Jim Headrick's Blog

I wrote a book titled “The Repair and Upkeep of the United States Constitution” and thought at the time we could simply change the way we do political business and things could get better.  I WAS WRONG.  We have to make major changes by correcting past mistakes.

 We have to make assumptions contrary to those made by the scholars we are listening to.  Those scholars read the constitution and determine that the writings of the men who actually signed the constitution are more important that the words in the constitution which were agreed to by those signers.

There are several items designed in the constitution, but the answer always seems to come back to Religious Freedom.

The first and most important freedom affecting us today is religious freedom.  In the Declaration of Independence “our Creator”.  This is the God we worship on a daily basis here in the United States.  You ask which God? To the founder there is only one God.  The congress didn’t have the first bible printed, but according to Dr. Warren Throckmorton, Robert Aitken, from his own fortune had the “Founder’s Bible” printed which included the New Testament.  While congress didn’t print the bible they were involved in the process.

The founders of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution understood that the Christian religion came out of the Jewish faith and the Christians understood it was prophesied in the Jewish bible that what was to become the Christian religion.  Christians tolerate the Jewish right to hold on to the old Jewish belief just as one may believe there is no God or a different God.  However, there was never an intent to support another God or the worship, another entity or other religions.  However, they believed a person may worship as they see fit as long as the worship doesn’t interfere with the Christian or Jewish values contained in the Holy Bible or Torah.

 The writing of any founder concerning the language in the constitution before or after they signed the agreement (the Constitution) expressing an interpretation different than the words, contained therein, has no bearing in law.  To me as I read the constitution the founders were saying that they did not want the state to dictate what religion the people should practice or not practice.  Hindu, Muslim, and other minor religions present in the US at that time were not really considered.  According to our founders, we should never become a theocracy as the Muslims demand.  As a matter of fact, when the Muslim or any religion teaching the takeover of the United States to adopt their religion is treason.

The values in the constitution are clearly taken from the Holy Bible and Torah.  While we don’t want the Holy Bible and Torah, to dictate what our government says and believes, clearly the founders didn’t want any other set of values to control our nation.  Personally I think that the Torah clearly dictates the existence of Christianity, but, as always, the Jews have to accept this teaching to truly be fulfilled.  I also believe the Koran, while advocating they believe in the teachings of the Torah and believe Jesus Christ was a prophet but don’t follow the teachings of Jesus the Christ is actually worshiping an invented god.  Sense the teachings of Koran do not follow the practice of choice as the current Torah and the Holy Bible advocate, we have to assume we have to assume the Muslim was a religion convenient for the time. 

The historians that study the Constitution many times pull from information writings not of the Constitution but from subsequent writings of some of the signers.  There is not term “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.  Again it was derived artificially from the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson after the constitution was ratified, so the Supreme Court took the after thoughts of Jefferson and ruled in support of his thoughts.

As in other cases the Supreme Court of the United States has bent the US Constitution completely out of shape.  The oath taken by the Justices and members of Congress swear to uphold the Constitution without really understanding what they are swearing to do, but they use the phrase “so help me God”.  Now there is the Muslim in congress used the Koran.  The Buddhist uses, I don’t know what.

Our laws should allow a religious sect to have churches, temples or mosques as long as their beliefs do not advocate violence against the US Government or its citizens.  In other words, religion should be defined by an amendment to the Constitution.  In this amendment we should take the Supreme Court rules that prohibit the teaching and religious practices of the Christian and Jewish believers to exercise their beliefs in public.  The Christians and Jews have been persecuted by prohibiting them from practicing their beliefs in public or on government property.  At the same time, we allow special privileges to the Muslim to exercise his prayer rituals whenever and wherever he wants.  We cater to atheists because they don’t want to be offended when, in fact if they don’t believe in anything, what possible difference could it make to them what practice of worship we practice.

A relatively new threat is the belief of some Muslims that they should force all people to believe as they do, or to condemn those that do not follow the Muslim believe as enemies. We have taken freedom of religion too far.  The value of our religion is based that we have a choice to belief or not believe.  If a Muslim cleric in any way backs the activities of those Muslims that cause harm to any citizen of the United States, are breaking the law just as you cannot go to a theater and yell “fire” with no retribution.  That cleric or total mosque should be dealt with by law.  We can’t wait until it happens to decide what to do.  It has happened and is happening.

 We are faced with a dilemma which is;

Do we want to preserve freedom of establishing a government sanctioned religion?

Do we want to want to continue to advocate freedom from religion, or

Do we do what our founding fathers intended which was to freedom to worship as you please, but the Congress should make laws with Christian principles?

The question we should ask is can a non- Christian or non-Jew take seriously an oath to serve God.

Conversations sometimes begin with the discussion of politics or religion.  I have heard people say again and again that they don’t want to argue about politics or religion.  To me the is the most shortsighted opinion anyone can have.  What are the most important controls of your life?  Religion and Politic top the list.  We cannot be passive about these most important subjects or we will be taken over by the devil.

May God guide your thinking and inspire action for each of us.

I thought I saw a light at the end of the tunnel, but alas it faded.  As the political game wore on I heard Trump and Sanders speak to the public in a very refreshing way.  They told the public that there were actually problems in the system and something could be done to correct them.  The people responded again and again with enthusiasm and hope that the system could be changed.  The real money that owns the media stood by concerned with making ratings until they realized this could actually be a call to arms by voting the establishment down.

The establishment is in the Republican Party and was threatened.  It reacted to turn the public against the people the people supported.  Now they are going to put in the Whitehouse a powerless democrat and preserve the republican congress that will maintain the status quo, that has supported the establishment for the last forty year.

America, you can do something about this if you vote against the establishment.  This would put Trump in as president and overturn the republican congress to a democratic congress.  This would form a legislative cycle that would have to get things done by negotiating for the people instead of against them.

Don’t let the media dictate you decisions.  Make your own by realizing that if things stay the way they are in Washington, nothing will change for the better.

This is an unusual thought process.

If Sanders is elected, he has some excellent ideas, but he will try to solve them in the usual way.

If Clinton is elected, she has good ideas and is a deeper thinker than all of them, but she will try to solve them in the usual way.

If Cruz is elected, he has no ideas, and will simply follow the republican line.

If Trump is elected the way congress does business will change.  Needed change will come as an answer to Trump’s challenge to the members.

If change, real change does not come, the awakening in the electorate will peak and true demonstrations will begin to pop up all over.

The only way congress can defeat Trump is to take decisive action now.

I have thought for long time and stated on the blog that we should votes all the congressional members out of office.  Now I have changed my mind and believe “We the People” should impeach all of them for non performance of their sworn duty.  I am more angry and the republicans, but I am also angry at the democrats.

I believe there should be a way to file a brief in and Federal Court that would eventually go to the Supreme Court.  The way members could be taken out of the case would be to show what they have done to promote work being processed through Congress.  Otherwise they would be found guilty and have to return all the salary and benefits they have been given, or worse.

The ‘No Action’ in Congress is proving Trump right.  Our Congress has lost the will to govern.  If they can’t govern they should resign.  It doesn’t take a genius to understand that Trump is getting votes because of the ineptness of the members of Congress.

Harry Reid introduced a Joe Biden rule that isn’t a rule at all and was challenged when it hit the floor.  This kind of nonsense is what will finish tearing this country down.

If you don’t think there is a war out there, you are not paying attention.

I have been thinking about Trump and truly believe that if he is nominated for and elected president of the United States, there will be a much needed debate in the republican party.  The only way this can be avoided is to have the fight (which won’t happen) at the time of the republican convention.

This country needs a debate of such magnitude as to change the thinking of the political power of this country.  I am not for Trump because I don’t believe he will be a good leader.  I think is can spur debates that have been avoided for decades.

Many things that are trying to be legislated should not be.  A government cannot  micro manage its people.  Our legislators have fallen into a trance of being the government without serving the government.  There has to be a change and Trump, God bless him, can be the catalyst we need.

We are about to elect some new senators, congressmen, and a new president on a national level.  We are listening to rhetoric we usually listen to from new and same old candidates.  They all say change but they are not willing to commit to a plan of real change.

REAL CHANGE!  What would real change look like?  Well what is the criterion set out in the constitution?

1. First the State gave up the right to rule independently to the federal government to insure safety for the citizens of the states in a unified manner by establishing a army for nation defense.
2. The militia, which is now national guard, was kept under the command of the governors of the states.
3. Next they wanted economic freedom from the large forces mainly from Europe.
4. They wanted the land owners to control the country.

o   This was eventually repaired to appoint, but the wealth gained by exploiting the people has never been repaired or even addressed.

5. Lastly freedom to worship the Christian God was set in place by stating the government could not tell you how to do it.  This evolved into separation of church and state, which is based on the afterthoughts of Jefferson and Madison after the left office.

Let’s address them one at a time.

1. The safety of our citizens has never been a priority of our laws.

1. There is more talk about the rights of the perpetrator than the rights of the victims.
2. Now if the perpetrator can out run the law or victim they are free to go without being physically threatened by the public.
3. If the perpetrator commits a crime against society by threats of violence the ACLU will defend him against an often struggling country or city court.  I am not against the ACLU but it seems to me their conceived responsibility is based on winning instead of justice.

iii.     A terrorist both domestic and international is protected with our laws which they are openly demonstrating by action or treat of action they oppose.

1. Gangs and other crime oriented organizations can threaten the general public by intimidation techniques, and the police says until the action is done they cannot do anything.  The treat is as devastating to the victim as the action.  In my ‘What is Treason’ piece, I present a possible solution.

2. When the government was formed the phrase ‘organized militia’ was used.  It was to protect us from our government.  Now the militia is our National Guard.

3. The economic freedom became the people had and/or controlled the wealth of our nation used it to ensure they would always have control. With a very few exceptions the wealth is still class based.  The ratio is .01% of the nation holds the equivalent wealth of the rest of the nation.

800. The .01% of the nation equals 31,800.  The population is 318,000,000 as of the end of 2014.

4. The land owner idea fell away over time, but the wealth of the nation controls the policies.

1. The south had plantation and used people by the use slavery or if factories they used underpaid workmen.  The north used underpaid factory workers as a rule.  In both societies the powerful paid a few people more to keep the less fortunate in check with ultimately created thugs and unions.

1. Who had and has the freedom to do whatever they want?
2. Who has the economic freedom?

iii.     Who controls the wars and military power?

1. Who controls justice?
2. Who controls our lives?

5. It is true there have been court rulings that support separation of church and state, there has never been an amendment to the constitution that supports that statement.

1. Outwardly the US government does support the Holy Bible.
2. We have had Cristian Chaplin for congress.
3. The Ten Commandments pasted all over the capital.

iii.     The design of DC is Christian based.

1. Inwardly we say we support all religions, no matter what you want to worship.

1. By law backed by the Supreme Court, if you worship anything or anybody the government will protect your right to do so unless you openly pay tribute to out Christian God, then you can’t do it.

How far is that from our constitutional principles?  Well, it’s not even close.  Our contestants to lead the government we are about to elect haven’t even address any of these items at the core.

Real change to me means to bring us back to the basic principles designed by the constitution considering the amendments of record, not the changes made by the Supreme Court.  In our constitution there is a method laid out to follow if we want to make changes.  To me that is the only way you can do it.

This is the reason people listen to Donald Trump.  In the absence of principles that control our lives being addressed by the candidates that should know better, people will listen to his statements that they know are a wrong approach because no one else is saying anything meaningful.

The leading democrats are talking in the right direction, but they are not there either.  What do we then do.  We bring this up in blanks of the republican and democratic conventions.  Let them debate that.

The is more important than Iran, Iraq, North Korea, or even Russian diplomacy.  If we don’t consider the health of our nation, we will never win anything.

The laws of this nation are based on honest people keeping honest people honest.  At least that is what the founders thought.  We were founded because of threat and intimidation, but it was never addressed in the declaration or the constitution.  I think it was an oversight, but at the time I think the founders believed they had solved the problem.

Now when perpetrators commit crimes that are basically are crimes against the public.  The perpetrators should be treated differently because they basically are saying in such action that they do not believe in the laws and courts system we hold dear.  In certain situations when crimes against the public should become crimes against the United States.

Below I have written two definitions.  Someone smarter that I can redefine, but it is clear that it needs to be addressed

For the purpose of this article, treason should be defined: anyone who commits or causes to be committed an indiscriminate crime, threat of a crime, against a person or persons because of race, religion, social, or political affiliation because of personal anguish, political unrest, or, religious disagreement, or any person agenda that differs from the laws and general values of the people of the United States and/or the framers of the United States Constitution.  Added to this definition should have always been person or persons that cause a general fear of injury, loss of life or other damage to property to any group of people; will also be considered terrorist.

For the purpose of this article, indiscriminate means a crime or threat of crime that appears not directed at a crime to a specific person unless that person represents a targeted philosophy that causes, social group, or the government of the United States i.e. a drive by shooting; any bomb situation; and group targeted scenarios would be two examples either acted on or threatened.

Our pasted and present laws have been ineffective and weak at best.  The threat of a crime from an individual or group of individuals is just as damaging as the crime itself to the people being threatened.  From time to time in our brief history, our way of life has been changed by the perception of the treats against individuals, classes of individuals, or our way of life.

In the United States threats against certain populations have been suffered by the public because the perpetrators knew they could hide behind their citizen rights in our constitution.  The crime syndicates in the past to the syndicates, gangs, drug cartels of the present day, and/or foreign based organization and government have determined that they do not believe in the values of the United States and have determined to change those values by action or to take over the United States.

I think we should form a new federal court specifically for terrorist activities.  Terrorist being defined in the above statement including threats.

The way one enters this court is being convicted in any other court including other federal courts.  In this manner justice is served.  Someone is found guilty of a terrorist activity either domestic or foreign.  The person or persons could be of sound mind or not.  Insanity defense of not would not be admissible.  Once the jury determined the person or persons were terrorist, why they got there becomes unimportant.  They are simply convicted of being involved in terrorist activities, and sentenced to the federal court.  Along with that sentence, which has convicted them of being a terrorist, they lose their citizenship rights because their crime was against the country and not just a single part of society.  By committing or threatening to commit such a crime, they have stated they do not believe in the constitution and our courts therefore they should not enjoy the benefit of citizenship.

This is a simple statement, but another simple statement is if we do nothing our way of life will change.

What happens in a shooting, especially those shootings where there are injuries and death?  We investigate and determine who the perpetrator becomes to be, then we allow them all the luxuries our criminal justice center allows.  We then put them on trial to give them an opportunity to plea bargain.  We then spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars keeping them incarcerated in one of our institutions.

In these cases they are treated like any person that normally tries to observe the laws of our nation.  The problem with this attitude is that the aforementioned have no consideration of any law or morality rule by which we live.

Many of the crimes that case injury and/or death are also very indiscriminately executed.  People targeted because they support a church, believe, or just because they are in the wrong place at the right time.  This type of crime has no right to be treated as normal.  It is not normal.  Drive by shootings are not normal.  Assassinations are not normal.  Kidnapping is not normal.  Bankers that take or misdirect other people’s money is not normal.  Threatening and/or intimidating people to get something you want is not normal.  All these and other crimes that ultimately effects the public at large or the government of the public are acts are terrorist acts.  These perpetrators should be put in a different category that takes them out of our normal court system.

People get mad at other people and kill or injure each other because we are human; reacting to various situations.  This would be a person that normally goes about the business of living a normal life.  The aforementioned perpetrators are people that have built their lives around the premise that they are not going to follow the rules of society that the normal public figures choose to live by.  There is a mark difference in the person hooked on drugs and the people that sell drugs with the idea that someone is going to sell them if there are buyers out there.  Why shouldn’t it be me?  The stock broker that sells something to an uninformed buyer because he gets a special commission at the expense of the buyer is taking advantage of the public.

Think of the hundreds of bankers that designed the derivative fraud at the public’s expense.  The mafia never costed the public as much money or heart ache as did these bankers and insurance executives, yet none have gone to jail or even been charged.  Our Congressmen and women are millionaires to a very high degree.  Go on http://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives#Congressional_freshmen and see for yourself.  Did all these men and women come to congress rich?  Do they really understand the problems we have, and are they terrorizing the public by keeping the common man down and subservient to the powerful?

Where should we draw the line and exactly what shouldw do?  I don’t have a clue, but no one is addressing the problem.  In the campaign it will never be mentioned.