"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury
Again, as Colonists we did our part honorably to resolve our conflict with the British Crown with civility and decorum.
1. We submitted humbly to the British Crown by asking for a civil trial rather than demanding anything.
2. We submitted our humble requests to the British Crown, not just once but many times.
3. Our many properly submitted requests were offensively rebuffed, ignored, rejected, and treated despitefully, disrespectfully, and roughly in the manner that would be expected of a persecuting tyrant, not the honorable "ruler of a free people
Like the British tyrannical King of more than two centuries ago is the current tyrannical occupant of the Oval Office.
POTUS44 demonstrates hatred and constant impudent disrespect for American Christians, whose sacred appellation, he apparently took upon himself in vain, arguably for no more altruistic reason than to get himself elected as President.
There is no way on GOD's green Earth that Mr. Obama can actually be a Christian, whom Jesus Christ Himself has made right with GOD, readied for acceptance inside of the Pearly Gates, while he remains as he is today.
Mr. Obama regularly expresses contempt for every TRUTH, (John 14:6) that The LORD has revealed in the Scriptures, like "Thou shalt not murder," yet he supports abortion, (Exodus 20,) and "Man shall not lie with man as with woman," yet he supports the redefinition of marriage. (Leviticus.)
Even more telling than that is the fact, that Mr. Obama claims to be a Christian, while claiming to be a Muslim at the same time.
This is a patent oxymoron from both sides of the equation.
No true Christian would ever claim to be a Muslim, since Jesus Himself said in the Gospels, "No man can serve two masters. He will love one, and hate the other, or he will despise one and hold to the other. You cannot serve GOD and mammon."
However, a true Muslim is permitted to claim to be a Christian, if it is "merely a means to an end." (The fact that Muslims do not rail against him suggests, that this is the actual state of his heart.)
Many Muslims have truly been SAVED, becoming Christians around the world on every continent, in most countries, and from many economic strata, but not once in any of these cases has a Christian from Muslim background ever given testimony to his actual conversion to Jesus Christ, without standing under the condemnation of death and/or disowning by the family of origin.
Yet, not one Muslim has ever expressed any concern over Mr. Obama's claim to be a Christian. This is a case in which silence "speaks volumes."
"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
King George had precedence against his fitness as "the ruler of a free people."
Mr. Obama has shown by his words and by his deeds, that he desires no precedence to support any claim, that he is fit as "the ruler of a free people." He demonstrates a desire to rule, but he seems to know nothing of respect for any sort of a "free people."
Mr. Obama shows himself to be a man, who wants people to serve him, and to obey his will, but under no circumstance does he appear to want any citizen to oppose his will.
THAT, my friends, is the textbook definition of a TYRANT!
"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here."
Being honorable people, The Colonists appealed their desperate situation to their friends, the British Citizens.
The Colonists consistently warned these British citizen friends, that unwarranted pressure was being placed upon the Colonists by the British legislature. In a word, The Colonists were having to defend themselves from the Pressure of Governmental Over-step, and they wanted their friends to be aware, that very soon definitive action would be necessary to restore appropriate boundaries in order to maintain their "Freedom of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
"Bottom Line," they urged upon the British Citizenry, "that is why we left Great Britain in the first place in order to start a new life of Freedom in the New World. You all know this very well."
Sadly, today the American people have no new place for us to flee to escape oppression. Next Tuesday we shall see, if American Society still has sufficient Character to give Oppression a long-overdue Pink Slip.
"We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity."
The Colonists repeated communicated with the British Citizenry, their friends, on the basis of common justice and common decency, and on the basis of the common blood ties of family.
The Colonists pleaded with their British brothers to take their side and to encourage them with the mental ascent of saying, "You know, American Brothers, The King IS being abusive and IS patently wrong in these ways, that he is persecuting you. We really do not know how we can help you from our end, but we do agree, that you have a case against the King."
The Colonists knew that the King's overstepping of the Common "Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD" would have to be answered at some point, with clarity and with appropriate force.
Yet, the compassion of the Colonists' hearts still yearned for their relationships with the British People, if not for the British Crown. If the Colonists were forced to take definitive action against The Crown, the Colonists' "connections and correspondence" would necessarily be adversely affected.
Even with this extreme level of compassion and deference toward the British People, the Colonists simply "got the cold shoulder" from the very ones, whom they loved so much.
Talk about "adding insult to injury!"
"We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
The Colonists with a heavy heart made their collective position quite plain, even to their dearly loved British Brethren.
"Since we have no other options, it is time to 'drawn the curtain' on our friendship and brotherhood with the British People as well as The Crown. We HATE with intense passion this Separation, that we must now establish, yet our hearts, which still yearn for our British Brethren, must choose to go cold to them, regarding them (with the same appellation, that we regard the rest of humanity,) as our Enemies, while our nations are at War. However, in days of Peace, we will joyously embrace them once again as Friends."
Christians and conservatives have infinitely more compassion toward non-Christians and liberals than any of them seems capable of mustering for their own ranks as a whole,...let alone rendering such compassion for Christians and conservatives.
Yet, we are mustering possibly our last ditch effort to retain Freedom in this once-Christian nation, that IS "the last and greatest HOPE for the world!"
We are fighting liberals, atheists, purveyors of WICKEDNESS of every stripe, and we are doing so on our knees and at the ballot box. (I Thessalonians 5:17-18; Proverbs 14:34)
The true Christian is not fighting the present WICKED administration with weapons of carnal invention in this present era, especially since the forces of WICKEDNESS live among us, and have their cunning "set on fire of Hell." "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty to the bringing down of strongholds." (Ephesians 6:10-20)
Next Tuesday we shall see as will the rest of the world, whether or not The LORD GOD Almighty still has a purpose for using HIS Remnant, which still serve HIM in "the united States of America."
Will The LORD sink the proud frigates of WICKEDNESS, calling our nation back to REVIVAL as a God-fearing People, or will HE allow the last nail to be driven into the coffin of America?
As the three
Hebrew children informed King Nebuchadnezzar of old, "We are not careful to speak to thee, O King. Our GOD, Whom we serve is able to deliver us from the fire, but even if HE does not, we will NOT bow before your idol."
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,..."
The Great Leaders of the American Colonists, duly appointed and in General Congress made it very clear, that they spoke for the Colonists as a whole, being Authorized by the Colonists to do so. What follows must necessarily be considered as having the full weight, the full Authority, and full Consensus of the American Colonies as one Man.
Having the Authority of all Colonists was "a strong pat on the back," but they knew then just as Christians know today in the fall of 2012, the strength of humans, even a good People is NEVER enough to accomplish The Purpose of The ONE, Who Created the physical cosmos, and temporal Time.
Both we and they must, now as never before, make possibly one final desperate "APPEAL to the Supreme Judge of the world for the confirmation of the Rightness of our Intentions."
If Christians do not meet the requirements of II Chronicles 7:14, retaining WICKEDNESS in our own hearts, then GOD will NOT be for us, nor for our cause, and the Cause of "the last Great HOPE of the world," will finally be at end.
However, if Christians, (True Born-Again Christians alone,) have earnestly turned from our WICKED ways, and turned our own faces, like a flint, to The Almighty GOD of Eternity, then legally, according to that one verse, The LORD must be depended upon to deliver us, to rain down Holy Ghost REVIVAL upon our nation, and to make HIS Name Glorious, in the view of all the world.
There are times of great victory and times of great defeat for Americans, throughout our history as a nation.
Whatever the result of next Tuesday, it will be the Sovereign WILL of GOD, even if it is the refuted will of Winston.
"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;"
Freedom and Independence from Governmental tyranny begin at the core of the man or woman, who has been made Free from Original SIN, which causes every evil, known to mankind.
Even living under human tyranny, the child of GOD has Freedom of heart, that human persecutors can never know as they remain in their sin.
In agreement with the words of the American Colonists, "We ARE Free! You can never take that from us!"
"that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and..."
The Colonists told The Crown in no uncertain terms, "We are completely FREED from ALL Governmental Allegiance (i.e. Obedience) to the British Crown, effective immediately. Beyond that, there remains right now a complete severance, (which is essentially a political DIVORCE,) between the Colonies and the State of Great Britain."
A contemporary colloquialism could render the concept somewhere in the neighborhood of "See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya!"
"that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
The Colonists took responsibility for themselves by demonstrating the long understood characteristic of maturity, "Anyone can speak negatively about things that they do not like, but few are willing to take the hard steps necessary to affect positive change."
1. The Colonists declared that "From now on, we have the full Power, Right and Responsibility to initiate, to enter into, and to conduct any and all Wars, that become our necessary task. In addition, we alone now make the choice, when such a War has ended, and we decide to initiate Peace."
2. The Colonists declared that "From now on, we have the Power, Right, and Responsibility to enter into contractual Alliances, (i.e. Allegiances,) with other countries, and as an extension of these Alliances, we decide when we will do commercial business with these nations."
3. The Colonists declared, "Finally, from now on, if there is anything else that Independent States may rightfully do, for your information, O King, that's our Right, too!"
There seems to be an unspoken overtone to the whole treatise of The Declaration, "Are we communicating? Up to this point, that does not seem to have been the case."
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The Colonists were so completely dedicated to this new course of action, that they emphatically told The British Crown,...
"We ARE indeed burning all the bridges between our two nations.
We ARE indeed philosophically burning all of our 'ships,' which bear supplies from the British Crown.
"We ARE indeed now, completely on our own, for the support of this Declaration, but we are NOT without Help in supporting this Declaration.
"Whereas we do NOT trust our own abilities to succeed in this Declaration, we embrace fully in the firmest of reliance upon the protection of divine Providence for the vertical Strength needed to do Good and to fulfill HIS Will in our lives.
"Moreover, we mutually pledge to each other our horizontal strength, from this day forward for as long as it takes up to and including the loss of our Lives, the loss of our Fortunes, and the loss of our Sacred Honor."
As military men, who knew the cost of War, these signers of The Declaration of Independence were well aware, that signing such a document could mean signing their own Death Warrants.
Many of these selfsame men did die in the Revolutionary War.
A number of them died penniless or in poverty.
A few lived to a ripe old age, but none of these valiant Americans was the same after July 4th, 1776.
Let the record show, they gave all that they had to give us the Blessed Nation we now enjoy!
How DARE even one American fail to register to VOTE?!!!
How DARE even one registered American voter fail to cast his or her VOTE on November 6, 2012?!!!
Will this be the last time any American will have the privilege to VOTE for President?
The LORD Only Knows.
Indictment #8: "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
King George did not want judges. One could suspect that he wanted to be "above the law."
President Nixon tried to get around the Law to get himself reelected in 1972. He succeeded, but had to resign in disgrace, when the facts came out.
Mr. Obama seems to think his skin color is a shield to prosecution, which is diametrically opposed to the Dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Call me a "racist," if you like to help a sinister villain keep unwarranted power. However, even if my voice were to be neutralized in some way for some hate-filled reason, the facts would continue to scream for Ultimate Justice.)
According to Dr. King's words, Mr. Obama has never had the character to be President in the first place. Must we be forced to endure four more years of his impudent insolence?
Indictment #9: "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
"Whatever The King wants the King gets." Now, how fair is THAT?
How fair is it for an American President to get whatever he demands? Not very fair, I will assure you.
Indictment #10: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
King George set up Offices (or positions of leadership,) that served his purposes, whether or not it did anything beneficial at all for the people of his domain.
The Colonists were obviously put out with what they considered to be "swarms" (or an infestation of insect-like pests) in the form of human persecutors.
Citizens do not like having the funds, which they each need for personal and family provisions, to be stolen by the Government, which is in authority over them, whether that Government be an 18th-century British King or a 21st-century self-serving President.
Indictment #11: "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
The King was placing his own Military, "above the Law."
King George was declaring himself (in essence,) "Dread Sovereign Lord," over every aspect of American life. A show of power seemed more important to him than the true leadership of actual character in the heart.
Mr. Obama seems to have the exact same attitude toward the American people.
In violation of the sovereign jurisdiction of local law enforcement, he has been permitting, (and even forcing if need be,) United Nations inspectors to insure that the outcome of the Election pleases the President. In the world of business, that could arguably be cited as "conflict of interest" or insider-trading.
Indictment #12: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:..."
King George was guilty of letting foreigners, (and their foreign ideas,) to take precedence over American Constitution and American Laws.
Mr. Obama has appeared to have a love affair with many nations on Earth to the exclusion of the very Nation, that he pretends to govern.
The Administration of POTUS44 is the first in a long time, if ever, to totally ignore and to wholly disrespect America's most consistent Friend in the world for the past 60 plus years, the nation of Israel.
He has had a preference for Esau, (the Arab nations,) even after Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
It matters not what any skeptic dares express in my direction, but to curse Israel to any degree is personal as well as national suicide. GOD Almighty has chosen Israel as HIS Personal People, who are Dearest to HIS Heart, and HE WILL defend them as HIS "peculiar Treasure."
Think both, Israel and me, to be peculiar, and you will be right. However, eternal security comes from being on The LORD's side of every issue, no matter the opinion of Humanity.
Indictment #13: "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:..."
The King allowed his Military to "get away with murder."
Mr. Obama, (it is becoming clearer by the day,) may indeed be guilty of allowing the terrorists in Benghazi, Libya, whom he favors, to "get away with murder" against the very nation, which has given him his power, and which he appears to wholly disdain...by thought, by word, and by deed.
Indictment #14: "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:..."
The British King placed the Colonies under embargo. The Very Idea!
The King "picked our pockets," and called it a tax.
Mr. Obama allegedly "taxes the rich," only, but in so doing, he sends many of our jobs overseas, effectively taking money out of the pockets of Americans.
Please, I beg you! Educate me as to the difference, but here is the caveat emptor,..."You may NOT politicize your answer."
Indictment #15: "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences."
The King and The President exempt themselves from the Law, while exempting the Citizenry from Justice. That's fair,...NOT!
Kidnapping is no leaders' right.
Kidnappers do not have good character.
Kidnappers have self-interest. THAT is all!
Indictment #16: "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:..."
In this indictment, King George seems to have been "playing fast and loose" with the Provincial Governments of Canada in say, "Ontario, or Nova Scotia," since Prince Edward Island would not fit the description. It's an island, after all.
1. The King dismisses "the free system of English Laws in a neighboring Province," which indicates that the deed is not being done in one of the Colonies.
2. The King replaces with "an Arbitrary government,..."
3. The King expands the Provinces borders, which would obviously encroach upon the northernmost American Colonies of say, "Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire," for instance.
4. The King bullies the Colonists by wordlessly implying, "Mess with me, and double or nothing, you'll get the same thing!"
Yea, that's fair,...NOT!
Indictment #17: "For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:..."
King George was accused by the Colonists of totally micromanaging their Freedoms, out-of-existence.
Arguably, Mr. Obama does NOT want Americans to be FREE!
1. He unilaterally declared, "America is no longer a Christian nation." He did not have the permission of the Citizenry to say that.
2. He supports abortion-on-demand. He approves of legalized-MURDER, which is diametrically opposed the Universal law of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not murder."
3. He personally legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle, which is the A-bomb, which obliterates nations, and is only lifestyle CHOICE, which is specifically condemned by GOD Almighty in Leviticus, Romans, and Revelation as a crime, which "turns nations in Hell."
Indictment #18: "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
Here The King fired our Legislatures, and euphemistically made himself and his buddies into our Congressional Representatives.
"For sure, that's a plan, King George! You just tell us everything that we're supposed to be doing! Thanks for noticing that we don't have brains! Thanks for being there to help us out in our Stupidity!"
Mr. Obama's consistent attitude seems to be along the lines, "The citizen's don't really know what's best for them. I will help them out, and I will tell them what is best for them."
Indictment #19: "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us."
We had to make it very clear at this point, that King George "fired the first shot" in our Revolutionary War.
The day that King George made it clear that he would no longer protect us, and even started attacking us himself, he effectively abdicated The Throne of Kingdom Authority over The Colonies.
That was really brazen of him, but not at all unexpected.
Indictment #20: "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."
In acts of war against The Colonies,...
1. King George began to attack and to steal from American ships at seas,...
2. King George began to attack American ports, along the Colonial Coasts,...
3. King George began to burn/destroy/disrupt our communities,...and...
4. King George virtually destroyed our lives in the New World, while his was no doubt status quo, back in "merry old England."
Indictment #21: "He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."
The King was all about power-plays, persecution, and the death and destruction of the Colonists.
The King was totally uncivilized. His being socially-unacceptable goes without saying.
Indictment #22: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."
The King kidnapped Colonists from ships on the high seas, and then drafted these poor, abducted Colonists into his Armies, making these poor Colonists to have the terrible choice of killing or being killed by other Colonists, who encountered The King and his fleets.
What a terrible state of affairs!
Indictment #23: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
King George tried to get Native American riled up, and fighting mad. He wanted the Native Americans to attack and to kill the Colonists in order to keep him from having to get his hands dirty.
What a sissy little Momma's boy!
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
The Colonists reminded The King, that they had asked him for a proper civil trial at every step of the process.
The King consistently and constantly responded to their respect for the Rule of Law, with more and more persecution.
What a guy!
"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
"If The King walks like a Tyrant, talks like a Tyrant, and acts like a Tyrant, then he IS a Tyrant!"
"If The President walks like a Tyrant, talks like a Tyrant, and acts like a Tyrant, then he IS a Tyrant!"
| |Today has been a rare and eerie day in south Georgia.
At some point last evening, the temperature dropped from around 80 degrees to around 60 degrees
, and it has remained in that temperature neighbor, ever since then. The only additional feature has been increased blustery wind with gusts up to 20 to 25 miles per hour
at best guess. (It could be faster.)This writer's ability to stay on my feet was an increasing concern
, during a two-block walk to my truck this afternoon. Due to a regular meeting on Monday evenings, I had two trips of less than ten miles, separated by an hour. My ability to keep the truck in my lane was a concern, due to windy gusts. This necessitated decreased speed.
Was I in any real danger, due to Hurricane Sandy? Hardly, I just found it quite significant that my house, which is 865.14 miles from the Empire State Building
, according to Mapquest, should be experiencing this level of environmental changes and weather characteristics so far away from the Eye of The Storm.
If it is this windy at my house, then what are the conditions at the White House?What are the conditions in New York City, "The Big Apple," "The Town That Never Sleeps?"
What kind of help can we prepare to send?
How soon will we be able to go to assist them ourselves?Politics
may tend to splinter Americans into likeminded pockets, regarding the issues, that we hold near and dear to our hearts, but when disaster strikes we are once again unified as Americans.
Americans are a most unique people.We have no common heritage, but we consistently embrace each other in a common HOPE of the highest Ideals. :)
If you pray, then please remember The States as we observe, assess, and endeavor to heal.
(The photos in this article are local reader submissions, gleaned at the New York Times, online
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
American colonists were quite satisfied to serve King George and to give him his due, until he began to micromanage life in the Colonies, effectively choking the very life out of the colonists.
Today Mr. Obama is sucking the life out of the American citizenry.
Even the voters, who voted for him in 2008, and who are now voting for Governor Mitt Romney, had no intentions of changing the American way of life from that which our forefathers entrusted to us.
These dear folks wanted change to relieve them of the burden of a suffocating economy, that made the way of life to which they had grown accustomed, quite difficult to maintain. That is all.
Had they been asked in 2008, "Do you want to trade your freedom of self-determination in this representative republic to economic security in a dictatorship, which restricts your movement and your speech?" the answer would have been a resounding, "NO!!!!"
That is how self-serving kings, and tyrants of every stripe operate. They act sweetly, and tell you anything you seem to want to hear, until they hold all the power that they need in their grasping little hands. From then on,...they don't know you. "You have needs? Good luck with that!"
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Again, all King George had to do to keep the colonists on his team was to simply "loosen the reigns" a bit, which would logically seem reasonable, since the trip between England and the Colonies was a fairly significant trip in the 18th-century.
Give a little more liberty, while keeping a consistent flow of money from the Colonies in the form of taxes. What a deal!
...But NO! The same Crown, that was suffocating to these citizens, while living in England, just could not seem to "leave well enough alone," when they fled to the New World to "get a little breathing room."
When a girlfriend gets a little too clingy in a high school romance, most guys run the other direction as far and as fast as they can.
One would think that a king could take a hint.
Rehoboam in ancient Israel took the advice of his peer-aged advisors, treated the nation harshly, and ended up losing the 10 northern tribes of Israel.
Mr. Obama has shown the American populous his backside for the worst part of four years now, turning his back on our needs, our feelings, and the real wishes of the majority of voters and states, choosing rather to follow his own heart, and that of his circle of friends, who form an offensive oligarchy of "obscene amounts of money," counter-cultural social practices, and dictatorship worldview proponents, who run rough-shod over the freedom-loving American people, who are hamstrung by confiscatory taxes, and no Voice in the culture at large.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"
King George "got all up in our business" by the middle of the 18th-century, and he had the monetary resources on his side for keeping the people in line by force.
"King" Obama has the Federal Reserve on his side. "Prince" Ben Bernanke, his close friend for some time is presently rolling the dollar machine on a daily basis right now, apparently trying to prop-up the American dollar just long enough to get his buddy re-elected.
The second week of November, 2012, Bernanke can turn off the "air machine," and Mr. Obama's inflated "Bouncy House-Play Room" can be deflated, without any financially-tinged political fall-out whatsoever.
When Bernanke finally turns off the "money machine," even Great Britain should expect to feel the pinch.
This would really be quite funny, if not so very sad. That sucking-sound, which WILL no doubt be loudly heard "across the pond," will be the sound of the American dollar bleeding value by the day, and the pound sterling starting to tarnish badly.
In a one someone craftier than a pick-pocket will literally "pinch" our money.
Remember this thought. What is the easiest way for a Government to steal from the Citizenry? A Government steals from the Citizenry, when it intentionally makes the paper bills in the wallet of each citizen worth less than it was worth in the past.
However, what do I know? I am just a little Southern country boy, who has a computer, bears a major ego, and knows how to write, while respecting "the King's English."
O, better add to that, I am a Christian, which in today's economy really disqualifies me from having any intelligence, whatsoever,...Right? You decide.
Do I know anything at all about money?
I know that Ben Bernanke flooded the American Economy with millions of new paper dollars in 2010, during his euphemistic QE1, (Quantitative Easing, Phase #1.)
I know that Ben Bernanke flooded the American Economy with millions of new paper dollars in 2011, during his euphemistic QE2, (Quantitative Easing, Phase #2.)
I know that Ben Bernanke is now flooding the American Economy with millions of new paper dollars in 2012, during his euphemistic QE3, (Quantitative Easing, Phase #3.)
I know that in The States, up until 1973, a citizen was ostensibly able to purchase an ounce of gold for $1.00. Today, that same ounce of gold will cost the buyer somewhere in the neighborhood of $1600 - $1800, depending on the market of the day.
Personally, since Bernanke started spewing greenbacks on the American Economy in September of 2012, my investments, which are tied to gold, have lost at least 15% value, but I am not worried. Once Daddy Greenbucks turns off the spigot, my investments will predictably GO "through the roof."
(I need to buy more right now. "Buy low. Sell high." Want to conserve your personal worth? Buy gold for the next two weeks.)
However, that is just a country boy's "gut feeling." What do I know?
Of course, this country boy was co-Valedictorian of his high school's senior class. The two of us shared a 4.0 average,
(American high schools give a 4.0 for every A grade earned in class. To make a 4.0 average, you have to make all A's for four years straight. Sorry to appear to be bragging - not my intent - merely trying to demonstrate credibility for my understanding of numbers and money and their intricate operations.) You don't have to agree with me, but you can't deny that I paid attention in my high school classes.
"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
That roughly translates to "Enough is Enough! Since you will not back-off already, we are committed to to making you back-off! Are we communicating?!!"
Force your will on us, (aka socially "beat us up") for long enough, and we will walk away from you in any and in every way that we can.
Force your confiscatory Power-Grab, known as Obamacare, on a weary still Freedom-Loving People, and we WILL do everything that we can to VOTE you out of Office.
Force your socially/spiritually-WICKED redefinition of marriage on a weary still Freedom-Loving People, and we WILL do everything that we can to VOTE you out of Office.
Force your socially/spiritually-WICKED, brow-beating disregard of life, called euphemistically abortion, on a weary still Freedom-Loving People, and we WILL do everything that we can to VOTE you out of Office.
Force your WICKED self-will on a weary still Freedom-Loving People, and we WILL do everything that we can to VOTE you out of Office.
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
Four years of Mr. Obama mean arguably the precisely same thing!
Thank The LORD war is no longer necessary in this country.
"Checks and Balances" can continue to protect us from megalomaniacs, if we still have the character as a nation to vote this one out of The Oval Office.
If we cannot VOTE Mr. Obama out of Office, then Great Britain might want to consider, whether Prime Minister Obama is the next title he may wish to add to his resume', if not King of The World.
Any man, who would intentionally try to wreck the American Economy, through Quantitative Easing, Part #3, just to get himself reelected, is unworthy of the honored appellation, Man.
For the average human, truth seems to be the strongest ideal from which he or she will not deviate in the course of living life.
Truth is thus defined as life's nonnegotiable, whether provable or not.
Therefore, "Truth," we are told in this post-modern world, "is not necessarily the same for every human being."
One wonders if truth for modern Mankind is then most closely aligned with the axiom, "Might makes Right!"
Who decides what is right and is acceptable in the realm of daily living?
Just as important is the question, "Who decides what is wrong, and is therefore off-limits for the citizenry of any realm?"
In Societies, which value individual freedom as the highest personal right, the area of operation for each individual in that Society is relatively expansive, and Governmental intrusion is necessarily limited to the strongest extent.
In Societies, which value the expression of Society's highest Ideal as the highest aspiration of every individual, then personal freedom will be limited, and Governmental regulations, which enforce the expression of Society's highest Ideal, will be expansive to the strongest extent.
Human nature being what it is, (woefully inconsistent in personal self-discipline,) it is necessary, (even in countries, which emphasize personal freedom,) for laws to restrict those freedoms to some degree, or anarchy will be expressed.
THAT in itself is the debate.
Who decides the truth, that we will obey as an individual, as a community, as a state, as a nation, and as a world?
Does GOD exist? If so, then HE makes the rules.
Does GOD exist, Alone? If so, then there is no supernatural competition, and HIS Law is Final.
Is GOD merely mythology? If so, then is there a human or group of humans, who have the level of moral character, personal perfection, and consistent wisdom necessary to make the rules for one or for all human societies?
Why should we care?
"It's my life, right? What does any other human have to do with it? I have less than a century to enjoy it. Get out of my way, and let me have FUN!"
Do basic human rights exist?
If so, then why do we know that they exist?
Is this knowledge of basic human rights innate?
If so, has this knowledge been woven into our very psyche, through the creative Hand of GOD?
Has this knowledge been conditioned into our very psyche, through eons of survivalist experiences?
If basic human rights are merely survivalist to the core, then why do we need to consider them to be moral in any way?
What is morality?
No doubt, morality is the subject of another post. ;)
Please, stay tuned.
"Human nature," it may arguably be stated, "has changed very little from the Beginning of human history."
Even babies, those precious little bundles of cuteness, that all families seem to love, are intensely self-centered.
For all of the sweet expressions and heart-melting smiles, that they give to the "big people" in their worlds, the other items, they give us as well as the wants, they demand from us, quickly yank their care-givers back to the reality, "There is a little tyrant in my house."
It has been observed, that personality is quite evident as extant by age three or four years in most cases.
Little tyrant babies and toddlers grow up to be tyrant teens and adults...in most cases.
Who makes the rules?
For many of us, who have lived more than 50 years, “Momma made the rules, when we were children. If you didn’t obey Momma, then you could easily find yourself slapped into next week.”
For many of us, who have experienced parenthood in the past four decades, children are being conditioned by Society to make the rules. If a child “raises enough stink” out in public, then the poor parent begins to wonder if some governmental authority will show up with “concern in the eyes.”
Authoritarian children grow-up to expect the world to obey them, too.
Politicians, who were authoritarian children, often makes rules favoring themselves in order to cause the whole world to bow before them.
Such is the re-election bid of Barak Obama.
This man was not reared on the United States mainland.
He did not have the American ethic woven throughout his very person in his formative years.
He spent much of his first two decades on Earth, living in Hawaii, on the African continent, and in Indonesia. (Each of these places is worthy in its own right and filled with beauty and culture, which benefits the people, who live there, quite handily, but these places know little of America beyond hearsay in my humble opinion.)
However, an American President, who has no American experience in childhood, is a disaster waiting to happen, even if proven to be a natural-born citizen. (Though this may appear to be simply "one man's opinion" or maybe, even the "sour grapes" of a man, whose candidate didn't win the last Election in 2008, please allow me to assure the reader, that this is a growing sentiment among the American Electorate, "He doesn't know us. He wants what HE wants." By the way, my candidate was not even an option in 2008, and the option, that the Republican leadership gave us, was not much of an option.)
Without the core values, that were the strong foundation of the establishment of the United States of America, Mr. Obama has predictably been “a selfish little tyrant,” consistently forcing his own self-serving will upon a bewildered American populous.
He benefits himself and the oligarchy, who are all like him, especially with his apparent intent to destroy the foundation of America and its true heart, changing the infrastructure of this once GOD-fearing nation, into an apparently Muslim-oriented Khilafat with himself as supreme mullah, who enforces shariah law.
After all, his regulations as well as the laws, that he has personally signed, arguably benefit believers in Islam to a great degree, while being increasingly restrictive on believers in Jesus, The Christ.
Is this not Shariah Lite, (aka the effect, without the actual code?)
Richard Dawkins does not believe in the Existence of God. At least that is his story, and he is apparently sticking with it,...all the way to old age. At 71 years of age, Richard Dawkins has less than thirty years, (all things being equal) to convince himself that GOD really doesn't Exist and one day die a happy atheist. However, Richard Dawkins is on record believing that death is the cancellation of human existence. This means that when he dies Richard Dawkins himself will never even know that he ever existed. (Presuming that his belief is actually true, that is.) Giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment, liking Richard Dawkins and embracing his worldview will have absolutely no lasting value for the Richard Dawkins that exists today, and to the contrary, disliking Richard Dawkins and rejecting his worldview will have absolutely no lasting negative effect on the Richard Dawkins that exists today. Richard Dawkins also seems to believe that death ends the human's essential person, but to the glee of myriad earthworms he will create a chain of "delicatessens" to their most excellent nourishment for time to come. What lasting value is the word of a man, whose ultimate goal is to have his flesh experience both ends of a worm's alimentary canal, without his consciousness presence, being there to document the experience for posterity? What lasting value is the word of a man, who will not even know that he ever existed, in less than 50 years? Interesting, just by expressing the beliefs of Richard Dawkins, we may logically surmise that, when there are many "fat and sassy" earthworms in the world, (thanks to his great gift to them) we may be asked,... "Do you believe in the existence of Richard Dawkins?" "No. In agreement with his own belief system, he does not exist, since the Now is the only thing that matters."
If I was asked, "Why do you hate Richard Dawkins?" I would first chasten the questioner for linguistic malfeasance." "Linguistic malfeasance?" "Of course, I have given no one permission to redefine my words, based on the dictionary, that life has firmly embedded into the reader's mental capabilities. If I ever come to the point of actually hating anyone, then I will say, 'I hate you!'
"Until then, no one has my permission to read my words, and without questioning me point-blank about my words, to label me a 'hate-monger,' unless that same soul wishes to be labelled, 'a two-year-old child, who is throwing a temper tantrum, followed by picking up their toys and going home.'
"I don't despise atheists. I despise what they stand for... It seems that I read those very words for some old scientist, who comes across as being just as old and slipping as Darwin was, when he published the book that popularized the excuse that comprises the foundation of Dawkins' 'scientific' studies."
According to Cathy Lynn Grossman in USA Today, dated March 24, 2012,..."Dawkins didn't appear until five hours into the event, but few seemed discouraged by the near-constant rain or drizzle. They whistled and cheered for his familiar lines such as:
"'I don't despise religious people. I despise what they stand for...
"'Evolution is not just true, it's beautiful...'" Pity is certainly more accurate to the feeling that I have toward Richard Dawkins.I do not know much about Richard Dawkins, except for his evolutionary atheism, and his beliefs in atheistic evolution. Hatred is too heavy of an emotional investment toward the man.I actually love Richard Dawkins with the agape' love that Jesus Christ of Nazareth has always had for him in the providing for the salvation of Richard Dawkins' soul. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the One,... ...Who left His stable home life in Heaven to enter the stable home life on Earth,...
...Who lived The Perfect Life,...
...Who died the Perfect Sacrifice to Atone for Man's Sin,...
...Whose first Earth-suit was properly stored in the rock-hewn wardrobe/tomb that was in many ways similar to the rock-hewn stable into which He was born,...
...and Who returned on the Third Day to that same wardrobe, changing it into the new eternal human body, that He still wears today, (and which He will continue to wear for Eternity.) Jesus' Resurrection is itself a fulfillment of the apparent prophecy that He declared at the Marriage of Cana, when He turned the water into wine. Transformation comes at the moment that it is needed, not during the time of storage.I pray for Richard Dawkins to be saved, and I really do hope that he has not already become a modern-day pharaoh, of whom The LORD has judicially rejected for the last time.WOW! Maybe he will get SAVED. I pray for that. (John 6:44)Of course, I had better hurry before he does, if I want to be publicly ridiculed by the World's Biggest FOOL. (Psalm 14:1)I do hope that he remembers that we Christians like that sort of thing, public humiliation, ridicule, taunting, etc. It is so wonderful! It drains from the atheist's allotted word-count, during their time on Earth, and we get the spiritual equivalent of "a Purple Heart as well as myriad other decorations." ;)Richard Dawkins lives in the British Commonwealth as I recall. The Royals are still England's most significant family by birthright.
There is a certain carriage and presence that attends Sovereignty.
When one is in the Presence of Sovereignty, one knows. One is foolish to ask. Begging pardon for being so coarse, but Richard Dawkins is the World's Biggest FOOL, not in the sense of lacking intelligence, but in the sense of his inescapable knowledge of GOD in his heart, and WICKEDLY choosing to rebel against Sovereignty, Who will be his Everlasting Judge. By the way, the indictment against his malfeasance of intelligence has already been recorded in the Records Office of The Celestial Court, THE Highest of all courts.
"Sharp questioning by the Supreme Court's conservative justices Tuesday cast serious doubt on the survival of the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul
. Arguments at the high court focused on whether the mandate for virtually every American to have insurance "is a step beyond what our cases allow," in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy." (Associated Press) This piece posted by the Associated Press, (early Wednesday morning, local time,) underscores the root cause of all that it wrong with the governance of contemporary Mankind, certainly for the United States, and I suspect for the world at large. The level of fiscal incompetence as demonstrated at the highest levels of governmental responsibility in America, (and arguably the world,) can mean but two possible options to this simple-minded country boy. (Never forget that "Less is usually More," which means that "Simple-minded is usually Smarter.") To which two options do I refer? Either our governmental leaders are woefully-immature, or they are heinously-diabolical, or painfully-both. DING! DING! DING! Number three is where I am placing my bet. Please forgive me, but do you think that I want my healthcare run by the same people, who created a national postal system, (aka "snail mail,") that has raised the rate to send a first-class letter pretty much every year that I have been alive? Everything that the Government touches, it does badly as compared to the great efficiency of private business. This is the point, the bottom line, the focus of the debate. What is the Purpose of Government?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
" This preamble to the United States Constitution, as written and ratified in the late eighteenth-century, makes a very strong statement, regarding the purpose of government, that may be beneficially-applied to the principles of governance for free nations the world over. "...promote the general Welfare,..." Please note. The framers of The Constitution did not intend to establish general welfare, even if one performs mental gymnastics to try to include "healthcare" in the broader-meaning of the term, "welfare." The physical well-being and health of the colonists was not to be insured and guaranteed, but merely to be promoted.According to the framers of the Constitution, it is pretty obvious that they believed that the Purpose Statement of Government, and their boundaries for public servitude were to be focused intensely in the area of Law Enforcement. The best visible illustration of the role of Government in World History is seen in the job of the guards at the gate of Buckingham Palace. 1. The guards are seen, but rarely heard. (Wouldn't it be nice, if Government could learn that this is its place.) 2. No unauthorized persons enter the grounds of Buckingham Palace, without being quickly repelled by more-than-capable guards, who act, when necessary, and who don't not act at all, when unnecessary. 3. The royal residents inside act in wondrous freedom, among themselves with the peaceful sense of defended borders. Looking to the Government for provision of healthcare, for the equality of status, and for the establishment of benefits that are the same for all citizens leads to dictatorship, which is not unlike communism's debacle of early twentieth-century Europe and Northern Asia, and which continues to this very day in Southeast Asia. What parent treats every one of their children in exactly the same way?
What parent likes the interminable grief of having to maintain equal parts of everything, among the children, in the effort to keep a more or less tenuous "peace?" What adult can bear the idea that "I grew-up to be the captain of my own ship," only to find-out that our governmental, "Big Brother," now wants to be our "Daddy," too. What was the point in growing-up, if i still have to have somebody "breathing down my neck," telling me every little detail of my life to "keep me from hurting" myself? To those, who hate GOD so badly that they foolishly deny His very Existence, you must admit that God Himself has never forced you to believe His Word, even though you dismiss God, due to the actions of some alleged-servant of His, Who has tried to force you to believe something. God offers you His best, but He does not force it on you.
Governments tend to force their wills on us, whether we like it or not.
Now,...who really exercises Freedom of Choice in relationship with other humans?
"In short, if God created the universe as a special place for humanity, he seems to have wasted an awfully large amount of space where humanity will never make an appearance. He wasted a lot of time, too. Instead of six days, he took nine billion years to make Earth, another billion years or so to make life, and then another four billion years to make humanity. Humans have walked on Earth for less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth's history.
In fact, when you think of it, why would an infinitely powerful God even need six days? Wouldn't he have the ability to create everything in an instant? And, why would he have to rest when he was all done?" (Victor J. Stenger) Posit: The vast universe was created to maintain the intricate uniqueness of life on Earth. In other words, Cosmos does just the opposite to Carl Sagan's narrow-minded thought. Rather than disproving God, the vast unknowableness of seemingly unused/unusable space PROVES the Existence of God is a strongly exclamatory expression. "Less than a year after his death, Hollywood released a movie (on July 11, 1997) based on Sagan’s novel, Contact (1985). The film’s central character, Dr. Eleanor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster), is surely the embodiment of the formative experiences, philosophical perspectives, and spiritual beliefs of Sagan himself. "On three separate occasions in the film, a pseudo-intellectual remark, obviously designed to defend the naturalistic explanation of the existence of the Universe while ridiculing the Christian viewpoint, is offered up to viewers. As a child, “Ellie” asks her father if life exists out in the Universe, to which he responds: “Well, if there wasn’t, it’d be an awful waste of space.”" Is it not terribly presumptuous to assume that the human perspective on any subject is the best perspective? Is it not terribly presumptuous to assume that the human perspective on any subject is the only perspective that is possible?
Is it not terribly presumptuous to assume that the human perspective at any given moment on any subject is the only perspective that humans will ever have on that subject?
9. The Kohinoor Diamond: monetary value never documentedThe Kohinoor Diamond This was once the largest diamond in the world.
It used to belong to India and the royal family, but when Britain took over the country and Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India in 1877, the gem became part of the British Crown Jewels. Of course, it was not a joyful event when India had to give up the huge diamond, but nevertheless, it did. The royal family actually had to give it as a “gift” to the Queen. India still claims that the Kohinoor diamond was taken by force and that it should be returned to its country of origin.
If humans could create the masterworks contained in this essay, which merely scratches the surface of all creativity that has been expressed throughout the history of the world,...
...then is it not conceivably possible that One God, Who has no competitors, since He has no equals,...
...could have created the vastness of Time and Space for the expressed purpose of maintaining the existence of His specially-loved humankind,...
...as well as for the ultimate purpose of expressing His Ecstatic, Effusive Love for His Personally-Chosen Eternal Bride?
In the vast population of Humanity, throughout the entirety of History, the fact that few human beings have even contemplated once, the idea that every existent piece of physical matter in the known and unknown cosmos/universe is vitally-necessary for the continuation of human life on Earth, in no way negates the very real fact that this personal hypothesis could indeed be the fullest-extent of the temporal reality that God has created for the benefit of Humanity, God's most-beloved creation in all of physical existence, and maybe even in the entirety of all existence in todo.
"The town says Hackett's rights are not being violated because she does not have to be present for the prayer to participate in the town meeting. A lawyer representing the town and the moderator said he could not comment on the case but will wait to see what the judge decides.
"'To me, the critical issues are those of an assumption of Christian privilege and compulsion. Using the government as a forum for one religion or another is something our country and our state were set up to prevent,' Hackett said Monday. 'Religious freedom does not mean we have got the right to force our religion on others.'"
"Religious freedom does not mean we have got the right to force our religion on others."
"The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you.”
A wise man spoke these words many centuries ago, which by application do indeed condemn Ms. Hackett.
Posit: "A statement of belief about religion is the confession of a religious belief."
Posit: "One cannot speak about religion, without professing some belief about religion, and thereby giving testimony to one's own religious belief." (Restatement of original posit)
Posit: "When an atheist is consistent with his/her alleged-atheism, then that atheist ignores religion completely in thought, in speech, and in deed. To be an atheist, and therefore truly non-religious, one has no opinion, no feeling, no space in his/her mind for any thoughts of religion, whatsoever."
Posit: "To be offended by religion, while declaring oneself to be an 'atheist' in hate-filled response to religion, one necessarily testifies to being a religious atheist, worshipping 'Atheos,' the antithesis to 'Theos,' (aka God.)"
Ms. Hackett is by application a religious atheist, since she cares enough about religion to take a moral stance, regarding religion.
Ergo, Ms. Hackett IS in violation of her own standard about "forcing our religion on others," she forced her own religious beliefs on other adults, thereby preventing those other adults from demonstrating their Constitutionally-protected Free Speech Rights. At the same time, Ms. Hackett began, whether knowingly or unwittingly, to establish the belief that her god, "Atheos," (the euphemism for "No-God,") must necessarily be worshipped to the exclusion of God, Who is publicly-worshipped publicly by Christians.
In other words the Freedom of Religion grants the freedom to express belief in God.
It does not grant any American the right to be free from initially-encountering religious-expressions.
The Freedom of Religion does provide the right to extricate oneself from such environment, once encountered, but it does not allow the inflicting of one American's will over the will of others present in order to create the environment that American may demand the subjugation of the rights of all other Americans present, who may not be of like-mind.
This article, printed in the Burlington Free Press of Burlington, Vermont, documents the very clear wording for a case of legal action against Marilyn Hacket, who may be cited as being arguably-libelous in criminal court on Contempt of Constitution charges, as well as being arguably-libelous in civil court on charges of theft of Free Speech Rights against the townsfolk of Franklin, Vermont.
(I would personally like to see Hacket counter-sued in a Class-Action Lawsuit to the tune of ten million dollars, which would equal one million dollars for every year that she has shown her contempt for the Constitutionally-protected Rights of other Americans, and has shown her determination, whether knowingly or unwittingly, to defame the character of the people of Franklin, Vermont, as well as the rest of us Americans, who still care about praying to The Only God, Who Exists.)
The acquiescence of the town's so-called leaders to prefer the wishes of one individual over the wishes of many individuals, (as well as negating the precedence of historically faith-filled practice,) thus rendering Ms. Hackett "more valuable, under The Constitution" than the majority of these citizens-present, places this town's council in the position of being arguably-libelous to the charge of Criminal Contempt of Constitution in the establishment of preferential-treatment of one individual's religious views to the subjugation of "the free exercise" of the same by the majority present.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment to be adopted to The United States Constitution is at the same time the first enumerated Right granted as part of The Bill of Rights.
Marilyn Hackett was not forced to participate in religious worship, and I for one am highly-offended that truly-faithful individuals were subjected to her religious-practice of non-worship.
Marilyn Hackett had the same privilege that ever other American had in that meeting. She could stay or leave. That was her choice.
Marilyn Hackett chose to stay, (aka "Freedom of Choice/Freedom of Conscience.")
She did NOT have the right to FORCE her own religious views on the townsfolk of Franklin, Vermont.
The town's leadership had no right to accede to her narrow-minded demands.
The criminal charge, Contempt Of Court - Civil Or Criminal: "A judge who feels someone is improperly challenging or ignoring the court's authority has the power to declare the defiant person (called the contemnor) in contempt of court. "There are two types of contempt, criminal and civil.
"Criminal contempt occurs when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly - for example, by yelling at the judge. This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. A criminal contemnor may be fined, jailed or both as punishment for his act.
"Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor willfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the judge's immediate realm and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt. A civil contemnor, too, may be fined, jailed or both. The fine or jailing is meant to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he complies with the court order. In family law, civil contempt is one way a court enforces alimony, child support, custody and visitation orders which have been violated...
The criminal charge, Contempt of Congress, (which is the legal-extension of the charge, Contempt of Court, as applied to the United States Congress, [i.e. House of Representatives and Senate,] and herein contained in the same definition found in a legal dictionary/lexicon,) "...By the Constitution of the United States, each house of congress may determine the rules of its proceeding's, punish its members for disorderly behaviour and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. The same provision is substantially contained in the constitutions of the several states.
"The power to make rules carries that of enforcing them, and to attach persons who violate them and punish them for contempts. This power of punishing for contempts is confined to punishment during the session of the legislature and cannot extend beyond it, and it seems this power cannot be exerted beyond imprisonment.
"Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings...
"...When a person is in prison for a contempt, it has been decided in New York that he cannot be discharged by another judge when brought before him on a habeas corpus; and it belongs exclusively to the court offended to judge of contempts and what amounts to them; and no other court or judge can, or ought to undertake in a collateral way, to question or review an adjudication of a contempt made by another competent jurisdiction.
"This way be considered as the established doctrine equally in England as in this country."
The criminal charge, Contempt of Constitution, though not heretofore rendered as a charge in criminal court, (of which this writer is aware,) does seem to have legal merit, regarding the wording of the afore-stated lexicographical definition of Contempt of Court, which may be arguably-applied to all Americans up to and including the President of The united States of America.
"...By the Constitution of the United States, each house of congress may determine the rules of its proceeding's, punish its members for disorderly behaviour..."
Posit: "If the Constitution of The United States must be cited to give Authority to the charge of Contempt of Court, as it applies to the U. S. Congress, and every legal court, under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, either severally or corporately, as well as the power to exact criminal and/or civil punishment, regarding disrespect to and challenge toward the authority of the same, then by application the United States Constitution has the same Authority extant in its very wording as well as having the same power to exact punishment against every citizen of these United States, up to and including the President of these United States, when it may be proven, beyond reasonable doubt that said-citizen of the United States considers himself/herself to be above the highest law of the land, The United States Constitution."
This means that, if any citizen of these United States, willfully and knowingly violates any Right, protected in the Bill of Rights, against another citizen of these United States, either severally or corporately, then the alleged-until-proven criminal, whether Ms. Hackett or Mr. Obama, stands arguably-liable to be charged with Contempt of Court, regarding Respect for the United States Constitution.
Under the laws of the United States, the election of a felon to the Office of President would be difficult at best in the words of one writer on Yahoo's Answers page, (which is neither of legal-standing nor scientifically-calibrated, but is a barometer of public-opinion, "Technically a felon with restored voting rights could probably file to run, however getting elected to the office of President would be virtually impossible in our political climate.")
Bottom Line: Atheists would think-twice before running afoul of the law, if the establishment of the "No-God" position on religious thought was to be given, once and for all, precedence as being legally-liabilous to the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
In short, in the United States of America, atheists are completely free to not worship The Lord in private and in public.
However, atheists have no right to prevent Christians from worshipping The Lord in private and in public.
"The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you.”
(Jesus of Nazareth)