Home | A.L.A. - 1 | A.L.A. - 2 | A.L.A. - 3 | A.L.A. - 4 | A.L.A. - 5 | A.L.A. - 6 | A.L.A. - 7 | EXTRAS | In Conclusion | CONTACT | PETITION


The following are just a few things that have come to mind; hopefully some might challenge you to express your own.

If a person wanted to be a School Bus Driver and was given the opportunity to be one - and the Driver's children, along with the children of others, were on the same bus, would they (the Driver) not have a responsibility for all of the children while they were in the driver’s seat? America is the Bus and the elected in Washington are in the Driver’s seat - if a Driver (an elected) feels their only reason for being there is their concern for their own children on the Bus and the Bus and the children of others on the Bus are not their responsibility, then PLEASE, someone get that Driver the Hell off of the bus.

"The very essence of a free government consists in considering (federal) offices as public trust, bestowed for the good of the country, and not for the benefit of an individual (individual state) or party."
- John C. Calhoun + (james)


Benjamin Franklin said: “A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”

The Democrats and Republicans are the two wolves and the Citizenry of the United States is the lamb; Abundant Life Amendment - Article 1 is the armament the lamb needs to protect its self from the two wolves.


“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal…
The Declaration of Independence 1776

All Men Are Created Equal – except?

  Beautiful words, but they were written without any true value. What they really mean is, if you have power over me I should be treated as an equal; but, if I have power over you, you should not be treated as an equal. Example: When those words were written, they sounded a lot like some other words found in a different writing, do on to others as you would have them do on to you; pretty words with great meaning, but seldom practiced.

When those elegant words “all men are created equal” were written - Woman, were not part of the equal that was being talked about, as they had very limited rights – the Black Man was not equal and was only good as a slave, without any equal rights, or rights of any kind; the Red Man was believed to be nothing more than a heathen and the only good one was a dead one, without any equal rights, etc.. Very pretty words written seeking equality, but not willing to give equality.  

History has proven that the divisions between people is fueled by the want of domination of one over another, so as to feed that spirit of self that dwells (unfortunately) within us all. However, self is not always a bad spirit, just like the night is not the bad part of the day just because it is black, but a necessary part of evolution which mankind could not exist without.

Unfortunately the negative side of self, the black side, is the primary spirit that governs’ Politics, Religions and many other efforts that may seem well meaning, but their philosophy is one of control and dominance and not one of equality; that is why in most every structure of governing, the power is at the top; and sooner or later the (self) within those at the top begins to believe they are above the equality of others; and while they may support the language of “all men are created equal” they themselves believe they have risen above being equal and deservedly so.

Why in a country where equality is supposed to exist, the title, or address, Honorable – is awarded to someone because they won an election or holds an office of public trust? Isn’t God the only one that can judge their true character and Honor? Unless of course by winning they have become a higher equal and more Honorable than others? Question - what is the difference between bowing down to a Royalty and being told to stand in the presence of a Honorable? Your Lordship, Your Highness, Your Holiness, Your Honor - EQUALITY?

For some very interesting reading about many who have been given the rank of “Honorable” and their true character - check out the link below and be sure to checkout the "SEE ALSO" towards the bottom of that page for many more.

The biggest enemies of Commonsense and Righteousness in government are Politics and Compromise. The goal of Commonsense addresses the needs of the people as best can be at the time - while Righteousness is the act of applying it; where-as, Compromise is the Political act that says let us divide the spoils, you give us part of what we want and we will give you part of what you want and we can both boast of our accomplishment - but the true unfilled Commonsense needs of the People go un-answered.

Health Care – has to be looked upon and treated with the human needs of its existence as its primary spirit and goal; and not the commercial value of its exercise. Right now, all of the talk centers around who is going to pay the bills; and not one word about addressing the need of the restructuring of the system to make it more efficient for the People in its services and costs. PS: A future Proposal.

The un-United States of America
 Jesus said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:” Matthew 12:25 
 Could we be living the prophecy? George Washington said, that the spirit of the political parties was the People’s worst enemy; and are they (the political parties) not the ones that have and are dividing America - along political lines?
 Maybe - Jesus and George both lied? Ask a Politician!

 UPDATE: The recent ruling by the Supreme Court relating to Gay Marriages, which is part of the language of the following, may not have the same meaning that it might have had as originally written. However – there still remains some thoughts pertaining to marriage in general that may raise some questions; so all has been left as written and published a number of years ago.

Marriage - ? 
Marriage – one dictionary’s definition reads: “legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.”

Some people believe that marriage was created by God; but according to the Bible, it was Adam, or Man, that created the institution we now call marriage; and to the best of my historical knowledge, not one woman has ever been involved in writing the laws in any country or religion as they pertain to marriage.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Also note: that “a man (shall) leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife” – not – a woman shall leave her father and her mother, and shall cleave unto her husband.

But what constitutes a lawful marriage; a piece of paper, a kiss, the utterance of words, saying I do? Every State has the right to set it’s own rules as to what a marriage is and who is allowed to be part of one - it has nothing to do with God, it is just man made laws separated by a line in the sand; and if one State don’t agree with the laws that create the unity of two people in another State, they do not have to recognize the other States marriages.

Question - because the laws vary about marriage, or civil unions, from State to State – if a divorce or separation becomes necessary – should the parties involved in it not be required to go back to the State where the union was created for resolution? If a State does not recognize all unions from all other States and/or even if they do, does one State have the right to dissolve a lawful contract entered into by two people in another State - as the contract was made subject to the laws of that other State at the time it was made - and may have not been made under equal laws of the now State that is deciding to dissolve the union created under and by the laws of the other State?

In today’s world, unity of those of the same gender has become a subject that raises some questions of law that may have so far been overlooked: If a State recognizes and/or allows under their laws the union of two people of the same gender as a marriage, or it’s equal, and later the parties decide to dissolve the relationship – do they go into court and get a divorce under the normal laws of the State relating to a divorce?

Question – if one of the parties decides to leave the State and moves to a State that does not recognize same gender marriages, or unions and enters into a relationship with a person of the opposite gender and wants to marry – would they even need to have a divorce, or annulment from the former relationship because the new/now State never recognized it as having been legal anyway?

Question – or if needed - could the new State grant a divorce, or annulment of an agreement that they do not even recognize as lawful within their State and which was created under the laws of another State simply because the person has now become a lawful resident of that State?

Question – if the one that had left the State where the union originated, were to return to that State for any reason, after lawfully marring under another State’s laws, without a divorce or annulment from their original State, could they be arrested and charged with bigamy, even if under other, or normal circumstances, the marriage from the new State that was entered into would have been lawfully recognized, but - because the union within that State, the original State, where the original union was made, had never been divorced or annulled, yet the new State allowed a marriage because it did not and would not recognize the original union as a valid and a lawful union within its borders and their was no need for a dissolving of it?

The Constitution of the United States supposedly guarantees each person the right of life, liberty and (personal) happiness, freedom of belief and the free exercise thereof; however a meaningful and fulfilling life style for one that gives them their (personal) happiness, may not give the same (personal) happiness to another.

Two people walking down the street side by side may be going in the same direction, but for different reasons and with different desires within. The same is true in all of life itself, all are born and all will die and in between (personal) happiness is what all strive for. One likes a quiet walk in the park, while another enjoys the thunder of race cars roaring around a track – which is right (?) to each their own?

The Federal Government must, as well as the States, have to recognize the differences that exists in its people and treat all as equals; how (?) continued …………… at a future time.

Just Another Question: If I and another were resident business men of the same State and an agreement was written between us in and under another State’s laws because the business agreement was transacted in that State and under its laws - could I later go into my State and have that agreement challenged or voided by it - simple because I am a resident, and/or was a resident of my State at the time the contract was agreed upon? Would I not have to go back to that other State and be subject to the laws where the agreement originated? Should a marriage/divorce not be subject to the same commonsense of law?

Question - I wonder, how many people cross State borders to get married in another State because they are not eligible to marry in their own State, for one reason or another at the time - and then return to their home State where they were not legally allowed to marry and live as and excepted as married?

What if two people getting married are from different States to start with and then marry in a third State, such as a place like Las Vegas, what laws of marriage and/divorce should apply?

Maybe we should pray that the Wisdom of Solomon will come upon the U.S. Supreme Court Judges and they will answer the following simple question? Here is the question: Does a State have the right to void an agreement entered into by people that was entered into in another State, and entered into under the Laws of the other State?


Facts are facts and will not disappear
on account of your likes.

In December 2002 the estimated population of the United States was reported to be 281,421,094 – in December 2012 it is estimated to be 314,930,000 – an increase of 33,508,094 people in just 10 short years. These numbers, I am sure do not reflect the millions plus that are illegally in this country.

While some of these numbers relate to internal births in the U.S. by U.S. Citizens, many were not U.S. Citizens, but gave birth in the U.S. to become U.S. Citizens.

Yet, every year Washington is allowing a Million plus more to become a resident or citizen of the United States; despite the fact that we are already the Third most populated country in the world.


No country on this earth can support the whole world, regardless of the needs – nor will it survive trying. I would like to paraphrase some words found in a Good Book: What shall it profit a Country to try and save the whole world; but, destroy its own in return.


A December 2012 report listed 12 Million Americans unemployed; 2.5 Million have just stopped looking, and another 8.2 Million are working part time because they can’t find a full time job; for a total of 22.7 Million Americans in need of good jobs; I am also sure that these numbers are missing another million or two that are not part of the recordable system.


Note - John Adams also pointed out: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”


Solutions have been suggested – but, its up to you. 

The Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America reads:


"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


The First Amendment to the Constitution reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” – isn’t God part of religion?  

Question - If I were a third generation Muslim born in the USA, never been in trouble with the law, work for a living, pay my taxes and support the American democratic form of government, etc. - but the Islamic belief and religion is where I find my comfort and faith and for me the best understanding of the meaning of the word “God” is “Allah”; if I were to say “Allah” in the Pledge, which also means God, would I be judged anti American or anti Godly because of it?  

In school would my children be picked on or barred from saying the pledge because they used that word “Allah” in the morning pledge? How about if I were Jewish, could I insert the word “Yahweh” (?) which by the way also means “God”. 

We also now have many Spanish speaking people in the U.S., can they inject “Dios” into the pledge, or do we rewrite the pledge for every language in our country so the English words and the use of the English word “God” and its Christian symbolism in the Pledge does not subvert the meaning held by others in their own understanding of the word for God? 

Actually, come to think of it, the words “under God” were not in the first two writing of the Pledge and the daughter of the author that wrote the Pledge objected to the alteration adding them. 

While I seem to be a little unsure if “GOD” is greatly honored by America using His name the way we do, you-know like He is our mascot or good luck charm and bless us God for we are better than the other guy – weren’t the words “under God” added more or less as a propaganda tool to show the world we are a good godly “Christian” nation as opposed to a un-godly atheistically governed communist country like – Russia? 

Does anyone in Washington believe they are “under” and subject to God’s authority in their actions? When Congress starts with a prayer does that mean God is in charge? Ask the President or any politician. 

I wonder and maybe God might also wonder – who’s “under”-standing of God are we under? Thou shall not use the name of God in vain – ever hear of that? Note: one dictionary defines “vain” as – excessively proud, empty of substance and devoid of meaning.

Footnote: For some very interesting and informative information about the Pledge and the hand over the heart and how the Nazis’ helped change out salute to the Flag, click on the following link: