A Divided or Unified America
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© November 21, 2018
This is one of the most thought provoking submissions from Justin Smith on the state of our U.S. Government platformed by the U.S. Constitution.
I am uncertain if it was Justin’s intention but this essay provides good reasoning to reform America’s Constitution. There is as much a divide between naysayers and pro-Constitution reformers for a new Constitutional Convention for American Governance.
The naysayers are concerned about the intrusion of abusive power (both Conservative and Leftists) in government. Constitutional Reformers believe that parameters can be imposed on Constitutional delegates in the framing of a new Constitution. Frankly, in this day and age there are elements of truth that are probably valid concerns from both the naysayers and reformers.
My biggest concern based on America’s last two election cycles, is that Americans are so divided on political ideology (Conservative vs. Leftist) the atmosphere for give and take deliberation in a convention may be impossible.
If you look at American history, Americans were not exactly unified in certainty in leaving the British Monarchy for complete independence. Many Americans considered themselves British citizens living in colonial America. While many other Americans were so upset with British governance exploiting colonial life relegating colonialists conquered subjects with no self-determination in practical local governing robbed of British privilege.
The former were loyal to the Crown but still displeased with socio-political governing. The latter were so displeased with British governing that the feeling of self-governing would provide a better socio-political life based on representation. Then there were a group of colonials that were ambivalent and just sought existence.
Of course the outcome favored the self-government by representation group of colonials; however, there was enough displeasure with British governance among Crown-favored Americans that remained after the Revolutionary War that a consensus could be deliberated upon in the formation of a national government of united former colonies.
On a personal level, I have doubts such a consensus via deliberation is possible in America’s current political divide. The political atmosphere today resembles the America of the Civil War than the Americans during the War of Independence.
I suspect America’s current divide may devolve into a war that would determine the political future of make-up of the United States. Lacking a Lincoln-like individual, that make-up may or may not be a Fractured States of America.
My prayer for America is for a Lincoln-like individual for a unified future. If not, I fear America’s future will fated to foreign domination by a more globalist-minded governance.
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:
Please Support NCCR
‘We the People’
Or A Nation of Sheep
By Justin O. Smith
Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM
Americans, by and large, have not kept themselves informed, and adhered to the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government, which has resulted in more than half the problems we face today as a country. And, because the voters themselves do not know, or care, what the Constitution says, they elect candidates who have no intention, or desire, to support and defend it — believing in “the end justifies the means”. It is a vicious cycle that repeats itself every election cycle and won’t stop until the people take the time to learn what the drafters of the Constitution intended when they wrote it.
So, as Lysander Spooner so aptly said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorizes such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” I could almost stop right there, saying that is how I feel about our system of government, and the document that established it…but I won’t.
Even though the Constitution outlined a fundamentally sound system of government, in theory, the problem is that it was the creation of a group of men who held differing views on what government should look like and what powers it should hold.
Ben Franklin explained it best when he said:
“For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received …” (Source: Franklin’s Final Address to the Constitutional Convention.
There were many concerns expressed by these patriots who opposed the Constitution, but the underlying theme that can be found in most of their writings is that the Constitution created a consolidation of the States into a Union under a strong centralized government.
In a more perfect union, a more perfect Republic, our sovereign and independent states would reassert the 9th and 10th Amendments more forcefully, since they have been abrogated out of existence by federal laws and judicial activism; the states should unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
One of the primary concerns of the anti-Federalists was: Did the Constitution do away with the status quo and create a consolidation of the States into a single, indivisible Union; or Republic, or did the States still retain all powers which were not expressly given; allowing the government to intrude into and interfere with the lives and liberties of the people.
[Blog Editor: It is my humble opinion the concerns of the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the Constitution is important thought relating to America’s current political divide. Here are posts with some perspective on Anti-Federalist thought:
On June 5, 1788 in a speech opposing ratification of the Constitution, Patrick Henry expressed those exact sentiments as follows:
“I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”
It should be obvious, that the people had already established republics by their having created their own State Legislatures, so they actually had no need to create another Republic for the purpose of governing them all. The purpose for which the delegates were sent to Philadelphia was to arrive at suggestions for amendments, in order to make the existing Confederation Government adequate for the needs of the country; not to toss the existing form of government in the trash heap and replace it with one of their creation.
If the powers given to this new form of government were to be exercised primarily upon the States, then why did the drafters of the Constitution demand that it be ratified by the voice of the people; as it was the States whose authority would be further restricted, or usurped, by the creation of this new form of government. However, if this new system of government was, in fact, a consolidation and a diminishing of the sovereignty of the States, then it would make sense that the people must give their consent to it.
Yet, in Federalist 45 James Madison attempted to ensure the people that the States would retain their authority over the lives and liberties of the people by saying:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Most Americans believe the Bill of Rights protects certain rights against governmental interference. That is only partially true, since the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution which created our federal government; not the constitutions which framed the various State governments. Therefore, technically they only apply to the federal government. However, an argument can also be made that, since the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the land, any amendment to it could be implied to apply to the States as well.
Keeping things simple, let’s just say that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. How is it then that the government can dictate what kind of guns private citizens may own; how is it that the Supreme Court — which is PART of the federal government — decides whether a State may display the Ten Commandments, or that children be prohibited from praying in school; how is it that the federal government can violate the 4th Amendment by spying upon the private conversations of every man, woman and child in this country, just to keep us safe from terrorism?
There exists a whole list of things the federal government has done which are not among the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 as those powers given to Congress; which in case you have forgotten, is the lawmaking body of our government; not the President as so many seem to think.
This has all been done because of the concept of implied powers; something introduced while George Washington was President. That occurred because the Constitution itself did not provide specific enough limitations upon the powers it was granting government; leaving loopholes by which government has expanded its power well beyond those originally intended.
So, if that is true, then the Constitution itself failed the people as it did not provide sufficient means for the people to resist the encroaching powers of government and to ward off tyranny and oppression.
Not one individual can provide me with the Article and Clause that grants any of us the authority to arrest and charge any of our elected officials, for the crime of violating the Constitution, because such a clause simply does not exist. And, it is this oversight that has resulted in the Constitution’s failure, by not providing the means to oppose a government that no longer adheres to any kind of limits upon their power and authority.
I only care whether the party that is in control adheres to the Constitutional limitations imposed upon them and seeks to protect and defend my rights…that and nothing more, and both parties have failed miserably in this duty. If government does not do this, then I revoke my consent to being governed by it.
Why do Americans still support a government that no longer resembles or represents the ideas and beliefs which led our Founders to seek their independence from a tyrant? Why do they so meekly submit to tyranny and oppression today? Is there not a drop of patriotic blood left in their bodies?
One certainly must wonder what has kept Americans from marching on D.C, with rifles in hand and sixteen feet lengths of rope, so criminals like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Susan Rice and many others could be hung from the highest tree, or the balcony of the Capitol Building; especially in light of the current double standard of “law” applied in America.
All I see is a nation of sheep who meekly obey the commands of their masters. What has become of the land of the free and the home of the brave? LaVoy Finicum was brave and he was gunned down in cold blood; with the media and the people calling him an extremist.
I seek to restore America to Her Founding Principles and more of an Originalist approach towards the implementation of the U.S. Constitution, which has been bastardized far and away from anything ever intended by the Founding Fathers. If Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they would either have fled the country, or they would be serving time, in Guantanamo Bay as domestic terrorists, because the people of this country no longer care about limited government or individual liberty; all they care about is comfort and security, whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans providing it.
And it makes me sick to death to watch.
~ Justin O Smith
Intro to ‘We the People’
A Divided or Unified America
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© November 21, 2018
‘We the People’
Or A Nation of Sheep
By Justin O. Smith
Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM
Edited by John R. Houk
Most source links by Justin Smith. Some links are by the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.
© Justin O. Smith
6 thoughts on “Intro to ‘We the People’”
B.J.Low. In case you don’t know. God’s children don’t play. They give.
And. How do you see nation’s status?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yurki I’ll relegating live blackjack low stakes to spam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK John. I understand.
“Stand4Life Promo (Shawn Welcome – Civil War)”
Thanks John. Thanks Justin. I see you are outspoken men. The question is. If candidates lie we can’t get trustworthy governments. No matter how we vote. In general the situation is shocking in our fallen World. STAND4LIFE emails me a note.
“Court Allows 11 Year-Old Girl to Abort Her 24-Week-Old Unborn Baby”
– A very young rape survivor and her unborn baby will be the victims of more violence after an Indian court granted a request this week for a late-term abortion.
The News Minute reports the 11-year-old girl’s mother asked the Madras High Court for an exception to the country’s late-term abortion ban. This week, the court granted it after a panel of doctors identified risks to the girl’s health if she carries her unborn baby to term. –
– Courts in India have heard a number of requests for late-term abortions from families of young rape victims recently. Sexual abuse is a huge problem in India, with 20,000 cases of sexual assaults reported in 2015, according to government data reported by AFP.
Rape is an awful crime of violence committed against a woman or girl, but an abortion does not erase the violence or heal the pain. It just ends the life of a second victim of the crime, an unborn baby.
Research by the Elliot Institute found that between 75 percent to 85 percent of pregnant rape victims do not have abortions. Of those who did, many felt pressured or coerced to abort their unborn babies. And in many cases, the women who had abortions felt victimized again by the invasive abortion procedure. –
Please read more:
WATER/H2O (Inspired by Stand4Life)
– 2 Peter 3:5 (KJV) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
– Proverbs 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
– Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
– Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
– John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
“H2O” official poetry video- Shawn Welcome
Furthermore. Thomas More Society sends me email. (It contains a petition.)
– Dear Jyrki ,
I’ve always believed America was something special.
In our founding documents we committed to an idea that was so simple and at the same time revolutionary:
All men created equal and endowed with a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — no matter what.
Sadly, there are people in our own country working against these principles — but you and I both knew that. The pro-abortion crowd doesn’t believe in the fundamental right to life — and every day they’re working to tear down the ideals and principles that built our country.
As we speak, abortion advocates in Indiana are arguing that babies may still be marked for death based on factors spurred by the very worst discriminatory, inhumane motives.
That’s why I’m asking you to sign the Never in America Petition — and pledge to stand alongside the Thomas More Society as we fight to not only reverse Roe v. Wade, but keep the discriminatory abortion practices from abroad out of our country.
Because the pro-abortion activists don’t just want to strip millions of the right to life.
They want to choose who gets to live and die based on sex, disability and race.
In China, they kill girls. In Egypt, they kill Jewish baby boys. And to this day in Iceland, they routinely kill babies with Down syndrome.
And now, the pro-abortion lobby in America is advocating in defense of keeping these barbaric practices protected by law on our own soil.
I say not here, no more, and never again. Are you with me?
Indiana abortion shills don’t just want to slaughter the unborn — they want to choose who lives and dies based on discriminatory and biased motives that are abhorrent and obscene.
It’s not just wrong — it’s a most telling and conspicuous example of abortion’s downright evil.
The Thomas More Society is working hard on this case and has filed a powerful brief in support of Indiana’s law targeting these blatantly discriminatory abortions – a vivid means by which to underscore the evil of Roe v. Wade and the killing defenseless infants.
But we need pro-life warriors like you in our corner. –
Tom Brejcha – President & Chief Counsel
“Never in America Petition”
– America isn’t China, Iceland or Egypt — and you and I can’t sit back and let their barbaric targeting of the unborn happen here. If you agree that babies — equally as human beings already born — shouldn’t be marked for death based on sex, race or disability, please add your name to this Never in America Petition and tell the abortion lobby that you will fight them every step of the way in their crusade of bigotry against our most vulnerable. –
LikeLiked by 1 person
Revelation 3:18 (KJV) I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
If I could know there would be enough time I would pray that the USA would get CHRISTIAN potus to stop ABORTION industry and start CONSTITUTIONAL money. ET CETERA. But I can not know. Instead I believe that our bad time is about to change to a good one. Of course between those times will be the HARDEST time ever.
Mark 13:19 (KJV) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
We the people need to WAKE UP! (And keep not plonking.)
A TIME WHEN “ALL FLESH” COULD PERISH:
– Jesus’ disciples asked him in Matthew 24:3 Open in Logos Bible Software (if available): “what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” Therefore, there is no question that Jesus’ answer was directed to conditions on earth just prior to his Second Coming at the end of this age. Jesus gave many examples of end-time conditions and events in his response, but this section will focus on the issue of world wars and a near human-extinction. In Matthew 24:6 Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) Jesus spoke of “wars and rumors of wars” characterizing the time just before this age ends. Indeed, many wars have been fought all over the world in the 20th century and afterward.
The phrase “wars” means actual “hot wars,” and the phrase “rumor of wars” aptly describes the decades-long period of time called the “Cold War,” a time of “rumored” war, which didn’t erupt into full-scale, global warfare between the Russian-led Communist alliance and the America-led Western alliance. In verse 7, Jesus also foretold that; “nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.” It is noteworthy that he repeated this theme twice. This argues for a double fulfillment of this prophesied type of warfare. The 20th century saw two World Wars, global conflagrations in which many nations and kingdoms fought each other in exceedingly bloody conflicts. Jesus’ words “the end is not yet” in verse 6 indicates that this period of “wars and rumors of wars” would involve a considerable period of time.
In Matthew 24:21-22 Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), Christ prophesied about a time called the “great tribulation” upon the earth in which “no flesh would be saved” unless those days were “shortened.” Subsequent verses reveal that the event, which prevents the extinction of “all flesh”, is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The term “all flesh” literally means that the human race would become extinct without Divine intervention preventing it. –
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “ISRAEL” AND “JUDAH”:
– When the modern Jewish nation was named in 1948, they named it not after their own tribal name of Judah, but rather after the ancient land of Israel (which was shared by the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah). However, in biblical prophecies, the term “Israel” refers to prophecies about the latter-day descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, not the Jews! This confusion of terms has led modern Christians to mistakenly assume that the terms “Israel” and “Judah” are synonyms in biblical prophecies when they are actually describing very different nations in the latter days. Notice that the term “Israel” is not used in Zephaniah 2’s prophecy about the return of the Jews to the old Promised Land. It uses only the biblically-accurate term, “Judah,” for the Jews. In biblical prophecies for the latter days, the term “Judah” refers to the Jews/Israelis.
However, biblical prophecies about “Israel” in the latter days refer to the modern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh and the rest of the “ten tribes of Israel.” When the Jews proclaimed their new nation as “Israel” in 1948, President Harry Truman, a strong backer of the new Jewish State, was surprised by their chosen name. As Newsweek magazine noted in its May 14, 2007 issue (“A Case of Courage”), both President Truman and his White House Counsel, Clark Clifford, expected the new Jewish State to be named “Judea” after the tribal name of the Jews. If the Jewish State had been named “Judea” or “Judah,” we would not now have the pandemic confusion that now exists in the Christian world re: the terms “Israel” and “Judah.” If the Jewish State had been named “Judea,” there would be no common misconception among modern Christians that the terms “Israel” and “Judah” are synonyms when they are not. If the Jewish people had named their nation “Judah,” Christians would see the name “Israel” in prophecy and start looking for the nations identified by that name in the modern world.
However, because the Jews named their nation “Israel,” Christians mistakenly assume the Bible refers to the Israelis/Jews when it uses the terms “Israel” and “Judah” in prophecy. That is incorrect. The term “Judah” in prophecy refers to the Jews, the descendants of the tribe of Judah (as in Zephaniah 2, Zechariah 12 and 14). The term “Israel” in prophecy refers not to modern Israelis/Jews, but rather to the modern descendants of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, who will be a “nation and company of nations” bearing the name of “Israel” and “Isaac” in the latter days. This has immense ramifications for Christians (and everyone else) in our modern world. For example, when the Gog-Magog alliance of Ezekiel 38 launches its prophesied latter-day attack, Ezekiel 38:16 Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) reveals it will be directed not against “Judah,” but against the people of “Israel.” The Jews of “Judah” are not mentioned anywhere in Ezekiel 38 because Ezekiel 38 is not a prophecy involving the modern Jewish nation in the Mideast. Christians falsely assume that Ezekiel 38 prophecies an attack against the modern Jewish State in the Mideast when it actually prophesies about a latter-day attack of the Russian-led “Gog Magog” alliance against the latter-day nations of the ten tribes of Israel led by Ephraim and Manasseh (called the “house of Israel” in Ezekiel 39:12 Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
When we realize that the leading nations of the modern house of Israel have to be the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim (the “nation and company of nations” bearing the name of “Isaac” in the latter days), Ezekiel 38 takes on a riveting new perspective in modern geopolitics. The USA, Great Britain and Canada are all NATO nations and Australia and New Zealand are their close allies. Many of the other NATO nations in Europe and Scandinavia are descended from the other tribes of the ten tribes of Israel (see my books for detailed information). The USA and NATO have long been Russia’s primary rivals, and Ezekiel 38 prophesies that Russia, China, Iran and other nations will form a global alliance in the latter days which will attack a rival alliance of nations led by Ephraim, Manasseh and the other ten tribes of Israel. The alliance led by the nations of “Israel” is NATO and its allies in the western alliance. Ezekiel 38-39 prophesies that a Russian-led attack against the USA, NATO and their allies is inevitable in the latter-days. NATO, led by the USA and the UK (the “nation and company of nations” of Manasseh and Ephraim) is the chief rival of Russia and its allies on the world stage, so again we see the biblical term “Israel” very logically fitting the prophecy in Ezekiel 38 about Israel’s “nation and company of nations” being the chief rivals of Russia and her allies in the latter days. Clearly, a Creator God is shaping modern geopolitics to set the stage for this age-ending prophecy of Ezekiel 38 to be fulfilled in the years ahead of us. However, I set no dates concerning the eventual fulfillment of these prophesies because the Bible does not give us those dates. Now back to our narrative. –
ISRAEL–A “MELTING POT” NATION:
– My books make the case that the western half of Manasseh (along with several other tribes from the northern kingdom of Israel) voluntarily migrated into the Black Sea region after their homeland in the old Promised Land became indefensible. Upon arriving in the Black Sea region, they founded the “Sacae” Scythian tribal alliance known by the name of Isaac. The two halves of Manasseh took separate migration routes into Europe, one half settling in the British Isles as “Anglo-Saxons” (along with their brother tribe of Ephraim) while the other half of Manasseh settled mostly in Germany where they also had the name of Isaac (“Saxony”) upon part of their territory. The early American colonies were mostly composed of people who were drawn from the British Isles and Germany. In one large colony, Pennsylvania, the Germans were very numerous. Via this migration pattern, God finally reunited the two halves of Manasseh into the modern nation that would become the United States of America. Even as the tribe of Manasseh had the largest portion of land among the tribes of Israel in the ancient Promised Land, it also has the largest portion of habitable land among the nations of the modern ten tribes of Israel. Australia and Canada (two of the “company of nations” of modern Ephraim) also have large land masses, but much of their land is, respectively, an interior desert or an Arctic wasteland. The USA has the largest habitable and arable portion of land. Even as the ancient tribe of Manasseh had a territory divided in half by a river running north to south within its borders (the Jordan), modern Manasseh is again a nation divided in half by a river running north to south within its borders (the Mississippi). –
(About the top photo. Naturally I can’t see all lies but I realize that the World is full of real lies.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting stuff Yurki.
LikeLiked by 1 person