I do not consent to the use of AI, alien machines, nano technology, parasites or any other type of infectious disease infectious technology, biowarfare, genetically engineered organisms whatsoever, whensoever, wheresoever,

A Bahá'í principle, from ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá: I most urgently request the friends of God to make every effort, as much as lieth within their competence, along these lines. The harder they strive to widen the scope of their knowledge, the better and more gratifying will be the result. Let the loved ones of God, whether young or old, whether male or female, each according to his capabilities, bestir themselves and spare no efforts to acquire the various current branches of knowledge, both spiritual and secular, and of the arts. Whensoever they gather in their meetings let their conversation be confined to learned subjects and to information on the knowledge of the day.

▬ II. We just want us, hommasses, to be fully respected, listened to and desired. Everywhere, whensoever; anyhow the topic at hand. We just want you to pray you don't end up just like us: sad, tired, carefree, reckless, and boring? Yes... Free of charge. youtu.be/H8t5M9_Tvzk?si=7XTh…

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. Mark 14:7 KJV.

πείθεσθαι δὲ ὄντως ἀεὶ χρὴ τοῖς παλαιοῖς τε καὶ ἱεροῖς λόγοις, οἳ δὴ μηνύουσιν ἡμιν ἀθάνατον ψυχὴν εἶναι δικαστάς τε ἴσχειν καὶ τίνειν τὰς μεγίστας τιμωρίας, ὅταν τις ἀπαλλαχθῇ τοῦ σώματος. διὸ καὶ τὰ μεγάλα ἁμαρτήματα καὶ ἀδικήματα σμικρότερον εἶναι χρὴ νομίζειν κακὸν πάσχειν ἢ δρᾶσαι (But we ought always truly to believe the ancient and holy doctrines which declare to us that the soul is immortal and that it has judges and pays the greatest penalties, whensoever a man is released from his body; wherefore also one should account it a lesser evil to suffer than to perform the great iniquities and injustices) Plato's Epistle VII

Likewise, a young man who is pregnant with his first desire also needs no instruction to give birth to it. Whensoever the birth-pangs strike, & fate's appointed time arrives, you will unerringly discover a means of parturition, though it be your first pregnancy.

Here is the hole section, where is the lie? 36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob. And Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks. 37 And Jacob took him rods of fresh poplar, and of the almond and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them, making the white appear which was in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had peeled over against the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs where the flocks came to drink; and they conceived when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks conceived at the sight of the rods, and the flocks brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted. 40 And Jacob separated the lambs--he also set the faces of the flocks toward the streaked and all the dark in the flock of Laban--and put his own droves apart, and put them not unto Laban's flock. 41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger of the flock did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the flock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods; 42 but when the flock were feeble, he put them not in; so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. 43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had large flocks, and maid-servants and men-servants, and camels and asses.

I do not consent to the use of AI, alien machines, nano technology, parasites or any other type of infectious disease infectious technology, biowarfare, genetically engineered organisms whatsoever, whensoever, wheresoever, 👇

Actually, a number of his disciples asked why, Jesus instructed them that the oil was an anointing for his burial. Jesus didn't criticize their judgement, he was letting them know what was going on. There rest of His disciples came to under stand this, but Judas' heart was in the wrong place; he wasn't concerned about the poor, he wanted the money to be gained by selling it. Jesus never instructed the Church to build anything but the body of Christ. Mar 14:3  And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.  Mar 14:4  And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?  Mar 14:5  For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.  Mar 14:6  And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.  Mar 14:7  For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.  Mar 14:8  She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.  Mar 14:9  Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

The Nullification Crisis of 1832 laid bare a fundamental constitutional conflict: federal supremacy versus state sovereignty. This tension persists, challenging the very bedrock of our Republic." The heart of the 1832 crisis was South Carolina's assertion that federal laws could be deemed "unauthoritative, void, and of no force" within its borders. This directly contravenes Article VI, Clause 2 of our Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2 states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Sedition Act of 1798, which criminalized criticism of the government, was fiercely opposed by Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions. These resolutions argued that "whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." This foundational principle of limited government was ignored in 1832. The Supremacy Clause makes clear that valid federal laws are indeed "the supreme Law of the Land." While the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the States, it does not grant them the authority to unilaterally nullify federal statutes. This balance is critical to maintain the Union. The notion that states can nullify federal law is a dangerous heresy that undermines the very compact of our Union. Such an action invites chaos and destroys the concept of a unified government, as witnessed during the Nullification Crisis. To preserve liberty and constitutional order, states must rigorously challenge federal overreach through constitutional means, not by claiming a boundless right of nullification. The proper remedy is legal contestation or constitutional amendment, not secession from the law. How can we ensure states remain vigilant against federal encroachment without resorting to the destructive doctrine of nullification? #ReclaimSovereignty #FoundersVoice

While I admire your order in defense of your own state and its principles I'm afraid you've been Duped, by Far and Away the most comprehensive evaluation of soldiers thoughts and opinions with accomplished by professor James M. McPherson, considered by most to be the foremost scholar of the Civil War. I don't know how many letters you read but on the whole only about 30% of those who fought in the Civil War were concerned with slavery one way or the other. Of course, we've all heard of the Lost Cause myth, and I certainly share some of that fantasy, but not all of it. Certainly the original Southern states seceded over slavery for the most part. but the war was not fought over slavery. war was fought to suppress Southern Independence and Lincoln made it abundantly clear that was his Aim“I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If some would not save the Union unless they could also save slavery, I do not agree with them. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." I do not agree with those who would save the Union only if they could also save slavery. If some would not save the Union unless they could also destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery. Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862. NOt the only times Lincoln gave the opinion. "You have dragged the Negro into the War. It is a war for a great national object and the Negro has nothing to do with it…” Explaining to Senator Browning of Ill. he says..."If the General needs them (slaves) he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition." he president then went on to tell Mrs. Fremont, “The General should never have done that after the Fremont Affair in Missouri (Nevins, Frémont, Pathmarker of the West, p. 517). Frémont's Proclamation: In August 1861, Frémont, commander of the Department of the West, declared martial law in Missouri. Without Lincoln's approval, he issued an edict emancipating the enslaved people of all Confederate sympathizers in the state. We are uncompromisingly opposed to all schemes the tendency of which is calculated to overrun the state of Indiana with a worthless & degraded negro population" -Indiana General Assembly, 3/7//1863 similar sentiments "Interest in slavery did not affect the loyal people of the Ohio Valley...But they had no marked sympathy with emancipation and were certainly not willing to risk their lives and their fortunes to compel their slaveholding kinsfolk & neighbors to free their slaves" McPherson draws on more than 25,000 letters and nearly 250 private diaries from men on both sides. Civil War soldiers were among the most literate soldiers in history, and most of them wrote home frequently, as it was the only way for them to keep in touch with homes that many of them had left for the first time in their lives. Significantly, their letters were also uncensored by military authorities and are uniquely frank in their criticism and detailed in their reports of marches and battles, relations between officers and men, political debates, and morale. For Cause and Comrades lets these soldiers tell their own stories in their own words to create an account that is both deeply moving and far truer than most books on war." ritain, held “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.” Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union. During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments. At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” America’s first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. “The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation,” Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for “the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.” His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.” This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention. The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 “free sovereign and Independent States” did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.” The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace." Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent.” The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” don't doubt that some Indiana soldiers were abolitionists but the overwhelming evidence is that most of the soldiers in the north didn't fight over abolition where did the soldiers that South fight to preserve slavery a lot of them didn't like it. they thought because it was their country those individual states have been Sovereign Nations only 80 years before the same amount of time between now and the end of World War II. I was very curious about slavery when I was young I'm old now when I was 8 years old in 1954 I went down to Louisiana to visit my grandmother my grandmother was Cajun and afro Creole mix he's exotic looking when she was not in the South people would ask about heritage we're in Hawaii increase are you part Greek etc she always smiled and said you got it. that was kind of her family nickname. She had an uncle we had his 100th birthday in 1954 he was in fact a former slave but he was granted manumission when he was about 6 years old right before the war. he had lost nothing is Cajun French was fluent you can also speaking French fluent Spanish and most eloquent English of that style try and not heard since then. after that I made a point to study as many stories about slavery as I could I read all the WPA slave Americans and many biographies.Uncle Tousant, as he was calledAlso disappeared me of the fact that my ancestors on that side had servants. he told me that was a euphemism. I suggest that any of you who are truly interested and yeah read the seminal books on that get a hold of the slave narratives they're all out there couple thousand of them. also for certain read-for-cause and comments by McPherson and the article by Walter Williams. amazon.com/Cause-Comrades-Wh… walterewilliams.com/were-con…

Whensoever. Exactly.

“The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted…

"...having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution, were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers..." 4/

Well that's very witty Will However the states having once been Sovereign Nations probably felt that their states rights were not to be invaded by other states. as you may remember of the original 11 states that withdrew from the Union clearly stated it was mostly about slavery and I think it's a safe statement to say at the South succeeded primarily over the issue of slavery. whoever they were at least four states that agreed to stay in the Union up until the time that Lincoln decided to suppress Southern Independence by Force of Arms. those states were Virginia, tennessee, arkansas, in North Carolina.No doubt the best examination of the reasons that Civil War soldiers fought was collected by Professor James McPherson in his book for cause and comrade. in that book only about 30% of either Northern or Southern soldiers stated that slavery was their primary concern. Well is calling someone a mother fucker is The best you can do as far as invective is concerned? Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.” Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union. During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments. That is what is meant by state rights. At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” America’s first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. “The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation,” Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for “the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.” His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.” This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention. The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 “free sovereign and Independent States” did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.” The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. walterewilliams.com/were-con…

I do not consent to the use of AI, alien machines, nano technology, parasites or any other type of infectious disease infectious technology, biowarfare, genetically engineered organisms whatsoever, whensoever, wheresoever, 👇

TP Conjecture... The colonists know they can strike out whensoever hath a want to do so and although a response may follow, this can also brought to a halt at their choosing also. Almost as if would take command and control of those who oppose.