Fundamentally, the Constitution places chains on government power. The lesson I take from that observation, therefore, is that they detest the very idea of any limitation on their power. Credit to the Founding Fathers, but I don't think it ever crossed their minds that it could possibly be as bad as it is.
a) CONSTITUTE (enacted) -TION (through action) implies being the reaction (living) within the enacting (process of dying).
b) the suggested constitution by the few tempts each of the many to ignore being the perceiving (reaction) within the perceivable (enacting); hence being a partial of the whole constitution of existence.
chains on government power
The power which binds GOVERN (to control) MENT (mind; memory) represents the free will of choice to consent to the suggested "governments" by the representative choices of others aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law.
To distract the many from the suggested choices by the few; they do it in the name of (in nomine); which allows the few to bind the many; while disguising the contract law under RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew".
they detest the very idea of any limitation on their power
What if it's each of the many that "willingly" ignores ones power of free will of choice within perceivable for the suggested choices of others? And what if shirking response-ability (choice) tempts one to blame others for the consequences of ignorance?
a) M'ARTIAL, adjective [Latin martialis; mars] - "pertaining to war" + WAR, noun -"to strive, struggle, urge, drive, or to turn, to twist".
A suggested war tempts one into conflict (reason) with other ones over the suggested; the perceivable war represents ones struggle to sustain self by resisting (living) temptation (process of dying).
b) the few suggest "moralism" to tempt each one of the many to ignore response-ability (choice). Consenting to moralism represents domestication of choice by the choices of those who suggest moralism.
c) LE'GAL, adjective [Latin legalis, from lex, legis, law.] So "law represents legal"; yet those within natural law aka those reacting to enacting natural law don't have the power to define what law "is"; since it already "was" before they were able to make suggestions about perceivable.
that's what Biden's rhetoric and backdrop for this last speech was all about. stirring up American Citizens against each other even more.
any fed or agent of the state who engages in or supports rounding up Americans is a traitor and should be treated as such.
My God, they just hate the Constitution so much.
Fundamentally, the Constitution places chains on government power. The lesson I take from that observation, therefore, is that they detest the very idea of any limitation on their power. Credit to the Founding Fathers, but I don't think it ever crossed their minds that it could possibly be as bad as it is.
a) CONSTITUTE (enacted) -TION (through action) implies being the reaction (living) within the enacting (process of dying).
b) the suggested constitution by the few tempts each of the many to ignore being the perceiving (reaction) within the perceivable (enacting); hence being a partial of the whole constitution of existence.
The power which binds GOVERN (to control) MENT (mind; memory) represents the free will of choice to consent to the suggested "governments" by the representative choices of others aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law.
To distract the many from the suggested choices by the few; they do it in the name of (in nomine); which allows the few to bind the many; while disguising the contract law under RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew".
What if it's each of the many that "willingly" ignores ones power of free will of choice within perceivable for the suggested choices of others? And what if shirking response-ability (choice) tempts one to blame others for the consequences of ignorance?
Martial law is legal. But is it moral?
It's inevitable once the use of force breaks out at scale
a) M'ARTIAL, adjective [Latin martialis; mars] - "pertaining to war" + WAR, noun -"to strive, struggle, urge, drive, or to turn, to twist".
A suggested war tempts one into conflict (reason) with other ones over the suggested; the perceivable war represents ones struggle to sustain self by resisting (living) temptation (process of dying).
b) the few suggest "moralism" to tempt each one of the many to ignore response-ability (choice). Consenting to moralism represents domestication of choice by the choices of those who suggest moralism.
c) LE'GAL, adjective [Latin legalis, from lex, legis, law.] So "law represents legal"; yet those within natural law aka those reacting to enacting natural law don't have the power to define what law "is"; since it already "was" before they were able to make suggestions about perceivable.
doing that thing Louis C.K. got busted for
Busted for bustin' a nut?