Washington Post, more than 100 Republicans who have won primaries for midterm elections this year back Trump’s lie about electoral fraud in 2020. Such candidates have targeted key state elections posts as well as governors’ mansions and seats in Congress.
Trump was impeached over the Capitol attack but acquitted of inciting an insurrection when only seven of 50 Republican senators found him guilty. He has strongly suggested he will run again.
Luttig said: “I don’t speak those words lightly. I would have never spoken those words ever in my life. Except that’s what the former president and his allies are telling us … the former president and his allies are executing that blueprint for 2024 in the open, in plain view of the American public.”
“I repeat, I would have never uttered one single one of those words unless the former president and his allies were candidly and proudly speaking those exact words to America.”
THE ARGUMENT:
THE BROKEN WILL
In the broken will, the people are to become the constitution and there only two ways their will can be broken. Keep in mind they are the fourth branch of the constitution.
1. Election day
2. Impeachment
The Power to break the will of the people was given to the house specifically the speaker of the house. This is why Nancy Pelosi told the president do not underestimate my power. Why did she say that?
The speaker of the house becomes President on Election Day if some unknown event prevents a fair and timely election.
The speaker of the house also has the power of the purse.
The speaker of the house can remove an elected president by starting the process.
The power to break the will of the constitution was given to the speaker of the house.
This was either by design or mistake. How could the creators of the constitution create a document to balance power and have a way for it to undue itself. Why would they do that.
Either they understood or did not understand where tyranny would come from. For this reason, they gave the house its power of impeachment and for that reason they gave the executive the power of the military or martial law.
If the power of the many became tyrannical then the power of the one could execute the law through the military to preserve, protect, and defend the rule of law aka constitution and not the rule of man and his blind ambition. The judges were more like the three stooges just as spectators in case they needed anything to do. It would be the military tribunal to enforce treason against the constitution. If you are an enemy of the constitution and by that nature commit acts that are an attack on the rule of law.
Fraud is one such attack. False impeachment to undue and elected president by the will of the people is another. Un fair elections. Abuse of power in preventing an American citizen from office. Denying due process or the 14th amendment. Failing to protect the Capitol by refusing 20,000 troops on January 6th. Waste of tax dollars in committee investigations that are false, without evidence and using the legislative branch of government for elections and not doing the people’s work. Three false bites at the apple is the evidence and proof of what they have done and continue to do.
1.Form is the constitution and the will of the people.
2. Content is the broken will of the body and the constitution.
The content allows for the will to be broken and if power became absolute then it could self-terminate. This allows for the military through martial law to remove a broken will and when an oath goes against the body of the constitution. This is the unheard-of theory.
It would have to be the will of the people to call the military to action through the Executive as their commander in chief. This would be all out war by the enemy when everyone would become the enemy to the broken will of all the people.
What they did not expect is for the will of the people to understand this, they just expected them to live this will and thus be the constitution. We are now in Castle Rock.
When you play with people’s emotions, they will begin to start to think about how they feel and why. To play with the will of the people is to be against the constitution and your oath of office. That has to be in the constitution somewhere if they were that smart.
Mike Pence betrayed his oath to office when he did not call for verification of the 7 states that were not verified. He became the agent of destruction to the will of the people he was elected to represent in the highest position of power he was given by them through the constitution.
THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT WORK AS IT SHOULD HAVE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND IT WAS NOT WORKING FOR THE PAST TWO IMPEAHCMENTS.
This is why Pelosi did not have the 20,000 troops there on January 6th. She was hoping to become president until the new president would be elected by the Senate. She was rolling the dice since the senate just had two impeachments and they would now by in the majority and position for her and her party to do that. That is motive opportunity and intent.
Castle Rock is about who plays the last move. When you are not the constitution the people will play the last move. This is why she has this committee, and you never see her. The number 7 is for the states not verified and the 2 republicans represent the former president and the vice president. Symbolism is what a terrorist uses as part of their operations. This is Castle Rock with Pelosi and all conspirators with her.
MORE OLDES BUT GOODIES TIME: A FLASH BACK TO THE PAST.
Monday, 1/25/2021 2:08:26 PM
I forget what they call that chess move when you draw them in.
The name of the move that draws them in is called Castle Rock and it is Game Theory. Here is a 5-minute video that does a nice explanation of how it works. It is simple; a game has a finite number of moves and you will finally get to the last move. The video does a much better job of explaining it. It is a public intelligence blog. I hope it will at least fill your mind with light that has nothing to do with the side you are on, it has to do with what they forgot. This is what I have been complaining about for some time. Words I have used are corruption, subversion,
personal gain, deception, fraud, greed and I should stop because to let your emotions rule your thinking is where they win. Our emotions tell us how we feel, and our intellect should help us know how to think about how we feel. If this is not the way it is working for you, then finding a friend that will help bring clarity and move the clouds of fear, confusion, darkness and blindness, should be on your list of things to do but carefully. That is better served with calm, patience, faith, hope, and peace. I am so good, so true. Relax and breath.
Video (5:34) Game Theory Castle Rock – Juan O. Savin (P) -You Are Watching A Movie – Public Intelligence Blog (phibetaiota.net)
This is what I think about Castle Rock.
Saturday, 1/30/2021 9:30:29 AM
Mr. Nathan,
Subject: Memory,
Here is an excerpt from Observing systems on statistical learning theory and memory for you.
Page 170, 171:
Although the sketch on probabilities dealt exclusively with urns, balls, and draws, students of statistical learning theory will have recognized in Eqs. (39), (41), and (42) the basic axioms of this theory [Estes, 1959; Eqs. (5), (6), and (9)], and there is today no doubt that under the given experimental condition animals will indeed trace out the learning curves derived for these conditions.
Since the formalism that applies to the behavior of these experimental animals applies as well to our urn, the question now arises: can we say an urn learns? If the answer is “yes,” then apparently there is no need for memory in learning, for there is no trace of black balls left in our urn when it finally “responds” correctly with white balls when “stimulated” by each draw;
if the answer is “no” then by analogy we must conclude it is not learning that is observed in these animal experiments.
To escape this dilemma, it is only necessary to recall that an urn is just an urn and it is animals that learn. Indeed, in these experiments learning takes place on two levels. First, the experimental animals learned to behave “urnlike,” or better, to behave in a way which allow the experimenter to apply urnlike criteria. Second, the experimenter learned something about animals by turning them from nontrivial (Probabilistic) machines into trivial (deterministic) machines. Hence it is from the experimenter we get clues for memory and learning.
CITATION
Heinz Von Forester, Observing Systems
Series editors Bela H. Banathy, George Klir,
With Introduction by Francesco J. Varela
1. Heinz Von Forester page 170-171
ISBN 0-914105-19-1
Printed in the United States of American
by InterSystems Publications 1984
Saturday, 1/30/2021 7:32:26 AM
Prophecy and Prediction?
Though I walk through the shadow valley of the great abyss. I repeat the echo when he told me this.
What is the difference between prophecy and prediction?
Prophecy is outside the world and prediction is in the world.
That is the only difference in stating the future of know or unknown events.
Prophecy is a future that does not exist and will come to pass through time in the world.
Prediction is a future stated, or not; that is in a known relation of laws in or with cause and effect by expected outcomes which is different than probability.
Probability is an object that can learn without memory.
In order to know we have to be able to learn and that requires memory. Which indicates a state of choice in the mind that states; I know.
Fools call it 1+1 and that is how an object learns and knows what to do without memory.
But they both have “signs” that we can follow that will put us on target. The other difference is prophecy because it comes from outside the world will be delivered and prediction can possibly fail if links on a timeline are not achieved.
Therefore, the math of reality and the sunlight is the confusion of the math of Plato. He wanted to us to believe that his math would lead us to God. It only tells us about the matter of his creation but nothing about the creation. This is something the false prophet never learns.
This is not covered in castle rock.
The last move is no move because it cannot be played.
But is the last move for two or one?
I will go to sleep now.
By Jr.
The Holy Spirit is the only true advocate, then the judge must be Judas.
THE LAST WORD
In the clear and present danger is how Luttig and the committee see Trump allies and supporters and that be us. We are what this war is about. They have done much that goes beyond words. I will present a theory for you.
1. The Theory
What is the enemy as in Foreign and Domestic?
2. The Premise
By the oath of public officers they are to be the constitution and not just be elected to office.
3. The Argument
Castle Rock is the last move in game theory. The midterms and most probably the 2024 election.
What is the meaning of rule of law and its oath as intended by the constitution theory of government. In the constitution what are the components in balance of power in the rule of law and not the rule of men.
If we can find our first innocence from creation by the garden. Then we have found the innocence of Christ.
This our dual journey of the soul. To find that first innocence with God.
Judge Luttig said the hour is late. I say the hour has come and gone and
yes, God is watching. Just look at the past events this past week.
The unholy war the judge was referring to; was the war Pelosi declared on the one that came from the many and the war the many that came from the one.
These are two different wars with the same purpose.
Pelosi now walks in the abyss of Dark Castle Rock and her kingdom with joke death and her many disciples is what is unholy about and in this war.
As Archbishop Vigano said adherents of the church of Satan, who consider abortion as one of their “rites” of worship; those who harvest and sell human fetuses from the death clinics; those who sell “vaccines” produced by human fetuses; and those who support the pandemic farce and their grotesque train of “experts,” all of whom agree that their cultural hegemony is now threatened, a hegemony that since 1973 has caused the death of 63 million children in the United States, who have been offered in human sacrifice to the Moloch of political correctness.”
Now Cheney and Adam join the church of Satan.
What judge luttig does not understand is God does not need any rights to be given to him. He is watching and the hour has come and gone. This is why we must always follow the book of God first before the book of man. That is for the most faithful to do. For those that have doubt they will follow the book of man.
If you will remember:
Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin. Jesus gave this answer: You would have no power at all over me if it was not given to you by God; so that he who gave me up to you has the greater sin.
The False Prophet is who he is talking to and her many disciples.
Captain Amigo from the Barrios
The friendly neighborhood of the
poor of means; but not in heart, soul, and warmth
This is a great story if you can find it.
Flashback: Hermit of Loreto’s 1985 Premonition: President
Donald Trump Will Lead America Back to God (VIDEO)
I also was told Donald Trump would be President back
in the 80’s. I did not know who he was then.
skippity do da, yippty a
my oh my
what a wonderful day.
A personal message for the young.
But with the world at large in the news we receive from it we have very little control over it. You can ignore reality, but we pay for it one way or the other.
I suggest making a difference in how you feel by taking action with a solution. One solution is voting for the vision that will bring a stable world for you to live in until you have to say goodbye.
This may be the only reason we go to school, learn, go to work and save money is to secure our happiness. But of course, pour destiny is not in things.
That is what the Preamble of the constitution is about. It is the consent of the governed to the government for being a citizen.
So, when you hear bad news about Joke Death as a solution to our problems, I see him as the problem. Right now, he is at G7 with other dinosaurs trying desperately to look hip. An Image has nothing to do with leading into the future.
My action is to not only vote but to write articles that will help people understand that hope is who you are, and no government or media personality can bring hope to you.
It is the hope of all your dreams that make you who you are and where you come from and where you will be going. That is, you.
We the people only give consent to be governed, we do not surrender our hope of what we want or who we are that is what our dreams should be about. That is our individual responsibility and perhaps destiny.
These are the opinions I write about to help everyone, especially the young because my time is over, and they are the ones that still have to live through their world.
Captain Amigo from the Barrios
“God told me there is blood coming from the sand” I almost thought this was like or about “Cain and Abel.” It was not.
It is interesting the False Prophet has to go to Rome to confess her sins but to REPENT is what God will judge. She has little time left to get it right. This is what Pelosi said.
Earlier this month, Pelosi was asked if she supports the Catholic Church, which labeled abortion as murder.
“Do you agree with Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II that abortion is murder?” a reporter asked Pelosi.
“What I agree on is that whatever I believe, agree with the pope on, is not necessarily what public policy should be in the United States as people make their own judgments, honor their own responsibilities, and attend to the needs of their families,” Pelosi responded.
Baby Killer Pelosi Visits Pope with Husband Paul Following Abortion Ruling –
Receives Communion at Vatican Despite Her Archbishop Denying the Right
This sounds like it is not about free will anymore; it is “what public policy should be.”
We Catholics can construe this as the deal she agreed with or cut with the Pope.
Believe me the Church of Satan is known for Double Talk.
What is clear is what God did say to Nancy Pelosi
“Well then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”
God wanted separation of Church and state. But since no one knows God, no one knows what he means.
This is why God was killed by man because of what man had become. Let me spell it out for you. State means government.
FREE WILL PELOSI is doing just that and that is what she agreed with in the deal with the Pope. When the Church becomes the government no muy bueno.
Deal or no deal she should renounce her citizenship or denounce God and all her disciples must do the same.
For the blood in the graveyard of the unborn.
With her support and position in society she has led many to the graveyard that is filled with the blood of the unborn. Is this the sand of “Cain and Abel”
Anyone who supports abortion and commits it should not receive communion without confession and then be put aside to show their repentance.
“God told me there is blood coming from the sand” I almost thought this was like or about “Cain and Abel.” It was not. It was about the state of Nancy Pelosi and the land of the me and the land of the k.
tricky, tricky, tricky,
to not know God and try to understand what he says and what he means.
America Heartland, Happy Fourth of July.
A lot of times we forget how good it used to be. I remember when you worked in the fields you got paid cash.
Then when we moved to inside jobs we got paid by check and you had to have a bank account just to use your money.
I also remember when we did not have computers and the size of the mainframe was humongous. Heinz shared a story with us about when he was involved in setting up the mainframe in Russia to the mainframe in the United States. The Americans sent a message to the Russian mainframe and the message was “The flesh is willing, but the Spirit is weak” He told us the Russian mainframe interpreted as “Meet you under the table.”
Now we do most everything by online and apps. We can have a good life if we don’t weaken.
This is why I am happy to be an American because of the People I have met that told me how bad their life was where they came from and that lesson I have never forgotten and because it was God that moved Trump to be President and move America back to God, he told me it would be in the 1980’s. This is a great beginning for all of us.
The signs were Desert Storm that I was to see.
Captain Amigo from the Barrios