Podcasts about magna charta

En miniserie om den krokiga vägen mot en Bill of Rights, del 1. Det kommer handla om Magna Charta, petition of rights 1628, ärorika revolutionen och bill of rights 1689, koloniala arvet, skrivna konstitutioner, Zengerfallet, milisförsvar, religionsfrihet, inkvartering av trupper, James Otis protester, delstaternas bill of rights och George Mason.Bild: Illustrering av den kända rättegången i det så kallade Zengerfallet i New York 1734-1735. Källa: WikipediaPrenumerera: Glöm inte att prenumerera på podcasten! Betyg: Ge gärna podden betyg på iTunes!Följ podden: Facebook (facebook.com/stjarnbaneret), twitter (@stjarnbaneret), Instagram (@stjarnbaneret)Kontakt: stjarnbaneret@gmail.comLitteratur:- The Glorious Cause, Robert Middlekauf- Empire of Liberty, Gordon Wood- Colonial America, Harry Ward- The first American constitutions, Willi Paul Jones- Between authority and liberty, Marc Kruman- Original meanings, Jack Rakove- The Creation of the American republic 1776-1787, Gordon Wood- Decision in Philadelphia – The constitutiona Convention of 1787, Christopher och James Collier- The summer of 1787, David Steward- Other founders, Saul Cornell- The bill of rights, Carol Berkin- The bill of rights, Akhil Reed Amar Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Liebe ist die Magna Charta einer jeden Religion. Liebe sollte das Erkennungszeichen der Mitglieder einer Religion sein. Entnommen aus: Willigis Jäger "Das Leben endet nie. Über das Ankommen im Jetzt", Theseus Verlag, Berlin 2005

12/3/23 message from Pastor Frank Amedia So how is Nitroglycerin C3H5(ONO2)3 and the Prepare The Way Anointing (PTW137) alike When it comes to being violently explosive? "I sought the Lord to reveal the Mystery of the PTW anointing, and the Fountain of Heaven opened pouring into my spirit what I liken unto an end times Magna Charta of Revelations for real-time PTW Warriors, Worshippers, and Watchmen. I am so excited to share this Mystery that I cannot contain my excitement." Frank Amedia (12-1-2023) JOIN PASTOR FRANK for the beginning of a new and unique series never before released to the Body of Christ. "The PTW Anointing" Message: "The PTW Anointing is Violent" "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force." Mathew 10:12 https://www.touchheaven.com https://soundcloud.com/touchheavenministries https://www.facebook.com/TouchHeavenMinistries https://twitter.com/TouchHeaven https://www.newcreationwoman.com https://www.potusshield.com

Fifty years ago, Os Guinness released his book, The Dust of Death, which offered a piercing analysis of the sixties counterculture movement with its revolutionary ideas about human nature and sexual liberation. In his preface to a new edition of this work, Guinness argues that during this tumultuous decade, “many of the seeds of today's most radical ideas were sown, only to flower more recently in their most destructive forms.” Shane Rosenthal talks with Os about many of his observations and predictions from a half-century ago, as well as how these radical ideas eventually became mainstream.SHOW NOTESResources by Os GuinnessThe Dust of Death, and Last Call for Liberty (books)The Magna Charta of Humanity and Fools Talk (books)We're All Children of the 60's (article - TGC)I Believe in Doubt (article - Ligonier)A Free People's Suicide (video - Socrates in the City)The Magna Charta of Humanity (video - Socrates in the City)The Future of Freedom (podcast - WHI)Additional Resources by Os Guinness (website)Other Related ResourcesOs Guinness: The Christian Public Intellectual, John Shelton (article)Let's Be Civil About It, Michael Horton & Os Guinness (article - MR)Time for Truth, Ryan Glomsrud (article - MR)Be a Berean!, Shane Rosenthal (article)The Virtue of Doubt, Shane Rosenthal (article)Live Not By Lies, Rod Dreher (book)Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, Gene Veith (book)The False Gospel of Fascism, Shane Rosenthal & Gene Veith (podcast)The Political Implications of Original Sin, S. Rosenthal & M. McClymond (podcast)Support The Humble Skeptic!Click here to make a one-time gift to help support this podcast, or consider becoming a paid subscriber via Substack by using the green “subscribe” button below ($5.95 per month / $59 per year). You can also make a “tax-deductible” donation here.Upcoming Events• Can We Trust The Story of Jesus' Birth? That's the subject Shane will be addressing at the next Friday Night Forum at 7 pm on Dec. 1st, 2023 in St. Charles, Missouri (cpcopc.org).• On December 17th, Shane will be speaking at Concord Church in St. Louis (South County) on the following topic: What Child is This: How The Christmas Story Fulfills Ancient Prophecies. Click here for more information.• Shane has been invited to speak at The Cross & Resurrection conference in the Memphis area on March 29-31, 2024.• The Humble Skeptic podcast and ReThink315 will be hosting a conference titled, Conversations That Matter, featuring Greg Koukl, Shane Rosenthal, and Jeremy Smith on April 5-6, 2024 at Concord Church in St. Louis.• Greg Koukl, Shane Rosenthal & Jeremy Smith will be speaking on apologetics-related topics at The Fellowship of Wildwood on April 7, 2024.• For more information, or to invite Shane Rosenthal to speak at your upcoming conference or event, send an email to INFO at HUMBLESKEPTIC dot COM.The Humble Skeptic is a listener-supported podcast. To support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Get full access to The Humble Skeptic at shanerose.substack.com/subscribe

Am 09.07.1228 starb Stephen Langton: Der Erzbischof von Canterbury hat die "Magna Charta" unterstützt - seit 800 Jahren eine wichtige Grundlage des englischen Verfassungsrechts. Autor: Herwig Katzer Von Herwig Katzer.

The Thirteenth - Greatest of Centuries by James Joseph Walsh audiobook. It cannot but seem a paradox to say that the Thirteenth was the greatest of centuries. To most people the idea will appear at once so preposterous that they may not even care to consider it. A certain number, of course, will have their curiosity piqued by the thought that anyone should evolve so curious a notion. Either of these attitudes of mind will yield at once to a more properly receptive mood if it is recalled that the Thirteenth is the century of the Gothic cathedrals, of the foundation of the university, of the signing of Magna Charta, and of the origin of representative government with something like constitutional guarantees throughout the west of Europe. The cathedrals represent a development in the arts that has probably never been equaled either before or since. The university was a definite creation of these generations that has lived and maintained its usefulness practically in the same form in which it was then cast for the seven centuries ever since. The foundation stones of modern liberties are to be found in the documents which for the first time declared the rights of man during this precious period.

TESTO DELL'ARTICOLO ➜ www.bastabugie.it/it/articoli.php?id=7280OMELIA IV DOMENICA DEL TEMPO ORD. - ANNO A (Mt 5,1-12a)Il brano del Vangelo di oggi è la celebre pagina delle Beatitudini. Gesù per proclamare le Beatitudini sale su di un monte vicino a Cafarnao, il monte Tabor. Questo è un particolare piuttosto importante. Infatti, come per dare la legge al popolo d'Israele, Mosè era salito sul monte Sinai, così Gesù, per dare compimento alla Legge antica e indicare a tutti la perfezione, sale sul monte Tabor. C'è una grande differenza tra il Sinai e il Tabor: il Sinai è un monte molto aspro e deserto che simboleggia molto bene l'austerità della Legge mosaica; mentre il Tabor, più che un monte, è un colle dall'aspetto dolce e verdeggiante che indica la soavità della Legge evangelica, una legge d'amore.Gesù inizia il lungo discorso riportato nel capitolo quinto dell'evangelista Matteo con le otto Beatitudini che possono essere considerate come la "Magna Charta" del Cristianesimo, come il documento d'identità di ogni cristiano. Ciascuno di noi le dovrebbe sapere a memoria e, più ancora, meditare assiduamente e mettere in pratica. Le Beatitudini ci indicano innanzitutto come è vissuto Gesù e come dovrebbe vivere ciascuno di noi. Esse ci indicano il cammino della felicità, ci indicano dove possiamo trovare la felicità che tutti bramano ma che pochi riescono a raggiungere.Le Beatitudini comportano un capovolgimento del nostro modo di pensare e di agire. Il mondo proclama beati i ricchi e i gaudenti, i forti e i prepotenti; Gesù fa il contrario: Egli, innanzitutto, proclama "beati i poveri in spirito" (Mt 5,3). Chi sono questi poveri in spirito? Povero in spirito è colui che, libero da ogni impaccio terreno, ripone la sua speranza unicamente in Dio. Povero in spirito è colui che non è attaccato alle ricchezze di questa terra e che si fida della Provvidenza divina. Non è la ricchezza che ci può rendere felici, ma la fiducia in Colui che sa ciò di cui abbiamo veramente bisogno.La seconda Beatitudine proclama felici "quelli che sono nel pianto" (Mt 5,4). Questi sono coloro che soffrono per le miserevoli condizioni di un mondo senza Dio. Soffrono perché l'amore di Dio non è compreso. A questi afflitti Gesù promette consolazione, una consolazione proporzionata all'afflizione. Subito dopo, Gesù proclama "beati i miti perché erediteranno la terra" (Mt 5,5). I miti non sono i paurosi, ma quelli che non serbano rancore, quelli che trovano la forza nella serenità. Coloro che "hanno fame e sete della giustizia" (Mt 5,6) sono quelli che desiderano la santità al di sopra di tutte le altre cose. Nel linguaggio della Bibbia, la parola giustizia significa perfezione, santità. Gesù ci insegna perciò a desiderare vivamente la santità perché la santità equivale ad amare Dio e il prossimo.I "misericordiosi" (Mt 5,7) sono quelli che, imitando il Padre Celeste, sanno comprendere e perdonare il prossimo, sanno soccorrerlo in ogni circostanza, irradiando attorno a loro l'amore di Dio di cui hanno fatto esperienza. I "puri di cuore" (Mt 5,8) sono tutti coloro che combattono tenacemente contro il vizio che si annida dentro tutti gli uomini, fino ad estirparlo. Gesù nel Vangelo ci insegna che è dall'intimo dell'uomo che esce ogni iniquità. Il male è si nel mondo, ma è soprattutto dentro di noi (cf Mt 23,27-28). Ci vuole pertanto una profonda purificazione interiore: solo così potremo essere autenticamente felici.Gli "operatori di pace" (Mt 5,9) di cui parla la settima Beatitudine non sono i grandi diplomatici, ma quelli che hanno capito l'unico modo per garantire la pace. Quest'unico modo è la piena comunione con Dio, l'armonia dell'uomo con Dio. Se dentro al nostro cuore non vi è questa armonia, non si può pensare alla pace sulla terra. Bisogna prima eliminare dalla nostra vita il peccato, ogni peccato, anche il più nascosto, solo così saremo autentici operatori di pace. Quando uno si innalza, innalza tutti; quando uno si abbassa, danneggia tutti. Pertanto ogni peccato, anche il più nascosto, misteriosamente alimenta l'odio che vi è nel mondo. Diceva Madre Teresa di Calcutta che se per un giorno solo non vi fossero più aborti, finirebbero tutte le guerre sulla terra. Riflettiamo bene su queste parole e vogliamo essere anche noi veri operatori di pace.Infine, con l'ultima Beatitudine, Gesù proclama felici i "perseguitati" (Mt 5,10). Questa è la più grande Beatitudine. È la Beatitudine di tutti i Martiri che, anche in mezzo alle sofferenze del martirio, hanno sperimentato la vicinanza con la grande Vittima del Calvario, con Gesù Crocifisso. Lungo i secoli vi sono stati moltissimi Martiri. L'ultimo secolo da poco trascorso, così civile e progredito, è stato quello che ne ha dati più di tutti gli altri secoli messi insieme. Gesù l'ha detto chiaramente: "Se hanno perseguitato me perseguiteranno anche voi" (Gv 15,20).Con questa pagina delle Beatitudini abbiamo il più bel ritratto di Gesù. Così è vissuto Lui sulla terra e così dobbiamo impegnarci a vivere anche noi. L'Immacolata, Madre di Gesù e Madre nostra, ci aiuti in questa impresa così grande.

Das alte Tauflied aus Gal 3,26-29 ist eine Magna Charta des Christentums. Es stellte die antike Gesellschaftsordnung auf den Kopf. An diesem wird sich auch heute die Kirche messen lassen müssen, wenn sie in Zukunft bestehen will.

You are Free! Do you feel this way or believe it? A lot of us don't at times. The little Book of Galatians has been called the “Magna Charta of Christian liberty.” In bold, clear strokes the Apostle Paul reveals how grace frees the Christian from law, not that we might sin, but that we might discover a new power for righteous living through faith and the Holy Spirit. And this morning's message in Galatians 5 show how the Good News of Jesus – the Gospel – obliterates condemnation while forgiving us who believe into a new consecrated, beloved community.David Myles is a pastor at New Hope Church in New Hope

You are Free! Do you feel this way or believe it? A lot of us don't at times. The little Book of Galatians has been called the “Magna Charta of Christian liberty.” In bold, clear strokes the Apostle Paul reveals how grace frees the Christian from law, not that we might sin, but that we might discover a new power for righteous living through faith and the Holy Spirit. And this morning's message in Galatians 5 show how the Good News of Jesus – the Gospel – obliterates condemnation while forgiving us who believe into a new consecrated, beloved community. David Myles is a pastor at New Hope Church in New Hope

Wähle deine Lieblings-Plattform 📲 Youtube: https://cutt.ly/rk1EJxY Whatsapp: http://dozz.es/10mja Telegram: https://t.me/zehnmmj Spotify: https://shorturl.at/yGIJ3 Ivoox: https://cutt.ly/Ok1EOoV Web: https://10minutenmitjesus.org Hast du Fragen oder hat dich diese Betrachtung besonders angesprochen? Du kannst einen Priester aus unserem Team per Mail unter 10minutenmitjesus@gmail.com kontaktieren!

Wähle deine Lieblings-Plattform

Our heritage as American citizens includes hundreds of years of history going back to the English Bill of Rights and even further, to the Magna Charta.

Gudstjänst 13 juni | Magna Charta - Galaterbrevet 6 by Alms pod

Gudstjänst 30 maj | Magna Charta - Galaterbrevet 4 by Alms pod

Gudstjänst 16 maj | Magna Charta - Galaterbrevet 2 by Alms pod

Freimaurerei als Kunst Eine Zeichnung von Alexander Walter Freimaurerei ist vieles, kann einiges werden. Was immer sie ist, hängt davon ab, welches ihrer Potentiale durch Taten verwirklicht worden ist und wird. Freimaurerei ist, was wir Freimaurer daraus machen und daraus gemacht haben. Dazu gehört unter anderem auch die Kunst. Auf diesem Spaziergang will ich Sie einladen, die „Königliche Kunst“ als eine eben solche zu betrachten. Aber auch als die viel zitierte Lebenskunst, die wir gerne in ihr sehen. Kunst ist ein Begriff, der sich außerordentlich schwer fassen lässt. Und dennoch kann man einiges verbindlich über die Kunst sagen. Ohne Talent, Fähigkeiten, Fleiß und Inspiration kann sie wohl kaum geschaffen werden. Und ohne Rezeption, ohne Wahrnehmung, ohne Interpretation wäre sie wohl auch nicht existent, denn sie muss in gewisser Weise stattfinden. Die Freimaurerei ist voller Kunst, sie ist fast reine Kunst. Zwar wirkt sie zunächst nicht so, aber das ist eben der besondere Kunst-Kniff an ihr. Die bei uns oft genutzten Begriffe „Beamte“, „Beamtenräte“, „Regeln“, „Pflichten“ und „Ordnung“ erwecken zu leicht den Eindruck, die Freimaurerei wäre gar ein kunst- oder phantasiefreier Raum. Nüchterne Forschung und die sachliche Analytik der Selbstaufklärung sind sehr wertvoll, können aber den künstlerischen Aspekt in der Freimaurerei nur unzureichend abbilden. Freimaurerei ist ein Kulturprodukt, Ergebnis eines kreativen Prozesses, selbst schon kreativer Prozess, Kunstwerk im Sein und Werden, vollbracht von Künstlern. Freimaurerei als Kunst aufzufassen soll nicht einer Selbstüberhöhung dienen. Es ist vielmehr der Versuch, sie für mich selbst und für Interessierte begrifflich begreifbar zu machen. In der Königlichen Kunst liegen der Zauber, die Magie und das Mystische, das Kunst erst zu Kunst werden lässt. Dies kann man in der Theorie zu verstehen versuchen, ein durchaus erkenntnisreicher Prozess. Aber erst in der Praxis entfalten sie ihre ästhetisierenden, empfindsamkeitssteigernden Wirkungen. Und auf die ist der Freimaurer angewiesen. Denn was wir in und mit der Freimaurerei wollen, ist die Überwindung der Anästhesie des Herzens, der gesellschaftlichen Gefühlskälte. Dazu braucht es die Empfindsamkeit des Einzelnen. Ästhetik regt sie an. Und der Pathos, mit dem die Freimaurerei ge- und erlebt wird, der Ausdruck dieser durch Ästhetik gesteigerten Empfindsamkeit ist, fördert die Empathie. Keine Freimaurerei ohne Einfühlungsvermögen, keine bessere Gesellschaft ohne Mitgefühl. Freimaurerei übt alles, das künstlerische Schaffen von Schönheit, ihre Wahrnehmung, den Übergang des Schönen zum Guten, die Wandlung des Guten im Abgleich mit dem Mitgefühlten zur Handlungsmotivation - und schließlich die Genese der Humanität durch die Tat, die dieser Handlungsmotivation folgt. *** In der Freimaurerei konfluieren Inhalte, Formen und Arten von Kunst zu einem Gesamtkunstwerk. Die Menschen, die bei uns zu Schwestern und Brüdern werden, sind Kunstwerke der Natur, des „Allmächtigen Baumeisters aller Welten“. Die Werte, die wir gemeinsam leben, werden in der individuellen und gemeinsamen Lebenskunst zu einer kultivierten Lebenspraxis, die das Natürliche berücksichtigt. Unsere Bräuche und Sitten sind Ausdruck von Menschlichkeit, Höflichkeit und Anstand, eines geistigen Ästhetizismus, wie er der menschlichen Gemeinschaft und der humanen Tat grundsätzlich zugrunde liegen sollte. Die Symbole, die unseren Bund kennzeichnen und teilweise ausmachen, sind eine besondere Sprache der Kunst. Und die Rituale, die uns so wichtig sind, sind die gelungene Synthese aus allen vier Hauptformen der Kunst, ein harmonischer Zusammenklang von bildender Kunst, Musik, Literatur und darstellender Kunst. Bildende Kunst ist die Freimaurerei insgesamt. Sie soll die Schwestern und Brüder im Sinne der Kunst, zu mehr Humanitätsfähigkeit bilden. Und sie ist es speziell im Ritual. Denn es muss gebildet werden - schön gebildet werden. Dabei spielt nicht nur die hübsche Verbildlichung von Werten durch Symbole eine Rolle, die zugleich das Abstrakte konkreter fassbar macht. Auch nicht nur ein ansprechendes Äußeres, ein ansehnliches Erscheinungsbild des Tempels und der Loge. Nein, auch die Harmonie, in der das räumliche und zeitliche Gesamtbild der Arbeit - der Tempelarbeit - entsteht, ist hier wesentlich. Wir bilden eine Gemeinschaft, eine Loge, einen Tempel, eine Tempelarbeit, den Tempel der Humanität, Großlogen, eine Weltbruderkette und uns selber bei der Arbeit am rauen Stein. Und dies alles kunstgerecht, in kreativer und konstruktiver Interpretation der Tradition und nicht durch gedankenlose Nachahmung. Und gelegentlich bereichern bildende Künstler wie Lovis Corinth, Carl Gustav Langhans, Marc Chagall, Ettore Ferrari, Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff, Jens Rusch, Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, Jean-Antoine Houdon oder Johann Gottfried Schadow unsere Reihen. Letztlich sind die Logenhäuser mit viel bildender Kunst in und an ihnen gestaltet. Sinn, Bedeutung, Zweck und Inspiration, wohin das Auge schaut. Mehr davon an einem Ort findet man wohl nur in Freimaurermuseen wie in Bayreuth oder Rosenau. Gelungene Freimaurerei ist insgesamt wie Musik. Eine harmonische Symphonie wohl temperierter Instrumente, gespielt von einem Orchester, das sanft, aber klar dirigiert wird, komponiert durch den Genius von Tausenden über Jahrhunderte. Und aus diesem stimmigen Zusammenklang erheben sich immer wieder Virtuosen, um einen neuen Takt, eine bisher ungehörte Melodie zu Gehör zu bringen, die den Zauber der Töne noch verstärkt. Speziell im Ritual kommt der Musik eine besondere, stimmungsgebende und die Atmosphäre entscheidend tragende Funktion zu. Der Bruder Musikmeister ist gut beraten, sich dieser wesentlichen Bedeutung der Klänge bewusst zu sein. Die Musik ist eine sehr besondere Form der Kunst, welche die Gemüter direkt berührt und nicht den Umweg über die Gedanken gehen muss. Die dargebotenen Stücke so zu wählen, dass sie die feierliche, ernsthafte und angemessene Stimmung der Rituale erzeugen und befördern, ist eine hohe Kunst. Und manchmal geht aus Maurerkreisen tatsächlich ein Musicus wie Mozart, Sibelius, Lortzing, Haydn oder Liszt hervor. Auch bei Gästeabenden und Gelegenheiten, zu denen die Logen gesellschaftlich in Erscheinung treten, ist Musik nicht selten das Medium, das eine erste zarte Verbindung zwischen sich bis dahin fremden Menschen knüpft. *** Literatur ist die Freimaurerei durch und durch. Was wäre sie ohne die Bücher, die über sie geschrieben worden sind? Was wäre sie ohne die Gedichte, Geschichten und Zeilen von Goethe, Bürger, Kipling, Claudius, Burns, Puschkin, Heine, Twain, Casanova, Bechstein, Wilde, Stendhal oder Tucholsky? Oder ohne die Werke Fichtes, Herders, Wielands und Lessings? Wie sehr haben Manns "Zauberberg", Tolstois "Krieg und Frieden" oder Hesses "Morgenlandfahrt" und das "Glasperlenspiel" die Weltliteratur bereichert, und wie wenig wären sie ohne die Maurerei entstanden, auch wenn ihre Autoren keine Brüder gewesen sind. Das maurerische Schrifttum ist nicht nur wesentlich, um beispielsweise in Form der Magna Charta der Vereinten Großlogen von Deutschland, der Freimaurerischen Ordnung einer Großloge wie der der Großloge der Alten Freien und Angenommenen Maurer von Deutschland, der Satzung, also dem Hausgesetz einer Loge oder in deren historischen Vorbildern wie den „Alten Pflichten“ von James Anderson einen gegebenen Rahmen von Regeln und verbindlichen Orientierungen zu schaffen, sondern es ist auch dasjenige Medium, das uns erlaubt, diesen großen gegebenen Rahmen seit über 300 Jahren immer wieder aufs Neue durch Interpretation auszuleuchten. Niemand wird durch die Maurerei zu Schriftstellerei genötigt, aber viele Schwestern und Brüder schreiben gerne und gut. Bei uns gibt es sinnvolle Gelegenheit dazu. Dokumente wie Stiftungsurkunden werden nicht nur visuell ansprechend inszeniert, sie werden auch inhaltlich zur Geltung gebracht. In besonderer Weise zeigt sich die literarische Beschaffenheit der Königlichen Kunst anhand des Rituals. Bruder Hans Hermann Höhmann, Redner der Großloge der Alten Freien und Angenommenen Maurer von Deutschland und Freimaurerforscher mit besonderem Tiefgang und außergewöhnlicher Weitsicht, betont in seinen Beiträgen immer wieder den performativen Charakter des Rituals. Und stellt damit etwas sehr Wesentliches heraus: Dieser performative Charakter begründet einerseits, warum es für Interessierte nicht ratsam ist, sich mit schriftlichen Darstellungen von Ritualen, wie sie beispielsweise in manchen sogenannten Verräterschriften gegeben sind, auseinanderzusetzen. Weder das Erlebnis des Rituals, noch dessen Sinn, Bedeutung und Wirkungen lassen sich so erfassen. Er macht andererseits mit Bezug auf dieselbe Erläuterung klar, warum wir als Schwestern und Brüder auf die bildliche Darstellung von Teilen des Rituals in audiovisuellen Medien verzichten sollten. Solche Darstellungen können Außenstehenden nichts sagen, verwirren nur und machen uns selbst lächerlich. Und doch, später als erfahrene Schwester oder erfahrener Bruder, kann es sehr interessant und erkenntnisreich sein, sich vor dem Hintergrund einer gewachsenen Vorstellungskraft mit verschiedenen Ritualtexten auseinanderzusetzen. Denn das Ritual hat nicht nur performativen Charakter, es beruht auch auf einer schriftlichen Quelle, hat ein Drehbuch, das Literatur ist. Und dieses Stück Literatur ist ein sehr außergewöhnliches. Es entstammt nicht nur der Autorenschaft vieler Menschen, es ist in seinen Ursprüngen auch uralt und fand und findet bis heute Bearbeitung und Pflege durch unterschiedliche Menschen in verschiedener Weise. Einem Impuls folgend würde man es wegen des zentralen Charakters des Performativen zunächst der Dramatik zuordnen. Bei genauem Blick aber zeigt sich, dass das Ritual - als Literatur betrachtet - Elemente aller drei Gattungen, also auch der Epik und Lyrik umfasst und nicht nur Schauspiel ist. Denn auch als Parabel, Legende, Sage oder Märchen lässt es sich lesen. Gedichte, Oden, Hymnen, Sonette und Lieder können vorkommen. Welcher Freimaurer hat noch keine Verserzählung als Toast bei einer Tafelloge gehört? Und letztlich schafft das Herzstück des Rituals in Deutschland, die Zeichnung, flexiblen Raum für Essays, Autobiographisches, Erzählerisches oder eine Kurzgeschichte. *** Was wären die Logen ohne gemeinsame ge- und erlebte Literatur? Ohne Lesungen, Gedichte, Vorträge und Impulse? Als "laut denken mit dem Freunde" beschrieb Lessing die Freimaurerei gerne. Und tatsächlich erfassen die literarischen Dimensionen der Königlichen Kunst auch die mündliche Tradierung. Wer sich interessiert an ihr, einer Loge und an deren Schwestern und Brüdern zeigt, der wird auch durch Anekdoten oder einen Schwank etwas über ihre Gegenwart, Vergangenheit und möglicherweise auch Zukunft erfahren. Freimaurerei ist Sprachkunst, die sogar von Menschen gepflegt worden ist wie Friedrich Schiller, die nie unserem Bund angehört und doch mit Arbeiten wie der "Ode an die Freude" die Königliche Kunst und die Welt bereichert hat. Insgesamt ist die Freimaurerei längst keine Novelle mehr, keine kleine Neuigkeit, und auch kein Roman mehr. Sie ist ein Epos, das wir fortschreiben und weitererzählen. Gerade der Bruder Redner einer Loge ist in Bezug auf all diese literarischen Aspekte in der Maurerei besonders gefordert, das geistige Leben in diese zu tragen und dort zu pflegen. *** Letztlich, es wurde bereits antizipiert, ist die Freimaurerei auch darstellende Kunst, ebenfalls auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen. Natürlich gehörten und gehören unserem Bund verschiedene darstellende Künstler an wie Harry Houdini, Mary Wigman, Clark Gable, Friedrich Ludwig Schröder, John Wayne, Josephine Baker, Oliver Hardy, Peter Sellers oder Wolfgang Bahro. Selbstverständlich beruht die Königliche Kunst auch darauf, dass der gegebene institutionelle, organisatorische Rahmen durch die Übernahme von Funktionen, Ämtern oder Rollen Leben eingehaucht wird. Das menschliche Konstrukt der Freimaurerei kann nur dadurch vitalisiert, geboren und am Leben erhalten werden, dass Schwestern und Brüder künstlerisch darstellen, was schriftlich dokumentiert ist. Pflichtbewusstsein alleine ist nicht ausreichend und wäre in diesem Sinne nicht mehr als eine Totgeburt. Es braucht das Pathos in der Darstellung, auch in der Amtsausübung, was wiederum nicht mit dem Verlust der Vernunft verwechselt werden darf. Der performative Charakter des Rituals und sein Wesen als Schauspiel verweisen bereits auf die Beschreibungsebene der darstellenden Kunst. Man kann verschiedene Gütekriterien an ein Ritual anlegen. Und diese sind zu diskutieren, vornehmlich in Berücksichtigung der Ressourcen, die für diese Realisierung des Rituals zur Verfügung stehen. Aber welchen Standpunkt man dabei auch immer einnehmen mag, die erlebte Qualität des Rituals hängt auch davon ab, wie sicher, klar und souverän es aufgeführt wird. Handlungssicherheit, deutliche Sprache und insgesamt Ritualsicherheit sind nicht zu unterschätzen. Der „Meister vom Stuhl“ und der Bruder Zeremonienmeister sind diesbezüglich besonders gefordert. Die handelnden Akteure im Ritual sollten gute Schauspieler sein, hinter denen kompetente Regisseure stehen, die auf Basis eines gelungenen Drehbuchs kunstgerecht und aufmerksam anleiten. *** Nun, geneigter Zuhörer, habe ich ein wenig über mein Erlebnis der Freimaurerei als Kunst hier gesprochen. Vielleicht kann dem einen mehr, dem anderen etwas weniger klarwerden, was mir die Königliche Kunst ist. In letzter Konsequenz aber, bleibt sie vor allem Lebenskunst, die sich dadurch auszeichnet, dass in ihr Humanität zu Freude und Glück wird. Weder der Wert des Freimaurers, noch der Wert der Freimaurerei kann sich daran messen, was sie selbst von sich halten, wie sie sich selbst erleben und wahrnehmen. Beide, Maurerei und Maurer, müssen sich daran messen lassen, was sie tatsächlich bewirken, an ihren Taten. Alles andere muss Selbstzweck bleiben und das ist die Königliche Kunst nicht. Sie darf durchaus auch unterhalten, aber nicht sinnfrei. Freimaurerei ist nicht Kunst im Hinblick auf einen wertfreien Schönheitsbegriff. Sie ist Kunst, welche die Schönheit im Menschen zum Gegenstand hat, also sich im Gegenteil daraus ergibt, dass ihr ein humaner Wertebezug inhärent ist. Ich hoffe, dass sie auf diesem Spaziergang wieder einige weitere Eindrücke haben sammeln können. Dabei sind ihre gemachten Impressionen von der Freimaurerei meine Expressionen über sie. Wenn sie sich ernsthaft für die Königliche Kunst interessieren, so sammeln sie weiter Eindrücke. Denn es gibt andere Expressionen und andere Wege, Impressionen zu generieren. Am Ende sollte für Sie ein Bild entstanden sein, dass von vielen gezeichnet worden ist und dem sie vertrauen können. Ein solches Bild wird sich ergeben. Vielleicht sind sie geneigt, es in meiner Begleitung auf weiteren Spaziergängen fortzuentwickeln. Ich jedenfalls werde weitergehen und freue mich über angenehme Begleitung dabei. Und wer weiß, möglicherweise begegnen wir uns auch einmal real, eventuell bei einer Veranstaltung des Vereins Pegasus, einem Zusammenschluss von Künstlern, die Freimaurer sind und dessen Vorsitzender in unserer Loge schon einen sehr interessanten Vortrag zu Gehör gebracht hat. *** *** ***

Darrell Castle talks about President Imposed Joe Biden's recent speeches in which he told America that he won the election fair and square and that he is not a crook. Transcription / Notes: JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCES HE'S NOT A CROOK Hello this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. Today is Friday the 18th day of December in the year 2020. This is not the last Friday of the year because that honor goes to Christmas Day, but it's the next to last Friday of the year. What a year it has been so good riddance to 2020. The Friday after Christmas is January 1st and that of course is the beginning of 2021, so we are almost at the end of the plague year. No Castle Report next week or New Year's week, so I will speak to you again on January 8th which will be 3 days after the Georgia elections and that will present a better view for some type of year in review report. The Castle family is doing well right now considering the loneliness of being apart from loved ones at Christmas time. We pray that next Christmas will be different, but for now we approach the real meaning of Christmas as we are. President imposed, Joe Biden came out to speak to us after the electoral college vote the other day, and in that roughly 12-minute talk, he attempted to make it all sound legitimate. Right now, he is in Georgia campaigning for the two run off senate races to be held January 5th. If the Democrats win both races, they will control the senate 51-49, so it is something that is very critical to the success of Biden's four years. He is telling the people of Georgia that if they give him the majority, he can give them more of what other people now own so it's a traditional Democrat appeal. While speaking, he appeared to be a little under the weather which is understandable this time of year with the cold and the virus. He coughed a lot and later said he did not have the virus, but just a little cold. I'm glad to hear that because I thought there were no colds or flu this year only virus, but now I know that is not the case. He seemed angry about being challenged on the legitimacy of the election and spoke to tell us that the election was fair, and he is not a crook.  Perhaps he is a little embarrassed about holding the nation's highest office when he knows that it was stolen. No, he doesn't care about that. The only thing in this war the Democrats are waging on civilization that matters to them is winning. His speeches are 12 to 15 minutes of telling us that everything was on the up and up. He won the office fair and square he said. Yes Joe, you stole it fair and square and apparently even Democrats know it, so you can stop telling us. He references the Texas lawsuit and says that the court examined it and said it has no merit but that is untrue. The court did not consider the case on the merits of the evidence. Instead, they refused to hear it and that is not the same thing. I suppose it's the old Joseph Goebbels theory that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough people will believe it. Let me give you a few quotes from his let's all come together speech. “Today, the members of the Electoral College representing the certified winner, cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States in an act just as old as our nation itself. And, once again in America, the rule of law, our Constitution and the will of the people prevailed” Joe you have a knack for saying the opposite of the truth and pretending you actually believe it. You have been a big part of destroying the rule of law in America. The will of the people. Don't make me laugh. Thanks to you and your party the will of the people means nothing. The rule of law is nothing but meaningless words. You have even destroyed the English Common law based on the Magna Charta which goes back to 1215. So, Joe, congratulations on once again establishing that there are two sets of laws, one for us and one for your kind. “Our democracy pushed, threatened,

This week we first chat a bit about Trump, having covid in your family and an opportunity to talk to Swedish MPs. We also mention the Vienna terror attacks and the Hay Winter Festival. Annika has an exciting announcement regarding increasing the number of skeptics in the world. In history news we acknowledge the anniversary of the Night of Broken Glass and then Pontus Pokes the Pope for disciplining a Cardinal so old that he does not know what happened. After a Covid-update we then get into the actual news: Chiropractors don't like informed consent Does article 61 of Magna Charta allow citizens to disobey COVID-19 regulations? Grandmothers sue government over climate challenge failure How COVID-19 is reshaping the way people trust politicians MedWatch wins federal Consumer Protection Award Update on the last five years of RCTs about homeopathy Enjoy!

Il 55esimo anniversario della dichiarazione Nostra Aetate è stata l'occasione di uno scambio di messaggi tra il cardinale Kurt Koch, presidente della Commissione per i rapporti religiosi con gli ebrei della Santa Sede, e Noam Marans, esponente dell'American Jewish Committee dal 2019 a capo dello International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations. “Senza ombra di dubbio – il pensiero esplicitato da Koch nel suo intervento – la Nostra Aetate ha gettato le basi per un nuovo rapporto tra cattolici ed ebrei. Può quindi essere considerata la Magna Charta delle nostre relazioni”.

More great books at LoyalBooks.com

Maybe you’ve noticed tensions growing about how to handle the current health crisis. What if someone doesn’t wear a mask in worship? Is it safe to assemble? Is it liberal not to have a traditional assembly yet? What if someone tries to shake your hand or even hug you? While these issues are worthy of serious discussion, is there a more important goal than fighting about all this? How do we maintain harmony in the church while we navigate these questions? This week we’re Finding Jesus in Galatians and diving into the “one another” verses of Galatians 5. Then we take a deep dive into patience and peace in the church, in a time of differing opinions.

In Episode Six, Part II, on the birth of the Common Law in Medieval England, we will discuss the origins, legal significance, and enduring legacy of "Magna Charta." In addition, we will examine the abolition of the "ordeals" as the principle method of determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of major crimes, the effect on legal procedure, and the changing role of the jury in wake of their abolition. We will also look at civil justice, and the birth, growth, proliferation, and importance of the "writ system."

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Kellie and I get noble with some topics that spring to mind from our non podcasted game group ‘The Noble Hires’ to Noble privilege. Noblesse oblige- Noblesse oblige is a French expression used in English. It translates as "nobility obliges" and denotes the concept that nobility extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person who holds such a status to fulfill social responsibilities.Wikipedia   the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged. "there was to being a celebrity a certain element of noblesse oblige" Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. “You can never have too many Dice!” Check out more RPGaDay over at https://www.facebook.com/RPGaDAY See more at http://creativeplayandpodcastnetwork.com/ Our other podcast https://creativeplayandpodcastnetwork.podbean.com/ And please listen and support us at https://www.patreon.com/cppn Follow us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/CreativePlayandPodcastNetwork/

Es ist eine herausfordernde Rede, die Jesus seinen Jüngern hält. Er traut ihnen und uns einiges zu. Die „Wange hinzuhalten“ und den „Mantel dazuzugeben“, heißt nicht, sich blind dem Bösen zu ergeben. Man könnte zunächst meinen, dass das Wange-Hinhalten ein Stillhalten ist und sich dem Bösen auszuliefern. Aber es bedeutet viel mehr als passiv zu sein, als sich zu ergeben, weil man zu feige ist, weil man . Es meint vielmehr, das Böse durch das Gute zu besiegen und nicht der Gefahr zu erliegen, dass das Böse und das Unrecht, das ich erfahren habe, in mein Herz eindringt. Die Feldrede spricht als „Magna Charta“ christlichen Lebens von einer Liebe, die „trotz allem“ liebt, trotz des Unrechts und trotz der Verletzung, die ich erfahren habe. Was Jesus uns hier vor Augen stellt, in diesem Dennoch-Lieben und der Gewaltlosigkeit der Liebe, ist sein eigener Lebensentwurf, wenn er betet: "Vater, vergib ihnen, denn sie wissen nicht, was sie tun!" Nicht in der Verbitterung erfährt der Mensch Heilung.

Darrell Castle talks about the rise of Western Civilization and the American ideal, and their descent into a New Dark Age. THE NEW DARK AGES Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report.  Today is Friday, October 19, 2018, and on this Report I will be talking about the rise to greatness of Western Civilization along with the rise of the American Ideal, and their fall from greatness. ,The decline of the West and especially America is on the minds of a lot of people today but what about their origins and their rise to greatness? Ayn Rand once said “East minus West equals zero.”  That might be a slight exaggeration, but it is essentially correct.  If you look at what other civilizations have contributed to human society over the centuries you will find that it is not very much.  Even the contributions that other civilizations have made either find their origins in the West or they are an effort to imitate Western success.  Western Civilization has dominated many centuries but today we look at why that is the case. Western Civilizations had its origins in ancient Greece, but it is not Greek or Roman.  It began to develop in earnest about 500 AD out of the chaos of the collapse of Rome.  It remains unique among the world's civilizations because it put the individual rather than the collective in the central position.  That statement answers the question of why the West has been so dominant.  The individual was unique in that he was created in the very image of God.  The individual bore the image of God within him and, therefore, he had rights that had to be respected because those rights came from God, not government.  It took a while for those rights to achieve that respect of course, but in 1215 the Magna Charta enshrined the rights of Englishmen in the great contract with the Crown, and it made the King himself subject to the rule of law just like the average person.  The American Constitution, ratified after the Revolution, separated America from England, and also made it clear that the rights of the individual could not lawfully be violated by the collective majority even by majority vote. Western Civilization, I argue now, was an attempt to spread the Christian Gospel to the world as evidenced by the writings of Christopher Columbus from his voyage to the new world, as well as many others.  However, it enshrined logic and rational thought as opposed to mysticism and superstition as the correct way to deal with the world.  Because of the enshrinement of logic and rational thought we have science, technology, great literature, great art, capitalism and personal freedom, progress and a whole lot more. I was in Los Angeles last week visiting my daughter and she took me to the Getty Museum where we viewed art from some of the great masters of Western Civilization, such as Monet and Van Gogh.  It was there that I started to form this Castle Report in my mind.  I have had the good fortune to travel the great capitols of the world in my 70 years, and in those travels I have seen its art, read its literature, and listened to its music.  Most of it inspired, at least in its inception, by a belief in the Christian God. In the early days of the American Republic, the Colonies were made up largely of independent minded, self-reliant people who had a strong work ethic.  These qualities were necessary for people to leave their lives in England or Northern Europe and travel across the ocean to an unknown wilderness.  They had the courage, imagination, and desire to create their own destiny.  These were traits the other residents of Europe did not possess and that is also part of what made America unique.  When Great Britain tried to impose more control over them by use of the British Army, and by increased taxation to pay for that army, the colonials rose in rebellion. First of all, the American ideal was freedom.  They didn't want government entitlements or government-funded this and that extracted from the people against the...

Darrell Castle talks about the arrest and imprisonment of English activist, Tommy Robinson. Transcription / Notes TOMMY ROBINSON Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report.  Today is Friday, June 8, 2018, and on today's Report I will be talking about English activist Tommy Robinson who was arrested on May 25, 2018, placed in a police van, driven to jail, and within four hours had been sentenced to 13 months in prison. Tommy's crime was called “disturbing the peace” because he was filming on his cell phone the Muslims accused of the rape of thousands of young English girls.  In other words, Tommy is in jail for what we in America once referred to as “free speech”. Tommy is well known among Muslims in England and English jails have a very high population of Muslims.  Chances of his survival for 13 months are slim.  Another Englishman was recently given a similar sentence for placing a bacon sandwich outside a Mosque, which of course is a hate crime in England.  That gentleman was murdered in jail within a few days.  Tommy's murder would be very convenient for the English government, which for 30 years has refused to do anything, not even to look at Muslim immigrants as the criminal rapists of thousands of English girls.  The government is very quick, however, to imprison anyone who opposes its efforts to protect rapists from exposure. When the danger to Tommy from Muslims in prison was explained to the judge who sentenced him without notice or proper trial, according to observers in the courtroom, said he knew what he was getting himself into.  So Tommy has done nothing wrong except to oppose the state in its efforts to Islamicize England, and he was vocal about it, so he had to be silenced, perhaps permanently.  This judge's attitude is typical of one who assumes that since he is part of the tyranny, he is untouchable and immune from consequences.  People who allow the judge's attitude to permeate their system of justice are no longer free and have accepted their chains. This matter is no longer about Tommy Robinson, and it hasn't been since the moment he was arrested. That is, it is not about Tommy the man and whether you agree with him or not.  Tommy himself is no longer the point.  He has become a symbol for every Englishman who wants to live in a country where ancient traditions of law are upheld to protect all, even English children.  Law governs the rights of free men and where there is no law, tyranny reigns supreme.  The law has been king in England since the Magna Charta was adopted in 1215 but perhaps it is now in mortal danger. Those who now rule England have locked Tommy away to face imprisonment or even death without a proper trial or the right to prepare a defense.  They have crossed a line that perhaps will awaken the ordinary Englishman to the reality of 30 years of crimes against the English people. This is happening across Europe now, not just in England. Under the banner of de-nazification, Germany surrenders to the invaders, as does France.  The police are losing control in France, and with self-hatred and guilt dragging them down, the people are hamstrung in their efforts to stop it.  The mayor of Toulon, Hubert Falco, has asked for police reinforcements after a “worrying outbreak of violence” in his city.  Falco asked for national police backup after an escalating number of gang related shootings.  The mayor said” I am not politicizing the issue, which is too serious to do so.  We have the same problems as Marseille and Nice”.  I will add that Marseille is 40% Muslim. The governments of Europe are not bothered at all by Muslim rape gangs but the one thing they do fear is Islamophobia.  That is a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into becoming afraid to oppose jihad mass murder and mass rape.  In the early days of National Socialist Germany, Brownshirts, i.e. Stormtroopers, organized campaigns against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and unwanted professors at the universities.

Entrevista com Eduardo Tomasevicius Filho, Maria Cristina Carmignani e Tomás Olcese para a Rádio Estado da Arte - "Durante a Guerra Civil inglesa, o panfleteiro ultrademocrata Richard Overton se lembraria comovido de uma das incontáveis vezes em que foi preso pelos oficiais da Coroa: enquanto arrancavam “de mim a Grande Carta das Liberdades e Direitos da Inglaterra”, gritava “assassino, assassino, assassino!” Uma geração antes, Sir Henry Spelman, membro da ala conservadora do Parlamento, descreveria a Carta como “a mais majestosa e sacrossanta âncora das liberdades inglesas”. . . .

Entrevista com Eduardo Tomasevicius Filho, Maria Cristina Carmignani e Tomás Olcese para a Rádio Estado da Arte - "Durante a Guerra Civil inglesa, o panfleteiro ultrademocrata Richard Overton se lembraria comovido de uma das incontáveis vezes em que foi preso pelos oficiais da Coroa: enquanto arrancavam “de mim a Grande Carta das Liberdades e Direitos da Inglaterra”, gritava “assassino, assassino, assassino!” Uma geração antes, Sir Henry Spelman, membro da ala conservadora do Parlamento, descreveria a Carta como “a mais majestosa e sacrossanta âncora das liberdades inglesas”. . . .

History is more than just trivia. It is more than just names or places or events. Because of that it is important to dig deeper in order to find the answers that we are looking for, in order to truly understand and draw from that knowledge. It is about cultivating a greater comprehension so that we are capable of utilizing the lessons of our past as building blocks for the future.  For this episode of Fragile Freedom we are doing something a little different. Before our next episode on the Battle in Congress, we are going back to the source: James Madison's Speech which presents his Amendments to the House of Representatives. Join host Wyatt McIntyre in this extra long episode between episodes where he presents it in its entirety.  --- I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the House. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a Committee of the whole, I think we might have rose and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended upon what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the Legislatures of the several States, conformably to the fifth article of the constitution. I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments, and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this House. But I cannot do this, and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe, that if Congress will devote but one day to this subject, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures. It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished. It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is honorable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acceptance which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community: I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution. But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. And in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a reconsideration of the whole structure of the Government — for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door were opened, we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the Government itself. But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents: such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the State Legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow-citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary. It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated, because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption. The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these: First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. Secondly, That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to —, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than —, nor more than —, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto." Thirdly, That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives." Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law. No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases. Sixthly, That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit: But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to — dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law. Seventhly, That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit: The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence. In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate. Eighthly, That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit: The powers delegated by this constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial, nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments. The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively. Ninthly, That article 7th be numbered as article 8th. The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the Government, and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper; nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of, perhaps, by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore, the arguments drawn from that source were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution. But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the federal constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency. It may be said, in some instances, they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind. This, to be sure, is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution. In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other. But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority. It may be thought that all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defence; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one means to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined. It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government: and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government. It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict. I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty. It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people. In the next place, I wish to see that part of the constitution revised which declares that the number of Representatives shall not exceed the proportion of one for every thirty thousand persons, and allows one Representative to every State which rates below that proportion. If we attend to the discussion of this subject, which has taken place in the State conventions, and even in the opinion of the friends to the constitution, an alteration here is proper. It is the sense of the people of America, that the number of Representatives ought to be increased, but particularly that it should not be left in the discretion of the Government to diminish them, below that proportion which certainly is in the power of the Legislature as the constitution now stands; and they may, as the population of the country increases, increase the House of Representatives to a very unwieldy degree. I confess I always thought this part of the constitution defective, though not dangerous; and that it ought to be particularly attended to whenever Congress should go into the consideration of amendments. There are several minor cases enumerated in my proposition, in which I wish also to see some alteration take place. That article which leaves it in the power of the Legislature to ascertain its own emolument, is one to which I allude. I do not believe this is a power which, in the ordinary course of Government, is likely to be abused. Perhaps of all the powers granted, it is least likely to abuse; but there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets; there is a seeming indecorum in such power, which leads me to propose a change. We have a guide to this alteration in several of the amendments which the different conventions have proposed. I have gone, therefore, so far as to fix it, that no law, varying the compensation shall operate until there is a change in the Legislature; in which case it cannot be for the particular benefit of those who are concerned in determining the value of the service. I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against. I think it will be proper, with respect to the judiciary powers, to satisfy the public mind of those points which I have mentioned. Great inconvenience has been apprehended to suitors from the distance they would be dragged to obtain justice in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon an appeal on an action for a small debt. To remedy this, declare that no appeal shall be made unless the matter in controversy amounts to a particular sum; this, with the regulations respecting jury trials in criminal cases, and suits at common law, it is to be hoped, will quiet and reconcile the minds of the people to that part of the constitution. I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superflous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it. These are the points on which I wish to see a revision of the constitution take place. How far they will accord with the sense of this body, I cannot take upon me absolutely to determine; but I believe every gentleman will readily admit that nothing is in contemplation, so far as I have mentioned, that can endanger the beauty of the Government in any one important feature, even in the eyes of its most sanguine admirers. I have proposed nothing that does not appear to me as proper in itself, or eligible as patronized by a respectable number of our fellow-citizens; and if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame, or abridging its usefulness, in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect. Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this House the subject of amendments, and also stated such as I wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support, I shall content myself, for the present, with moving "that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by Congress to the Legislatures of the States, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States." By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the House. I should advocate greater despatch in the business of amendments, if I were not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the Government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow- citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the Government.

Darrell Castle gives his thoughts on Brexit including the future of self government in the United States and the world. Transcript… Hello this is Darrell Castle with today's pod cast. Today is Friday July 1, 2016 and on today's pod cast we are going to discuss the popular referendum (commonly known as Brexit) recently held in the United Kingdom in which the British people by a vote of 51.9% to 48.1% voted to leave the European Union. The vote was non binding of course, and Parliament has the final say but this was still perhaps the most significant referendum held in Europe in many, many years. As an anti-globalist and someone who values the independence of his own country, I took a special delight in the vote. The vote gave a sense of encouragement to independence minded people around the world. Finally we have a victory. Finally something we can point to and tell the self appointed elite intellectuals who run the world that there are more of us than there are of them. It was a historic restoration of the Old World's ancient liberties. Perhaps it was a restoration of that great charter of liberty, the Magna Charta. It was certainly the loudest repudiation of the collectivist policies of the new socialist world with its growing leviathan of rule by remote, unelected bureaucrats, who continually work to subvert the democratic process. Perhaps I am so giddy I am exaggerating the effect but I don't think so. I know that the elite are not finished and as we speak they work in dark cabal to undo the vote and put the masses back where they belong. Foreign Policy Magazine, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations carried a column by member James Traub who argued that the elite need to “rise up” against the “mindlessly angry” ignorant masses in order to prevent globalization from being derailed by the populist revolt that led to Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump. Mr. Traub went on to say that Brexit was a citizen's revolt and an utter repudiation of bankers and economists and an example of how extremism has gone mainstream. He called for the establishment Parties in Europe and the United States to combine their efforts to “keep out the nationalists.” Mr. Traub's tone in the article was one of utter contempt toward those “ignorant masses” who still love their countries, their values and their religions. He described the pro-Trump people as “know nothing” voters and he sneers down his patrician nose at the voters in Poland who express concern for their values and tradition. Further globalization he said will pit the poor and non-white marginal people against working-class whites or as he calls them angry fist shakers. So Mr. Traub, a Harvard graduate from a super-billionaire family that owns the Bloomingdale's chain of luxury department stores does not know or care how immigration, globalization, job off-shoring, etc. impact ordinary people. He and his elite friends are completely disconnected from reality but instead of humility they just double down on contempt driving many into the arms of Trump and ensuring many more Brexit like votes. I'm very glad that he said what he said because it draws the battle lines and lets us know for sure what's at stake in this war that we are finally starting to recognize. These elite seek everything we have including our values, tradition, religion, freedom, way of life, privacy, and even our kids. While all this was going on the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Ottawa to “deepen their economic ties in light of uncertainty in the European Union. All this talk from the elite rulers tells me that the democratic process is dead. We, that is the masses are not qualified to decide anymore. Mr. Enrique Pieta Nieto, President of Mexico openly called for the nations of Mexico, The United States and Canada to merge. Martin Schultz, President of the EU Parliament was quoted as saying; “It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate.

Kent Hughes calls Luke 6.37 the "Magna Charta of American religion." Many people misunderstand what "judge not or you will be judged" as it was spoken by Jesus means. Listen to today's podcast for explanation.

Part 3: the Constitution: Does it apply to you? Did it ever? All Patriots especially need to listen to this show- find out more about what you fight for! Is it what you think? About the series "Constitutional Crisis and the Patriot Paradigm:" We all know the US Constitution has been trampled, and that our rights are ignored and legislated away - there is a crisis! But do you want to know the REAL reason why? Part 1: Pre-history of America - before the Magna Charta,: Do you know who owns Great Britain and also America? It's not who you think! Find out this and much more leading up to the Virginia Charter on this episode of the Iconoclast Report Part 2: The Founding Fathers - Who were these men of old, these mighty men of renown? Were they the champions of the colonists, of Liberty, Freedom and Independence that we were all taught? Today we learn about their pedigrees, affiliations and memberships in secret groups with rites, rituals and debauchery (including orgies), betrayal, questionable loyalty and much, much more! on this episode of the Iconoclast Report

New Series: Constitutional Crisis & the Patriot Paradigm We all know the US Constitution has been trampled, and that our rights are ignored and legislated away - there is a crisis! But do you want to know the REAL reason why? Many call themselves Patriots and, for love of their country and fellows, would fight and die for the Constitution and America the Republic. Will this movement accomplish what Patriots think?  Part 1: Pre-history of America - before the Magna Charta: Do you know who owns Great Britain and also America? It's not who you think! Find out this and much more leading up to the Virginia Charter on this episode of the Iconoclast Report