Ring-a-Ling

The alarm clock rings; another day is about to begin for you, me, and millions of other Americans as well. You slide your legs around on the bed, and place your feet on to the floor to start another day, taking the first action at least for the time being, to be unwittingly “raped” once again. Ironically, you probably haven’t even realized what has been taking place to you and your family each and every day, especially since you entered the hustle-bustle of the “got to work for a living” world.

The fact and truth is this: Each and every one of us is being “literally” raped on a daily basis, some folks more so than others. That particular and specific type of rape has been taking place for many tens of decades, but has dramatically and drastically increased during recent years. So what’s the problem? Little or nothing is being done by the silent majority of “We the People” to prevent, let alone stop that particular type of rape from occurring so frequently. Please pay particular attention to, and remember these words, “...little or nothing is being done by the silent majority of “We the People” whereas that phrase is interwoven within the words of this book and is its’ major and basic premise.       

During this specific type of “rape”, the age and sex of an individual are of no real consequence; neither is any type of impairment, be it physical, mental, or emotional. This type of rape does not recognize race, creed, color, or even a nation’s borders. Time of day is of no consequence either. You can be wide-awake or sound asleep; you can be at home, work, school, or on vacation, you still are being raped and will not see the actual perpetrator. He, she, or “it” is generally unnoticed by the human eye. Nevertheless the “act of rape” is occurring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Oddly enough, you won’t “feel” this literal act of rape, or even realize such has and is even occurring.

To make certain there is no misunderstanding, rape is defined as “a sexual act committed by force, especially on a woman.” Therefore by definition, the preceding paragraphs could be considered “fiction”, that being “not factual or truthful”. However, a secondary definition of rape is “the act of plundering in war”. Plunder is defined as “to rob of goods by force, as hostile raids.”

Does the phrase, “Hostile corporate takeovers” ring a bell? Not a single gunshot is necessary or even fired during those types of a takeover. Those hostile takeovers are an undeclared “war of business”, the act of plundering, in the corporate world of business procedures, practices and profits. “But I’m not a participant in that war”, might be your immediate thought or reply.

Actually everyone is involved, albeit indirectly by the majority of “everyone”. Like the title of this book, “The Rape” and hostile corporate takeovers, another type of war that the reader as well as the non-reader of this book is indirectly involved with all the time, isn’t fought with guns and bullets. In truth and fact the enemies, their weapons, and the tactics they use in this particular type of war, are not easily or readily recognized.  Nevertheless the moral chaos and destruction caused by them are substantial and consequential. Ironically, one major tactic and particular weapon used by an enemy can be identified in numerous and various ways. Once that weapon is identified, other tactical weapons used by an enemy can be recognized as well.

Contained within this particular phrase, “Morality cannot be legislated”, is the unseen battle plan for the aforementioned “indirectly involved war”. The claim and statement of “Morality cannot be legislated”, is an oft times debated issue, an extremely critical issue, one that is actually about and literally involves the definitions and the practice of religion and politics.

The statement/claim “Morality cannot be legislated” is not comprehended by the majority of American citizens, and is a falsehood. The first reasonable and logical question to determine the preceding statement’s actual validity should be: “What is meant by morality?” That question has two basic avenues for an answer. The first is one’s own, or someone else’s opinion, also known as “interpretation”. The second avenue is: “What is the definition of morality?”

 “Moral” could be considered the “root word”, the foundational word for morality. Moral is defined as, 1) “of or concerned with principles of right or wrong conduct”; 2) “being in accordance with such principles”; 3) “capable of recognizing and conforming to such principles”; 4) “behaving according to such principles”.

Did you notice/realize that “moral” is a thought process first, i.e. “concerned”? For example; where does someone who is “concerned find “principles of right or wrong conduct”?  Eventually that concern becomes an action process. Definition #2 of moral could be considered as “agreement”; i.e. “a conformity of thought” by individuals, or groups of such, such as “We the People” and “”one People”.  Definition #3 could be considered as ones’ ability to think and reason and a process of choice, one of acceptance or rejection before any action is forthcoming. That action is the “behaving action” of definition four that is based upon principles. 

That action process of behaving is known as, and is called “morality”, defined as , 1) “conformity to the rules of right or wrong conduct”; 2) “moral quality or conduct”; 3) “a doctrine of morals”. To summarize, do you now notice/realize that morality is thoughts first, action second? How does definition two apply to the people you associate with and vote for? Have you ever asked, listened and watched for definition three? 

 IF the definition of morals and morality are accepted and used as “standards”, of and for our American language, conversation, writing, and communication, then the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, using those two documents as examples, should be and really have to be considered in a totally different light. 

Here’s something else to carefully consider; to be concerned about morals (the thought) is one thing; to act upon such concern is another thing (the action). Thus the real ISSUE (not fact) is not IF morals (morality) can be legislated (and how) but WHOSE morality (morals), the action of concern, will be legislated, and subsequently enforced!

If any individual considers himself or herself to be a “moral individual”, then by primary definition (concerned with principles of right or wrong conduct) what should be their first priority? Most individuals consider themselves “moral” because they adhere to definition four of that word, the action part called behaving, which is for all practical and realistic purposes, synonymous with the primary definition of “morality”. The FACT is morals can be legislated, for such legislation demonstrates “concern with principles of right or wrong conduct”. The writing of “The Declaration of Independence” and U.S. Constitution were actions of such priorities and concern.  

The concern of the writers of the former document went beyond the action of just writing a document. They and the citizens represented by them, did “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”. The representatives and the majority of citizens were evidently, and according to history, willing to go to war against the British Crown using guns and bullets. 

Normally one thinks of “war” (as with the word “rape”) by its primary definition, that being “a major armed conflict, as between nations”. Whose morals and morality will be the victor, is part of what any war is all about. Yet wars’ secondary definition is “any struggle or fight”. Thus rape, in the conventional usage of the word, as well as hostile cooperate takeovers, generally involve a “struggle or fight”, a “war” of sorts.

Like any war, the war of and about morals is comprised of many skirmishes and battles, fought on many different “fronts”. The battles in this nation concerning morals and morality have not been fought with guns or bullets. Nevertheless some weapons and tactics used in this particular “morality war” are old as a certain written timeline book.

One specific battlefield, for the particular war of morality this book will attempt to describe and explain, is that of the courtroom. Now, do you still consider yourself a “moral individual”? Don’t answer that question just yet, for you might have to change your answer if you realize one particular type of weapon that the enemy uses to gain control. Again, the real issue is not IF morals can be legislated, but whose morals will be legislated and how such can, (and/or will, as well as will/will not) be accomplished.           

Maybe you could care less about the “morality war”, or the types of weapons used. Maybe you think some one else’s morals don’t amount to a “hill of beans”, and doesn’t affect you or your family’s lifestyle. You might change your thinking if you knew what a weapon really is, that being “any instrument (one definition of “instrument” being a legal document) or device used in fighting; anything used against an opponent, as in a dispute.”

Thus according to definition, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and even the Bible can be “weapons”; that statement should hopefully start the reader thinking. However any weapon, be it an airplane, rifle, legal document, or even a book is of little or no effect unless one understands how to use such efficiently and effectively.

For the record, “words” are an “anything”; therefore words are weapons too, weapons that can be (and are) used against any opponent in the “morals war”. However words can also be used as tools. Like it or not, believe it or not, the literal rape of any nation and its’ citizens is very real and factual. 

America is generally referred to in the feminine gender; therefore the primary definition of rape applies to America in the broad (no pun intended) literary sense. Hopefully that premise will become clearer, before the reader arrives at the end of this book. There are numerous types of rape that have taken place in America for decades, and any type or form of rape will cause physical and emotional damage.

The first step for any type of rape to be successful is to have it’s beginning in “force”, which actually originates from hope. Incidentally, one definition of force is “persuasive power or power to convince”. The next step to be initiated by an enemy in the process of “moral rape” is to get the people (citizens) to believe. The final step is some type of action by an enemy to accomplish the desired result(s) needed or wanted. 

Additionally, the same type of force (“power to influence, affect or control”) and process (just outlined) is also used by another institution to challenge and discredit many of the Biblical principles realized and utilized by this nation’s settlers and founders. This particular definition of force, “power to influence, affect or control”, is how this nation and its citizens get “raped”, how and why citizens become willing and unwilling participants in “The Rape”, the reason morality is a public issue, and why one of the many battlefields for the “morals war” is America’s courtrooms.

One method to make a specific type of rape possible, such as described in this book, is that of “interpretation” of phrases. That method is also an extremely effective, subtle “weapon”. The weapon’s destructive power extends far beyond one’s normal, everyday thinking process (“the box”), and perhaps even beyond one’s “wildest dreams” or vivid imagination. One does not need to be an Einstein to realize that phrases are composed of and by using words to communicate thoughts, ideas, plans, et cetera. 

Interpret is the “foundational basis” for interpretation; therefore the definition for interpret is as follows, 1) “to set forth the meaning of”; (pay particular attention to that definition) 2) “to understand in a particular way”; 3) “to perform or render according to one’s understanding or sensitivity”; 4) “to translate orally”.     

Did you notice the words “meaning of” in the primary definition of “interpret”? Interpretation is, “the act of interpreting; an elucidation or explanation as of a creative work, political event, etc.; a conception of ones behavior”. Using the tool of definition to pry the lid off ye ole “think box”, interpret is the thought (perhaps an individual’s opinion?) while interpretation is that thought put into action (perhaps the court decision?). Please remember the premise of that statement for future consideration. 

Have you ever asked or heard the question, “What do you mean”, in the course of normal everyday communication? Sometimes an individual is not quite sure (certain) what another individual(s) is attempting to communicate to them; therefore the phrase, “What do you mean”. That statement regarding the question is a pretty simple and basic principle in the area of “one on one” conversation and general communication; agreed?

Once again, morals are the thinking about or “of or concerned with principles of right or wrong conduct”; in other words perceived right or wrong. Morality is the application (action) of such thoughts. Now for a realistic and straightforward explanation, and the first of many such examples, how the enemy’s of America’s original foundational documents, using the Declaration of Independence as a starting point, along with the U.S. Constitution, apply a type of “force”, by definition.

A beginning tactic of the enemy, in order to utilize “force”, is the hope the majority of America’s citizens are stupid and/or busy enough that they will accept everything they see, hear, or read as factual and true (i.e. gullible). Newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television, are some examples of the avenues of influence (i.e. force) that are used to spread misinformation, falsehoods and misrepresentation of the facts and truth, in addition to transforming the facts into issues. 

Why would the majority of people in the various media’s do such things? After all, most are well known professionals, educated and famous; they’re no longer “common folk”. Why would they misrepresent the facts and truth? A better question is “Why would they turn facts into issues”? Ask a military person what a principle rule of warfare is and they’ll tell you: “Know your enemy”. Through the use of repetition, (used many times in this book by its writer in order to illustrate/illuminate and instill the actual facts), individuals eventually will begin to believe what they see and/or hear, regardless of the source.

Who or what one believes or trusts can be friend or foe, ally or enemy, fact or fiction, truth or lies. So, the questions at hand are these; first, can or will the American public actually recognize, or even know the enemy or enemies of America and its citizens? Second, what about the weapons and tactics actually used by the enemies? Recent decades of documented history have already provided the real life, actual answers for those questions. 

That belief or trust provides the opportunity and direction for the enemies’ war and the “ammunition” for the weapons that can and will be used by them to accomplish their objective. If one trusts an unrecognized “enemy” as an alleged friend, then that enemy can take a course of action to deceive in order to accomplish a desired result. Want some proof of that principle concerning one “enemy” and a “weapon” that can be used? The weapon and tactics may surprise you, as well as their effectiveness.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. That phrase is the first of three, contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “the supreme law of the land” according to Article 6 of the same Constitution. Yet the overwhelming majority of citizens believe the oft-used phrase “separation of church and state” is contained somewhere within the U.S. Constitution; they accept those words of opinion as truth and fact.

If you believe the words, the claim of, “separation of church and state”  is contained somewhere within the U.S. Constitution”, that belief serves to show that someone, anyone, including the reader of this book, can believe something and be sincerely wrong in their belief. It is also “black on white proof” that anyone can accept a lie as the truth, and opinion as fact. Those statements are just a starting point.

Additionally, it also illustrates how the various media, politicians, judges, and the U.S. Supreme Court as examples, have applied “force” by definition (“power to influence, affect or control”) by their use of specific words, phrases, and opinions as a destructive weapon on and against America’s citizens. Using the American public’s confidence and “trust” (unquestioning belief) in America’s various institutions, as well as the individual leaders and representatives that constitute such, some dangerous trends have begun to escalate in this nation.

For example, the 1947 U.S. Supreme Court used a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group of Baptists with regards to the First Amendment; the phrase was, “thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”  This is a true fact; that phrase is not found within the U.S. Constitution! That phrase was used once again by the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court and expanded the phrase’s alleged meaning; more on that as the “textual highway” spreads out in scope.

Nevertheless the vast majority of America’s citizens believe the phrase is a Constitutional one. How many citizens have ever glanced at the U.S. Constitution or even read it, let alone studied the document and its words? A battle involving religion (“something one believes in”) and politics (“use of intrigue in obtaining power”) was won using the “weapons” of trust and interpretation, backed by the force (power to influence, affect or control) of the media and an institution. Therefore, by definition(s), America’s citizens have been “raped” in the literal use of the word.

There have been, and still are in the future, major struggles, skirmishes, fights, and battles, which equate to war, a “morality war”. That war is about “religion” and “politics”, their applied interpretations vs. definitions, the individual and public “establishment” and the “free exercise” of such applied religion and politics, in addition to the interpreted (not defined) alleged Constitutional boundaries of such. So, what really has happened and why?

Return to these words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; now ask yourself this basic question, “What does that mean”? Undoubtedly many readers will think this instead, “Who cares” or “What difference does it make”; so here’s something else to think about.

Perhaps by defining the word “mean”, i.e. “to have in mind as an intention or purpose; to intend for a particular purpose or person” (bold italics added), those questions may take on a broader scope (i.e. “the extent or range of one’s understanding”). Here are two more questions using the definition of mean. What was the particular purpose that the writers of the Constitution’s first amendment had in mind? That question is the premise of the phrase “original intent” and much, much, more. Next question: What is the particular purpose and intention of those who claim the concept of “separation of church and state” is allegedly a U.S. Constitutional law?

Those last two questions are a part of the primary theme of this book. The scope of those questions has a far reaching affect on our lifestyles. Those questions go far beyond what one might normally consider thinking about during the course of their daily activities. There are also many sub-themes intertwined with and directly related to the primary theme of this book. So, just how are our lifestyles affected by those to questions?

First, the unseen “real enemy”, the unrecognized enemy, accomplished a major victory for most likely you, and millions of other U.S. citizens like you, were moved from “belief” in a document, that they probably never looked at let alone read, into “trust” various institutions. “So what’s the difference”, one might ask?

 Belief is “something believed; confidence, faith, or trust; a religious tenet or tenets”, (especially notice that last definition) whereas trust is defined as, “unquestioning belief in the integrity, strength, or ability of a person or thing; confident expectation; a person or thing that can be relied upon.” Read those definitions carefully, one more time, and see if you can observe some subtle differences between them.  

 Let’s be honest with each another, if you’ve never read the U.S. Constitution and don’t want to read it for yourself, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to “trust” (by definition) the U.S. Supreme Court and its Justices as to what they think and believe the Constitution’s first amendment states and means? By doing that we became, and still become, our own worst “enemy” by allowing our own personal trust to be used as a weapon against ourselves, “We the People of the United States…”

The U.S. Supreme Court is a “thing”, as is the legal document called the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, of 1947 and 1963, not the institution itself (the thing), but its appointed justices (from amongst the people), used the tactic and “weapon of interpretation” in rendering the specific decision(s) concerning the “establishment” half of the “religious clause” of the First Amendment, and the concept of the alleged law of “separation of church and state” contained therein.

If one has never read the First Amendment or even the U.S. Constitution, how does one know what either actually states, means, and/or what they should believe? Therefore, if one does not read the Constitution’s first amendment, see the actual words for themselves, belief in the document can, and will be modified by people, in this specific example the majority of justices that comprised the 1947, but especially the 1963 U.S. Supreme Courts.

Rather than “define” the religious clause of the First Amendment, the majority of the various Court’s justices used the tactic and “weapon of interpretation”, the citizens trust (not belief), backed by the force (power) of the institution, to convince the American public about the alleged Constitutional premise of “separation of church and state”.  Most courts continuously use those tactics in rendering other various court decisions. So, do we continue to trust the “courts”, or believe in what the U.S. Constitution actually states?

Always remember this important fact; the U.S. Supreme Court is only an institution, as well as all other courts and institutions; they are only “things” comprised of individuals. Things do not, and cannot, make decisions; therefore “trust” is (was) placed in the opinions of individuals that comprise those institutions; for example, as already noted, the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court concerning the non-existent Constitutional phrase and concept of “separation of church and state”.

Therefore the Justices’ individual perceptions about morals (thoughts) and their own personal morality (action) had a direct effect and impact on ALL, not just some of America’s citizens and their lifestyles. Ironically “interpretation”, the theologians use the word “translation, of the Bible also has the same affect. Be it interpretation or translation of the Bible, the results of either usage have created the various “Christian” religions and  denominations, each of whom claim they are correctly interpreting or translating the Bible; some of that issue will be examined in depth in forthcoming chapters also.

 An interpreted, yet a definite one-way “wall of separation”, was “created” by various U.S. Supreme Courts since 1963, thereby instituting (i.e. “to set up or establish; to get under way”) a new “morality” (action) with a different set of morals (thoughts) for this nation. Simplistically stated, this one-way wall allows the government to meddle in an individual’s affairs and the institution of the church as well, but (allegedly) prohibits individuals and the church institution to meddle in the government’s affairs. Thus that one U.S. Supreme Court (1963) over stepped its U.S. Constitutional boundaries, using interpretation and the citizens trust as weapons, and then forcefully applying the Court’s own created and fictional “Constitutional” law. Ring-a-Ling?

A critical and crucial question now emerges; did that particular U.S. Supreme Courts of decades ago issue a decision consistent with those writer’s morals and morality (“original intent”) concerning the religious clause of the First Amendment and its application? It should be noted that the vast majority of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the religious clause of the First Amendment do not center on “religion” in its general application (definition #3), but the Judeo-Christian religions - specifically (definition #1).

To reiterate, no specific religion, that meaning a particular “faith” or denomination, using the primary definition of the word religion, is stated in the first half of the religious clause of the First Amendment. Was this an oversight on the authors and writers part concerning the First Amendment’s “religious clause”? A second critical question is this, “Has one Christian denomination (religion) interpreted the Bible correctly as opposed to another?” Those two questions now create another “avenue” for what shall follow, and the real causes for America’s moral decline at the local and national level, as well as international level.

“Constitutionally” at the federal level, Congress is the only branch of government that is authorized to enact any new law. The executive branch of government is the only branch that can enforce such enacted law. Nevertheless the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decided it had the “right”, to create (enact), as well as the authority and “force”, to create this “wall of separation law” which prohibited certain practices of a previous, historically established and documented “specific religions” - that being Christianity as well as its forerunner Judaism - on public property and within governmental institutions, previously and historically established by “We the People’s’ representatives.

 In other words, the Justices of the Supreme Court “created” by interpretation and their personal perception of the First Amendment (morality) using the institution as a means to an end, a (moral) ruling historically inconsistent with the facts, and the writers original intent of the Constitution’s first amendment. That conclusion will be explained thoroughly and shown shortly, using specific words found in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and a dictionary.

The foundational word for definition is “define”, 1) “To state the exact meaning of (a word etc.)”; 2) “to describe exactly”; 3) “to fix the boundaries of”; 4) “to make clear the outline or form of”.

Definition is, 1) “the act of defining or making definite or clear”; 2) “the exact statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc”. Notice the word “exact”, (i.e. “perfectly in accord; not approximate or variant”) in both of those definitions? Mentally insert at this point the word “belief”, i.e. “something believed; confidence, faith, or trust; a religious tenet or tenets”. (Synonyms for the word “belief” are conviction, opinion, and view).

Another illustration concerning morals and morality; morality is basically about right and wrong conduct, i.e. action. Here’s an example of such an action; people stopping for a traffic signal’s red light. If an individual does not stop for such, was their conduct (action = morality) right or wrong? The answer to that question depends on what or whom one chooses to “believe”. Here’s a common, everyday example.

What if your belief is: “Green means stop and red means go?” Who and what decided that you, the motorist, must stop for a red light? Those seemingly simple and/or stupid questions, depending on one’s perspective, are actually some of the reasons for the law. Thus the law, be it written or unwritten, is the tool or perhaps even a weapon, to bring degrees of conformity, or the lack thereof, to any society.

Therefore “morality”, by definition and illustration (action), can be legislated, i.e. law. Contrary to popular opinion and belief, that is the fact of the matter. In the preceding illustration, according to the written law, i.e. the “what decides” part of the previous question, red means stop. If one believes that green means stop and red means go, then your belief (morals) and the action (morality) based on such a belief, are not in conformity with the written law. Additionally, your belief about that specific law, concerning what a red traffic signal is for, is also sincerely wrong when applying the actual written intent (purpose) of the law.

WHO decides what laws shall be written is another issue. Who decides what the law means, the legislature or the courts, is yet another issue. The answer to those issues must be solely decided by the facts. Those statements set the stage for the next question, which is: “When, where, and how does ‘The Rape’ take place?” That question opens the curtain on the larger stage of the war of and for morals and morality, the phrase “original intent”, why there is U.S. Constitution and the importance of very specific words used and written (contained) within that Constitution, as well as these words from the Declaration of Independence: “the Laws of Nature and Natures God”.

Conformity is “to act in accordance with a standard or norm; to be or become similar in form or character; to be in harmony or accord.” The first question (issue) concerning the primary definition of conformity is this: “What was the standard, the norm, when this country (now acknowledged as the United States of America) was in its “birthing stages”; in other words, while it was being transformed from merely a country into a Nation?

Today that question now becomes three fold. (1) What was or will be the “standard or norm” used by those who write the law(s), (2) those who will decide what the law(s) means, and (3) those who will obey or disobey the law(s)”? One could reasonably conclude that conformity deprives us of our individuality, and that is true to a certain extent - depending on one’s perspective and standards. Yet conformity is necessary, to a certain limited degree, in order that a society may function effectively and efficiently, with a minimum amount of conflict.

However the present day legal system thrives on “conflict”, defined as “to come into direct disagreement, as of ideas or interests; a battle or struggle; antagonism or opposition; incompatibility or interference”. Reasoning and common sense should reveal to anyone that diverse and multiple standards, coupled with a lower standard of morals, equate to increased battles and struggle, thus increased laws, more court cases, and a financial pot of gold for the “legal beagles”, i.e. lawyers.

Most legal conflicts begin as minor ones but can soon escalate into major “Lawful” ones, some eventually, unfortunately, and even illegally, being resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Pay attention as to what goes on in your area of residence, be it a small village or a large city to see if the following happens. As conformity to the decades of old, reliable standards decrease (morals), conflicts of non conformity begin to increase. Very few individuals actually pay attention to such, let alone realize the truth, and reasons of that factual assessment. 

The next logical and reasonable question, one not thought about in depth too often, should be, “Can morality actually be enforced?” There is also a companion question; How? Choosing which morals to believe and accept is one thing. Legislating those morals (thought) another thing. Actually enforcing morality (action) is quite another. Consider the following example regarding those “issues”.               

A motorist can fail to stop for a red light and not be caught, simply because there was no law enforcement officer present to observe the violation. Therefore the “governments morals” (i.e. intent) could not, and most likely would not be enforced, even though the “morals” (thoughts) were legislated. Stated from a different perspective, no immediate action was forthcoming even though the “law” was broken by that individual.

If a law enforcement officer had observed that the motorist failed to stop for the red light, chances are the motorist would receive a ticket (the notice) for failing to obey the law as it is currently written and “interpreted”; or is the correct word and action, “defined”? To offset that enforcement problem, many cities are now using red light cameras at accident-prone intersections, the purpose being to raise the enforcement level of the traffic law, thereby creating yet another (alleged) “constitutional” issue involving someone’s “right to privacy”.

 Did the reader comprehend a subtle, hidden fact and issue within the question, “Can morality be legislated?” While that question is being considered here’s another truth and fact of the question just asked. “That depends”; here’s why. But first, “Are you a moral individual?” To be a “moral” individual one must just/only be “... concerned with principles of right or wrong conduct”. Just how concerned are individuals? To be concerned (moral) is one thing, to act upon that concern (i.e. morality) is quite another thing. To what degree, and extent, have individuals, “We the People” acted upon their “moral” concerns?

Four separate questions and issues with one foundational problem: “What will be the source, the standard, for determining the principles for right or wrong conduct?” That question is the subtle, hidden issue within the question, “Can morality be legislated?” Welcome to the war; that too is another subtle truth and fact, for everyone is a willing or unwilling participant in the war which you didn’t think or believe existed, yet is taking place each and everyday as we journey along the highway of life.

Thus we’re back at the beginning and the statement oft times used, “Morality cannot be legislated.” In reality, and by primary definition, the truth and fact (in “real life”) is: Morality is the resulting action of how much any individual is, at any given time, “concerned with the principles of right or wrong conduct”, i.e. “morals”.

The truth and fact is morals are the thought process, what someone believes to be right or wrong, true or false, fact or fiction, truth or lies, fantasy or reality. The action of legislating such thoughts and beliefs are known as morality. That is the area of conflict between people, and between people and a government, a “war” of sorts. Morality also includes obeying and even disobeying such legislation. That last statement is the foundational reason for the “Declaration of Independence”, and now the “Constitution of the United States”.

              No one can see your personal and private thoughts (i.e. your beliefs and “right to privacy”) until you act in “public”. Such being the truth and fact, what can be seen and what is legislated by our alleged representatives in government as a general rule (and subsequently enforced), are not necessarily we the people’s thoughts, or even their (our representatives) perception of our thoughts (morals) but rather their thoughts and beliefs put into action. Therein lays another camouflaged and extremely effective, yet deceitful tactic of some of our actual enemies within government.

If the reader paid close attention to what he or she has just read something should have been realized, a point that is not really comprehended by most individuals, let alone put into practice. Did the reader comprehend a subtle, hidden fact and issue within the question, “Can morality be legislated?” Here’s the foundational “hidden fact” previously omitted; the ultimate earthly government is actually “We the People”.

Using the primary definition of moral, to be concerned about morals is step one; to act upon that concern is quite another, step two! Thus “morality” will be legislated (law) in order to bring about conformity to the rules of conduct known as morals, step four. However (external) legislated morality uses consequences (penalties) and fear of such, in order to “force” individuals to comply with the legislation, step five.

“What happened to step three”, you’re wondering? Excellent question; so here’s the answer. An individual can be a willing participant to compliance (step two), or an unwilling participant to compliance (step five); that individual choice of compliance, our choice, is step three. 

To illustrate the preceding, specifically step three, how often do you, and how often have you seen other motorists exceed the speed limit, cross over the double line on a two lane road in order to pass another motorist, or slide through a red light? Statistically, there is a greater chance to be stopped for speeding than being stopped for running a red light. Additionally, as a general statement, the chances are greatly increased for a multi-vehicle accident and injuries to occur when a driver runs a red light, as opposed to speeding.

Here’s the bottom line for consideration; you’re late for an appointment. There is no law enforcement personal to be seen. Good opportunity to put the “pedal to the metal”.  Whose and /or what morals will be the source, the standard, with regards to your decision in this particular situation? What will be your morality, your choice of action in this particular situation?  Are you willing to pay a possible penalty? What could be the possible results of instituting a poor moral choice?

Here are a couple of other little tidbits to ponder. Non-legislated compliance uses rewards, rather than the fear of a penalty as a means of enforcement. Non-legislated compliance in the real world is actually “liberty”. “Liberty for all” is actually dependent on, and a result of, each individual’s own personal, internal restraint “mechanism” whereas personal freedom “for all” relies on external restraint mechanisms.

The question asked previously, “Whose morality will be legislated”, in truth and fact is not the primary issue or question; it is a secondary question/issue, created by the actual (real) question/issue of “What will be the source, the standard for those who will legislate, enforce, and explain any legislation?” Stated another way, what are the truth and facts concerning the standard(s) used by those who came to this country, settled on its land, instituted the original forms and type’s of government, and eventually wrote the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution?

The claim of “Morality cannot be legislated” is a subterfuge. That statement/claim is a very cleverly engineered and a subversive smokescreen devised by the enemy(s) to conceal, pervert, and ultimately destroy those last preceding questions concerning facts and truths. The unseen “spiritual” enemies implemented that smokescreen against America and its citizens.

It has taken one specific and particular enemy, the general one could say, well over one hundred years to establish and institute the ways and means to destroy this nation from within. Meanwhile, the vast majority of all America’s citizens are concerned about and focused on our destruction from without. The present tactic used is fear. Recent examples of such are the multiple incidents on September 11, 2001.

Perhaps it’s time to add a key word and its definitions in order to focus on and begin clarification of past, present, and future facts, truths, and issues. Hopefully that will “uncloak the general” and his tactics. Semantics is 1) “the study of meanings in language, including its historical changes” (Italics added); 2) “the critical study of the functions of words and nonverbal symbols”; 3)”connotative interpretation”. That last definition is the ways and means to knowledge, and comprehension, pertaining to our seen and unseen “enemies” tactics, the battles that take place each and every day, and the weapons used to commit literary rape first, and the physical consequences of such.  

Semantics, as defined, is a word that separates religion from Christianity, politics from government, politicians from statesmen, and lies from the truth. Opps, excuse me, statesmen is not the “politically correct” term. It should be states people; or stateswomen and statesmen.

 Unfortunately and apparently, the vast majority of  the modern day politicians, our alleged representatives, whether elected or appointed are more concerned about being “politically correct” - to appease the various, assorted voter groups - that they could care less about being “Constitutionally” correct. But then neither does some of the American public actually care. The standard for that “caring” is the voting process. If one follows the election and continued re-election of certain individuals to “political offices” the evidence is abundant. For example, do we the people actually want (and really need) 20, 30, even 40 year “career politicians”?                 

Now, do you still consider yourself a moral individual? How about your neighbor, the boss at your place of employment? How about the teachers in the school systems across America, are they moral people? What about those who attend the institution of the church? Using only those few examples, most individuals would still probably answer, “Of course they are.”

Force is one of the first tactics used by the “enemy”. Remember, the first step to apply a particular type of “force” generally originates in hope, in this particular instance the hope that someone (anyone) believes they are a “moral individual”. If one’s belief of, “I’m a moral individual” is not followed up by some type of corresponding action of “concern with principles of right or wrong conduct” (morality), guess what’s gonna happen on the two-way street of that “caring” process? In other words, an individual also needs to be an American citizen of morality as well, sometimes referred to as a “patriot”.

 A key word within the definition of moral is “principle(s)”, defined as “(1) a general or fundamental rule or truth on which others are based; (2) a scientific rule or law explaining the action of something in nature (notice the word something); (3) a rule of conduct; (4) devotion or adherence to such a rule or rules; and (5) a fundamental doctrine or belief”. Therefore, by definition, a moral individual must have “principles”. It does appear that everyone has principles according to definition number three and four (an apparent action). That being the case than everyone is “moral”.

The preceding questions about the morals of individuals have been answered. Boy that was sure easy to figure out. Sure it was easy, at least superficially, one slight problem however; have you figured out, or remembered that everyone is also “religious” by definition as well? By definition, a religious person is one who is “of or concerned with religion” which is “something one believes in or follows devotedly”. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are two examples of “something”. The Bible is also a something.

So the question and issue now expands to become: What is the source from where an individual’s religious principles, the fundamental doctrine or belief, are derived from?  Those sources, be it the government, some other institution such as the church, the Bible, the Koran, something or someone else, all provide various standards (principles) of choice and also set the stage for the “action battles” (morality) that occur each and everyday. Morals, principles and an individual’s religion are inseparable; you can’t have one without the others, unless they’re no longer living on planet Earth!

That was, and still is, a fact and a truth that the majority of this nation’s founders realized as they labored to establish and implement a Constitutional, a representative republic form of government, for this nation and its citizens, after declaring and eventually winning, even though the “deck was stacked against them”, the “physical” war for this nation’s independence. This is the “spiritual war” that is taking place, “The Rape”: “Everyone is affected by politics and religion according to definition, believe it or not, like it or not, and accept it or not.”

Some years ago the Johnny Cash recorded a song with the title, “What is Truth?” That is a question that each and every one of us must ask ourselves many, many times over at numerous points in our lives. One place I personally found an answer for that question was in the Bible. The starting point began with the words and claim of Jesus found in John, chapter 14, verse 6. Again that was only a starting point.

The words Christian Right, Bible thumpers, Creationists, right-wingers, fanatics, and fundamental conservatives are a few examples of terms (words) used by individuals, including politicians and the various media, to describe those individuals who fall into the first definition of “principles”. They believe the Bible is a book of principles, standards, and a source of truth. Other sources of “hidden” truth and principles for many of them are the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, as will be shown and explained in forthcoming chapters of this book.

Evolutionists and some scientists, just two examples, are in the category of definition two of “principles”. The “Big Bang Theory” and Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” are some examples of this definition - for those individuals believe (to accept the truth or reliability of something without proof; i.e. “trust”) that those theories are a “scientific rule or law”.

The Evolution Theory, or theory of evolution, is generally taught as “fact” in the vast majority of public schools, even though the evolution theory of Charles Darwin has never been truthfully, factually and “scientifically” proven. Nevertheless those theories are still principles and sources. I just happened to think about something; this book could be considered one of and about some other theories involving creation and evolution.

Years ago, Frank Sinatra recorded a song that became very popular, “My Way”. That song is one example of the third definition of principle previously listed. I’m sure you’ve heard this said, “I’m gonna do it my way”, which is “a rule of conduct” and a “personal” (private) source of morals and morality - UNTIL...

However, in that “my way” instance is your rule of conduct based on personal experience or perhaps someone or something else’s experience? What source is the basis for this rule of conduct “My Way”? Incidentally, my way is also an example of an individual that is generally self-centered and will probably reject conformity, again defined as, “correspondence in form or character; compliance or acquiescence.”

Moving on to number four in the definition of principle, “devotion or adherence to such a rule or rules”; the first three definitions are the “rules”, whereas definition four is indicative of an individual’s action in order to adhere to one of the first three. What’s the actual need for having rules if they’re not going to be followed? Following requires some type of an action, no action no morality, therefore no real, actually observed, “devotion (i.e. profound dedication) or adherence (i.e. to be a follower or upholder) to such a rule or rules”. 

Lastly on to number five, a fundamental doctrine or belief; a doctrine is defined as; “a particular principle or position taught or advocated (i.e. to plead in favor of or urge publicly) as of a religion, government, etc.” The words of definition five are the source of, and for, thinking and believing that is required to implement the previous four definitions. Belief/believe have previously been defined, but are worth another look; “something believed”.

Something believed, not someone believed; just one of those seemingly minor and insignificant details, and also a subtle difference between the definitions of belief and trust. That difference however is only a theory at this point. Remember these words: “Read those definitions carefully, one more time, and see if you can observe a subtle difference between them”? Many times however these seemingly minor details have far reaching affects and consequences, and can provide some insight for deeper understanding. 

Atheism, Humanism, Agnosticism, Islam, Secularism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity to name but a few examples are “religions”, designated as such by the court systems; also by using the definitions of the word religion. Each religion has its own rules, truths, laws, doctrines, and beliefs. All of them have their own advocates. Some “advocates” use tactics far beyond one’s imagination. You don’t believe that statement?

The events of September 11, 2001 are an example of just how far and extreme some “advocates” will go, for example those individuals aboard flight #93 that crashed in Pennsylvania (according to official reports) before reaching its pre-determined destination or target. Flight #93, i.e. the people not the thing, demonstrated “a devotion or adherence to such a rule or rules”, definition four of “principle”.

Consider now the following. Each group aboard that airplane (flight #93) placed a different set of principles into action. Different, individual’ principles were onboard (i.e. people) that aircraft (the “thing”). Those “doctrines” clashed within the aircraft’s interior. The precepts of “cause and effect” and “action and re-action” occurred. Shortly thereafter another doctrine was to be initiated when the President of the United States declared war on “terrorism”. But the unseen, unrecognized, “war behind the war” of terrorism was already some 6000 years old. It just reared its ugly face in a vivid, horrific, realistic, and unique manner that particular morning, defying confrontation and comprehension from anything and anyone.

These are some of the morals and morality, “the words” that were demonstrated on that particular, fateful day by two different groups of people, passengers and unrecognized terrorists disguised as “just” some of those other passengers on board. First there was “hope”. The passengers and the disguised passengers (terrorists) hoped the plane was capable of flying. Both groups transformed that hope into “trust” by boarding the aircraft. Each and every individual carried aboard with them a “doctrine”.

Each and every one of them was a “moral” person, as well as a “religious” person, and soon each would become an “advocate” of their own personal doctrine. “Morality” and mortality would become issues in a matter of minutes. As the plane’s cabin door was shut and secured for the flight, “conformity” to “principles” would also become a factor. The stage was now set for the public to observe the normally unseen, non-comprehended, and normally un-witnessed, “religious war”.

As the aircraft “lifted” off the runway, the terrorists were hoping to reach their target and accomplish “their” mission while the remaining passengers were hoping to reach their destination. Both groups had placed their “trust” in the plane’s pilots and flight-crew, but for different reasons. “Religion” and “politics” were also aboard that ill-fated flight as some more “unseen” passengers. A “rape” was about to take place, and not just aboard that one aircraft. That particular type “rape” is now a historical fact also.

The lifestyles of America’s citizens would soon be changed, possibly forever, but the actual change really began over 150 years ago. A war of and for morals had begun, long before those four particular aircraft departed their respective runways, or were even invented. Believe it or not, like it or not, September 11, 2001 could very well be the last wake-up call this nation and its’ citizens will receive; the first? That was Pearl Harbor, a previous “Day of Infamy”.

September 11 graphically demonstrated definition four of “principle” as to just how far some individuals will go to put their hopes and beliefs into action in order to show their “devotion or adherence to such a rule or rules” (principle). If it were not for the actions of some of the passengers on Flight 93, (according to the governmental reports) the terrorists’ mission would have been accomplished. Someone once stated; “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

However, one must first recognize evil and its perpetrators (enemies) in order to do one of two things, nothing or something. The passengers on United Airlines flight #93 chose to do something, the cost of which was great, rather then let “evil” triumph by doing nothing. When the reader reaches the end of this book, and hopefully has read all the words, that same option and choice will be available to them as well.

What one “believes or trusts” in is a matter of choice; however, what one believes or trusts can be correct or incorrect, fact or fiction, reality or fantasy, truth or lies. Who one trusts and believes is also a matter of choice with the same basic options. Belief and/or trust will eventually create some type of action, as occurred on flight 93.

The time span between belief and/or trust and then an action, can be instantaneous or delayed for any amount of time. The length of the time span, between belief or trust and the action, are factors that will determine a desired result, and can very well alter what or whom one believes or trusts. At some point in time, that waiting can cause one to lose hope. When hope is lost despair, frustration, apathy and (or) complacency, begin to set in. Nevertheless hope is still a two-way street. But this “Hope”, with a capital “H” is a “whole new ballgame” and another possibility to consider and experience.

Hope, belief, trust, and action are tactics employed by the “enemies”. However the “allies” can use those tactics as well. If those principles will work for the “bad guys” they will also work for the “good guys”. Or perhaps you don’t believe this statement, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”? 

Maybe your hope has been shattered like a piece of glass or a mirror? Such can, and does happen, for numerous reasons. September 11, 2001 was one such way it could happen. “We will never forget”, has become the theme or motto for the events that occurred that day. Unfortunately future generations WILL forget that day, just like they have forgotten another eventful day.

We celebrate that other “eventful day” for it is a national holiday. Yet the vast majority of citizens have forgotten the real, actual, factually historic reason for that holiday, why it is worthy of celebration and remembrance, and the extreme costs that were paid by others, so that we can celebrate the day. Why celebrate that day as a Nation if we no longer believe in its principles written as a document? Or maybe we do believe in the principles, but leave the dream, the vision, the protection and maintenance of such to the “next guy”?

That day was July 4, 1776. On that day the hope about a dream, a vision, a new beginning, an experiment, was initiated. In a little over a decade, the first step would be taken to institute a new and dangerously unique form of government. Unfortunately, the implied motto for July 4^th has become, “We have forgotten”. Our country’s recent history and direction of travel has proven the implied motto, “We have forgotten”, to be true.

What shall now follow is written “videotape”, for we cannot go back and actually see as with an actual videotape, the reason(s) why we still celebrate that day. Hopefully these brief glimpses into history, along with the present day results of apathy, complacency, stupidity, and forgetfulness, will initiate the changes necessary before further and continued destruction of America’s heritage occurs, and this nation collapses just as the Twin Towers did on September 11, 2001, our second day of “infamy”. That day’s event’s were recorded on videotape!

Ironically, September 11, 2001 brought America’s citizens together, united in a common cause and purpose, with isolated exceptions - mostly due to prejudice. That particular day is very similar to the continuing destruction of America’s July 4^th’s “heritage”. Although the buildings were struck from the outside the buildings imploded, in other words collapsed from within. Both World Trade Towers remained standing for a while, even after being struck by the airplanes. The building’s purposeful design kept them from collapsing immediately upon the plane’s impact.

Nevertheless, the extreme damage created internally by the airplane’s external impact, and the resulting internal fires, eventually caused both buildings to collapse from within, according to the “official reports” of the 9-11 Commission. I couldn’t believe my own eyes as I watched the destruction unfold on the television screen when the buildings imploded. I thought, “Someone must have put a bomb inside each of those two buildings that detonated after each plane struck a building.”

I remember when those buildings were only a vision, a dream. I remember how the neighborhood used to be, before the buildings were constructed, as well as after their construction. The “metro area” of New York City was my place of residence, and where I also worked for almost thirty years. But in a matter of an hour or two that one area was pulverized, reduced to piles of twisted, smoldering rubble and lost loved ones.

All, not just some of, America’s citizens and voters that claim to “love” this nation called America, but especially those that are the actual “life giving”, working, “common” laborers, the ones on the bottom of the financial “money pyramid”, need to become more concerned about this nation being collapsed from within. The internal attacks on this nation’s heritage are far broader and greater in scope, more destructive, then one might imagine. Our internal destruction is a far greater reality than this Nation’s destruction from without. A vivid, graphic illustration of that type destruction is the World Trade Towers. An individual’s concern is one thing, their involvement regarding that concern quite another. 

Be forewarned this nation’s ultimate collapse and annihilation will come from within our own borders, not from outside our nation’s borders. The disguise of our internal “enemies” is very similar in external appearance as those terrorists, who were disguised as “just” regular passengers on the hi-jacked aircraft. Our U.S. Constitution still has a purposeful design to prevent this nation’s internal and external destruction. That is why Ben Franklin stated in reply to a question, “We have given you a Republic, if YOU can keep it”. (Emphasis added)    

While there are certainly valid, external threats, to this nation’s well-being and security, such as illegal immigration and laws pertaining to such, “the best defense is a good offense”. But too much of man’s education coupled with a lack of knowledge, not using and applying common sense and deductive (objective) reasoning to various issues, have been major factors causing us to “bench” our best Offense and Defense, whom was clearly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Notwithstanding, each and every one of us do not, and never will have on this earth, the same morals; neither do all of us use the same standards to form judgments and make decisions. Stated another way, “We’re not all on the same page”, let alone in the same book, and maybe never will be; but then there’s always Hope. For that reason, “us” have a U.S. Constitution to maintain liberty, but not necessarily provide freedom.

I know, it should read, “we have” but “us have” illustrates improper use of a word in a “context”, something the U.S. Supreme Courts have done in a subtle, deceptive manner during recent and past decades. I would presume the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have seen and maybe even read the words engraved in the stone front of the building that is entered by the representatives of “We the People”, “equal justice under law”. Maybe the first letter is capitalized in each word, or maybe each letter in the phrase is capitalized, I really don’t know; but I could find out, somehow, someway, if it was an absolute necessity.  

I do know how to easily find and understand what the words mean however. Equal: “of the same quantity, degree, merit, etc.; having the same rights, privileges, etc.; evenly balanced; uniform in operation or effect”. Justice: “rightfulness or lawfulness as of a claim; the administrating of deserved punishment or reward; the administration of what is according to the law”. Under: “beneath and covered by; protected, controlled, or watched by; subject to the influence, condition, force of, etc.; in accordance with”. Law: “all the rules of conduct established by a government and applicable to a people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom; any written or positive instance of such rules”.

I wonder how long it has been since any U.S. Supreme Court Justice has read those words etched in the stone of that Courthouse building, and actually used the definitions of those words for practical application of the supreme law of the land. How long will this Nation continue to exist as the vision embraced by its settlers and founders? The answers to those questions will eventually and ultimately have to be considered by all the citizens of this nation before it is too late for Constitutional action. 

 For an example, why did Ben Franklin state in reply to a question asked of him, “We have given you a Republic, if YOU can keep it” (Emphasis added) Consideration is one thing, to act on such consideration is another; but how does anyone separate the “avenues” of fact from fiction, truths from lies, reality from fantasy? Is there a method, a “ways and means”, to reach a conclusion that would hopefully contain reality, plain ole common sense, some solid, objective, deductive reasoning, and lots of practical application?

If the words of Franklin were true then, would it not be safe to presume those words would still be true today? Was Franklin’s reply only to one individual, the person who asked the question? The night President Bush went on national TV, (July 20, 2005) to tell the nation who his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court was, two words stated by the nominee caught my undivided attention.

The nominee U.S. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr., stated with regards to his law practice and arguing cases before the “Supreme Court”, “That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our Constitutional democracy...” (Emphasis added). Were those emphasized words a mere “slip of the tongue”? We all make that sort of mistake at times; or is there more to it than what meets the eye?

 Here’s a little something anyone can do to figure out if those words were just and only a “slip of the tongue”. Listen to people, watch what is written, especially by those in the media, and discover how many times America is referred to as a democracy rather than a republic. After that little “fact finding tour” consider once again these words and their application: “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.”

Sinclair Lewis once stated: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross"!

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

& Marcus Tullius Cicero

“Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge...”

 Isaiah 5: 13

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...”

Hosea 4: 6

            “I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.” 

Andrew Jackson - 7th U.S. President

©2010 Bill Clade, All Rights Reserved