And so as a national community,
we do not have the peace of mind & heart
that should be
and we don’t have momentum as it should be
on making America a more perfect union
because the passion to do so ebbs and flows
only in so much as individual application of defending liberty occurs,
both, in the lesser and greater matters of caring for community
As it was since the time of the Revolutionary War and that generation of 1776, the dismissal of a vibrant awareness of the principle factor of the right to life has continued to anchor our humanity in elementary harbors of narrow-mindedness. It was in the American colonist call of “no taxation, without representation” in what was then the English Commons of America, that legal ‘jurisprudence’ was established amongst chosen, good, and upright representatives of the united colonies, to determine legal claim unto the natural right of man to live safely within a community that establishes a system of laws to protect our individual and civil rights, and our liberty in its multi-faceted forms.
The English monarchy of Charles the Third and the majority of its Parliament refused to listen to English constitutional reformer and member of Parliament, William Pitt, who called for respect and justice in favor of the colonists. He was dismissed and shouted down by the English government who favored instead to maintain such irksome financial charges ‘on the people’ as the Stamp Act tax, and other duties, without reinvesting any of it back into the community that therein quality of life may be improved. There was not a grand English plan to pave roads, establishes schools, and improve services unto the people of all of its American colonial communities. Was there a plan to create libraries and hospitals for the educational enrichment and general health and safety of its people? Such plans, if ever possible, were quickly pushed out by the idea of continuing to form a tremendous presence of English soldiers within major cities and with a sight to expand the conquest of land westward. In this sense, American colonists were viewed more as mere short-term financial products and a sort of property without ability to legally claim right to representation in the national English government. The sovereignty of the ruling monarchy ignored and dismissed the right to a decent life for his subjects in America, and their right to address or to bring forth their grievances in a lawful manner that would be legally respected. So we wrote an essay and wrote down our national grievances in our Declaration of Independence. We also raised an army, got ourselves a fine general, and established a form of government that would be self-correcting. It was people like John Quincy Adams, Charles Sumner, Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln who became our most powerful critical thinkers; armed with intellect, and passion for the goodness of our country and what it stands for that broke the half-arguments and unconstitutional ideas as ‘Popular Sovereignty’ of the Slavery Democrats.
How important is this jockeying for the educational narrative of the American story, and why is a correct understanding of our liberty, and the role of our government so crucial as we move forward?
Should our government politicize itself, and thus polarize the nation?
Being a nation of laws, ‘the people,’ express their sentiments as an assembled representative republican government, maintaining a functioning national community based on the promise of mutual civility that cherishes the natural rights of humanity with the common denominator that there is peace, security, comfort, and relative ease of life within our local and national community for all. The two documents of our constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was intended to safeguard the people’s natural liberties by stipulating them clearly. These founders of our constitutional republic lived in a time when each of the liberties had to be fought for with intellect and blood, and in 1787, that initial framework was written, being a fundamental legal defense of why we have our liberties, what these liberties are, and examples on how our liberties can and have been threatened.
In his letter to Mrs. Mercy Otis Warren on April 16th, 1776, John Adams shares that “THERE MUST BE A POSITIVE PASSION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HONOUR, POWER, AND GLORY, ESTABLISHED in THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE, OR THERE CAN BE NO REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, NOR ANY REAL LIBERTY.”Hence, the protection and cultivation of liberty is the greatest good for the goodness of the people. To that end, our government of the people is tasked with the defense of the liberties of such people, and also with the support of increasing the quality of our society through the support of educational enrichment, that the people may not only be self-reliant, but thrive as an educated America. These two directives and functions: the establishment of civility through the acknowledgment of our natural, universal, God-endowed rights, and the furtherance of the quality of life of the people, through the support of our educational growth, are important cornerstone tasks of our government. In such a sense, the government is not tasked with being the controller of the direction in the ideas the people of the country are to be educationally inculcated with, but merely the people’s chosen assembly of stewards of the original intent and spirit of our constitution, coupled with the basic physical, judicial, and proprietary defense of such a free people. The people are to be free to live their life as they see best, while the government must support the safety of their mutual liberty to do so.
In his writings, John Adams put forth that being extravagant with establishing educational institutions was a perfectly good expenditure as a benefit to the people, and a safeguard of the American way of life. In effect, the surest way of defending our way of life is through the educational upbringing of an aware, altruistically passionate advocating citizen who themselves go forth to be caretakers of others, of community, and the nation of individuals and families as a whole. It is exactly as Frederick Douglass practiced, and John F. Kennedy proclaimed, that we be a people who go about seeking what it is that we can do for our country. To do good and be good.
But what happens when a political party takes control of government and directs the politicization of education in public schools, and universities?
Does an American constituency that has been educated to favor one political perspective over another serve the best interest of the country’s founding ideals?
Now — this priority is not, and has not been so in practice with the change of political administrations that have competing views, and so we become a nation that are battling over ideas and direction of the narrative of the story of our country, replete with a competition of the narrative of what perspective in education new generations of the people should have, rather than mentally strengthening the people to be altruist in their understanding and practice to freely make up their own minds. This has been so since Thomas Jefferson broke ranks with the Federalist political party in favor of a weaker federal government that would not have jurisdiction upon the states ability to transact its businesses and particular political ideations, such as slavery. Jefferson, a slaveholder, had early on sided with establishing a settling of legal perspective wherein the states would be almost sovereign countries, much like the European Union is now. He and John Adams ended their professional friendship because of this, with Jefferson later turning himself around on the issue of treating people as property (slavery) and worked to contain slavery from being a national economic practice in all of its lands, states, and acquired territories. Consequently, Jefferson Democrats distanced themselves from him and his perspective more and more so with the well-known culmination of a disastrous civil war that rendered three quarters of a million Americans as fatalities. The Democrat party became the party of slavery, the Federalist party that was of the generation of 1776 ended, and Abraham Lincoln charged forward with the new Republican party, expressly formed to preserve the union as it grappled, contained and ended slavery.
Critical thinker that he was, Abraham Lincoln walked his way backward into the hearts and minds of the people, seeing it as the best way to reason with them as to how to go about doing the right thing. In his Lincoln-Douglas Debates, he astutely wrangles the faulty ‘popular sovereignty’ reasoning of the Slavery Democrats spokesman of that time, Stephen Douglas, and expertly crafts a path as the savvy, humorous Professor-Educator to the people who both sympathizes with the southern perspective of the status quo, yet clearly defines his stance on the evil of slavery.
The question to us is, who can be savvy and humorous, astute, yet uncompromising in their ability to focus and sustain a critical thinking mind upon the subject of government-sanctioned slavery? Only a trained and practiced, altruist critical thinker! Disallowing the rise of upright, altruist, critical thinkers hobbles the American way of life over time, making it subservient to the whims, caprices, and crafty thinking of a deep state government with special interests. Yet, again, what we need is a disinterested, impartial government, not an institution of laws that benefit and divide a portion of the people against the other. Otherwise, we return to the era of great civil unrest. And this we do not want. Because we are a nation of families banking on maintaining that civil order that favors peace and security amongst us all.
This manner of divided education is sly then, in that it disallows the American constituent to think for themselves in their formative years as human beings. The choice is made for them as to how they will think politically. This hinders our ability to truly think critically and be the best we can be as a people.
How is this carried out? Well, their is political lobbying from special, vested interests to not simply be a government that is a steward and disinterested, altruistic manager of the laws, but to shape the thinking and understanding of the spirit on the ideas of justice and liberty, as well as what role a government should have on the original intention of the framers of our constitution.
When in the course of the American experience, our natural liberties and the peace in the land is challenged, it up to the people to raise up advocates and defenders of these rights, emblazoned within our Constitution. In his September 16th, 1859 speech in Columbus, Ohio, Abraham Lincoln brings the political theory of Stephen Douglas called ‘popular sovereignty’ to mind as an erroneous and unconstitutional idea, wholly unsupported by any of our ‘founding fathers’ of the generation of 1776. ‘Popular sovereignty’ implying that the federal and state government practice ‘non-intervention’ in the question of slavery; that an American citizen can be a law unto their self in regards to treating other human beings as property, namely, as in the issue of extending slavery unto new lands (Missouri Compromise Act) based on the supposition that a citizen may have unilateral authoritative rights beyond the liberties and constraints that the American constitution affords us all. The affable Lincoln, not yet having assumed the executive office of the presidency, nor wearied down by the toil of a Civil War; sprightly and energetically humored the American audience in creating mental space between the incorrect notion of the so-called ‘popular sovereignty’ and the express design of the creators of our constitution, ratified in 1787. Once more, the notion of popular sovereignty has been brought forth as legally plausible by the Supreme Court of 1973, though it was not directly called by that name. A court that was ‘stacked’ with judges favoring granting women a unilateral constitutional right above men, gave unconstitutional right to the women to kill the human life in their womb, and placed the government in both a non-interventionist legal jurisprudence perspective and also having the government financially support the abortion industry. There are in the year 2021, 62 million officially recored human life womb abortions in the United States, not counting all the abortions performed at home with what is known as the morning-after abortion pill, and also what is known as ‘birth control pill,’ a process that kills humanity at the point of conception.
SAFE IN OUR PERSON; OUR RIGHTS, OUR PROPERTY, AND OUR IDEAS PROTECTED FROM ONE ANOTHER AND FROM THE MACHINATIONS OF A NARROW-MINDED GOVERNMENT; ABLE TO LIVE IN SECURITY AND COMFORT, INDUSTRIOUS IN THEIR WORK, AND AT EASE IN THEIR LIFE, WITH ACCESS TO EDUCATION FOR OUR ENRICHMENT AND EMPOWERMENT, THAT WE MAY BE HAPPY.
Such is the spirit of the American Constitution. That the American citizen is a land of mutual sovereigns with natural rights consenting to be a national community of laws, that therein their be peace and justice amongst us. Nowhere is the spirit and intention of our shared constitution espousing or making legal space for the government-funded killing of our unborn children. The Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights are expressly for the protection of the people. The unilateral, additional constitutional legalization of abortion does not safeguard the liberty of the women, but dismisses the natural rights and senses of the humanity in the womb, our sanctity as being made in the image of God, and for atheists, the natural right to life as American citizens. Further, men are not only displaced as fathers with all the rights to safeguard their children; neither are they are made equal to the women in the erroneous action of killing their innocent offspring, but are lowered in rank under the woman as it pertains to such a horrific action.
If the people are given a politically slanted education, what hope is their for a more perfect union?
- How does our constitutional republic traverse forward towards a more perfect American union given that the politics of a roughly equal numbers of the population are diametrically opposed? For example, the 80 million votes cast for the abortion business candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, dismisses the priority issue of the officially approved tally of 73.9 million votes cast for the pro life candidate defending the sanctity of life in the womb?
We are after all a nation of laws. Laws administered and managed by men and women elected to governmental office. Now, we have arrived upon a crossroads once again, wherein even the possibility of having a genuine, informed discussion is being curtailed by the political gamesmanship of ‘identity politics,’ by the politicization of how to prioritize issues of national importance in order to sway, distract, and diminish what ought to be discussed, and by the lack of altruist, caring citizens willing to valiantly question and analyze in productive ways.
This issue of ‘popular sovereignty’ is brought forth again in the year 2021 because it is the central, yet faulty idea which is supporting the strategy of the abortion industry and its alliance conglomerate that pervades:
- academic thought
- the United States Supreme Court
- established media corporations
- vast portions of the entertainment industry
- elected governmental office
All should be well with these United States of America. Our American constitution has provided the simple framework of ideas that are meant to gently connect us in a solidarity of liberty. In that regard, the equality of legal rights of each American before the law should be clearly understood and untrifled with. In our 244th year as a nation though, we are still in the mire of great national division on the very issue that has brought the nation into civil war and tumultuous, civil unrest. It is this issue of human rights. We still are on the ground level of learning to respect the value of human life, even as our technology and national-global economy has reached tremendous crescendos, making it seem as if we are moving forward; as if we are progressing, and that the quality of life is improving. In a nation of 240 million eligible voting citizens,about 160 million voted in the 2020 Presidential & Congressional elections, far exceeding voter turnout in the history of such elections. Great efforts were made to not array the national elections as an epic opposition between American constituents favor a protection of unborn children, and those seeking to defend a woman’s unilateral right of terminating the life of the unborn child in her womb even after birth.
Now we have unborn children who do not have adequate means of being practical defenders of their life, and we do have a law that indirectly states humans in womb formation as not being entirely human. Thus, the developing child in the womb can be treated as the legal property of the female parent, and not a separate entity. The governments Supreme Court was ‘stacked’ with like-minded Justices in that 1973 ruling. Further terminology of the law granting unilateral, constitutional protection to women only, and non to the father of a child.
In that 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing unborn child human extermination facilities across the land, fathers did not gain any rights of consent to life or death for their unborn child, rather the constitutional protection to right to life has been rewritten to include a gap of more than 9 months during the normal human cycle, specifically, the first nine months of life in the womb, wherein OUR human rights are not protected. Further, the government has put it upon all the people to consent to the proliferation of human extermination facilities across the landscape. Traditionally, the abortion facilities have predominated in communities of American citizens of black skin color, Hispanic origin, and low income levels.
The abortion conglomerate can be best described as an octopus apparatus that censors, influences, and controls informational media channels, culture, and government decision-making. At the crux, is the refashioned ‘popular sovereignty’ mantra that the corporatized abortion business puts forth, “my body, my choice,” with the caveat that the government not have intervention in the matter, but certainly front that immoral industry with a whopping $550 million annually. Viewing human rights in such a spectrum diminishes the separate human life ‘in-formation’ within a woman’s womb as ‘property’ that can be brought forth as a human at the end of the 9 month gestation period, or discarded as trash within that timeframe, or even after birth. The ‘popular sovereignty’ put forth by the Slavery Democrats of Stephen Douglas has become the formula of the Abortion Democrats, lifting its bottom lip to the legacy of the creators of our constitutional ideas, placing itself as a law unto itself with the audacity of allowing the death, the very shedding of innocent blood at the rate of 3,500 unborn children each day in the United States.
We have not consented to our national and state governments to permit and bankroll human extermination facilities, but have been led and duped into consenting to compromising with the immorality of displacing sound constitutional ideas. The ideas of establishing a government that defends life, that therein their be true liberty and real justice for all. What we have is a monstrosity known as Planned Parenthood, a billion dollar corporate entity who’s purpose is to end human life in the womb with saline burns, with metal forceps, and with vacuum-suction machines, replete also with the dark cleverness of perpetually purchasing elected office in order to safeguard their permanency.
I do not consent to this form of government.
The governments financial and legal protection of the corporatized human extermination business must be brought to heel. Yet, the craftiness of the human extermination business has entrenched political office soldiers in our very halls of government, much as it was in the time between the founding of our nation and the beginning of our civil war of secession and abolition. These office holders are not the statesmen and stateswoman that we would expect greatness from, but are human beings chosen according to their prioritization of protecting the abortion business machine, with all other issues of national importance taking a distant second seat.
What we are grappling with here is the importance of having a correct understanding of the reasons for why our country was founded, who our founders were, and what views did they have, and how did they live their lives. Ensuring that our schools are instructing Americans to think for themselves in a skillful, critically thinking manner is pivotal to the peace of the people of the land. At the core of it is the idea of our natural rights being endowed on us from our Creator, and that government has no power to abridge or dismiss our rights listed in our American Constitution. The raising up of altruist, critical thinkers and the protection of ascertaining such an independently-thinking American is everything then; such an educated constituency of Americans becomes of the utmost importance in ending the shedding of the innocent blood of our unborn children, and protecting what is good about Americans.