“Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof…”

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is currently a debate in Washington on whether or not we should amend the Constitution to prevent what are called “anchor babies” from receiving citizenship upon their birth.  The U.S. Constitution does not bestow citizenship upon these ‘anchor babies’ and only the laws of the states could possibly bestow citizenship upon them.  The Constitution provides that the United States has the power to make an uniformed law of naturalization.  (Though it seems the laws are hardly uniform, as exceptions are made for certain classes of people.)

That being said, nobody has yet to provide me with any Supreme Court ruling that recognizes an automatic grant of citizenship to a child born of alien parents visiting the United States.  I have found, however, the opposite to be true, and supporting my understanding of the phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.”

One claim is that in Pyler v. Doe:

Apparently from Wikipedia:

Any remaining doubts about the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment were resolved by the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.”

However, this is not true.

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not “within the jurisdiction” of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

The Key word being “resident” – As the end of the first section of the 14th Amendment implies that “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof..” assumes they reside in the state.

From a book written in 1868 from the congressional debates regarding the 14th Amendment:

A tourist doesn’t give their allegiance to the country they are visiting, nor do they denounce their citizenship of their homeland.  The words “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” did mean: not owing allegiance to anybody else.  In this case, they were discussing Native Americas, and since they weren’t granted citizenship upon birth, even though they were born within the boundaries of the United States, they were not subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.

This question was answered in an American & English Law Encyclopedia in 1888.

<—–HERE

The American and English encyclopedia of law, Volume 6

I don’t believe that at any point during its construction, that the lawmakers believed this amendment would encompass children born of foreign visitors to this country.  I think that is obvious from the above posts.  If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

Christmas Music..

One of my favorite songs…

Baby Its Cold Outside

Partisan Parasitism

” Work out your own salvation.”—Paul.
” Be no longer a chaos, but a World, or even  Worldkin. Produce ! Produce ! Were it but the pitifullest infinitesimal fraction of a Product, produce it, in God’s name !”—Carlyle.

FROM a study of the habits and organization of the family of Hermit-crabs we have already gained some insight into the nature and effects of parasitism. But the Hermit-crab, be it remembered, is in no real sense a parasite. And before we can apply the general principle further we must address ourselves briefly to the examination of a true case of parasitism.

We have not far to seek. Within the body of the Hermit-crab a minute organism may frequently be discovered resembling, when magnified, a miniature kidney-bean. A bunch of root-like processes hangs from one side, and the extremities of these are seen to ramify in delicate films through the living tissues of the crab. This simple organism is known to the naturalist as a Sacculina; and though a full-grown animal, it consists of no more parts than those just named. Not a trace of structure is to be detected within this rude and all but inanimate frame; it possesses neither legs, nor eyes, nor mouth, nor throat, nor stomach, nor any other organs, external or internal. This Sacculina is a typical parasite. By means of its twining and theftuous roots it imbibes automatically its nourishment ready-prepared from the body of the crab. It boards indeed entirely at the expense of its host, who supplies it liberally with food and shelter and everything else it wants. So far as the result to itself is concerned this arrangement may seem at first sight satisfactory enough; but when we inquire into the life history of this small creature we unearth a career of degeneracy all but unparalleled in nature.

The most certain clue to what nature meant any animal to become is to be learned from its embryology. Let us, therefore, examine for a moment the earliest positive stage in the development of the Sacculina. When the embryo first makes its appearance it bears not the remotest resemblance to the adult animal. A different name even is given tc it by the biologist, who knows it at this period as a Nauplius. This minute organism has an oval body, supplied with six well-jointed feet by means of which it paddles briskly through the water. For a time it leads an active and independent life, industriously securing its own food and escaping enemies by its own gallantry. But soon a change takes place. The hereditary taint of parasitism is in its blood, and it proceeds to adapt itself to the pauper habits of its race. The tiny body first doubles in upon itself, and from the two front limbs elongated filaments protrude. Its four hind limbs entirely disappear, and twelve short-forked swimming organs temporarily take their place. Thus strangely metamorphosed the Sacculina sets out in search of a suitable host, and in an evil. hour, by ‘that fate which is always ready to accommodate the transgressor, is thrown into the company of the Hermit crab. With its two filamentary processes—which afterwards develop into the root-like organs—it penetrates the body; the sac-like form is gradually assumed; the whole of the swimming feet drop off, —they will never be needed again,—and the animal settles down for the rest of its life as a parasite.

One reason which makes a zoologist certain that the Sacculina is a degenerate type is, that in almost all other instances of animals which begin life in the Nauplius-form — and there are several — the Nauplius develops through higher and higher stages, and arrives finally at the high perfection displayed by the shrimp, lobster, crab, and other crustaceans. But instead of rising to its opportunities, the sacculine Nauplius having reached a certain point turned back. It shrunk from the struggle for life, and beginning probably by seeking shelter from its host went on to demand its food ; and so falling from bad to worse, became in time an entire dependant.

In the eyes of Nature this was a twofold crime. It was first a disregard of evolution, and second, which is practically the same thing, an evasion of the great law of work. And the revenge of Nature was therefore necessary. It could not help punishing the Sacculina for violated law, and the punishment, according to the strange and noteworthy way in which Nature usually punishes, was meted out by natural processes, carried on within its own organization. Its punishment was simply that it was a Sacculina—that it was a Sacculina when it might have been a Crustacean. Instead of being a free and independent organism high in structure, original in action, vital with energy, it deteriorated into a torpid and all but amorphous sac confined to perpetual imprisonment and doomed to a living death. ” Any new set of conditions,” says Ray Lankester, * occurring to an animal which render its food and safety very easily attained, seem to lead as a rule to degeneration; just as an active healthy man sometimes degenerates when he becomes suddenly possessed of a fortune; or as Rome degenerated when possessed of the riches of the ancient world. The habit of parasitism clearly acts upon animal organization in this way. Let the parasitic life once be secured, and away go legs, jaws, eyes, and ears ; the active, highly gifted crab, insect, or annelid may become a mere sac, absorbing nourishment and laying eggs.”  (Degeneration,” by E. Ray Lankester, p. 33.)

There could be no more impressive illustration than this of what with entire appropriateness one might call ” the physiology of backsliding.” We fail to appreciate the meaning of spiritual degeneration or detect the terrible nature of the consequences only because they evade the eye of sense. But could we investigate the spirit as a living organism, or study the soul of the backslider on principles of comparative anatomy, we should have a revelation of the organic effects of sin, even of the mere sin of carelessness as to growth and work, which must revolutionize our ideas of practical religion. There is no room for the doubt even that what goes on in the body does not with equal certainty take place in the spirit under the corresponding conditions.

 The penalty of backsliding is not something unreal and vague, some unknown quantity which may be measured out to us disproportionately, or which perchance, since God is good, we may altogether evade. The consequences are already marked within the structure of the soul. So to speak, they are physiological. The thing affected by our indifference or by our indulgence is not the book of final judgment but the present fabric of the soul. The punishment of degeneration is simply degeneration—the loss of functions, the decay of organs, the atrophy of the spiritual nature. It is well-known that the recovery of the backslider is one of the hardest problems in spiritual work. To reinvigorate an old organ seems more difficult and hopeless than to develop a new one ; and the backslider’s terrible lot is to have to retrace with enfeebled feet each step of the way along which he strayed; to make up inch by inch the lee-way he has lost, carrying with him a dead-weight of acquired reluctance, and scarce knowing whether to be stimulated or discouraged by the oppressive memory of the previous fall.

We are not, however, to discuss at present the physiology of backsliding. Nor need we point out at greater length that parasitism is always and indissolubly accompanied by degeneration. We wish rather to examine one or two leading tendencies of the modern religious life which directly or indirectly induce the parasitic habit and bring upon thousands of unsuspecting victims such secret and appalling penalties as have been named.

Two main causes are known to the biologist as tending to induce the parasitic habit. These are, first, the temptation to secure safety without the vital exercise of faculties, and, second, the disposition to find food without earning it. The first, which we have formally considered, is probably the preliminary stage in most cases. The animal, seeking shelter, finds unexpectedly that it can also thereby gain a certain measure of food. Compelled in the first instance, perhaps by stress of circumstances, to rob its host of a meal or perish, it gradually acquires the habit of drawing all its supplies from the ^ame source, and thus becomes in time a confirmed parasite. Whatever be its origin, however, it is certain that the main evil of parasitism is connected with the further question of food. Mere safety with Nature is a secondary, though by no means an insignificant, consideration. And while the organism forfeits a part of its organization by any method of evading enemies which demands no personal effort, the most entire degeneration of the whole system follows the neglect or abuse of the functions of nutrition.

The direction in which we have to seek the wider application of the subject will now appear. We have to look into those cases in the moral and spiritual sphere in which the functions of nutrition are either neglected or abused. To sustain life, physical, mental, moral, or spiritual, some sort of food is essential. To secure an adequate supply each organism also is provided with special and appropriate faculties. But the final gain to the organism does not depend so much on the actual amount of food procured as on the exercise required to obtain it . In one sense the exercise is only a means to an end, namely, the finding food; but in another and equally real sense, the exercise is the end, the food the means to attain that. Neither is of permanent use without the other, but the correlation between them is so intimate that it were idle to say that one is more necessary than the other. Without food exercise is impossible, but without exercise food is useless.

Thus exercise is in order to food, and food is in order to exercise—in order especially to that further progress and maturity which only ceaseless activity can promote. Now food too easily acquired means food without that accompaniment of discipline which is infinitely more valuable than the food itself. It means the possibility of a life which is a mere existence. It leaves the organism in statu quo, undeveloped, immature, low in the scale of organization and with a growing tendency to pass from the state of equilibrium to that of increasing degeneration. What an organism is depends upon what it does ; its activities make it . And if the stimulus to the exercise of all the innumerable faculties concerned in nutrition be withdrawn by the conditions and circumstances of life becoming, or being made to become, too easy, there is first an arrest of development, and finally a loss of the parts themselves. If, in short, an organism does nothing, in that relation it is nothing.

We may, therefore, formulate the general principle thus: Any principle which secures food to the individual without the expenditure of work is injurious. and accompanied by the degeneration and loss of parts.

The social and political analogies of this law, which have been casually referred to already, are sufficiently familiar to render any further develop, ment in these directions superfluous. After the eloquent preaching of the Gospel of Work by Thomas Carlyle, this century at least can never plead that one of the most important moral bearings of the subject has not been duly impressed upon it . All that can be said of idleness generally might be fitly urged in support of this great practical truth AH nations which have prematurely passed away, buried in graves dug by their own effeminacy; all those individuals who have secured a hasty wealth by the chances of speculation ; all children of fortune; all victims of inheritance ; all social sponges ; all satellites of the court; all beggars of the market-place— all these are living and unlying witnesses to the unalterable retributions of the law of parasitism. But it is when we come to study the working of the principle in the religious sphere that we discover the full extent of the ravages which the parasitic habit can make on the souls of men. We can only hope to indicate here one or two of the things in modern Christianity which minister most subtly and widely to this as yet all but unnamed sin.

We begin in what may seem a somewhat unlooked-for quarter. One of the things in the religious world which tends most strongly to induce the parasitic habit is Going to Church. Church-going itself every Christian will rightly consider an invaluable aid to the ripe development of the spiritual life. Public worship has a place in the national religious life so firmly established that nothing is ever likely to shake its influence. So supreme indeed, is the ecclesiastical system in all Christian countries that with thousands the religion of the Church and the religion of the individual are one. But just because of its high and unique place in religious regard, does it become men from time to time to inquire how far the Church is really ministering to the spiritual health of the immense religious community which looks to it as its foster-mother. And if it falls to us here reluctantly to expose some secret abuses of this venerable system, let it be well understood that these are abuses, and not that the sacred institution itself is being violated by the attack of an impious hand.

The danger of church-going largely depends on the form of worship, but it may be affirmed that even the most perfect Church affords to all worshippers a greater or less temptation to parasitism. It consists essentially in the deputy-work or deputy worship inseparable from church or chapel ministrations. One man is set apart to prepare a certain amount of spiritual truth for the rest. He, if he is a true man, gets all the benefits of original work. He finds the truth, digests it, is nourished and enriched by it before he offers it to his flock. To a large extent it will nourish and enrich in turn a number of his hearers. But still they will lack something. The faculty of selecting truth at first hand and appropriating it for one’s self is a lawful possession to every Christian. Rightly exercised it conveys to him truth in its freshest form; it offers him the opportunity of verifying doctrines for himself; it makes religion personal; it deepens and intensifies the only convictions that are worth deepening, those, namely, which are honest; and it supplies the mind with a basis of certainty in religion. But if all one’s truth is derived by imbibition from the Church, the faculties for receiving truth are not only undeveloped but one’s whole view of truth becomes distorted. He who abandons the personal search for truth, under whatever pretext, abandons truth. The very word truth, by becoming the limited possession of a guild, ceases to have any meaning; and faith, which can only be founded on truth, gives way to credulity, resting on mere opinion.

In those churches especially where all parts of the worship are subordinated to the sermon, this species of parasitism is peculiarly encouraged. What is meant to be a stimulus to thought becomes the substitute for it. The hearer never really learns, he only listens. And while truth and knowledge seem to increase, life and character are left in arrear. Such truth, of course, and such knowledge, are a mere seeming. Having cost nothing, they come to nothing. The organism acquires a growing immobility, and finally exists in a state of entire intellectual helplessness and inertia. So the parasitic Church-member, the literal ” adherent,” conies not merely to live only within the circle of ideas of his minister, but to be content that his minister has these ideas—like the literary parasite who fancies he knows everything because he has a good library.

Where the worship, again, is largely liturgical the danger assumes an even more serious form, and it acts in some such way as this. Every sincere man who sets out in the Christian race begins by attempting to exercise the spiritual faculties for himself. The young life throbs in his veins,- and he sets himself to the further progress with earnest purpose and resolute will. For a time he bids fair to attain a high and original development. But the temptation to relax the always difficult effort at spirituality is greater than he knows. The ” carnal mind ” itself is ” enmity against God,” and the antipathy, or the deadlier apathy within, is unexpectedly encouraged from that very outside source from which he anticipates the greatest help. Connecting himself with a Church he is no less interested than surprised to find how rich is the provision there for every part of his spiritual nature. Each service satisfies or surfeits. Twice, or even three times a week, this feast is spread for him. The thoughts are deeper than his own, the faith keener, the worship loftier, the whole ritual more reverent and splendid. What more natural than that he should gradually exchange his personal religion for that of the congregation ? What more likely than that a public religion should by insensible stages supplant his individual faith ? What more simple than to content himself with the warmth of another’s soul ? What more tempting than to give up private prayer for the easier worship of the liturgy or of the church ? What, in short, more natural than for the independent, free-moving, growing Sacculina to degenerate into the listless, useless, pampered parasite of the pew ? The very means he takes to nurse his personal religion often come in time to wean him from it. Hanging admiringly, or even enthusiastically, on the lips of eloquence, his senses now stirred by ceremony, now soothed by music, the parasite of the pew enjoys his weekly worship—his character untouched, his will unbraced, his crude soul unquickened and unimproved. Thus, instead of ministering to the growth of individual members, and very often just in proportion to the superior excellence of the provision made for them by another, does this gigantic system of deputy-nutrition tend to destroy development and arrest the genuine culture of the soul. Our churches overflow with members who are mere consumers. Their interest in religion is purely parasitic. Their only spiritual exercise is the automatic one of imbibition, the clergyman being the faithful Hermit-crab who is to be depended on every Sunday for at least a week’s supply.

A physiologist would describe the organism resulting from such a process as a case of ” arrested development.” Instead of having learned to pray, the ecclesiastical parasite becomes satisfied with being prayed for. His transactions with the Eternal are effected by commission. His work for Christ is done by a paid deputy. His whole life is a prolonged indulgence in the bounties of the Church ; and surely—in some cases at least the crowning irony—he sends for the minister when he lies down to die.

Other signs and consequences of this species of parasitism soon become very apparent. The first symptom is idleness. When a Church is off its true diet it is off its true work. Hence one explanation of the hundreds of large and influential congregations ministered to from week to week by men of eminent learning and earnestness, which yet do little or nothing in the line of these special activities for which all churches exist. An out’ standing man at the head of a huge, useless and torpid congregation is always a puzzle. But is the reason not this, that the congregation gets too good food too cheap ? Providence has mercifully delivered the Church from too many great men in her pulpits, but there are enough in every countryside to play the host disastrously to a large circle of otherwise able-bodied Christian people, who, thrown on their own resources, might fatten themselves and help others. There are compensations to a flock for a poor minister after all. Where the fare is indifferent those who are really hungry will exert themselves to procure their own supply.

That the Church has indispensable functions to discharge to the individual is not denied ; but taking into consideration the universal tendency to parasitism in the human soul it is a grave question whether in some cases it does not really effect more harm than good. A dead church certainly, a church having no reaction on the community, a church without propagative power in the world, cannot be other than a calamity to all within its borders. Such a church is an institution, first for making, then for screening parasites ; and instead of representing to the world the Kingdom of God on earth, it is despised alike by godly and by godless men as the refuge for fear and formalism and the nursery of superstition.

And this suggests a second and not less practical evil of a parasitic piety—that it presents to the world a false conception of the religion of Christ. One notices with a frequency which may well excite alarm that the children of church-going parents often break away as they grow in intelligence, not only from church-connection but from the whole system ol family religion. In some cases this is doubtless due to natural perversity, but in others it certainly arises from the hollowness of the outward forms which pass current in society and at home for vital Christianity. These spurious forms, fortunately or unfortunately, soon betray themselves. How little there is in them becomes gradually apparent. And rather than indulge in a sham the budding sceptic, as the first step, parts with the form and in nine cases out of ten concerns himself no further to find a substitute. Quite deliberately, quite honestly, sometimes with real regret and even at personal sacrifice he takes up his position, and to his parent’s sorrow and his church’s dishonour forsakes for ever the faith and religion of his fathers. Who will deny that this is a true account of the natural history of much modern scepticism ? A formal religion can never hold its own in the nineteenth century. It is better that it should not. We must either be real or cease to be. We must either give up our Parasitism or our sons.

Any one who will take the trouble to investigate a number of cases where whole families of outwardly godly parents have gone astray, will probably find that the household religion had either some palpable defect, or belonged essentially to the parasitic order. The popular belief that the sons of clergymen turn out worse than those of the laity is, of course, without foundation ; but it may also probably be verified that in the instances where clergymen’s sons notoriously discredit their father’s ministry, that ministry in a majority of cases, will be found to be professional and theological rather than human and spiritual . Sequences in the moral and spiritual world follow more closely than we yet discern the great law of Heredity. The Parasite begets the Parasite—only in the second generation the offspring are sometimes sufficiently wise to make the discovery, and honest enough to proclaim it.

We now pass on to the consideration of another form of Parasitism which, though closely related to that just discussed, is of sufficient importance to justify a separate reference. Appealing to a somewhat smaller circle, but affecting it not less disastrously, is the Parasitism induced by certain abuses of Systems of Theology.

In its own place, of course, Theology is no more to be dispensed with than the Church. In every perfect religious system three great departments must always be represented—criticism, dogmatism, and evangelism. Without the first there is no guarantee of truth, without the second no defence of truth, and without the third no propagation of truth. But when these departments become mixed up, when their separate functions are forgotten, when one is= made to do duty for another, or where either is developed by the church or the individual at the expense of the rest, the result is fatal. The particular abuse, however, of which we have now to speak, concerns the tendency in orthodox communities, first to exalt orthodoxy above all other elements in religion, and secondly to make the possession of sound beliefs equivalent to the possession of truth.

Doctrinal preaching, fortunately, as a constant practice is less in vogue than in a former age, but there are still large numbers whose only contact with religion is through theological forms. The method is supported by a plausible defence. What is doctrine but a compressed form of truth, systematized by able and pious men, and sanctioned by the imprimatur of the Church ? If the greatest minds of the Church’s past, having exercised themselves profoundly upon the problems of religion, formulated as with one voice a system of doctrine, why should the humble inquirer not gratefully accept it ? Why go over the ground again ? Why with his dim light should he betake himself afresh to Bible study and with so great a body of divinity already compiled, presume himself to be still a seeker after truth ? Does not Theology give him Bible truth in reliable, convenient, and moreover, in logical propositions ? There it lies extended to the last detail in the tomes of the Fathers, or abridged in a hundred modern compendia, ready-made to his hand, all cut and dry, guaranteed sound and wholesome, why not use it ?

Just because it is all cut and dry. Just because it is ready-made. Just because it lies there in reliable, convenient and logical propositions. The moment you appropriate truth in such a shape you appropriate a form. You cannot cut and dry truth. You cannot accept truth ready-made without it ceasing to nourish the soul as truth. You cannot live on theological forms without becoming a Parasite and ceasing to be a man.

There is no worse enemy to a living Church than a prepositional theology, with the latter controlling the former by traditional authority. For one does not then receive the truth for himself, he accepts it bodily. He begins the Christian life set up by his Church with a stock-in-trade which has cost him nothing, and which, though it may serve him all his lite, is just exactly worth as much as his belief in his Church. This possession of truth, moreover, thus lightly won, is given to him as infallible. It is a system. There is nothing to add to it. At his peril le’ him question or take from it. To start a convert ‘n life with such a principle is unspeakably degrading. All through life instead of working towards truth he must work from it. An infallible standard Is a temptation to a mechanical faith. Infallibility always paralyses. It gives rest; but it is the rest of stagnation. Men perform one great act of faith at the beginning of their life, then have done with it for ever. All moral, intellectual and spiritual effort is over; and a cheap theology ends in a cheap life.

The same thing that makes men take refuge in the Church of Rome makes them take refuge in a set of dogmas. Infallibility meets the deepest desire of man, but meets it in the most fatal form. Men deal with the hunger after truth in two ways. First by Unbelief—which crushes it by blind force; or, secondly, by resorting to some external source credited with Infallibility—which lulls it to sleep by blind faith. The effect of a doctrinal theology is the effect of Infallibility. And the wholesale belief in such a system, however accurate it may be—grant even that it were infallible—is not Faith though it always gets that name. It is mere Credulity. It is a complacent and idle rest upon authority, not a hard-earned, self-obtained, personal possession. The moral responsibility here, besides is reduced to nothing. Those who framed the Thirty-nine Articles or the Westminster Confession are responsible. And anything which destroys responsibility, or transfers it, cannot be other than injurious in its moral tendency and useless in itself.

It may be objected perhaps that this statement of the paralysis spiritual and mental induced by Infallibility applies also to the Bible. The answer is that though the Bible is infallible, the Infallibility is not in such a form as to become a temptation. There is the widest possible difference between the form of truth in the Bible and the form in theology.

In theology truth is propositional—tied up in neat parcels, systematized, and arranged in logical order. The Trinity is an intricate doctrinal problem. The Supreme Being is discussed in terms of philosophy. The Atonement is a formula which is to be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid. And Justification is to be worked out as a question of jurisprudence. There is no necessary connection between these doctrines and the life of him who holds them. They make him orthodox, not necessarily righteous. They satisfy the intellect but need not touch the heart. It does not, in short, take a religious man to be a theologian. It simply takes a man with fair reasoning powers. This man happens to apply these powers to theological subjects -—but in no other sense than he might apply them to astronomy or physics. But truth in the Bible is a fountain. It is a diffused nutriment, so diffused that no one can put himself off with the form. It is reached not by thinking, but by doing. It >s seen, discerned, not demonstrated. It cannot be bolted whole, but must be slowly absorbed into the system. Its vagueness to the mere intellect, its refusal to be packed into portable phrases, its satisfying unsatisfyingness, its vast atmosphere, its finding of us, its mystical hold of us, these are the tokens of its infinity.

Nature never provides for man’s wants in any direction, bodily, mental, or spiritual, in such a form as that he can simply accept her gifts automatically. She puts all the mechanical powers at his disposal—but he must make his lever. She gives him corn, but he must grind it. She elaborates coal, but he must dig for it. Corn is perfect, all the products of Nature are perfect, but he has everything to do to them before he can use them. So with truth ; it is perfect, infallible. But he cannot use it as it stands. He must work, think, separate, dissolve, absorb, digest; and most of these he must do for himself and within himself. If it be replied that this is exactly what theology does, #e answer it is exactly what it does not. It simply does what the greengrocer does when he arranges his apples and plums in his shop window. He may tell me a magnum bonum from a Victoria, or a Baldwin from a Newtown Pippin. But he does not help me to eat it. His information is useful, and for scientific horticulture essential. Should a sceptical pomologist deny that there was such a thing as a Baldwin, or mistake it for a Newtown Pippin, we should be glad to refer to him ; but if we were hungry, and an orchard were handy, we should not trouble him. Truth in the Bible is an orchard rather than a museum. Dogmatism will be very valuable to us when scientific necessity makes us go to the museum. Criticism will be very useful in seeing that only fruit-bearers grow in the orchard. But truth in the doctrinal form is not natural, proper, assimilable food for the soul of man.

Is this a plea then for doubt ? Yes, for that philosophic doubt which is the evidence of a faculty doing its own work. It is more necessary for us to be active than to be orthodox. To be orthodox is what we wish to be, but we can only truly reach it by being honest, by being original, by seeing with our own eyes, by believing with our own heart . ” An idle life,” says Goethe, ” is death anticipated.” Better far be burned at the stake of Public Opinion than die the living death of Parasitism. Better an aberrant theology than a suppressed organization. Better a little faith dearly won, better launched alone on the infinite bewilderment of Truth, Than perish on the splendid plenty of the richest creeds. Such Doubt is no self-willed presumption. Nor, truly exercised, will it prove itself, as much doubt does, the synonym for sorrow. It aims at a lifelong learning, prepared for any sacrifice of will yet for none of independence ; at that high progressive education which yields rest in work and work in rest, and the development of immortal faculties in both ; at that deeper faith which believes in the vastness and variety of the revelations of God, and their accessibility to all obedient hearts.

Experience is the ‘Word of God’, until the experience it is merely speculation and belief. Sharing this “Word of God” is sharing your experiences, but unless you can prove what you experienced to be true, it cannot become God’s Law.  God and Science aren’t so different afterall. While science can help us to determine what the “Word of God” is, it can neither  prove nor disprove his existence as a supernatural being, but logic can tie together what is meant by “God” in many of the teachings that exist in the world.  But nobody should be forced to believe something they haven’t themselves experienced in their own lifetime.  Doing so would be contrary to the “Word of God”.  Else we couldn’t determine the difference between good and evil.  I think I’d rather have a lifetime of hardships and experiences than leisure and ignorance.  Though we aren’t known to pass off our memories to our offspring, our genetic memory does… And when a people find new ways to live off of the work of another class of people, you are likely to doom yourself to extinction.

Holy Economics Batman!

Basic economics:
If it costs $1500 per month, ($1000 for Housing & Utilities, $500 for Nourishment)…

A Population of 100,000 people would total $150,000,000 per month in Cost of living expenses.

Assume the State Government operated all business that provide necessity services & products to the citizens, because no company should profit off the desperate needs of others. (How much is being financially secure worth to you? Would you break the law if it provided financial security for you and your family?)
We can assume that the basic “industries of necessities” produces and provide seeds, fertilizers, tools, metal processing, etc. etc. and does not outsource any work whatsoever. If this “Nourishment Production Industry” employs a total of 30,000 people, their minimum labor expenses amount to $45,000,000.
We know the population will spend $50,000,000/mo on food. That industry could hire up to 33,333 people and break even.

We know the population will spend $100,000,000/mo on Housing & Utitlies. These industries could hire up to 66,666 people, and break even.

But then we need government. So approximately 1000 Government employees to legislate, provide justice, police, and misc. gov’t duties. The profits made from the necessities would pay for the Public Servants.

This ultimately provides for a circular economy. It is self sustaining as the money earned goes out and comes back in. An infinite loop. But, ultimately, it’s no different than slavery. Slaves were provided all the necessities that were needed, including healthcare, food, housing, etc. So what happens when some people are paid only $1200/mo? They either don’t eat, or they share a living space, or they live on the streets. They make things work as much as possible. So to me, why would anyone pay people less than the cost of living? Greed, to pay the people at the top that do nothing but feed off of the hard labors of others. The wealth of a nation is earned by those laboring classes. Or perhaps to raise the value in stock in order to attract investors?

We don’t necessarily need to export anything in order to function, the only reason we need global trading is so that the parasitic bankers can continue to manipulate people into believing they are necessary. I recently read that the first bank founded by the Rothschilds in 1903 had to be desolved because a law required an audit 30 days after a bank opens its doors. Apparently, the fraud they were involved in was noticed immediately, and the corporation dissolved. How f*cked up is that? Not even open 30 days and trying to suck the blood out of our economy… Go figure. The math i see is that too many people on top, think they are worth more for doing much less.. they act as if they’re Nobility, and treat the classes responsible for their wealth as ignobles. Until the gap gets extremely smaller, this economy won’t see much of a rebound. Unless we wanted to pass legislation that prevented companies from paying out more than minimum wage to all, until unemployment is below 2%… and all profits are tax contributions to rebuild the economy.
*shrugs*

I’m not claiming to be an economic expert, and perhaps I missed something, or it’s actually that simple.

I know it is a basic model, I didn’t want to make any longer than I had to in order to bring up a point. The problem with our economy (in my opinion) is that there are too many monkeys jumping on the bed.

I know I’ve made this point before, and while I find the concept difficult to support because of the level of salary ive been used to, I think it’s really the only way to go. Anything above the amount would be for going above on beyond, but that would be easy for me, cause i’m always working my bon bons off.

Bankers don’t deserve to be Millionares or Billionaires, while those people who labored day in and day out to pay for basics, so the banker can work an hour a day?

The more educated you are, the easier it is for you to do your job. The less educated you are, the harder (usually) you end up working. Do we really want to reward the parasites over the producers?

The example I provided makes it abundantly clear that an economic system could be created to provide every person with employment to provide for their own basic needs. As money is earned, it also is spent and the cycle repeats month after month. Compared to our system, which you may believe the economic growth occurs at a better rate, but I recall reading a study a while back that suggested this is false. Before the civil war, a great deal of progress had been made. War has been a great producer of innovation, but I would give up innovation to avoid a war, wouldn’t you?

Just something to chew over… the scheme currently in place is specifically geared to drain all the wealth from our country. And those who get rich today, leave the country and immigrate elsewhere.. their children no longer being obligated to contribute their fair share, like the rest of them…

Cosponsors

Cosponsors

Posted using ShareThis

Is your God the Devil?

Christianity as we know is derived from Judaism. The Jewish people don’t seem to know for sure what Gods name is, either Elohim or YHVH. and I have read that Genesis is divided into 3 books that have been combined. Genesis Elohim, Genesis Elohim YHVH, and Genesis YHVH. YHVH almost sounds like Aqua or Water.

Elohi is the Cherokee word for Earth.
Ga-ya is the Cherokee word for woman. Gaia is the Ancient word for mother earth. Wife to Kronos who had a thing for eating his children.

Jewish people are forbidden to write the name of God or speak it out loud (Speaking I am uncertain). In ancient times, it was believe that by saying “Devil” or one of his names, it would summon him.

If I were the devil, and I wanted to see mankind destroy itself… do you know what I would create? Religion. It’s PERFECT. Wouldn’t that be something? Perhaps there was a guy named Jesus who taught against Judaism, and judging others by the things they do rather than the harm they cause. If I were to reconstruct history, this would be the closer to reality in my opinion. In order to preserve the ‘mystery’ of God, and his working in mysterious ways, the stories had to be more magical… Jesus was, afterall, a Magi.

I think the whole problem with religion is rather than educating people so they can make the right decisions in life, they tell people what is right and wrong, even those who don’t welcome such advice. That’s what I believe makes religion evil. That’s why I believe that if we’re looking for an Anti-Christ, we should be looking at those who judge others on issues that do not concern them.

Perhaps one day.. religions will get it right, and people will be educated so they can make the right choices in life, whatever they may be. But who am I to tell any religion how to be, they have to figure it out on their own. It’s true what they say… when you adopt any ideology for others, you might as well take the “I” out, and you have deology. de- undo and -ology learning.

Words are a funny thing, aren’t they?

WW_D

Tonight I watched a movie called “Batman: Darknight” for the first time. There was a scene toward the end. Two ships, one carrying prisoners, the other carrying ordinary citizens. The Joker tells each boat that at midnight both vessels will blow up, unless, one of them blows the other using a detonator they were each left with.

The argument was… The prisoners made their choice to steal or murder, so the innocent citizens are more deserving of continued life. Only problem is, when a person chooses their life as being more important than others, their life is no longer important, since they are as guilty as the people they’ve condemned.

Perhaps this could be a lesson next time there is an attack on our soil, and we invade 2 and possibly soon to be 3 nations to prevent it from occuring again… to ensure our lives..

Are we so innocent? To be honest, I don’t think we are anymore. By invading another nation, we deserve no less then what we inflict on others.

My point being, we’ve broken the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. And those things in which you inflict upon others, are fair game in return. That’s why this war will never end. It’s what they want from us, to kill off the innocent people… so all that will be left when we stop, is angry people who will stop at nothing to get revenge.

The longer the fight goes on, the more pain we’ll cause ourselves. The infinity… one side fuels the other. If we keep responding like we have for the past 100 years, we destined to destroy ourselves… our pompous attitudes as to knowing what is right. When you have to destroy in order to build a democracy, it’s not a democracy. No matter how you look at it.

2012 – Eye of Ra

This is what will happen on December 21, 2012. The earth becomes the pupil. A time of learning, a time of enlightenment.

I’ll explain more later if people wish, just wanted to get this out.

Economic Collapse: Why we’ll never recover…

In order for the war to continue, the United States must borrow money. So the United States receives products from other countries, and sells it to Americans, taking the money from sales, to fund the war. Part of the borrowing deal is, that the United States must run a deficit with that country. That way the country has to produce more than it buys.

If the 9/11 attacks were committed in order to entice the United States into a war, then countries holding the most debt should all be suspects. #1 debt holder is Saudi Arabia. All of the hijackers were Saudi, were they not?

The amount owed to the foreign nations is put into a sovereign wealth fund. So any economic growth that is had in the United States doesn’t stay in the United States, it grows the debt. How is this not enslavement? Are we not owned by the countries whose investments from American Enterprises causes our debt to grow and grow. Is this how we want this country to continue? The more successful this country is, the more that is owed to Saudi Arabia, China, Britain, etc?

Since 2004, the Sovereign wealth fund has grown from $800 Billion to almost $4 Trillion – I think we need to realize that the people have been brought to their knees. Being the largest ‘country’ in the world, the debt can’t be repaid until our products are purchased by those countries.. so the interest rises and rises and rises.

The only options are to cash out the sovereign wealth fund, which would crash our economy, or continue to let them invest in our stock market, which means our success increases our debt. Success means enslavement… So I guess it’s best for our economy to fail… if we really want to get out of debt.

Oddly enought, the sovereign wealth fund was primarly invested in the banks and the stock derivatives, yet were one of the few investors that have yet to see any noticeable losses from the recent crash.

I think the oppressive loans were a gift for the Sovereign Wealth Funds, and when the system began to fail, they began a campaign to attract retirement funds to offset the sovereign wealth fund. That way, once they pulled completely out, they would have been unaffected, reaping all the benefits in the beginning, but in the end, avoiding the losses due to insider information.

If someone out there is a good researcher… I ask that you look into for yourself. This economic loop is a path to destruction… and bothers me that with all the economists out there… none seem to be doing what’s right for the people.

Direct Taxation…

First time I found a book supporting my interpretation of what a direct tax is, and why Income is not a Direct Tax.

Direct Taxes are a tax directly issued to each of the states, and the amount due should be done according to population. It would be up to the states to determine how they would raise the revenue requested.

There are more misinterpretations that continue to be accepted as precedent.

 

 

Riders are apparently like Earmarks. But they shouldn't exist in a bill of another subject.

 

Continuation for "riders'

Ultimately, “Direct” taxes are those taxes in which the taxpayer is the state government. Apportioned according to its population.  So removing the apportionment was not only Unconstitutional, it was a direct tax upon our Constitution.  An amendment cannot change the intents and purposes of any part of the peoples will.  Nor does the state have the authority to interfere with the Obligations contracted thru the Constitution in creating the General Government.  That’s why so many of the things we think would’ve been made impossible, weren’t considered.. because the founding fathers knew that the amendments didn’t authorize a power to override the will of the people, they only had the power to protect the intents and purposes, in order to restore it to its original working condition through the years.

So if it’s not a direct tax upon the people, it must be an indirect tax.  Indirect taxes can only be applied to the sale of something, possibly labor, but wouldn’t that be increasing the sale price to other nations?  Since companies would have to pay more per person for labor, as if it were a tax on exports.  It would also have to be equal across the country.  No Exemptions, no more filing with the IRS… etc.  Originally, the Supreme Court declared income tax an Indirect tax (excise I believe) and it wasn’t until later that it was declared otherwise.  So much for Precedent.  Then again, follow the Constitution, and we’d not be having this discussion.

Someday, grievances will be addressed.  Hopefully not from a prison cell.