The Thomas Paul Murphy Music Player

"You might think that I am off base, but I am published by the Securities and Exchange Commission."

Thomas Paul Murphy

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Wars in times of peace violate our right to a Government of a Republic 04 15 2014

Wars in times of peace violate our right to a Government of a Republic 04 15 2014

Because the views of the public at large are distracted and compromised during that time; if not even it is taken to be the opportune time propagandize (lie) to the general population that makes the decisions in the Republic!

That is another reason we were not to have a military in times of peace!

A Republic also excludes inheritance, divine right and monarchy.  But there is a loophole to divine right if indeed the public has the same mind as a King that can be elected per the Constitution?

But divine right is far different that divinity achieved in comparison to those demonized by the defective minded!  So that Divine Right thing was misinterpreted!  It really means that you can't have a son of a Father who was president become President too or a Wife of a President become President too!  That is a violation of a Republic because it is synonymous with Divine Right!  Even George Bush's wife said he should never have been President!  Your entire idol seeking Republican party doesn't even know the meaning of the word Republic or the idealism the party was founded on; freedom from all forms of slavery including mental; aka schizophrenia!

Divine Right used to be interpretation means that we don't want a mean spoiled mentally defective child of a rich King ruling us!  And we still all agree on that today don't we?  Some don't or we wouldn't have had George Bush as President nor would we have Hillary Clinton vying for the office of President!  Divine right means the propagandized Confederate belief that there is something better about someone because they are part of a family?  It never holds water does it!


We would have enforced our clean water act.  We would have barred companies that killed people from ever selling again. etc.  As a Republic that is guarantied in our Constitution we would have likely sough the death penalty for pimps (that is slavery and against our Constitution anywhere in the United States Sorry Nevada!, drug dealers and all sexual molesters of children!  Sexual molestation isn't a boy pressing on the crotch of his uncles jeans when has had enough of him at the Christmas dinner; it is the manipulation, (or force as in vaginal pressure of little girl being crudely fingered, and we indeed know that just the act of the insertion is molestation.  And this is indeed all graphic but the terminology needs to be codified and added to a list; and that is rather graphic but  with the intent to render sterile or create permanent harm.  I don't know if I care if grandma patted her flat chested daughter on the chest once!  This issue needs to be clarified for the legal proceedings of it!

I actually view those three above crimes as requiring the death penalty more so that murder does!  For example if you murder one of those three criminals out of human RAGE (they would call it insanity defense) that is not as great a crime as the crimes they committed in my mind!  But if one of those three criminals above murders a human being then the crime is on par or greater to receive the death penalty!)

And this is the way that I think and my belief system, no amount of medicine has ever changed it nor will it ever change it!

I have had dyslexic Republicans argue with me over the meaning of a Republic when clearly they never knew what it meant in the first place.  They interpreted it to mean....I barred that gibberish from my memory whatever it was!

Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 04 15 2014 at:
Copyright 2014 Thomas Paul Murphy

I am printing out an unannotated copy of the Wisconsin Constitution to read and see if it is in violation with the Supreme Law of the Land the United States Constitution!  The Wisconsin Constitution has been in question lately.

And would trials of those criminals be different if they were not allowed to be seen in court?  For example take the stand wearing a brown paper bag suit that covered their whole body and head?  And if they are responding in anonymity in this manner does it really break their right to not be required to bear witness to themselves.  Well lets just say yes it does and leave it at that!  But the construct is something interesting to think about?  If you only heard this persons voice and the facts what would you think?  I have worked with employees and people who have put on the greatest pretense of being good people easy to get along with during interviews only to see them rapidly turn into h3ll hounds to work with!

No comments:

Post a Comment