Gingrich’s anti-judicial tirade is an attack on liberty

As historian Newt Gingrich sees it, the American people are suffering “a fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts.” Unless we fight back against this “grotesquely dictatorial” judiciary, our nation is destined to slide toward “a secular, European sort of bureaucratic socialist society.”

More specifically, Gingrich argues that the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has proved itself to be “anti-American” and thus has forfeited its right to exist. Congress, he says, should simply pass a law to abolish the court altogether, false concerns about “separation of power” be damned.

Gingrich also proposes to haul a series of federal judges before Congress where they can be forced to defend unpopular decisions. As he explained in an appearance on “Face the Nation” Sunday, he would even empower federal marshals to arrest any judges who refused to heed congressional demands for testimony.

According to Gingrich, such steps would have been applauded by our founding fathers, who feared from the beginning that unelected judges would become a tyrannical ruling class. He and his aides lay out that theory, complete with its alleged historical underpinnings, in “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution,” a 28-page white paper available at the Gingrich campaign website.

Those who take the time to read the paper will find that it is less the work of Newt’s inner historian than of Newt’s inner fascist. It represents a profound distortion of our nation’s history, the writings of our Founding Fathers and the basic core of the American philosophy of government. It is dishonest history.

Consider, for example, Gingrich’s underhanded, deceptive attempt to draft Alexander Hamilton as an supporter of his anti-judicial crusade. Using selected quotes from the Federalist Papers, Hamilton is depicted by Gingrich as a supporter of efforts to use the legislative and executive branches to rein in a tyrannical, overbearing judiciary.

That is a 180-degree reversal of Hamilton’s actual position. He saw the courts as vulnerable guarantors of freedom whose independence must be preserved at all costs against the likes of Gingrich.

In Federalist Papers #78, for example, Hamilton writes that the judiciary “is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks.”

In other words, while Gingrich proposes to undermine judicial independence, Hamilton warns us to take “all possible care” to ensure that the judiciary is protected against such attacks.

The debate between Gingrich and Hamilton goes on and on.

Here’s Gingrich:

“A judicial branch that is largely unaccountable and not subject to meaningful checks and balances can — and does — routinely issue constitutional rulings that threaten individual liberties, compromise national security, undermine American culture, and ignore the consent of the governed.”

Here’s Hamilton:

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution…. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

Gingrich denies that “the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court with final decision-making authority about the meaning of the Constitution.” Hamilton, in the excerpt cited above, explicitly says otherwise.

Gingrich proposes that judges must be kept in fear of their jobs through such steps as impeachment and the abolition of courts that offend public opinion. Hamilton warns that “from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

But here’s the crux of the issue. It is a commonplace within the conservative movement to point out that “we are not a democracy, we are a republic.” In plain terms, the saying makes no sense; a republic is a type of democracy, just as an orange is a type of fruit.

That said, the phrase does attempt to express a larger and fundamental truth. We are not a democracy in its purest form, in which the majority can outvote the minority on every issue without regard to individual freedom. We exist under a limited government, a government of laws not of men, where the power of the majority is constrained. “A republic, not a democracy” is intended as an endorsement of that principle.

As we’ve seen, however, the majority does not like to feel itself constrained. It gets frustrated when it is told that on matters of fundamental importance, such as religion and free speech, the viewpoint of the majority does not matter because, well, we’re a republic not a democracy and certain things are off limits to the majority. And it is usually the courts that have to deliver that unwelcome message to the majority.

As Hamilton wrote:

“Considerate men of every description ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer today. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.”

That final sentence — ” … the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress” — seems directed across the centuries right at Gingrich.

– Jay Bookman

927 comments Add your comment

Jay

December 20th, 2011
4:23 pm

Where do these rights come from, Strawman?

The answer is self-evident.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You are trying to quibble away the clear meaning of the Ninth Amendment. It clearly states that the people retain rights not listed here. The founders believed it a very important amendment.

Also, Sheets.

Jm

December 20th, 2011
4:24 pm

Butch
Not right now, though it is occasionally a topic of discussion. Just used to work on several NY projects. (battery park condos, bond street condos, some midtown office deals)

Common Sense isn't very Common

December 20th, 2011
4:24 pm

Bro – NO Calista jokes here today this is a serious discussion we are having (NOT). :-)

Kamchak

December 20th, 2011
4:25 pm

Besides, I like reading his books.

Ugh.

A severe case of verborrhea.

DebbieDoRight

December 20th, 2011
4:26 pm

How do you feel about the first 200 pages of EVERY Michener novel

I LOVED Hawaii. Not too crazy about The Fires Of Spring. I read it when I was younger and, frankly, I didn’t get it.

Big props though to you for reminding of that — i may re-read it. Now that I’m an adult, it may make sense. The same thing happened to me the first time I read Beloved. I was too young to understand it, when I reread it about a year ago, I separated the book into different phases, (Morrison wrote a lot of “flashback” sequence, that at the time, didn’t make much sense to me) – the sections were “Slavery — Sweet Homes” / Escape / Time frame during running away, freedom and murder of baby / After Murder. THEN it made sense.

josef

December 20th, 2011
4:27 pm

DDR

Amen on that on Dr. Seuss.

I may have posted this before, but in our home growing up reading was not censored, but the adults did pay attention to what it was we were reading. Mama shelved “those” books on the high shelves so the little ones couldn’t reach them, or so we thought. As I look back at what all she did shelve there! I asked her about some of them later. She said, “you wouldn’t've read it if I suggested it, but if I put it up there…well, and you read it, didn’t you!” It worked and I did it with ours! :-)

Jm

December 20th, 2011
4:27 pm

Nice day for the market

Brosephus

December 20th, 2011
4:28 pm

Kam

:lol:
That guy’s probably one of the weirdest people walking the face of the Earth right now. I’m curious as to how he comes up with the things that he writes about. I even have one that he wrote under a pen name. If it’s not about car chases and explosions, I like the weird stuff that makes you think.

Midori

December 20th, 2011
4:28 pm

Brosephus

December 20th, 2011
4:29 pm

Green Eggs and Ham is probably the best book ever written!!!! That’s why I have a copy myself.

Kamchak

December 20th, 2011
4:36 pm

SoCo/Bro

A ver good friend of my is a SK fan and I expressed my feeling quite some time ago. I had already read Christine and I complained that King’s stories were formulaic horror that always took place in Maine, so he suggested a short story called The Shawshank Redemption. Now this was long before the film came out, after I finished it I was like, “so? this is still crap.”

Not my cup of tea.

He uses pages where sentences will suffice.

Granny Godzilla

December 20th, 2011
4:41 pm

josef

my mom read everything….and his those she deemed inappropriate
between her mattress and box spring.

i read everything she read.

everything.

Brosephus

December 20th, 2011
4:42 pm

Kam

Can’t argue with your analysis. I think it’s more about the subject matter and stuff that kept me attracted to SK. My 5th grade year was really effed up thanks to King and Peter Benchley. As an aside, I would strongly recommend NOT letting a 5th grader read Jaws or Christine, even if they are very advanced readers. That sh*t will mess with their mind for a very long, long time. I love classic cars, but you can not pay me enough to sit inside or near a 1958 Plymouth Fury.

Mr_B

December 20th, 2011
4:49 pm

“If Shakespeare would have lived in a time of capitalism, he would have made billions”

At the time of Shakespeare’s death he was very wealthy: probably the richest “gentleman”( a legal status just below that of the nobility) in Stratfordshire.

Carol

December 20th, 2011
4:54 pm

JM
John McCain wouldve been a better president

And I don’t say that easily
+++++++

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if facts mean anything, that’s is completely untrue. McCain is proving to be a bitter old man. I actually would have considered voting for him had our current President not been in the running. He was pretty much a moderate that I believed really would work across the aisles in spite of his party. But now he is doing everything but.

Jay

December 20th, 2011
5:19 pm

Stevie, I’d agree with it all. However, I also don’t know what can realistically be done to change that last factor.

Curious Observer

December 20th, 2011
6:19 pm

A CNN/ORC International Poll out Tuesday indicates the president’s margins have increased against five possible Republican presidential challengers in hypothetical general election matchups and that Obama’s approval rating is up five points since mid-November.

Lotsa luck, cons. Now get in the back of the bus. We’re driving.

Mary Elizabeth

December 21st, 2011
2:44 pm

Although it is late to be posting to this thread, I wish to add some comments. The article is thought- provoking, and I have only now had the time to read and digest its message.

(1) Hamilton’s words, from the article, above:

“Considerate men of every description ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer today.”

From my personal experiences in the desegregation ruling of the Supreme Court, of the 1950s, those lines by Hamilton are particularly apt. African-Americans had been the “victim of a spirit of injustice” in the Jim Crow South, prior to that Supreme Court ruling. I remember that practically all white Southerners condemned the Supreme Court’s authority upon that ruling. Of course, the white power structure of the South of the 1950s had been “the gainer” of that “spirit of injustice” in that day. Ironically, now many white, conservative Southern Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich (transplanted Southerner) feel that they are the victims of a “spirit of injustice” handed to them by the Supreme Court, and thus they wish to curtail its power. Certainly, during the 1950s, the majority of white Southerners’ views were not consistent with the tenets of our Constitution. The Supreme Court called it right; the majority of white Southerners were wrong regarding segregation.
———————————————-
“. . .we’re a republic not a democracy and certain things are off limits to the majority. And it is usually the courts that have to deliver that unwelcome message to the majority.”
———————————————–
I saw that message delivered, firsthand, regarding desegregation, and I have witnessed the bitterness against the Supreme Court and the “federal government’s power” over state power, since that time, especially in the Deep South.

There is much irony in what Newt Gingrich is trying to do regarding limiting the Supreme Court’s power. He is pitting two branches of the three branches of government against the remaining branch. I thought that the three branches of government called for a rational balance of power between three separate branches, each seen with its own autonomy and separate function to perform, instead of seen as using coercion of two against the one. Many conservative Republicans proclaim that we must “get back to the strict contraints of the Constitution” and yet this drive to disempower the Supreme Court seems against the original tenets in the Constitution.The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret, correctly, the legality of our legislated laws – which would hold true over time, beyond immediate and ephemeral perceptions, as were held in the 1950s South.
———————————————–

(2) Toward the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson, according to Gordon S. Wood, author of “Revolutionary Characters,” was tempermentally incapable of understanding the deep popular strength of the evangelical Christian forces that were seizing control of the American culture in these early days of the nineteenth century.” (p.116)

“Ordinary people in whom he (Jefferson) placed so much confidence, more certainly than his friend James Madison, were not becoming more enlightened. Superstition and bigotry, which Jefferson identified with organized religion, were actually reviving, released by the democratic revolution he had led.” (p. 116)

It is further ironic that Newt Gingrich, in his “Face the Nation” interview, mentions that “liberal” judges stand against the majority American culture (often evangelical Christian culture). He wants the voices of the majority Americans (through the Legislative and Executive branches) to be able to curtail the power of the Supreme Court. More irony: often the same people who support Gingrich’s beliefs in this matter, use Thomas Jefferson, the defender of state’s rights, as their model. I do not believe they fully understand Jefferson, who wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Newt Gingrich is promoting majority thinking – which frequently is expressed in generalized religious platitudes and dogma – in order to discredit the Supreme Court for not being in tune with the American culture. Hardly the enlightenment Jefferson envisioned.

———————————————–

(3) Finally, from Gordon S. Wood’s book, “Revolutionary Characters,” pp. 163-164, thoughts of James Madison, architect of the U.S. Constitution:

Madison very much desired to transcend the states and build a nation in 1787, but he had no intention of creating for this nation a modern war-making state with an energetic and powerful executive. Instead he wanted a government that would act as a disinterested judge, a dispassionate umpire, adjudicating among the various interests in the society. That is why he, unlike his friend Jefferson, eventually came to value the postion of the Supreme Court in American political life; it was the only institution that came close to playing the role that in 1787 he had wanted the federal Congress to play.”

Tom Middleton

December 21st, 2011
5:24 pm

Excellent, Mary Elizabeth. And as someone born and raised in Jefferson County, Alabama, named after Thomas Jefferson, I, too, have been allowed a birds-eye view of racial change since the 1950s.

And there has been change for the better, but, of course, not nearly enough. And like Mr. Gingrich, there are still some among us who would take us backwards in a flash if they only could.

I find it incredibly ironic that all of this has been and is still taking place in the “Bible Belt” of a professed Savior against any form of oppression through his love of God and the Golden Rule. Amazing, isn’t it?

Thanks for a great post…

Mary Elizabeth

December 21st, 2011
7:37 pm

Tom Middleton@5:24, Dec. 21

“I find it incredibly ironic that all of this has been and is still taking place in the “Bible Belt” of a professed Savior against any form of oppression through his love of God and the Golden Rule. Amazing, isn’t it?”
——————————————

Yes, it is completely amazing, Tom.

Thank you not only for taking the time to read my post but also to comment on it. I appreciate your compliment. Here are a few more insights for you, from the book, “Revolutionary Characters,” to which I had referred in my 2:44 p.m. post:

p. 93, “Franklin may have become a symbol for the American dream of getting on and making it, especially making lots of money, but no one has embodied America’s democratic ideals and democratic hopes more than Thomas Jefferson. ‘All honor to Jefferson,’ Abraham Lincoln declared on the eve of the Civil War. By setting forth the explosive idea that ‘all men are created equal,’ said Lincoln, Jefferson had created ‘a rebuke and a stumbling block’ to the appearance of all future tyranny and oppression. ‘The principles of Jefferson,’ said Lincoln, ‘are the definitions and axioms of free society.”

pp. 106-107: “Jefferson celebrated this superiority of society over government. Indeed, the conventional liberal division between society and government was the premise of his political thinking: his faith in the natural ordering of society, his belief in the common moral sense of ordinary people, his idea of minimal government. ‘Man,’ he said, ‘was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. . . .The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. . . .This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this.’ All human beings had ‘implanted in our breasts’ this ‘love of others,’ this ‘moral instinct’; these ’social dispositions’ were what made democracy possible.

“The importance of this domesticated modern virtue to Jefferson’s and other Americans’ thinking can scarely be exaggerated. Unlike classical virtue, it was not nostalgic or backward-looking but progressive and indeed radical. It laid the basis for all reform movements of the nineteenth century as well as for all subsequent modern liberal thinking. We still yearn for a world in which we all will love one another.”

p.107: “Probably no American leader took this belief in the natural sociability of people more seriously than Jefferson. His scissors-and-paste redoing of the New Testament in the early years of the nineteenth century, his Jefferson Bible, grew out of his desire to reconcile Christianity with the Enlightenment and at the same time to answer all those critics who said that he was an enemy of all religion. Jefferson discovered that Jesus, with his prescription for each of us to love our neighbors as ourselves, actually spoke directly to the modern enlightened age. Jefferson’s version of the New Testament offered a much-needed morality of social harmony for a new republican society. Jefferson’s faith in the national sociability of people also lay behind his belief in minimal government.”

p. 114: “None of the other major founding fathers was as optimistic and confident of the people as Jefferson was. All of the problems of the present, he believed, would eventually be taken care of by the people.This sublime faith in the people and the future is the source of the symbolic power he has had for succeeding generations of Americans. He was never more American than when he told John Adams in 1816 that he liked ‘the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.’ ”

p. 110: “Unlike Coleridge and Wordsworth and other disillusioned European liberals, Jefferson remained a champion of the French Revolution to the end. He saw it after all as a movement on behalf of the rights of man that had originated in the American Revolution. And to the American Revolution and the rights of man he remained dedicated until his death. In the last letter he wrote he expressed his lifelong belief that the American Revolution would be ‘the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-governmnet. He foresaw that eventually the whole world ‘(to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all)’ would follow the American lead. Sentiments like these became the source of America’s messianic sense of obligation to promote the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world.”

p.115: “He (Jefferson) knew slavery was a great evil, but he believed his generation could do little about it. Instead he counseled patience and reliance on the young who would follow. When one of those younger men, Edward Coles, actually called on Jefferson in 1814 to lend his voice in the struggle against slavery, he could only offer his confidence in the future. ‘The hour of emancipation is advancing, in the march of time. It will come. . . .’ ”

pp.139-140: “Many Americans, including the president (Adams), thought that (Alexander) Hamilton and the High Federalists had been bent on establishing a regal government allied with Britain with Hamilton as its head. There is no evidence of that, but certainly Hamilton’s plans for an imperial America were out of touch with the realities of his world in 1800. Two centuries later, however, these plans do not seem so bizarre. Hamilton would be right at home in the present-day United States and present-day world. He would love our government’s vast federal bureaucracy, its sprawling Pentagon, its enormous CIA, its huge public debt, its taxes beyond any he could have hoped for, and especially its large professional military force with well over a million men and women under arms spread across two oceans and dozens of countries. America has at last created the kind of powerful world wide empire he could only dream of. In this sense Hamilton may truly be ‘the man who made modern America.’ ”
———————————————————————
One can see from the quotes above how different were the visions of Jefferson and Hamilton for our nation and why the wise first president, George Washington, tried so fervently to keep both of their visions operative simultaneously, within our nation.

It is quite ironic that the great liberal mind of Thomas Jefferson has been claimed by modern day conservatives as an advocate for their vision, and that Alexander Hamilton’s pragmatic strong central government vision has been associated with modern day liberals, in spite of Hamilton’s dreams of military might and empire (as seen in today’s corporate power and empire.)

Hamilton, in my opinion, may be ‘the man who made modern America,’ but I believe Thomas Jefferson’s egalitarian vision, not only for America but for the world, will have the final victory because his vision transcends the limitations of any particular era, just as it confirms the transcendent power of the ever evolving human spirit and soul.

—————————————————————–
p.117: “He (jefferson) had always invested so much more of himself intellectually and emotionally in the future and in popular democracy than Madison had. Jefferson was inspired by a vision of how things could and should be. Madison tended much more to accept things as they were. Madison never lost his dark foreboding about American yet to come, and he never shed his skepticism about the people and popular majorities. But Jefferson had nothing but the people and the future to fall back on; they were really all he ever believed in. That is why we remember Jefferson and not Madison.” (or Hamilton, for that matter)

Merry Christmas to you and yours, Tom.

Tom Middleton

December 21st, 2011
11:42 pm

Well, then I’m a Jeffersonian, Mary Elizabeth, for it would be impossible to become that egalitarian love of everyone by accident.

And if we cannot love what we all are together outside of government, without a strong belief in a single eternal God that is everywhere, including within us, then religion is all we have as an alternative, and I am right.

But it has to be the spiritual (uncorrupted) religion that was handed out, not the self-serving, materialistic version of it that permeates most of the traditions today. In other words, it has to be all about consciousness or being, not the acquiring or having of the Christian materialists and others for it to be real.

In the final analysis, there can be no separation between us and God for the kind of peace and awareness we all say we want. And since I was not aware that Jefferson felt this way as well, I deeply appreciate your taking the time for the many wonderful quotes and thoughts.

And Merry Christmas to you and yours, Mary Elizabeth. I and my seven dogs (lol!) deeply appreciate your good wishes. And Happy New Year to y’all as well!

Mary Elizabeth

December 22nd, 2011
12:13 am

Thank you, Tom. I did compile the list of thoughts from “Revolutionary Characters,” with you in mind especially, to demonstrate the fullness of Thomas Jefferson’s mind, especially in regard to the spiritual understanding that he had attained and how that affected his egalitarian consciousness. So many want to peg the founding fathers into simple “camps of thoughts” for their own agendas instead of trying to understand the richness and complexities of their unique minds, and what each contributed to the greatness of what America has been, and hopefully will continue to be, as an inspiration to the world’s community.

I agree with all of your thoughts in spiritual understanding. I would even go so far as to say that God is not only within each one of us, but within all animals, as well as within all life, and within all that exists, and that is what makes us all one. Once we are deeply aware of this, we must have an egalitarian consciousness toward all.

I appreciate your remarks. I know you must enjoy your dogs. I suspect you fully understand my remarks regarding our spiritual connection to animals, if you care for, and love, seven dogs!

Here is a post I entered into my own blog, “MaryElizabethSings,” last December, entitled, “Changing World, Changing Consciousness.” I have a feeling that you may enjoy reading it. This is the link:

http://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/changing-world-changing-consciousness/

Please don’t feel it necessary to respond, unless you care to. I simply thought you might enjoy reading that particular post that I had written. Merry Christmas!

Tom Middleton

December 22nd, 2011
2:42 am

Mary Elizabeth

I have to respond, Mary Elizabeth, for as it turns out, we are so incredibly much alike, that I’m almost in shock.

Of course God is in, under, around, and through all there is as the one unlimited consciousness (principle) of the universe. And of course everything we can see, touch, etc. through the senses is God as well, for if it came from God as the creator, then what else could it be?

And if you subtract something from an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present unlimited God, even a universe, you still get God, for something from nothing still leaves nothing, doesn’t it? To me, it’s all God from beginning to end, and I know you agree.

Amyway, I wrote a song once called “Eternity” to explain the whys and wherefores of the creation on a very basic level. I mean, we can always say that it’s for every reason and no reason at all and be perfectly accurate, but that kind of answer always drives folks nuts who are trying to understand.

But hoping you don’t mind, I’m going to post the lyrics for your wise scrutiny. Keep in mind that it’s not a poem but a song I did with my 12-string, and here’s hoping you enjoy…

Eternity

Darling, why do you keep asking me
What made us want to leave eternity
Why did we lock ourselves out and throw away the key
If where we were, we were already free

But if I answer you, will you try to understand
Some things are hard to know while we’re still woman and man
We get the bits and pieces as we move from land to land
But I will tell you, Darling, if I can
I’ll tell you if I can
I’ll tell you if I can

Imagine if you will that you’re in an infinite jar
Where there’s no here and there, and no near and far
There is just you, my Darling, without a guiding star
Because everything there is, well, you already are

What would you do to know what really can’t be known
What would you do to see what really can’t be shown
What would you do to reel in what goes on and on
How would you plant the seeds that really can’t be sewn
That really can’t be sewn
That really can’t be sewn

Would you create a universe and time you could enter in
Till you could find your way back into the jar again
And find out through experience who you have always been
By learning how to treat yourself overcoming sin

Sin is doing what is wrong, it’s working for the part
Instead of working for the whole with what comes from the heart
And when we love, we find the key we threw away at the start
For when we love, we find the way to finally become smart
To finally become smart
To finally become smart

It’s not our separate pieces that make us who we are
It’s who we are beyond it all when we’re back in the jar
When Jesus said “all things will be added,” he became the guiding star
That shows us back into the world of neither near nor far

But very few believe his truth, very few today
And anyone that teaches these things will be made to go away
And what a shame that so many have lost the only way
But anyone who’s ready can still read what he has to say
Read what he has to say
Read what he has to say

When you look into the world, there are many things to see
But you will not understand them well by trying it separately
Each thing depends on the others to be what it needs to be
So it’s knowing what it all is together that finally sets you free

And every part that is somewhere, you have it in your soul
And it doesn’t matter what it is, you must turn it to gold
By focusing on God the Father until it loses it’s hold
It’s in the letting go you move closer to him and his riches untold
His riches untold
His riches untold

Eternity is consciousness, the world beyond all things
The universe we’re in right now is nothing but a dream
Waiting for us to understand and learn how to sprout wings
So we can fly on up out of here, following Christ the King

He taught us to become one with the Father everywhere
The Kingdom is within you, he said; it’s neither here nor there
Live his peace and be so free – life without a care
He was born to teach these things to those of us who dare
To those of us who dare
To those of us who dare

But those who hear and won’t let go, well, it is just their fate
To continue living in limited worlds – life that’s second rate
But those who are ready and turn to God will find upon their plates
All that they must overcome to pass through the holy gate

But there is nothing we can’t do when God is on our side
It doesn’t matter who’s against us; how many times they’ve lied
If we remember what he taught – why he lived and died
We will go back home again; it won’t be denied
It won’t be denied
It won’t be denied

So, Darling, did I answer the question so important to you
And did I say it well enough that you know what to do
Every time I tell you what you now must know is true
The God that lives in me, Darling, is the God that lives in you

When Jesus said, “When you’ve done it unto one of these, you’ve done it unto me”
He was speaking from oneness with the Father and eternity
Live your life for the Father alone, learn the truth and become free
And find out who you really are as you finally learn to see
As you finally learn to see
As you finally learn to see
Darling, you will learn to be
Eternity
Eternity
Eternity

Tom Middleton
09/22/08

Mary Elizabeth

December 22nd, 2011
7:51 am

Tom, your poem/song is beautiful and profound. You are so correct; our perceptions are almost identical about what is. Thank you so much for sharing it with me. I am sure that I will read your wonderful poem many times in the future, for inspiration. You should try to have it published so that many others can be inspired by it.

“And find out who you really are as you finally learn to see”

“Sin is doing what is wrong, it’s working for the part
Instead of working for the whole with what comes from the heart”

“And find out through experience who you have always been”

“And when we love, we find the key we threw away at the start”

“Each thing depends on the others to be what it needs to be
So it’s knowing what it all is together that finally sets you free”

“The universe we’re in right now is nothing but a dream
Waiting for us to understand and learn how to sprout wings”

Tom Middleton

December 22nd, 2011
2:36 pm

Thanks, Mary Elizabeth: You are too kind. All I was trying to do was show that the only way to experience our true infinite nature is through separation, even though illusion, hence the reason for the universe.

It’s like they say in other traditions: Before enlightenment, one is pure through innocence; but after enlightenment, one is pure through experience.

Put this in the wrong hands, of course, and there can be a problem, for experience for experience sake is not what I’m talking about, but experience (direct perception) in the pursuit of the one God.

For no matter what it is we encounter, or how terrible, good, or bad it might seem at the moment, we must react with the love of God and one another for God alone if we’re to transcend our limited selves.

Staying here-and-now centered for what’s essentially here-and-now without end, of course, might seem impossible in the beginning, but what we’re working for is a never-ending state of consciousness as natural as anything we’ve ever done.

I know you know all this, Mary Elizabeth, but please let me say it anyway should others be listening, that the last thing one realizes before entering the eternal consciousness that is our true nature is that one never really left!

And like I said, it’s all illusion, and the joy of waking up from it is worth every single thing we went through to get “there” and more – infinitely more. Peace and love to you always, Mary Elizabeth, and namaste!

Mary Elizabeth

December 22nd, 2011
10:37 pm

Tom, here is one additional post I had written on my blog named, “Enter Metaphysics,” which touches upon some of what you have just posted. I think you will enjoy reading this one,also. (Sorry for the delay in responding; my computer had been down awhile.)

http://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/enter-metaphysics/

And peace and love to you, too, Tom.

Tom Middleton

December 23rd, 2011
1:17 am

Thanks, Mary Elizabeth for the interesting reading. I’ve lost both of my parents and my very close aunt since 2003, and since I was their caregiver, one at a time, I know a little of what you speak.

So do you actually sing somewhere on your “maryelizabethsings” site? I just finished recording a Christmas song I wrote about a month ago but have nowhere to post it.

Maybe next year but maybe not, since I tend to be very controversial without even trying hard. This year’s, called “The Gift,” is about how the Kingdom of God IS God (and so are we). Anyone expecting a ring-ding-a-ding seasonal song from me is always going to be disappointed. :)

But hey, this is what I do in retirement – all the things I wanted to do while I was working but was always too darn tired. At least I have something. A lot of men don’t. Later, lady….