Fear of Consequences

Post 337

Alright.
Let’s assume that Congress decides to put on its rightful and manly pants. It sees the light, recognizes the danger of a majority of self-autonomous members in a branch of government, and begins the Divorce procedure by initiating impeachment.
That door once opened at this point in the fractured relationship is a door that swings very wide indeed. It takes little early exploration to realize that once begun, it would bring the whole house of cards down on top of us.
Who, at this point, has clean hands?
Continuing the exploration of our current example of the still-future Woman and the Beast that carries her, let’s go deeper into the complex problem in this house of cards as the hurricane of ill-wind approaches.
* * *

The Judicial Liberation:
IF, by investigation through the impeachment process, Congress concludes that indeed these five majority Justices of the Supreme Court have taken upon themselves the Power to overrule Congress by failing to declare the sense of the law and have rather shown a disposition to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence having become the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body; then Mr. Hamilton’s argument in The Federalist Paper No. 78 has proven fulfilled to the very letter as I have copied here, transposing only the tense from prophetic future to fulfilled past.
But while Mr. Hamilton’s argument was a point of improbability because of Congresses’ last-word Power of Impeachment to insure this could never happen, even a blind dog can see today that this Power has long been unapplied and the result is a significant recent history of our Superior Courts doing exactly what the power of impeachment was to prevent.
Today, any special-interest group being shut down by the State Courts per the constitutional application of the law (according to Article X), can simply run to the Superior Courts for a quick overruling reversal which utterly destroys the “rule by self-elected representation” form of governance that the States were ensured and guaranteed by the Constitution to have (Article IV, section 4).
In fact, we are even now watching the last independent Power of the States being drained away by the Federal Courts like Hollywood vampires sucking the life from helpless damsels in distress, converting those damsels into likewise powerful vampires of the living dead. Prayerless schools, Godless governing institutions, Silenced religion, Marriage of Sodomites, Capitol Punishment denial, Right to Death, Rights for Illegal Aliens, Right to murder your unborn, Forced Earth-worship by Eco-Everything; the list goes on and on. Each of these and more are not governance by Legislation but by the will of the Judiciary. The Federal Judicial branch has become a shameless monster of limitless Power and control, even to the usurping of any State Court ruling that the Supreme Court doesn’t like. The weakest branch has effectively become America’s new rule by Oligarchy, So why does Congress do nothing?

I will here address two different reasons.

First, let’s lightly contemplate the emotional angle:
Yes, Congress has the power of impeachment. But if they feel compelled by right to use the might and impeach the wrongdoers for the duration sake of the more perfect Union, we now have up to five empty seats that need to be filled all at once. Who has the power to fills those seats? The President. Who is the acting President? Mr. Obama the lawless, the self-proclaimed transformer of foundations, the man who says the Constitution is a flawed and outdated document of irrelevance.
If such a man is allowed to select five Supreme Court Justices, like the two he has already seated, suddenly America gets an unprecedented judicial tsunami driven by a single individual, that lasts, not only for the remainder of his presidency, but for a lifetime -- or until likewise impeached for misbehavior.

How many more Justices do you impeach before you are seen by the public as a trigger-happy self-serving Tyrant-- or until Justices are terrorized into becoming Congresses’ yes men just to keep their seats-- which also makes you a Tyrant? Does this “kill them all” manly approach actually fix anything at this point in the problem? Decidedly not-- even though it may make you feel better for having done something; In fact it seems to make matters infinitely worse.

Next, let’s contemplate the legal angle (and you have no idea how hard I struggle to keep this short by excluding so much more needed information):

The Limitation of Trumping Power:
If Congress could impeach anybody in another branch that disagreed with them, then the branches wouldn’t actually be independent and therefore wouldn’t be the functional checks and balances that they were designed to be. Independent function of the branches is therefore imperative, yet clearly the function of these branches are to have Powerful influence on the other branches in ways such as money, impeachment, application, declaring void, veto, refusal to act, etc. So, how does this work?
Let’s let Mr. Hamilton explain it as I repeat his quote:

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

In summary; while the branches are independent in their role and operation, their separated function is to have significant affect on the constitutional conformity of the other branches. Example: The Judicial branch cannot have a say in what the Legislative branch does or does not enact into law, but it does have the power to declare void anything they pass that does not conform to the boundaries that the Constitution has specified. If the Judicial branch did not have this Power, the Legislature would have no functional restraint from violating the Constitution and enslaving the people by their lawless law.
OK, let’s continue:

“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

In summary: It might appear that, if you have the power to declare something void that the other branch has passed, that power makes your branch superior to the other branch. How does this trumping power of the Judiciary not make the Legislators functionally irrelevant? How is this the independence of branches? and especially; How does this great trumping-power over the legislation fit with the idea that the Judicial branch is the weakest and least powerful of the branches?
This is where the answer gets powerfully interesting and important to our issue:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

In today’s hindsight fulfillment of this warning this needs no explaining, but I wanted to pause here just to emphasize the importance of this concept. In short: It is a primarily foundational principle that declares the hired has no authority in its employment that the employer does not give it. If this principle is denied then the employee would have unlimited power even to the usurping destruction of the employer and the taking of all he has and is, the servant does not formally conquer the master; he becomes the master. Hamilton worded it so well that even my attempt to re-phrase it diminishes his point. Please read it again in his own words.
Now let’s continue:

“If it be (wrongly) said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers[,] and the construction (i.e. the legislation that) they put upon them (i.e. the other branches) is conclusive upon the other departments[,] it may be answered (to correct this misconception) that this cannot be the natural presumption where it is not to be (i.e. it cannot rightly be) collected from any particular provision in the Constitution.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

While Mr. Hamilton so wonderfully worded the previous paragraph, this one is quite difficult to understand without help. And while the next paragraph is unbroken in continuation, I feel it important to pause here to try to make sense of this part.
Simply said: Don’t think that the legislature has the self-regulating power to write whatever law they like, including obligations imposed on the other branches, and then claim it is constitutional because they wrote it, and therefore constitutionally binding. Such an idea is so wholly unconstitutional by completely missing from the text, that to come to this conclusion is unnatural and corruption. Feel free to read his phrasing again, here copied without all my aids:

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers and the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments it may be answered that this cannot be the natural presumption where it is not to be collected from any particular provision in the Constitution.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

Now let’s continue with his thought:

It is not otherwise to be supposed (i.e. Do not make the other faulty supposition) that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the [legislators] within the limits assigned to their authority.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

We began this discussion in the last Post, talking about the willful JUDICIAL branch that needed to be reigned-in by the authorized impeaching power of the Legislative branch, but now, here, we are reading these quotes and talking about the same power in the reverse, but without the similar power of impeachment.
The legislators cannot be allowed by their own will to breach the bounds or principles or even the manifest tenor (the clear spirit) of the Constitution, lest the other branches and subsequently the people, become enslaved; one of the very things the LIMITED Constitution was established to prevent.
So how does the weak judicial branch have the power to ensure that the legislative branch does not breach the bounds, if the legislative branch has the ensuring power to impeach the judicial for breach?
This unique and exclusive power is wholly a matter of compliance to the Greater Unimpeachable Law that grants all said powers, and not a matter of arguing greater powers between the branches. This is a gender thing in Type: "Dear husband of mine, while I love you and obey you because God gave you the right of making the rules of conduct in this family, I cannot do, nor make the children do, what you have demanded, because God, the Higher Power, has declared what you demand to be unlawful. Such a demand is outside of your scope of authority.”

So just as the Judicial branch cannot be allowed to breach their constitutional bounds by the restraining power of the legislators; that same body of legislators cannot likewise be allowed by their own will to enact laws that the Constitution forbids and that the people who put them there do not desire. This trumping-power only extends to the area of Constitutional breach. this is because this trumping power is simply referring back to the Constitution as the source of power; it is the Constitution that establishes the rule of all government, and the trumping power therefore does not reside in the branch that wields it but in the Constitution itself.

So, because of this principle of otherwise independent powers, the Congress cannot interfere in the opinions of the Judiciary, even if they don’t like it… SO LONG AS that opinion conforms to the bounds of the Constitution. There are few greater harms that our government can do to the government itself than to allow one branch the power of will over the other branches (Matthew 12:25). The manly Legislators, perhaps in great fear of being held accountable to arguably the most important tenant of the Constitutional limitations of power, are excessively careful not to extend their will over the activity of the other branches. This is one reason why the Supreme Court has been allowed to progressively become more powerful without restraint. This lack of restraint has enabled the Court to imagine itself autonomous and immune. It believes itself to be emancipated, and by its unsuppressed successful ill conduct since 1963, it seems that they are right.
* * *

Unclean Hands of Legislative Liberation:
With this new understanding of limited powers, we now see the Judicial branch likewise failing to hold the Legislative branch accountable for breach. I bring this quote back yet again:

It is not otherwise to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the later within the limits assigned to their authority.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

Do you remember voting down Hillary Care decisively… numerous times? Remember voting down Obama Care too? Yet here is Nancy Peloci-- Speaker of the House-- regarding getting this pet bill passed in spite of mass outcry and significant opposition by both the population and almost the entire “other half” of Congress:

In defending her earlier statement: ‘We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it,’ she said to an interviewer: “However, I stand by what I said there; ‘When people see what is in the bill they will like it,’ -- and they will. And so while there is a lot of hoopty-do and adu’… I’m saying; it took a great deal for us to pass this bill, I said that if we go up to the gate and the gate is locked we will unlock the gate, if we can’t do that we will climb the fence, if the fence is too high we will pole-vault in, if we can’t do that we will helicopter in, but we will get it done” - Meet The Press- Nancy Peloci Defends Statement (http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=youtube+peloci+pass+bill+to+find+out+whats+in+it).
John 10:1 speaks to this mentality very strongly.

How does this unstoppable drive to force upon the people what they do not want, conform to the intent or function of the constitutional limitations we are here discussing? Are we to conclude that Madam Peloci understood that the people-- at the least her own constituents-- were demanding any kind of ObamaCare legislation? Let’s see:

In the same quoted interview as above, the Meet The Press interviewer said to her: “…and you argued at the time, you said; look, there’s a lot of controversy around this, it’s politically hot, and the people don’t understand the good things that are in it. But then you said this in March of 2010, watch;” and he played the infamous “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it” clip that she then defended above (*1).

It seems unquestionably clear that Madam Peloci’s opinion was that the Progressive (dare I say Communist? *2) Legislators would do any and everything in their power to force this bill into law against all opposition-- which was plentiful-- with the supposed perspective that the people would retroactively like what they got after they got it, even though they were fighting it now. So just who’s will enacted that legislation; the people’s? And where then was the Judicial branch in VOIDING the law created by such a clearly unconstitutional method of legislation? The function of the Courts is the very constitutional judge that Mr. Hamilton mentioned was the only deterrent for JUST SUCH THINGS.

How much confidence then can the people have in the wisdom of Congress to keep the other two branches from breach, when after giving to us the laws that make it illegal to; grow home gardens, store food, collect rainwater, etc., conclude with the very Speaker of the House declaring openly to Congress that “we have to pass this [controversial] bill so we can find out what’s in it,” and Congress does not react in immediate and complete rejection of the idea as pure and unadulterated evidence of public insanity? Such an irresponsible statement by any leader or ruler is sheer lunacy and an immediate obligation of removal from office on grounds of incompetence at the least. Yet this has become standard fair in Congress today as their heads don’t even jerk up from their Angry Birds when they hear it.
So, Where is our Supreme Court that is supposed to protect the people from these “servant becoming master” High Crimes against the people by declaring such unwanted legislations void due to violations of the constitutional parameters of limitations?

But what is hardly secondary to this growing list of insanities by “lead Congress persons” is the obvious question; If Congress hasn’t read the bill, then who wrote it? and Why is Congress even contemplating passing bills that they didn’t write? How can they expect us to believe they know the will of their constituents-- as required by the Constitutionality of their job-- if they pass without reading, bills that they didn’t write? JUST WHO IS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY of the governed? It clearly is not Congress, and it’s not the American people through Congress.
Just as a reminder; Surrendering our nation to unconstitutional rulers without being conquered through war is a case of HIGH TREASON against the United States of America and her people. Can it be explained that this is not the case here? It is growing ever significantly less likely with examples such as that presented by Ammon Bundy regarding the growing “Nancy Peloci Method” now being used by many States to propose legislation (*3).

There is a whole lot more to be said on the topic, and Mr. Hamilton addressed it in Federalist No. 78-85, but there comes a time when more information just grid-locks the forward momentum by derailing the main point. So let’s move on to the Executive problem and bring this all together.
* * *

The Executive Liberation Movement - it’s a gender thing:
While there is a near limitless volume of details regarding the High Crimes of the Executive branch today, we have already covered enough in previous Posts to provide the daily increasing substance for the argument. The acting President seems to believe that he is an unstoppable superpower, a king over the American people and unaccountable to Congress on the basis of his constitutionally independent role. And it seems quite evident that Congress agrees.
I am baffled at the apparent Legislative opinion that seems to believe the Constitution has granted the President power to write law, even against their approval-- as if that last part matters to the point-- and when the President threatens congress with his silly executive pen of virtually no legislative power, they ask; "What can Congress do?"
How do you make your wife do what you say if she decides she is not going to do it? How do you stop her from doing what you have strictly forbidden?
Among the very few, let’s look at the singular effort of one earnest Representative in this area of concern:

U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy before Congress:
“Thank you Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment as colleagues. Not as Republicans or Democrats, not as members of the majority or the minority; but as colleagues who are blessed to serve in the United States House of Representatives: The people’s house, with all their tradition, with all the history, with all the laws that have been passed, with all the lives that have been impacted. I want us to talk as colleagues, because our foundational document gave us, as the House, unique powers and responsibilities. We run every two years because they intended for us to be closest to the people. The President was given different duties and powers. The President was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. So my question Mr. Speaker, is what does that mean to you; ‘that the laws be faithfully….executed’?
We know the president can veto a bill for any reason, or no reason. We know the President can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statute-- even one that he signs into law. We know the President can issue pardons for violation of the very laws that we pass. And we know that the President has prosecutorial discretion as evidenced and used through his U.S. attorneys. Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power. What are we to do when that amount of power is not enough? What are we to do when this President, or any President, decides to selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of that law? What do we do, Mr. Speaker, regardless of motivation when a President nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute The Law? How do we explain waivers and exemptions and delays in a bill passed by congress and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court? How do we explain away a refusal to enforce mandatory minimums that were passed by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court? And why pursue, Mr. Speaker, immigration reform if Presidents can turn off the very provisions that we pass?--
You know, in the Oath that brand new citizens take, it contains six different references to the law. If it’s good enough for us to ask brand new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the President do the same?--
If a President… [paused by enthusiastic applause of the House]... If a President can change some laws, can he change all laws? Can he change Election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws under your theory that he actually has to enforce?
What is our recourse Mr. Speaker? What is our remedy? Some would argue the Framers gave us the power of the purse and the power of impeachment, but Mr. Speaker, those are punishments, those are not remedies. What is the remedy if we want the Executive to ENFORCE - OUR - WORK?

This [proposed] bill simply gives us standing when our votes are nullified. This [proposed] bill allows us to petition the Judicial branch for an order requiring the Executive branch to faithfully execute the law.
Mr. Speaker, we are not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law. Maybe we would be more respected if we had a firmly rooted expectation that when we pass something as law it be treated as law. Maybe we would be more respected if we put down party labels and a desire to keep, or retain, or acquire gavels, and [instead] picked up the history, the tradition, and the honor of this; the People’s House.
Mr. Speaker, the House does not exist to pass suggestions. We do not exist to pass ideas. We make LAW. And while you are free to stand and clap when any President comes into this hallowed chamber and promises ‘to do it with our without you’, I will NEVER stand and clap when any president-- no matter whether he is your party or mine-- promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. WE - MAKE - LAW. [standing ovation of the House].” - transcribed from video, SC R- Tray Gowdy, before the U.S. House, March 13, 2014, Youtube Gowdy Remedy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NW70RXMfUM).

The aforementioned bill called “Enforce the Law Act” was passed by a vote of 233-181. It is a bill that would authorize the House or Senate to sue the executive branch for not enforcing law.
* * *

Evaluation:
This rousing delivery is immediately received as a very refreshing, sadly unusual, and an enthusiastically supportable speech that every conservative can get behind with both hands and applaud in earnest as a step forward to end foundational corruption in the Highest Executive seat. Go Gowdy!

But my question is this; If a President, who perpetually and routinely making the Congress a constitutional anomaly by failing to faithfully execute the office of President on several fronts, is not a President worthy of and requiring the punishment of impeachment; then what act by a President would be? What kind of ill behavior did our founders have in mind when they gave Congress the power of impeachment?

Maybe Congress would be respected, if they would use their obligatorily power designed for just such a situation, instead of appealing to its other half to enact yet more laws to ask another branch to do what Congress already has the law and power to do but refuses to use.
According to Mr. Gowdey’s previous speech (http://www.westernjournalism.com/trey-gowdy-house-pass-suggestions-make-law/), it is unquestionably clear that this President does not need to be educated, corrected, informed, pressured, coerced… or even forced, to do what his Job requires him to do; he needs to be removed for intentional failure on a fundamental level, and that removal should be done in the most aggressive way available by the law. This President does not need to be remedied; he needs to be punished, and THAT is the purpose of granting you the power of impeachment!
It’s yours to do.

But it’s quite clear that Mr. Gowdey and his colleagues would rather continue in a newly formal adversarial relationship with “their better half” by creating the means of dragging their spouse to court and getting the Judge to demand that she obey, rather than to end the relationship in a nasty divorce and try again with a different person. Why?
Why would Congress be so willing to endure the unendurable when they have every right to end it decisively? The answer has many itemized components but I offer the emotional component first: Have you seen the lawful replacement options? The Vice President is no catch to write home about.

“…all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed” - U.S. Declaration of Independence.
* * * * * * *

(*1) In Nancy Peloci’s Own Words:
“We’re very…uhm…You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill; ‘what are the items?’ but I don’t know if you have heard, that it is a legislation, for the future. Not just about Healthcare for America but about a healthier America. Where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for, or a out-of-pocket, [illegible], prevention, prevention, prevention, it’s about diet not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting, but, we have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” - Transcribed from video, Nancy Peloci, at the March 9, 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties in regard to the Healthcare Reform bill; Youtube Peloci (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl5UMhqgQ-0).

(*2) The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land… (Property Tax is A GOOD FIRST STEP).
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (CHECK).
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. (Heavy death and inheritance taxes: A VERY GOOD FIRST STEP).
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and “rebels.” [air quotes added]. (Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy Ranch: CHECK).
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank… (CHECK).
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (U.S. Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act: CHECK!).
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State… (Ownership by Bailout, such as the auto industry, lending institutions, etc: CHECK!).
8. Equal obligation of all to work… (Obama has been verbally pushing this mentality of: you can succeed by working hard, a suggestion with heavy undertones of the Nazi work makes free sign hung over the Auschwitz concentration camp gates: (VERY MUCH NOW ON THE WAY).
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country: (The only plank not yet visibly well under way, but found in the "distribution of wealth" concept now being driven like a rail road spike).
10. Free education for all children in public schools… (CHECK).

Remember; somebody secret rather than Congress is now writing our laws that Congress passes in blind obedience. Those laws now give off the stench of raw Communism. The shocking part is that most Americans now think all this is American!
Do you remember in Post 238 “ Nine Times Forgiven” the ten infractions of the Exodus people that tempted God to destroy them? (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/03/nine-times-forgiven.html).
Just how old is America’s Methuselah? ( Post 294 http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-long-can-methuselah-live.html).

(*3) LCB - the Legislative Counsel Bureau (www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/LCB/).
According to Ammon Bundy, NO bill can be presented for vote in the Nevada Legislature without being doctored and sanctioned by the LCB disregarding the will of those that proposed it, and in some cases even fully reversing the original will and intent.
search: Bundy AB408 if you cannot find it here. - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tzBzuhkBrl&feature=youtube).
*

The Union of Separate Powers

June 24-28, 2015
Post 336

So with the previous Post’s admonition to our Christian wives; “Climb off your man’s back and let him shepherd,” you had to have expected their comparable reply to our own earlier argument; “You don’t know my husband; he’s a self-serving Beast!”
And if our loyal and faithful Christian wives would just quietly tolerate whatever you want without complaint, What would you do?
Yah, I thought so.
Neither does the Holy Spirit just shut-up and hang on for the ride with you as the head of your life. Like a creative wife, he has other influential means at his disposal.

So what does God’s Spirit do if he cannot get your attention in the effort to correct your wayward course? He cries out to the Father… who tries the reins, and then gives you the fruit of your doing (see Post 168), which undesirable fruit is supposed to naturally get your attention in a way you do comprehend, and thereby cause a change of focus (Hosea 2:7), or simply punish you in Judgment if you are unchangeable (Jeremiah 18:15-17).
You can do a lot of damage to the lives of those under your authority, but it’s yours to do. It’s a frightening amount of responsibility that shouldn’t be selfishly squandered. A wise man grants his wife an earnest audience when she disagrees with him.

OK, so now, in the age of corruption, we have an entire society of self-centered men and troubled women, and these go through their lives earnestly trying all manner of tactics to correct the ill-begotten unfavorable ways of the other, and thereby feeling righteous in themselves by the focus.
Let the scripture show a picture of what this looks like near “the end of the run”:

“I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her…” Revelation 17:7.

I have shown in former works by the evidences already in, that this is prophetically describing the last two simultaneous Pagan worldpowers before Christ returns to establish his own redeeming kingdom on earth. This troubled relationship of contending governing policies will be a battle of genders earnestly trying to temper the detrimental ways of the other. This will not be in the form of an official union of powers-- as a “marriage” if you will-- but a “fornicating relationship” of both desire and need without obligatory bondage by form. This is a description of Islam and Democracy finding mutual ground in the effort to keep at bay the self-extermination of humanity by the contest.

From our “Christian perspective” we confidently look at this pair as scripturally-certified “Pure Evil.” But in our modern society’s blind-sheep mentality of basing our moral opinions only upon what has been determined approved or rejected by “the authority,” even we Christians miss the actual application and therefore any useful insight that the scriptures provide.
So permit me to explain this corrupted relationship in a very timely example:
* * *

Congress:
The United States’ Sovereign-masses under God, elect their Representatives and Senators: i.e. Congressmen, who then have the only authority (legislative) to write laws governing the workings of the united government; (i.e. the collection of States as a Union), and in that law-making Power they have the strings to the Federal purse (US Constitution Article 1, Sections 1, and 8). They, the Legislative branch, can even jointly impeach and try any Office-- including Presidents and Justices-- for misconduct (Article 2, last clause + Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6).

It needs to be stressed here that Section 8, describing the very specific limitations of said Legislators, begins with; “The Congress shall have Power To…”, and sums up with; “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Power, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof.”

I am trying very hard to keep this Post short and to the point, but these details are important, and vital to correctly addressing the ongoing topic of cycling Types, that might easily slip away in the details.

“Foregoing Power” and “all other Powers vested” are a bit ambiguously addressed here and therefore easy to generalize into Powers not actually intended. We will make the distinction in a moment.
Having said that, there is virtually nothing here that grants them power beyond the ability to carry out those specific duties designated by the Constitution. These duties do not include ruling the lives of the citizens as subjects, such as we see abundantly happening today. This argument is made very clear by the Declaration of foundational values which birthed this “Exceptional” nation (*1), i.e.:

“That to secure these [God-given inalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” - U.S. Declaration of Independence.

The purpose of Governments is declared therein to protect the rights that God has given to the people who created said governments by “the consent of the governed.” What those governed do with those inalienable rights is entirely up to them and not the government… with exception of how the implementation of those rights directly affects the More Perfect Union practically. It is a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. This concept is foundational to all interpretation of how that government operates, and is spelled out in the preamble of the Constitution itself:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Section 9 departs from specifying what Congress has the Power to do, and specifically lists a number of things that Congress may desperately want to do but is expressly forbidden from doing. The Bill of Rights extends that specific-- but not conclusive-- list even further. Clearly then, there are necessary laws that all citizens must adhere to for the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the Union, but there are limitations to the extent those laws can be made. No legislation can be written that infringes upon the basic inalienable rights of all men. That’s God’s jurisdiction.

OK, Because this two-fold branch of Legislators, collectively called Congress, creates and administers the law for the general operations of the national family of States, and thereby also acquires the money that sustains said government, let’s call Congress the husband.

Article II of the US Constitution describes and defines the executive seats of Power; i.e. Presidents and Vice Presidents, including their whole administration and cabinets, and related Offices of management. It is important that we understand the general scope of this office:

Executive: 1. Designed or fitted for, or pertaining to, execution; as, executive talent. 2. Qualified for, concerned with, or pertaining to, the execution of the laws or the conduct of affairs; as, executive power; executive officer, department, etc.
n. 1. The executive branch of a government; also, the person or persons who constitute the executive magistracy of a state. 2. Hence, any person or body charged with administrative or executive work. - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1948.

Almost as a side note, but significantly connected to my topic point, It is doubtful if one in 10,000 Americans know that the people do not actually vote directly for president by anything specifically required in the Constitution. The whole dual Presidential election that we go through is perhaps little more than a means to get our general opinions about the flavor of government we want, but the election of President is made by the Electoral College-- a small group of Electors appointed by each State to represent their voters’ leaning (Article II, paragraphs 2&3) (*2). The election of President by them would still be fully Constitutional without a “Presidential election” by the masses as we have grown accustomed to expect and demand as the form used by the State Governments to determine the flavor of the electoral electors. Let’s say for our purposes of study that this is because the man, once established as a man, chooses his own wife, though God has a significant part to play in the selection by the unseen angels that bring it all together. This idea should become clear as we continue.
* *

The President:
Once inaugurated, the Office of President has the role of added consent or rejection of the proposed laws that Congress presents and wants to establish for the Executive branch to execute (Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 2). He also has the ultimate administrative Power of the Nation’s collective might when called to actual service of the United States: (When she cries out for help, her whole world stops and comes to her aid). He further has the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States other than those impeached, and He can make Treaties (with consent of the Senate), and make administrative appointments such as Ambassadors and other executive officers, including even the appointments of specific Supreme Court Justices (all found in Article II, Section 2). This Office of President (Executive) smacks of a feminine role in managing the home as the co-authority with, but independent from, the Congress as husband who writes the laws she implements with his money.
Section 3 goes into the specifics of just what the President does, and oddly enough, it too rather sounds domestically feminine in nature:

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper [giving them time to cool off]; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”- US Constitution, Article II, Section 3.

In all respects, the Executive Offices of President seem to be an in-house national administrator and peacekeeper, a co-ruler with Congress. Let’s call the office of President the Wife.
* * *

The Gender War:
In spite of a long history of these two conjoined but independent Powers successfully struggling to manage the national family of States within the boundaries of their Constitutionally designated roles, now for the first time in the history of the United State’s, the feminine Office of President has fully usurped the manly Power and authority of Congress, and apparently, to keep peace in the government, it seems that, like a typical modern husband in a troubled marriage, Congress has quietly stepped aside and granted him the Power he craves while retaining the figurehead for image sake. Congress, like the husband, is now relegated to simply “bringing home the bacon” for his wife to spend with her friends as she likes… by the TRILLIONS.

Now it’s going to be easy to determine fault and cast “Republican approved” judgment on the undisciplined man seated in the Office of President for his actions of breaching the duties of his role, but if we actually try to understand what is going on, it seems quite apparent by many examples, that, Mr. Obama is earnestly ruling by his heart; his will, his desire… just, without respect or consideration to the Law that offends his sensibilities.
On numerous occasions Mr. Obama has openly and almost mockingly declared Congress to be obsolete because he has a pen, Meaning that his intention is to write executive law around the will or approval of Congress.
While this is indeed very destructive to the national family, it’s not a cognizant “pure evil” that motivates this man’s choices of action as we might like to think by our sheeple mentality of understanding what is right-and-wrong only because our accepted authority has declared it so; The root motive of his conduct goes way deeper than his simple but destructive actions. It’s this root that we need to address rather than attack his numerous flamboyantly destructive policies. It’s the root that nobody is talking about.

As long as he, the Office of President, “wears the pants in the nation,” this destructive conduct is not something that can be fixed or adjusted with practice or time, because the very act of usurping the rightful authority that belongs to Congress is the abandonment of the foundational Law… a self-declared intention, and violation of his very oath of office as wife to Congress in his marriage vows when he took that role:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America!” - Mr. Obama.
vs.
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: - ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”- Article II, Section 1, last paragraph.

The violation of this sacred vow is a crime so great, that the only solution is either unwise destructive tolerance or obligatory Divorce for the preservation of the national family:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States [including Supreme Court Justices], shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” - US Constitution, Article II, Section 4.

Once it is discovered that the person in the Office is so determined in confusion about their role that they openly and shamelessly violate the foundational Laws (Constitutional) that govern that role, it is impossible to restore them to a state of trustworthy execution of their role. The concept of this fact is made even more clear by numerous comparable scriptures, such as:

All of I and II Timothy, then all of Titus, concluding with:
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” Titus 3:10-11.

Each of these Offices was designed to be filled by honorable people willing to work within the boundaries and limitations of those Offices for a reason. Our Founders intentionally by design gave us a singular national government divided into three individual parts. These parts are not intended to war with each other to the destruction of the nation, but to work with each other to the successful operation of the whole. That successful operation is necessarily worked out by what often seems very much like war when they don’t see eye-to-eye… which heated discussion of passionate differing viewpoints is the very purpose of the division of Powers.
But alternately, the Creator’s sphere of retained Authority is not open for government’s review, let alone meddling. Yet once a branch feels free to tread upon the Powers granted to another branch, treading upon God’s realm is just another step.
* * *

The Judicial:
Our founders gave us a third branch of government with its own sphere of Powers (Article III) though significantly different from the nature of the other two branches. It is also noteworthy that the Supreme Court, and the lesser courts, described collectively as Judicial, have been given by our founders a very short but inclusive list of Powers in their jurisdiction compared to the other branches.

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority” - Article III, Section 2.

Cases in Law, differing from Cases in Equity, again describe two different categories, yet this Judicial branch is given Power, not over the law, but to Cases regarding both kinds.
Cases in Law define contentions made regarding what the Constitution has granted the government, as well as what Congress has legislated under that Constitution, therefore, Cases in Equity must mean something else.
Federalist Paper No. 80 explains all this very well but obviously it would overwhelm this Post to be copied here, so we will only insert this portion; Cases in Equity “involve ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship.” So it has been asked; What cases in equity would not automatically fall under cases in law?

“It is the [unique role], for instance, of a court of equity to relieve against what are called hard bargains: these are contracts in which, though there may have been no direct fraud or deceit sufficient to invalidate them in a court of law, ye there may have been some undue and unconscionable advantage taken of the necessities or misfortunes of one of the parties which a court of equity would not tolerate.” - The Federalist Papers No. 80.

Let’s explore an interesting dictionary definition:

Equity: …3. Law: a. The system of law which originated in the extraordinary justice formerly administered by the king’s chancellor and was later developed into a body of rules supplementary to our aiding the common and statute law. …” - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1948.

Let’s pause here to explain that Common law, at the time the Constitution was written, was also known far-and-wide as Natural Law; i.e. the law of nature, that applies to all men commonly, as does gravity. This Common Natural law-- described in Romans 1:19-20 as grounds for ruling in justice-- is distinct from Statute Law; which is the law written by civil institutions on civil matters beyond Natural law. (The Executive branch may ambiguously have the Power to write policy, or rules, (not law), that are necessary to aid the implementation of the Law that the Legislators have written, meaning, where man’s legislated governance bumps up against God’s governance, and needs functional clarification). Blackstone has a lot to say regarding this zone of law in vol. 1 of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765, which seems most readily applicable to our present discussion in his section on the Rights of Persons, specifically regarding marriage, in chapter 15 (*3).
So now we comprehend that the Judiciary has the Power to address issues that arise in both the applications of legislative written law and the executive written policy, even where they seem to encroach perhaps into God’s jurisdiction. More on this important subject will have to wait until another time, but is covered in The Federalist No. 80.
OK, let’s continue with the definition of Equity:

“…The term has come to designate the formal system of legal and procedural rules and doctrines according to which justice is administered within certain limits of jurisdiction. b. An equitable claim or right. 4. Hence, any body of legal doctrines and rules similarly developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a system of law which has become too narrow and rigid in its scope.” - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Fifth Edition, 1948.

Of course we must be careful when using a modern definition that we do not automatically assume that this is what the authors of the Constitution understood the definition to be; definitions subtly change over time until sometimes they mean something else entirely. But for our uses here, we understand that the Judicial was granted Power to proceed OVER CASES of dispute in both, Legislated law, as well as any rulings or policy that might arise by executive governments to enhance the efficacy of those laws, and also over contentions of ill effects resulting from those laws.
Since the very nature of the Judicial is to MAKE OPINIONS in cases BASED on existing laws and policy; It simply is not in the Constitutional scope of authority for the Judicial to MAKE law or policy, but to only cast opinions on its APPLICATION from Case to Case. The very heart of their opinion must ask; “What did the authors of the law intend?”-- not; “What do I think it should mean?”,-- and then ask; "Is that intent compatible with the bounds of the Constitution?", before asking; "How does that law apply in this case?" The Judicial was created to rule in conflicts between the various laws and policies of the land that conform to the Constitution, as well as distinguish and expose as irrelevant the laws and policies that do not conform to the Constitution. The Judiciary are the third member in a team, not a third contender in a war for Power. This unity of effort is fundamental to the very purpose and success of our triune government, and the self-willed disunity of our branches is its sure destruction (Matthew 12:25).

Our founders felt that the Judicial had so little power that they were incapable of doing us any harm as long as they remained separate from encroaching into the realms of the other two Powers. Alexander Hamilton, a framer of our Constitution, explained it like this:

“The executive (wife) not only dispenses the honors but holds the sword of the community (Romans 13:3-4). The legislature (Husband) not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated (excluding those that are inalienable). The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power, that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks [thus, the virtue of a life-long seat on good behavior is Hamilton’s point]. It equally proves that though individual oppressions may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive. For I agree that ‘there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers’” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

The inset quote Hamilton references comes from Montesquieu - Spirit of Laws, Vol. I, Page 181, who also said in the same work, page 186: “Of the three powers above mentioned, the JUDICIARY is next to nothing.”

Unlike either the Offices of Legislation or the Executive Offices; the Judicial was denied the authority to hold any lawmaking or rulemaking Powers, or even the Power to implement such, but only rather, to review and explain or expose necessary adjustments for the equitable function of the laws and rules made by the other branches, ensuring their conformance to the mandates and limitations of the Constitution. The judiciary is supposed to be the people’s support to ensure the other branches do not harm them by overstepping their limited Powers. Hamilton’s example:

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder (punishments without a trial, including generic fines), no ex post facto laws (retroactive guilt), and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare [void] all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing”… “It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the [legislature] within the limits assigned to their authority.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

This concept of an imperative independence has nonetheless now been wholly changed from one that keeps the other branches incapable of controlling it and likewise keeps this branch from intruding on the realms of the others, to one that means it is without restraint and therefore of unlimited power. This new perspective of independence is the image of today’s Woman’s Liberation, where woman are now a new and boundless power of quasi-legislative capacity in contest with the husband, i.e. Congress, as equals IN THAT FIELD while retaining their unique qualities of their own field which grants them trumping advantage like a woman who cries in an argument with a man, but then mercilessly ejects him from his life’s career for making her wiles public, and thereby validating his argument but winning anyway ( BBC News - Sir Tim Resigns http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33090022).
This unlimited power, while having the image of independence, is not the independence intended but the complete opposite; it is the subversion of the legislative authority. It is the conquest of Congress by steeling the function of its branch, which it was never intended to have, and which independence was intended to keep it from obtaining, much like what has happened to the "separation of Church and State."
Therefore, instead of being seated as a Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor should have immediately been disbarred and removed from any public office for her eye-winking tongue-in-cheek declarations in deposition that Justices write law by interpreting the law to mean whatever they want it to mean (see Post 004 On Sotomayor). THEN, after disbarring her, Congress should have investigated her claims and likewise Impeached any and all Justices who were found to have practiced such a belief. It’s that important that the Judicial does not step into the Legislative role even by a single step. You have a very important job to do in keeping the Legislation within its rightful bounds, but rewriting law, or its intent, is not among your duties.

“It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy (regarding a law), may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. … The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

Wives, are you hearing this Typology loud and clear? When your department forgets it’s scope, and with the Power of the supporting spirit of Judicial interpretation steps into the Legislative jurisdiction, we end up with yesterday’s (6/26/15) Supreme Court opinion that has rewritten all the laws to make legal what is unlawful by every form of law the planet has ever seen: Natural law, the law of Nature’s God, Historical law, The U.S. Constitution itself, and the law of the Constitutionally authorized Legislators.

It should be a serious point for contemplation that when you go to www.SupremeCourt.gov to review their rulings, those rulings are listed under “Opinions of the Court.” Even the Supreme Court cannot determine what the law is; it can only offer its opinion about the application of the law.
* * *

The Stabilizing Role of the Judicial Branch:
Justices of the United States-- meaning the Federal level-- are appointed by the President as seats come available. Once seated, they have no expiration date; no term limit to their seat with the sole stipulation that they can be removed from Office on grounds so vague as failing to maintain “good behavior” (Article 3, Section 1)-- which is intended to motivate good behavior and deter even rogue judges from acting roguish.

Therefore, being that there are only nine Supreme Justices seated at once, the spirit of their collective opinions was designed to have a determined and lengthy influence before it slowly changes over time by introducing a potentially new worldview one member at a time. This stabilizing function insures that sudden and transient changes in public desires do not radically and quickly upset the course of the nation, enabling a stability, even in a wishy-washy democracy, that takes several consistent directional changes in administrations before seeing an appreciable affect of earnest and determined intent. Let’s look at how this currently works:

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia: appointed by Ronald Reagan, seated 1986.
Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: appointed by Ronald Reagan, seated 1988.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas: appointed by George H.W. Bush, seated 1991.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: appointed by Bill Clinton, seated 1993.
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer: appointed by Bill Clinton, seated 1994.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr: appointed by President George W. Bush, seated 2005.
Associate Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.: appointed George W. Bush, seated 2006.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor: appointed by acting President Barack H. Obama, seated 2009.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan: appointed by acting President Barack H. Obama, seated 2010.

All we have to do is look at the Presidents (wife) who appointed them and we can make a relatively accurate guess as to which of them were the dissenting voices on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the nationally (Federally) recognized marriage of Homosexuals. Justice Anthony Kennedy being the only anomalous factor among the nine using this method.

John Roberts,
Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas,
And Samuel Alito.

As even the Honorables Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts suggested in their dissenting arguments; This Court does not even possess the jurisdiction to have an opinion on the matter. 1st, because the nature of Marriage is not an institution created or managed by civil governments, rather, this institution is among the inalienable rights given to all men by the Creator. It remains therefore in the Jurisdiction of God himself to determine if Sodomy is a justified marriage to be recognized by Governments and protected by laws that protect marriage. This does not even approach the next point of Judicial jurisdiction when demanding by law that the nation’s godly people also accept Sodomy as an acceptable union of which they must socially interact agreeably in fear of judicial punishments. The Supreme Court has demanded the free and sovereign citizens turn their backs on God’s laws to avoid transgressing THEIRS, a perversion of what the authorized law writing Legislators obviously intended. The very nature of this troubling condition makes void the Supreme Court’s divisive opinion as it violates the primary tenant of both the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence; that men and nations are entitled by, and therefore bound to obey, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, who have both made it very clear that Sodomy is intolerably unnatural and unacceptable to a society that expects to remain in God’s good graces and blessed by Nature. Our Constitutionally protected inalienable right to happiness includes the expectation that OUR government, who represent US, will not provoke the wrath of God to our mutual destruction. This argument cannot be rejected as Unconstitutional because the plethora of writings by our very founders made clear that this was also their own concern:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis? [which is] a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God - that they are not to be violated but with his wrath. Indeed, I Tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just - that His justice cannot sleep forever” - Thomas Jefferson, (so important a position that this is inscribed in the walls of the Jefferson Memorial).

Justice seems like something that the judicial branch should have a handle on understanding. How then can the Supreme Justices of the land be so willing to mock God’s divine justice by flagrantly demanding the American people turn their back on God’s Supreme law?

Even if the institution of marriage was rightly within the realm of legislation by man, it is the Legislator’s job to write law, not the Supreme Court. So does this issue of unnatural marriage fall under the 14th amendment of “equal protection of the laws”? It cannot, without both violating the Supreme Law, as well as nullifying that same desired protections that others have long experienced until now. i.e. those individuals and organizations that agree with God, and nature, and history, and law, that such a union is an abomination and destructive to the more perfect Union of established justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare of the nation for which the laws are made.

It is not here argued that the will of the majority has perhaps changed and now desires to legally legalize Sodomy even to the point of legally recognizing their unions, granting them adopted children (which nature forbids), being forced by law to bake them cake and take their picture, etc., but it is argued here that it’s not the Court’s jurisdiction to make that will-of-the-people lawful change to the law. That role falls only under the jurisdiction of the Legislative branch, and even that branch cannot infringe on God’s jurisdiction.
Only one generation ago our Courts and Governments still understood this principle of independent jurisdictions (*4). It’s time we re-educated them, or impeached them, and I hold Congress accountable for failing to play the part of the man and run his house with a more firm hand. You have not only the purse but the power of impeachment: USE THEM!
* * *

So now, regarding our Government’s three checks-and-balances; If Congress is a Type of the husband, and the President is a Type of the wife, then what does the Supreme Court Type?
It represents the spirit in the family by reflecting the underflowing desire of the wife in a complex way. Appointed by the heart, that spirit is slow to change its established course, be it good or bad.
The husband can lay down the law to his family, but the wife provides the spirit that rules the day-to-day application of the law while he is at work. If she is not in sync with her husband she can be very powerfully subversive in what the children grow up to think as good and bad law and how it is applied. Even if she later changes her mind, the course set is very hard to turn in a short period of time. This works for both positive and negative values. The spirit is a support, a comforter, a reminder, an influence, but it only affects our own efforts. But while God’s righteous Spirit will not drive or force or manipulate, the dark spirit will force and press and push its values into the working jurisdictions as far and as fast as allowed. It may be the wife’s fault that she succumbs to his urgings because of her own natural desires, but it’s the husband's job to stand as a bulwark and end the encroachment. This will be nigh impossible if his wife is stubbornly standing against him. A team is only successful when everyone is working toward the same goal.
But it's also going to be successful in its efforts if everyone is working toward the wrong goal.
This is an entirely new problem to address today!

America does not vote for the Supreme Court Justices, and doesn’t actually vote directly for the Office of President that appoints them-- though we do have a lot of power in that selection. Therefore, the only actual and direct influence we have over our Government is the representation that we elect to Congress and can easily unseat if dissatisfied with his conduct. Everything else snowballs from there.

God designated the husband to be the head of the family as the representation of Himself, and therefore the husband is accountable to God for what goes on under his authority. When things go bad, God comes to the husband to make account. Likewise, when things go bad in our Government, our similar recourse in Type, is to hold Congress; our representatives, accountable.
In this way we see that WE THE PEOPLE are god to our Government. WE established it and it is accountable to us… because, like Christ himself with us, WE are likewise accountable to God for its actions.
Do you understand that when Obama threw our God out of the house, he also in Type threw out the god of Government? Like Congress pretending to remain the Husband, we are now relegated to "boy" providing Government the money to spend as it likes. As the divorced woman now wearing the pants, Government has become the new god.
It’s way past time that we took serious hands-on account of the government that we will be accountable for. It’s ours to do... if we still can.
* * *

Final Words:
OH, and if I neglected to appeal directly to the first amendment of the Bill of Rights until now, it’s because it was wholly unnecessary. There is more than enough reason in all the other avenues available to discover the right answer in this Case. But since we have it, let’s now take a look at the First Amendment, beginning with the PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights that sets the mood:

“The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficient ends of its institution.

ARTICLE I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” - The Bill of Rights.

Messing with, or regulating, the religious convictions of the People, and the practice or proclamations of those religions, is fully outside of the Power of Government (*5).
This single Article of explicit rights not to be infringed is so simple to understand and of such short composition that all on its own this article makes wholly ludicrous the opinion of the majority Justices of the Supreme Court in this Case regarding the Court-forced Nationally recognized marriage of Sodomites, and if not ludicrous then Treasonous.
Therefore I, as a citizen, expect to see Congress take the necessary action for the preservation of, and restoration of confidence in, the Government of this Nation, by proceeding with the impeachment process of all five majority Justices for their flagrant disregard of the Foundational Law of the Land.
Make it so.
* * * * * * *

(*1) “Exceptional” (https://shop.wallbuilders.com/exceptional): This DVD is the latest by Wallbuiders.com and I cannot urge you strong enough to get it! Buy several and give them to friends and churches. It covers a lot of very timely information in a general way but its focus is on the five points of the Declaration of Independence that made America truly Exceptional.

(*2) The Wisdom of having an Electoral College:
Please see www.PragerUniversity.com for a very easy to understand application and significant value of our founder’s Electoral College idea: Do you understand the Electoral College? - (http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Do-You-Understand-the-Electoral-College.html#.VY9eia5rrSI), and,
The Popular Vote vs. The Electoral College - (http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Popular-Vote-vs-the-Electoral-College.html#.VY9fRK5rrSI).

(*3) Social Law vs. Inalienable Rights:
I do not wish to rabbit trail this point from the target topic, but it is already of such a longstanding confusion in both government and society that without clarification this point may only undermine the topic.
Governments are authorized to write social law for the peace, prosperity, and general welfare of the civilization over which it governs. These social laws are forbidden to encroach into the sphere of other jurisdictions, such as what is found within the Inalienable Rights category, which is in God’s sphere. Religion is also in a sphere outside of Government’s Power to manipulate or control. The government’s job is to protect the rights that the citizens already had, even before the formation of government. Such specific managerial powers of the Federal Government are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution as I have shown. ALL other areas fall outside of the Powers of the Federal Government. This very much includes the description and governance of marriage, which remains in the sphere of He who created it. Yet a complexity arises when civil governments are obligated to deal with the social mess and burdens of unhealthy marriages enjoined, such as the marriage of idiots who cannot then care for themselves, the marriage of children, forced marriage by religions, the neglect of offspring, and many other issues that seem to necessarily encroach into God’s domain. Blackstone has done a magnificent job of drawing a fine distinction between the two jurisdictions when they are in such close proximity.

(*4) US Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Is Legal Nation Wide (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33290341) - June 26, 1015.
“It means the 14 states with bans on same-sex marriage will no longer be able to enforce them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the plaintiffs asked "for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
The ruling brings to an end more than a decade of bitter legal battles.
Same-sex couples in several affected states including Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Texas rushed to wed on Friday. However officials in other states, including Mississippi and Louisiana, said marriages had to wait until procedural issues were addressed.
President Barack Obama said the ruling was a 'victory for America.'"- BBC News, June 26, 2015.

Justice Scalia’s Dissenting opinion:
“Mr Scalia flashed anger, railing against an elitist majority on the Supreme Court who were imposing their values on "320 million Americans coast-to-coast".
"They are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution," he writes.
He called the decision a "judicial Putsch" and "a threat to democracy", in which the majority discovered a right to marriage that all the US legal minds before them had overlooked.
By broadening its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the law guarantee to include a universal right of same-sex marriage, he argued, the Court has given itself unlimited power. "It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements this Court really likes," he writes.”

Justice Roberts's Dissenting Opinion:
"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration," he writes. "But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening." He warns, however, that there is a dark side to achieving their objective by judicial fiat. "However heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause," he writes.” - BBC News, (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33292806).

The actual Supreme Court Opinion: Obergefell vs. Hodges - (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf).

I have not completed my reading of the dissenting Justices and hope to replace these quotes with better as I find them.

(*5) Bake Me A Cake - [added July 2, 2015]
Judicial Activism in practice:
(http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogvanIZKXonjHpfsX66%2BgoX6%2B%2FlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4IScRrI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D).

"...[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" - Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,290-91 (1969). "Therefore, the writ must be 'administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected'" - Harris, 394 U.S. at 291 (accessed from Lectlaw.com 7/2/15).

The writ of habeas corpus demands the production of genuine injury caused by any such practice or proclamation. "I cried for an hour" is not an arguable injury. No crime has been committed by refusing to bake a cake; there is "no body." But conversely; the forced closure and excessive fine of the independent cake business directly as a result of “gay activism” legislated by the Courts, IS a body. Real and actual damage was done, yet the perpetrator of the injury is the Court!
If the Courts had stayed out of it, no harm was done by either side of the argument.
The Court has assumed the role of making the law by reinterpreting the law, and then enforcing the new law that it made. This is subversion at the highest level and therefore requires the maximum punishment the law allows.
*

The Still Small Voice

Post 335

We were in the middle of exploring what seems like several concepts simultaneously: The phases of the Ages, the sixth age of Women, the nature of those women-- both good and bad--, and that, in Type of the human nature of Christ’s bride regardless of gender. And even how all this applies to our present existence in the end of these last days in expectation of its future application in the Kingdom of Heaven yet to come. I left off with the unfinished discussion of a man with a troubled wife.
I confess that this is quite a handful of sub-topics to grasp, but we are now speaking on a level closer to where God dwells, that is; in dimensions beyond our comfortable and familiar four. Thinking on this plain stretches not only the mind but also the spirit, and it is our spirit that really needs the stretching due to atrophy by neglect.
Our spirit is multi-dimensional but we keep its wings clipped, dwelling exclusively here with our bodies trudging through time linearly. If it doesn’t “die of boredom” it finds troublesome ways of entertaining itself like a purposeless teenager on spring break:

“…and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” Isaiah 64:6.

If our third dimension is a compounding of the first two with dynamic results, and the fourth addresses that third in various stages or conditions as Time, then we can only try to imagine what the fifth dimension includes as it compounds all our familiar dimensions in a dynamic that is still unimaginable to us, but I suggest are all layers of the singular onion of eternity.
As an example; Time is perhaps simply a facet of a simplistic linear dimension that any of the forms in the next dimensions can enter and exit at will and location like putting your four-dimensional finger anywhere on a two dimensional map then taking it away again. If angels work in the fifth dimension, and God actually lives in the tenth dimension, then his view of, and interaction with, the fifth and its activities is as we view the first.
My point is that whatever it’s like where God dwells, He intends us to eventually dwell with him for eternity. But our diminished minds and spirits are content to dwell in the very simplistic “now” and fail to contemplate the lasting benefits or consequences of our choices by ignoring the idea of eternity already in progress. This perspective may work very well for our temporal bodies that soon expire along with most those temporal benefits and consequences, but our eternal spirits presently connected to our bodies, require more because more is required of them:

“For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” I Timothy 4:8.

The Grand Tapestry sketches out how our simple reality plays its part in a much bigger design that we are even now already participating in by a “spiritually prenatal stage” if you will. This sketching is precisely the meaning of God’s creation of Typologies for us to examine and apply. The more Typologies we can accurately fit together the better sketch we have of that design. The better we comprehend that design the better we can apply its principles, like giving the body a new immunity to a formerly deadly disease (*1). Humanity desperately needs to comprehend our role in this Greater Design because in these last days the spiritual diseases are becoming ever more aggressive and resistant, and in the end of the present contest for our souls there will be only the living and the dead-- who nonetheless never cease to exist, but by condition of that existence find their eternal place. We are quickly approaching the point in time when the redemption of the dead/lost is no longer the focus but simply the dividing between them and the living/saved:

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still”… Revelation 22:11 (*2).

It is very much like choosing which side of the proverbial tracks you choose to live on for eternity. Which again is just another Typology created in our temporal reality for our enlightenment.

…“And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be” Revelation 22:12.

There are both good and bad people dwelling on both sides of the tracks, and many justify their habitat choice by the bad conduct of a few they know on the other side. This narrow focus keeps us from seeing the bigger picture of the “general neighborhood” that is far more important to the decision being made. But I digress a little from our chosen topic at hand.

I have long marveled at seeing Christians as a whole refuse to examine the apparent anomalies of promises in scripture that don’t seem to play out in reality. It seems by observation that these Christians are so committed to their religion as unquestionably true, that they don’t want to expose any flaws that might prove it a lie. I propose that this is because their very committed dogmatic faith is so weak and unsupported that most any disturbance would unseat it entirely. I accuse Muslims of this same mentality. Such a II Timothy 3:5-7 foolish faith is a figment of the imagination where reality would so easily prove its illusions.
I have no such fairytale faith. I want to know what is true and what is a lie, and if my God is a liar I want to know it now. I will not willingly be led into my eternal side-of-the-tracks-dwelling by a liar who makes pretty promises. How about you? So let’s explore one such apparent schism of Biblical Christian doctrine that to my knowledge has not been addressed before.
* * *

A Promised Guidance:
Are there any Christians who don’t know almost by osmosis that the Holy Spirit is promised to teach us all things, lead us into all truth, and bring to mind everything that Jesus taught? Let’s go to the exact passages to make sure we understand this correctly:

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you” John 14:16-18.

That is quite a promise. A very important promise.
Many other verses and passages, especially in Acts, confirm that this future-tense promise (John 15:7) was activated after Jesus returned to the Father, and the Holy Ghost came upon the Church by degrees soon after, until the believers where all filled, and with the promise that he would never leave them.
Now-days the Holy Ghost Indwelling is so familiar to Christians as a doctrine that it almost goes without saying. Christians today have no problem with this indwelling concept and I don’t know of any realistically-Christian group existing that denies the Holy Spirit indwelling is foundational to Christianity, the disparity is only in explaining how this promise is actually manifest today.
Let’s look at another such promise:

“These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” John 14:25-26.

More very important specifics to a very important promise. This aforementioned promised indwelling Holy Spirit is here promised to teach us all things, bringing all the things to mind that Jesus taught. That is some very comforting news indeed! (see Matthew 28:19-20 for our obligatory use of such benefits).
OK, let’s look at another:

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” John 16:12-14.

More? Yes! Not only will this promised Comforter who will never leave us, bring to mind all things that Jesus taught so that we can rightly teach it to the world, but he will even teach us things that Jesus wanted to tell us but the Church was not yet ready to hear (see John 13:7 as one example, see Ephesians 3:2-6 as another). But this Spirit is even promised to show us things still to come! (see the Revelation as one example, Acts 2:17-18 for another).
Still more:

“…the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father” John 16:25b.

Jesus was killed not long after saying this, and we don’t see recorded this “plain revelation speech” he speaks of, though his disciples immediately tried to apply his future-tense promise in the very same conversation (John 16:26-30).
Jesus replied in what seems to be dry humor (John 16:31) before correcting their eager but incorrect perception (John 16:32). And now, in the passage of time, we can comprehend that he was referencing the instruction of the Holy Spirit that would follow his resurrection and ascension, which showed us plainly of the Father. Christ’s Spirit would thereafter speak, as Jesus prayed in the tense of an Age-changing process:

…“and this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent… And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep…those…” John 17:3+17:11.

And while there is still more, this is enough list to provide evidence of the very important and specific promises regarding the indwelling Holy Spirit that every Christian must have to be a “certified” Christian.

So here is my complaint:
Am I the only Christian who doesn’t see this promised Holy Spirit manifested in Christians today?
Example: If the Holy Spirit is supposed to teach me all things, why do I still get so many things wrong? Can you relate? The evidence speaks conclusively that I am far from alone in this area.
How many Christians do you know that have ever heard God speak, and that they can distinguish between God’s voice and their own mind or heart (which I believe is the meaning referenced in John 14:17 as “see (G2334) him”)? (Today we would use the terms; “recognize, discern,” him). Oh the number of Christians I have heard declare that God told them this or that, when even a child can see that it is the desires of their own heart speaking! It seems the Holy Spirit is utterly missing from Christianity today, so why is this scriptural disparity not a major topic from pulpits and among parishioners across Christendom? Why is this very significant issue just ignored as if it did not exist? Is it because they don’t want to expose God as a fraud and destroy an otherwise perfectly good religion? I wonder.
* * *

Two Answers:
There are two very different but somewhat related issues that answer this problem. It is imperative that we determine which category applies to us personally in each case. The first is regarding what is declared by the opening “And” of our first example passage:

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you” John 14:16-18.

But before we go where the “And” takes us regressively, let’s take a moment to contemplate the related part found here in this passage: The world cannot receive this promised Spirit for reasons explained, but to the Christian this Spirit is received for the antitheses of those reasons.
Here is the problem that is completely missed by a false perspective of assumed assurance: Many who honestly believe themselves to be Christian don’t see the Spirit nor even know him, because they cannot. Where does that leave them but in the category of “the world” when compared to Christians in the passage? This is just simple math.

“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, and I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” John 10:26-27.

The unshaken disparity of confident self-perception seems to be founded in the false concept that all sheep are the Lord’s. In such a case “sheep” seems to be seen synonymously with Christian: “I’m no wolf so I must therefore be a Christian regardless of the elements that don’t seem to apply to me.” But the above verse seems to make this perspective absolutely wrong on several points.
So now let’s examine what the “And” makes its promise contingent upon:

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.
And I will pray the father…” John 14:15-16a.

I will speak plainly through the Spirit; there are a whole lot of worldly people thinking themselves to be Christian but aren’t, as evidenced that they do not keep Christ’s commandments and therefore do not love him in spite of their proclamations. These people cannot receive the Spirit of truth but are deceived by the beguiler to think they have.
These are the people I spoke to earnestly and at depth in the previous two books, who while reading them and agreeing with them, saw everything in there as speaking to “somebody else,” usually someone specific that they have planted firmly in their mind and thereby keeps the focus off themselves and so avoids the conviction that requires an address. Another avenue used by these conviction-avoiding people is a blanket rejection of my books by righteous feelings that I was being negative and troubling rather than being positive and affirming. In this way the accusatory rejection eliminates the need of addressing my arguments that brought undesirable conviction.
Either way, these worldly minded people cannot receive the Spirit of truth (*3).

When I earlier declared that I was actually writing to a generation still unborn but then proceeded to write to this generation in the present tense, I was writing in present-tense what would become history for a future people who could use the information by seeing a generation that could not repent. By speaking to the present generation as a tool I am explaining the Why and how in a practical reality which that future generation might be able to avoid repeating by having the historical information available like an inoculation. And in the process, a few of this generation might grasp the Spirit of truth and convert.

The second issue is something else entirely, and is very, very fascinating to explore and contemplate. I am now speaking to genuine Christians who nonetheless struggle to hear this promised Spirit that they know because he is with them, but doesn’t seem to be speaking and is therefore seemingly not in them comforting as promised.
* * *

The Holy Spirit represented by the feminine?
In a recent Post, I suggested that women have been given their nature in likeness of the Holy Ghost. I am not intentionally lengthening the second issue answer but it’s complex. So let’s continue our contemplations by exploring this internal passionate fire as it reveals to us the nature of the Holy Spirit within the Christian. Nobody is going to suggest that the Earth’s internal fire is not dramatic, dynamic, powerful, dangerous, fluid, and volatile. The concept of all that burning in the heart of Earth is amazing and mysterious. It is even more curious to know that all that heart’s volatile fire is going on just under the relatively calm and stable surface skin that is always in motion but is nonetheless solid as rock and is therefore the perfect and beautiful temperate environment for life to thrive in what the Pagans have not wrongly labeled; Mother Earth.
We want-- no; we NEED-- that fire to continue churning perpetually, but we really don’t want it erupting onto the surface more than a little from time to time. It’s simply too powerful and dangerous.

Knowing now that this internal fire represents the Holy Ghost that gives life to an otherwise dead rock of a human being through the transformation of what God calls salvation through repentance and subsequent redemption, we combine this understanding of Salvation with the additional understanding of Righteousness as being what goes on at the surface through works of reflection. These are two very different but intimately related concepts.
We can quickly grasp that the sun represents God and the earth Humanity, and so the surface reflection by the earth is a masculine role taken up by the Husband as head of his own reflective family. We get that.
So let’s leave off the topic of Works for now and contemplate more thoroughly the idea of the hidden Spirit in the Christian that produces a unique atmosphere for life that other people do not have. The Scripture’s character descriptions of the Holy Spirit are what we commonly call feminine traits:

Isaiah 57:15 informs us cryptically that God’s name is Holy, which is a mysterious declaration that links the two as One. In this verse, God as Holy, declares himself to dwell with him (singular) who has a contrite and humble spirit. This is speaking of the Holy Ghost who himself ministers to those (plural) who reflect that Spirit through their own imitating contrite heart and humble spirit. Read the verse again and see how exciting the new understanding comes through.
Ephesians 4:30 and Isaiah 63:10 warns us not to grieve the Holy Spirit as if he were sensitive. John 14:16 tells us that the Holy Spirit is another Comforter to take over Jesus' task when Jesus departed physically. John 15:26 tells us that this Spirit-of-truth Comforter, comes from the Father, and testifies of Christ Jesus. This is a topic of delegated authority and submissive mission on behalf of another.
John 16:8 tells us that this sent-Spirit will come (has now come) to reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. This is a topic of function; that by delegated empowerment, has a lot of granted responsibility and authority over those in its care.

These few listed character traits among others, are all concept traits normally associated with the feminine. And isn’t it curious that this Comforter never speaks of himself (i.e. does not come to the surface) but only speaks on behalf of Jesus the Son of God:

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come… he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak… He shall glorify me…” John 16:13-14a.

This is a chain-of-authority in action: Father - Son - Holy Spirit.
This submissive reflection by the Holy Ghost with these traits, is specifically commanded to Christian women toward their husbands in direct Typology of the Christian to Christ, and likewise husbands to Christ in Type of Christ to the Father. This submissive concept is very important so let’s take the time to review it now as we focus on the Holy Spirit’s role:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For [/because] the husband is the head of the wife, even as [/in Typology] Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore [/because of this fact;] as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” Ephesians 5:22-24.

I am hoping that we have so gradually warmed up to this concept that any woman reading this Blog will not have just thrown her coffee cup through her monitor in the finality of complete rejection. Our progressive global culture has so successfully beguiled the hearts of today’s woman that such a concept is only vaguely accepted by the Church, IF it can be explained away as symbolic and not in any way expected as an actual requirement by God himself.
But to stubbornly-- though defensively-- refuse this admonition “in this modern age” is to destroy the important Typology God intended by design. When Christian wives refuse to submit to their husbands in this context likeness of the Church to Christ, then, not only the wife but the children and husband as well, have a wholly twisted and dysfunctional comprehension of the Church’s relationship with Christ.
Today’s modern Christians entrenched in the modern mindframe really do approach their relationship with Christ as empowered equals with equal rights in deciding just how and what things will and will not be done in this family. Christians have learned to boldly tell Christ how things are going to be in this relationship. But the submissive and demure Holy Spirit has no part or likeness in such a foundational subversion of power… and neither does a true Christian wife.

Do you find yourself choking on that concept like a bone going down sideways? This is evidence that your mind and spirit, like Eve’s, has been beguiled much further away from God’s truth than you presently imagine. The only thing I can ask you to do at this point is to drink lots of water of the word to wash down the lump and continue with our present thought to its conclusion. Remember; I am now speaking to men in the same way I was before speaking to women; That is, I am not speaking to gender as much as to comprehension irrelevant of gender. But I cannot withdraw the statements of offense, as they are very clearly the word of God. This is fully a conflict between present perspective and God’s Grand Tapestry. So let’s continue to my main point that should pleasantly surprise you, though we need to clear up a potential miscomprehension first:
* * *

With all these feminine characteristics, are we to conclude that the Holy Spirit is somehow female?
No. Do not confuse the direction in which this concept is to flow.
God is the composite of all natures gifted to humanity in part. God selected out certain elements of his nature and gifted them into different groups He called genders. To man he gave some of his nature and to women he gave some other. The division of his nature is what created the distinction of genders beyond the physical presentation and function in the creation. This is why a man and a woman must marry to become one flesh; a more complete likeness of God, and why, when in conflict, the family experiences the great schizophrenic turmoil of a singular divided house (Mark 3:25).

God the Father is always spoken of in scripture as distinctly masculine, obviously. This concept is ultimately foundational to the Grand Tapestry design as I have already begun to show in previous Posts. This is an authority concept. Somebody has to lead, and who that is, is not up for selection: God IS the Creator, it’s His job to lead-- by the fact of creation He makes the rules in his creation. That’s the nature of reality. A clockmaker determines the action of the clock by the fact that it was made by him. William Blackstone worded it like this:

“Thus when the supreme being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform.”- Commentaries on the Laws of England Vol. 1, 1765.

While it is true that the Holy Spirit is spoken of in Scripture sometimes without gender, it is only due to un-specified identification (Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 63:11, Daniel 4:8, Luke 11:13, Acts 2:4, etc.). Review John 14:16-18 above and see that God is spoken of specifically as “He” eight times. Now go back through and try to identify if each “he” is speaking of the Father or the Spirit. It begins to emerge that they are one-in-the-same though expressed as distinctly one from the other by application in our four-dimensional reality.
The Holy Spirit is masculine, being the Spirit of God who is clearly identified as masculine (Isaiah 63:11 etc.) even by the very title of Father. God the Creator is speaking to humanity of Himself in a way that we, the creation, can comprehend. Women did not get “a lesser portion of God” than men. Just different.

OK, so now we glean the idea that women were gifted into their gender the nature found in the Holy Spirit, when breaking this Spirit out from the Father for description purposes. This intended likeness is the very reason why God designed the woman from and for the man (I Corinthians 11:8-9), and why she is admonished to keep silence in the churches and instead turn to her husband for clarification and instruction (I Corinthians 14:34-35) just as the Holy Spirit subordinates (G5293) to the Father. This is not a design to “keep women in their place” but to maintain the Typology of their likeness of the Holy Spirit of God… who never speaks of himself or puts himself forward. The Holy Spirit is demure by nature. This concept is confirmed by the very next verse that sums up the point of the text:

“What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” I Corinthians 14:36.

This question is speaking to the Church as a whole; meaning both men and women, in the summation context of the topic regarding the gender relationship. Did the word of God come FROM our own minds and ideas as the human prophets and apostles wrote and spoke it to others, or did it only come TO humanity for us to distribute in reflection?
We are assured that it came only TO us from God himself via the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:20-21).
For our comprehension, Christ is the man in this Typology and the Holy Spirit the woman. As the Holy Spirit does not say anything that he did not get from the Father, so the woman should not speak in the Church from her own mind and ideas, but rather only what she gets from her husband who is submissive to Christ. In the relationship between Christ and the Father, (Christ being now human), Christ takes up the submissive role of the Son and himself speaks nothing that the Father does not direct. Do you see clearly that this is not about who is the man and who is the woman, but about the relationship that by the very nature of relationship requires two roles. One dominate and one submissive.

But this submissive role concept is utterly repugnant in today’s age of Woman’s Liberation from what she perceives as long oppression by men. Yet here is the thing: This is not a passage instructing men to force such an idea upon women. Frankly, this is a passage to liberated women to apply for themselves. Men have a lot of their own rules of application as the passage context is covering what should and should not be spoken as instruction in the Church, i.e. doctrine. Men don’t have permission to speak their own ideas into the church doctrine either, but only what they get from Christ.
* * *

So what is a man to do if his modern wife cannot find it within herself to submit as Christ so clearly instructs NT Christian women? We answer this question by referring to the one who we men are to reflect ourselves; The Lord Jesus Christ.
So what does Jesus Christ do if the Church, his bride, cannot find it within herself to submit to His commands in this New Testament age of liberation from the law, but chooses instead to demand her ideas; her doctrine, be included as equal partners?
Men; mankind, YOU are the bride in this case. How do you like submitting to an authority, such as a boss, when you think he’s dead wrong? How does Christ treat you when you don’t follow his lead because it just doesn’t set well with your perspective? Does he scream and yell in frustrated anger, or does he give you the silent treatment and let you do your own thing to your mutual harm?
It’s an interesting question to search out earnestly. I find that along with the silent treatment and a hands-off “liberation,” comes a progressive lack of access to his resources; “If you want to go bad, do it without my help.” But I also find that this is not a case of abandonment, as he tends to over-watch from an offended distance as-it-were, being careful not to allow any greater destruction than the degree of waywardness warrants and allows. At that point of danger he does a lot of under-the-table unpleasant things to encourage the wayward progression to stop.
This is quite a juggling act for him, and it doesn’t make him very happy.
Oddly enough, I find that I have quite a number of both Godly and Pagan male friends who seem to be naturally exampling Christ in their marriages as their wives are running wild having been liberated by society. Their wives are far from oppressed, but they find that their running reveals no value (see Post 329), yet like a wild pony, most cannot make themselves return to where they did have value. This is simply a case of misapplied liberty. But the misapplication is so entrenched by the doctrine of false assurance, that there is little hope of finding the solution. It’s very much a case of “Separation of Church and State” having been taught to a generation as the intent of the founders. How then do you discover that the truth is actually the opposite, while merging them into one is not the answer either?
The answer is a marriage of separate powers in a check-and-balance kind of way.

Only one generation ago our fathers as young men understood the proper role of employee whereas today it has been forgotten. Employees of the past may have felt very strongly that their employer was being a wretch, and even doing things wrongly, but he is the employer; it’s his show, the employee can either comply or quit… but a well-established pleasing and useful employee has one additional option; to appeal, to demure.
In God’s design everyone is required to be submissive to someone above them, even if that someone is only God himself and on the day of Judgment. There is not an age in the history of humanity were the modern woman would have less right to crave liberation than today, yet it is today that she screams the loudest because she feels intolerably oppressed. But she screams NOW because she has the liberty to do so. Isn’t that ironic? This same concept applies to blacks, and unions, and minorities, etc. It’s a general concept that speaks of this Sixth Age of seven. The Age of Liberty.

OK, so now we come to the actual answer of the complaint, having waded through many potential secondary causes and details of importance to the topic question: “If the Holy Spirit is promised to lead and teach me all things, why do I keep getting so much wrong?”
* * *

It’s Yours To Do!
While it is true that the woman is the passionate and fiery heart of the marriage, and her influence is very strong in a man’s life and actions by her state of bliss or lack thereof; It’s the man to whom God gave the authority of final say of just what and how the family will be run. She may weep and cry and pray a lot in the effort to influence his choices but it’s his to do or not do, “It’s My House and we play by MY rules.”
It has long been rightly said; “It’s a man’s world,” and so it is by the command of God himself, so ladies, climb off your man’s back and let him do his job of shepherding. Your nagging is not becoming because it fails to reflect the nature of the Holy Spirit (Proverbs 27:15-16, 21:9).

But curiously enough, the indwelling Holy Spirit in our lives plays the part of the woman. It demurs to our will because it’s our God given life to live, he’s just there as councilor, advisor, another idea, the suggestion of a better way, a connection to God himself. So why then do so many Christians pray earnestly to God that he run their lives? These “faithful Christians” sit around in their sin just waiting for the day when God tells them what to do… but he never does (James 4:8).
Then there is the other expression of the same sin, who hearing nothing, bull ahead into one disaster after another, but feel comfortable blaming God because he didn’t guide them.
But IF… just if, we listen, the Holy Spirit has a lot to say regarding what he would like to see in the effort to create a happy life and home to dwell in. It offers a “Spirit’s intuition” warning regarding choices we are about to make. It leads us into all truth, not drive us directly to it. We earnest Christians don’t hear his voice because we have not learned to listen for it on the frequency it speaks. The Holy Spirit doesn’t speak our language, but that’s the only language we are ready to hear (John 16:12). If we don’t hear anything we assume he isn’t speaking, rather than assume we aren’t listening.

7HI5 M3554G3
53RV35 7O PR0V3
H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0
4M4Z1NG & 1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5!
1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG,
I7 WA5 H4RD, BU7 N0W, 
0N TH1S L1N3,
Y0UR M1ND 1S
R34D1NG 17
4U70M471CALLY
W17H 0U7 3V3N
7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17. 
B3 PR0UD! 0NLY
C3R7A1N P30PL3 C4N
R34D 7H1S. - Copied from the internet.

I struggled with the first word for a good 30 seconds, but every word after that came automatically after I understood the tenor of the author’s delivery. How can people so easily comprehend this strange gibberish but complain that God’s word is too hard to understand? It’s because, unlike with this example, we refuse to accept God’s “worldview” in how he chooses to communicate his meaning: Spiritually.

An Unfamiliar Voice:
In I Kings 19 we get a glimpse of this difficult idea.
Elijah was a very successful and dynamic prophet of God whose very manly ministry was full of miracles and dramatic displays of God’s masculine power. Then troubling circumstances coming at just the time in his human weakness, found him hiding/resting in a cave in the wilderness… by happen chance on the very same mountain upon which Moses received the Law (I Kings 19:8).
And the word of the LORD came to him there, and clearly they had a two-way conversation. Elijah heard the voice of God as he always had. No problem. But when the LORD asked him a question and he answered, the LORD seemed to have something else in mind. Not that Elijah’s answer was wrong, just that the LORD was not getting through the message to him that he wanted him to hear. So the LORD ran him through some events that spoke his intent in a way that Elijah understood.
First a great wind that ripped mountains and broke rocks, but the LORD was not in the wind (I Kings 19:11). Then the same with an earthquake, and a fire, but the LORD was not in these manly and dramatic events. Elijah was getting a hard-to-comprehend message, that God was going to use an entirely different method of communication:

“…after the fire a still small voice” I Kings 19:12b.

I propose that this event with Elijah was a foretelling of the Holy Spirit who was about to speak to God’s people in an entirely different way after Jesus came.
When you are familiar and used to God speaking dramatically through prophets, it takes some getting use to, to hear a gentle subdued voice that never speaks of itself.

A man can try really hard to take into account his wife’s opinions and desires and intuitions when planning their life, but “she is just so complicated that I can’t figure out what she actually wants!” That’s the nature of women! And if I may add, even women don’t actually know what they really want.
God designed it like that because of her Typology of the Holy Spirit’s function in our lives. You still get so much wrong in your earnest efforts, because you have not yet learned the secrets of understanding your wife’s heart rather than just trying to understand the expression of her mind. It’s supposed to be hard to do, so that you will comprehend better how you are supposed to go about hearing the leading and teaching and guiding and speaking of the Holy Spirit, who is of God and not of Man. It’s not easy for the created to hear the Creator on his level. But it our job to do!

“Likewise ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel (a title honor), and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” I Peter 3:7.

Now, before you women get all righteously delighted that your voice is in Type of the Holy Spirit to your husbands, take into account that while your husband’s voice is in Type of the Father, he doesn’t do a very good job of it. And neither do you. You kick against the consequences of his failures, and so does he yours. This is a very difficult thing to get right.

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it…” Genesis 3:17a.

This too is designed into the Type on purpose.
The man is not simply supposed to do whatever his wife suggests; He is supposed to discover what’s in her heart as an input, and then figure out how to make the right choices by what he knows to be right.
She may be wrong, because this keep him from becoming a yes man. The Holy Spirit is our guide, our counselor, our comforter, even our insight, but the choices we make in the age of Liberty are ours to choose for Grand Tapestry reasons that we have yet to explore.
We are no longer servants, or even friends, but future heirs together with Christ! This is the very reason for the periods of apparent failure by God’s Types; it helps us get our working feet under us for what is still to come that is ours to do. Christ is not interested in marrying a doormat. But neither does he want a willful bride. When you and the Holy Ghost, and the Word of God, all agree on the right thing to do, THEN you’re unstoppable!
The more intimate time I spend communing with the Holy Spirit the more I comprehend his spirit. It’s almost as easy as understanding women!~
* * * * * * *

(*1) Humanity has a natural propensity to fight off deadly attacks from recognized evils that threaten our well being, be it evil empires aggressively striving for our conquest, or individuals endangering our loved ones. But when humanity does not recognize an evil, such as social cancer in the form of Movie indoctrination or a progressive agenda transforming our very mindframe and culture, we put up no fight at all. If we don’t even recognize the reality of an enemy-- such as demons and spirits working through people or not, how much less are we able to put up a defense?

(*2) For a better understanding of the concept in today’s twisted mindframe, we might call it the Zombie Apocalypse. Have you every contemplated that in that scenario the majority of the population are Zombies? How does the virtue of democracy work then? “All in favor of legalizing brain-eating raise your hand.” This may seem a bit silly, but in this way you can get a new perspective of our present spiritual Zombification: “All in favor of legalizing the murder of unborn children by dismemberment or scissors to the brain-stem, raise your hands.” So you tell me; Just how close are we to that Zombie Apocalypse of the walking spiritually dead?

If you, in this society of excessive unconditional love and tolerance, have no mercy on movie Zombies and can take pleasure in killing them off in as many creative ways as can be imagined, how do you presume to cast judgment upon the Creator for calling it quits on the rescue-mission and destroying the unredeemable spiritually dead like plowing Zombies? A Zombie does not have the capacity to repent from his ways and this is what makes him unredeemable, do you?

(*3) “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.” - Author Frantz Fanon.
*