here. wolves. what are wolves? in actuality, what are wolves? okay.. so we can justifiably assume that humans are not 'wolves'. So what is a person who has no need to be accepted but whom requires that wherever he/she sets foot within/on requires that he/she receive 'respect'? In other words, he/she could leave but will not especially if even resisted upon with the sticks and billy clubs of the neighbors who do not want that person there? What would such a person be called? a wolf? no.. even wolves run from danger. 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" adversary : 476. antidikos Strong's Concordance antidikos: an opponent, adversary Original Word: ἀντίδικος, ου, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: antidikos Phonetic Spelling: (an-tid'-ee-kos) Definition: an opponent, adversary Usage: an opponent (at law), an adversary. 476 antídikos (from 473 /antí, "against, off-set" and 1349 /díkē, "justice, a judge") – properly, a prosecuting attorney arguing a case-at-law; an "opponent at law" (TDNT). 476 /antídikos ("an accuser, adversary") brings formal charges, i.e. as they are binding to exact penalty. Satan acts as such an adversary, bringing the "(law)suit" of darkness against believers for their eternal damnation (cf. 1 Pet 5:8 ). Offsetting this is the perfect sacrifice of Christ (Jn 19:30)! (exact: as in legalistic)? [476 (antídikos) is "an adversary in a lawsuit," from anti/"against," and dīkē/"a lawsuit," WS, 319. 476 (antidikos) is a technical legal term used in antiquity of an adversary in a courtroom, i.e. someone seeking official (formal, binding) damages. seeking official formal binding repayments for damages? So I apologize to many . The red, white and blue needs to be preserved; not trampled upon by seekers towards official, repayments towards formal, binding, damages. Red, White and Blue.. are also on 'many' Flags. If someone doesn't want to be a U.S citizen, why force them, right? If someone doesn't want to be a resident in China Town or Korea Town in any U.S city, why force them, right? I mean, China Town can relocate, Korea Town can relocate if they feel infringed upon or if they are not 'wanted', right? No one should need to 'force' them to relocate for their or the others' well being... they are not that unable to need that type of 'forced assistance'.... Unless a person is bound to a wheel chair or similar, the legs which are abled to 'walk' can walk... at least for a little.. circumstances need to be understood also.
Why do I say this? Because... while living in The United States, of America, it should be the right of every citizen to have knowledge that America does not ONLY The U.S make. There is also Central and South America to keep in mind when a person claims to be an American. So rather than being proud to be an American, first have responsibility towards the U.S as a citizen. But no one forces another U.S citizen to show themselves friendly or agreeable to another U.S citizen. no one forces them to do so. It is all self chosen. To keep another in a miserable place to themselves is like false imprisonment. Even though 'intentions' might be 'good'. Although rare, it is possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have their citizenship stripped through a process called "denaturalization." Former citizens who are denaturalized are subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Natural-born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will, since birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, but they may choose to renounce their citizenship on their own. This article covers the grounds for having one's U.S. citizenship revoked, the basics of the denaturalization process, and defenses to denaturalization. https://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html Five Steps to Renouncing US Citizenship Contrary to popular belief, renouncing US citizenship is not a highly complex tasks that is fraught with obstacles and barriers. It is, in fact, achievable in just five simple steps. STEP 1: Get a Second Passport In order to renounce your US passport you will need a second passport and you are required to bring this with you to your renunciation appointment. Even though expatriation is your right, the State Department will deny anyone the right to renounce their US citizenship if they don't have a second passport. Ensure that the passport you acquire is directly issued by the government in question and never be tempted to purchase one off the Internet. STEP 2: Review the Renunciation Forms and Prepare DS-4079 The documents listed below are the ones required by the State Department to process your renunciation. You only need to fill out DS-4079 before your appointment. DS-4080, 4081, 4082 and 4083 are forms that you should review beforehand but complete at the appointment, since they just have a few check boxes, dates and signatures. DS-4079: Questionnaire – Information for Determining Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship, US State DS-4080: Oath of Renunciation of the Nationality of the United States, US State Dept. DS-4081: Statement of Understanding Concerning the Consequences and Ramifications of Relinquishment or Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship, US State Dept. DS-4082: Witnesses’ Attestation Renunciation/Relinquishment of Citizenship, US State Dept. DS-4083: Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States, US State Dept. STEP 3: Book Your Renunciation Appointment Ideally you would book your appointment at the embassy or consulate in the country (and possibly city) where you plan to live once you renounce your passport. However, other embassies and consulates will take you, so it pays to “appointment shop” as the wait times can fluctuate greatly among locations. When you book the appointment, make sure to indicate how many people are renouncing US citizenship, if it’s more than one. If you don’t want to book the appointment yourself, you can have your expat lawyer do it for you. However, having a lawyer book the appointment for you can delay the process in some places, as they may require written proof that your lawyer represents you. They ask for this proof via Form G-28. STEP 4: Attend Your Renunciation Appointment Make sure you take both of your passports to your renuncation appointment. Bring your birth certificate and if you have a certificate of naturalization from the country of your second passport, bring that too. There may be a long line just to get inside the embassy or consulate. If there is, politely let them know you have an appointment booked. Be prepared to complete many copies of each form at the appointment and keep them organized in stacks. Proofread everything you and the official put on the papers. Make sure the signatures are in the right place. At the end of renunciation appointment you will be provided with DS-4083, called the CLN for Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Keep this in a safe place and do not lose it, as it is the one piece of physical proof that you've completed the process for renouncing US citizenship. It's signed and affixed with an official seal at the appointment. Technically the CLN will need to be approved by the State Department but this can take several months and in the meantime you will need evidence of the day you formally signed renunciation. STEP 5: File Your Final U.S. Tax Return Your final tax return will be from January 1st through the day you expatriate. However, the fair market valuation for all your assets is as of the day before. That’s because on the day you renounce, you are no longer a taxable person to the IRS. If your renunciation date is any day other than December 31st, you’ll be filing Form 1040 and 1040NR (if applicable) for your final return: IRS Form 8854, the Expatriation Information Statement, is the exit tax form, and it's filed along with your final return. It’s not especially difficult, but you want to make sure you do it right. Here are the instructions and the form itself: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8854/ http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8854.pdf IRS forms are periodically updated, so make sure you have the most recent one. The 8854 is targeted at “covered expatriates.” A covered expatriate is someone who meets the wealth criteria established by the IRS. It’s based on having a net worth of $2 million or more, or a threshold annual tax liability from the preceding five years. To read the full definition and see if it applies to you, go here. If you're a “covered expatriate,” complete 8854 with the assistance of an accountant, preferably one who has done them before. If you have any questions that might be sensitive, consult a tax attorney first. You have attorney-client privilege with your lawyer – not your accountant. If you have foreign accounts already extant before you expatriate, you'll also need to file a U.S. Treasury form called the “FBAR” (FinCEN Form 114). You may have done this before since the form applies to all U.S. citizens and is not related to expatriation. https://www.expatinfodesk.com/expat.../five-steps-to-renunciating-your-us-passport/ An expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person residing in a country other than their native country.[1] In common usage, the term often refers to professionals, skilled workers, or artists taking positions outside their home country, either independently or sent abroad by their employers, which can be companies, universities, governments, or non-governmental organisations.[2] However, the term 'expatriate' is also used for retirees and others who have chosen to live outside their native country. Historically, it has also referred to exiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate
5 Common Misconceptions About Giving Up US Citizenship 3) Renunciation means that you will never be permitted to visit the US again When you give up US citizenship you do forego the right to enter the country. However, providing you have a passport from a country that allows you visa-free entry to the U.S., then you can enter the country just like any other visitor; you simply apply for a tourist or business visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate. It's called a B1/B2 visa, and it typically lasts for ten years. https://www.expatinfodesk.com/expat...ceptions-about-renunciation-of-a-us-passport/
Renunciation of US citizenship If you have naturalized in a foreign country and do not wish to maintain dual citizenship with the US or the law in your country does not permit dual citizenship, you will need to follow the legal process of renunciation to evidence you are voluntarily giving up your US citizenship with full intent. If you are considering renunciation, take professional advice to ensure you understand the full legal ramifications, as this process is irreversible. Countries where Dual Citizenship is not permitted: Note that status is subject to change and you are advised to take advice on your circumstances for the most up to date position: Andorra Austria Azerbaijan Burma Bahrain Botswana Japan China Fiji India Indonesia Ecuador Estonia Iran Papua New Guinea Brunei Japan Peru Kuwait Kazakhstan Chile Kiribati Korea Kuwait Latvia Singapore Slovakia Ecuador Lithuania Solomon Islands Fiji Malaysia Mauritius Netherlands United Arab Emirates (UAE) Romania Nepal Venezuela Norway Zimbabwe Mauritius Myanmar Nepal https://nnuimmigration.com/dual-citizenship-usa/
The following countries permit dual citizenship, subject to national laws and rules and restrictions on eligibility. Note that status is subject to change and you are advised to take advice on your circumstances for the most up to date position: Australia Barbados Belgium Bangladesh Canada Czech Republic Cyprus Denmark United States United Kingdom Switzerland South Korea South Africa Egypt Greece France Finland Germany Iraq Italy Israel Ireland Poland Hungary Iceland Kenya Mexico Sweden Slovenia Syria Serbia Armenia Thailand Lebanon Malta Spain Tonga Philippines Sierra Leone Sri Lanka Pakistan Portugal Turkey 9 Steps to Get You Ready to Move Abroad Whether you're moving to London to study abroad for a year or working in Bali indefinitely, the process is entirely manageable. https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/how-to-prepare-to-move-abroad So, yes.. The U.S.A offers rights for persons having dual citizenship. So although a U.S citizen, maybe their other 'citizened' Country has better qualities they would like to implement into the U.S Government or life? These persons living in the U.S as dual citizens would be known as expatriates, or expats, for short. I mean, these Countries obviously do not take their 'religion' seriously enough to not allow for many 'religions' to 'enter in' and remain a dual citizen it seems like.
These would seem to have more care to their religion. I think i accidently copied and pasted wrong. sorry. Overly 'picky picky picky'.. dang.. take a chill pill... this isn't that important... geesh.. .right?
And I'm not sure how educators can discuss this matter but the relation between religion and sustainability has some form of correlation with each other, right?
I mean as a child to an immigrant but born as a citizen of the U.S, what the heck were all those compulsory school laws about? And why the heck would any immigrant have hope that the U.S.A is that Golden Opportunity Land where that Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness is still offered with/under that in God we Trust and One Nation under God when that hope is not even applicable? Maybe the required learning materials changed for naturalization. I did know that the Pledge of Allegiance was at one time needed to be learned and recited for naturalization citizenship. I'm just as 'lost', it seems, as any other hopeful. parents relocating here from their country to try to 'make ends' meet? I mean, isn't those countries doing 'better off' now than then? All this going to be 'left' for the children to live with and under? I mean, what could it be? These 'leaders' that are turning the established upside down do so because they don't like The Holy Bible or something?
If you don't particularly have preference to a certain 'thing', then there are other places which offer 'different' things. So the case: On June 25, 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that based on the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment that the government can’t sponsor a prayer and require schoolchildren to say it. was about what? prayer needing to be said in school or a change to the prayers which were daily said in schools? The case was about the changing of prayers that were already being prayed, daily, in schools. So who was complaining if noone was complaining? not even the students and/or their parents? In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, it was common practice for public schools to open with an oral prayer or Bible reading. The 19th century debates over public funding for religious schools, and reading the King James Protestant Bible in the public schools was most heated in 1863 and 1876.[4] Partisan activists on the public-school issue believed that exposing the Catholic school children to the King James Bible would loosen their affiliation to the Catholic Church. In response the Catholics repeatedly objected to the distinct Protestant observations performed in the local schools. For instance, in the Edgerton Bible Case (Weiss v. District Board (1890)), the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Catholics who objected to the use of the Protestant Bible in public schools. This ruling was based on the state constitution and only applied in Wisconsin. Eventually the Catholics took a large voice and even control in the politics of the major cities. Irish Catholic women – who married late or not at all – began to specialize as teachers in the public schools.[5] The Catholics and some high church groups including German Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews, set up their own school systems, called parochial schools. Southern Baptists and fundamentalists In the late 20th century began aggressively setting up their own schools, where religion was practiced but no government aid was used. Likewise homeschooling in the late 20th century represented a reaction against compulsory school.[6] In 1949 Bible reading was a part of routine in the public schools of at least thirty-seven states. In twelve of these states, Bible reading was legally required by state laws; 11 states passed these laws after 1913. In 1960, 42 per cent of school districts nationwide tolerated or required Bible reading, and 50 per cent reported some form of homeroom daily devotional exercise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer_in_the_United_States The media and popular culture often erroneously credit atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair with removing school prayer from US public schools, when the case against recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Baltimore schools was decided by the Supreme Court in 1962. A more significant case had reached the Supreme Court one year prior, suddenly changing the legal climate for school prayer. In 1955, the New York Board of Regents developed a prayer recommended (but not required) for the school districts under its purview. The prayer was relatively short: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."[1][8] The board stated that the prayer would "combat juvenile delinquency and counter the spread of Communism."[8] Seven years later, Steven I. Engel, a Jew, was upset to see his son’s hands clasped and his head bent in prayer. He told his son that this was “not the way we say prayers.” Engel, a founding member of the New York Civil Liberties Union, brought action along with Daniel Lichtenstein, Monroe Lerner, Lenore Lyons, and Lawrence Roth, all parents of children in the Long Island, New York public school system, against Union Free School District No. 9 for its adoption and subsequent prescription of the so-called "Regent's prayer", arguing that it constituted the state-sponsored establishment of religion in violation of citizens’ First Amendment rights via the Fourteenth Amendment.[9] Use of the Regent's prayer was initially upheld in both New York State Court and in the New York Court of Appeals, prompting Engels to petition the US Supreme Court in the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962. With its 8–1 vote to make public recitation of the Regents' Prayer in public schools unlawful, the U.S. Supreme Court made its first-ever decision on prayer in public schools. It made its second in 1963—the Abington School District v. Schempp ruling, which made the corporate reading of the Bible and recitation of the Lord's Prayer unlawful in public schools. - “It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America,” wrote Justice Hugo Black in the majority opinion. “By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services. “ https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/prayer-in-school-case/2014/11/02/id/603389/ in other words; "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." why were they made to 'beg'?
the rise of sado-masochism. As a concept that links sexual arousal to violence, the origins of sadomasochism as a term in modern Western culture are rooted in discussions of sadism and masochism that date back to late-nineteenth-century and early-twentieth-century medical discourse in its exploration of "perversion" as a deviation from normal sexual instinct. Sadomasochism | Encyclopedia.com In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, it was common practice for public schools to open with an oral prayer or Bible reading. The 19th century debates over public funding for religious schools, and reading the King James Protestant Bible in the public schools was most heated in 1863 and 1876 oral prayer = recited/spoken prayer. just as the pledge of allegiance was recited/spoken. Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do many government meetings at local levels, and meetings held by many private organizations. All states except California, Hawaii, Iowa, Vermont, and Wyoming require a regularly scheduled recitation of the pledge in public schools. California requires a "patriotic exercise" every day, which would be satisfied by the Pledge, but it is not universally enforced.[9] The Supreme Court has ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, nor can they be punished for not doing so.[10] In a number of states, state flag pledges of allegiance are required to be recited after this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
I have a question ... This question is geared towards every pastor and/or preacher/evangel/minister/reverend, etc..... Would all those that speak as knowledgeable ones on matters of The Holy Bible, while in Church with the congregation, have been baptized into The Lord with/by the water and the spirit? The question is simpler than asking what they truly 'believe' in. Ordained 'gay' ministers might be the first to answer, 'Yes, I have'.. I'd rather listen to a baptized into The Lord ordained 'gay' minister pertaining to The Holy Bible than to a non baptized into The Lord minister even if he/she was the most saintly in town.
And this is where knowledge towards 'sexualities' can be discussed. Sex, a natural part of human life.. Same sexed, opposite sexed, fetishes, non fetishes, ... still sex... intercourse, human bonding. With knowledge and without prejudices towards the no-knowledge, such as 'you fear what you do not understand', sex can be viewed in healtheir ways and might even increase responsibility among its practioners. With knowledge both can enter that 'agreement' of sexual intercourse with full knowledge of what they are exactly going to put their 'bodies', internally as well as externally, through and from there can make more knowledgeable decisions rather than 'blinded heat'. In fact, 'blinded heat' could be the result of having 'no knowledge' towards the 'drive' you might be experiencing; and it may not even have anything to do with reproductive organs being 'excited'. The body's internal 'natural' system of defense is an example. When the internal body finds itself on the 'losing' side of some internal 'invasion', that frenzy, such as towards and invasive bacterial invasion, could make the person 'think/believe' that the sexual arousals are being retriggered as a natural response. That internal 'fight' to have all invasions, mostly negative invasions and not 'maintained' invasions; such as water that could make another ill but not to those that have developed an immune towards it, maintained is that 'frenzy' that could make the person 'believe/think' that the arousal is natural. And this is why with certain 'drugs', over time and the body's natural way of preserving itself by 'adapting' to the daily 'normal invasions/ingestions, etc', the internal defense system of that person is no longer 'frenzied' with what it has become accustomed to. And/But increasing the dosage would be something 'new' to the internal system.. And there is also that 'natural' way the body responds to arousal. Love, intimacy, caring, feeling cared for and loved, etc.. can arouse the same 'arousals'. But this is just 'sex'. The love, intimacy, caring, feeling cared for and loved, etc usually don't happen over night with 1 night encounters although it can, but like stated, usually for only 1 night.. Casanovas, I guess. Being 'chosen' by the other person to have sexual intercourse with, in itself, could be as a love, intimacy, caring, feeling cared for and loved reaction.
Otherwise, it's sexual intercourse with no pleasure.. not even an ounce of the body's arousal that it is 'adapted' to and this in itself can turn into that 'frenzy'. unless it is 'rape', very non consensual, it's about agreed upon human bonding. But you'd think that after so much 'human bonding' with so many 'humans' that the one(s) would be alot more friendly towards 'everyone', right? This is 'sex'.. what about different types of hamburgers? Where you can bond with yourself. You never know... You might find out that your body doesn't accept ground beef all that well.. Do they call it ground beef because of the 'grinding' process or because it was on the 'ground'? The past tense of grind is... ground? Or is it grinded? Or maybe 'grounded'? Or is the word 'ground' past tense for 'grinded'? ground (ground) n. 1. a. The solid surface of the earth. b. The floor of a body of water, especially the sea. 2. Soil; earth: level the ground for a lawn. 3. often grounds An area of land designated for a particular purpose: a burial ground; parade grounds. 4. often grounds The land surrounding or forming part of a house or another building: a guesthouse on the grounds of the mansion. 5. An area or a position that is contested in or as if in battle: The soldiers held their ground against the enemy. Character witnesses helped the defendant stand her ground in the trial. 6. Something that serves as a foundation or means of attachment for something else: a ground of white paint under the mural. 7. A surrounding area; a background. 8. often grounds The foundation for an argument, belief, or action; a basis. 9. often grounds The underlying condition prompting an action; a cause: grounds for suspicion; a ground for divorce. See Synonyms at base1. 10. An area of reference or discussion; a subject: The professor covered new ground in every lecture. 11. grounds a. The sediment at or from the bottom of a liquid: coffee grounds. b. Particles of ground coffee beans for use in making coffee for drinking. 12. Electricity a. A large conducting body, such as the earth or an electric circuit connected to the earth, used as an arbitrary zero of potential. b. A conducting object, such as a wire, that is connected to such a position of zero potential. 13. A mesh background upon which patterns are worked in lace-making. v. ground·ed, ground·ing, grounds v.tr. 1. To place on or cause to touch the ground. 2. To provide a basis for (a theory, for example); justify. 3. To supply with basic information; instruct in fundamentals. 4. a. To prevent (an aircraft or a pilot) from flying. b. Informal To restrict (someone) especially to a certain place as a punishment. 5. Electricity To connect (an electric circuit) to a ground. 6. Nautical To run (a vessel) aground. 7. a. Baseball To hit (a ball) onto the ground. b. Football To throw (a ball) to the ground in order to stop play and avoid being tackled behind the line of scrimmage.
grind [ grahynd ] verb (used with object), ground or (Rare) grind·ed; grind·ing. to wear, smooth, or sharpen by abrasion or friction; whet:to grind a lens. to reduce to fine particles, as by pounding or crushing; bray, triturate, or pulverize. verb (used without object), ground or (Rare) grind·ed; grind·ing. to perform the operation of reducing to fine particles. to rub harshly; grate. noun the act of grinding. a grinding sound. okay.. so what are the past tenses for both ground and grind? What does ground mean? Ground is the past tense conjugation of the verb grind. To grind is to crush something into smaller particles through continuous physical force. Coffee beans are ground into fine particles before having hot water poured over them to brew coffee. Peppercorns are also ground before being added to food to intensify its flavor. Here are a few more examples, The victim was unidentifiable because the killer had ground his bones into a fine powder and scattered them alongside the interstate. The recipe calls for half a tablespoon of ground mustard seed, but I don’t like mustard, so I used turmeric instead. Coffee grounds or coffee grinds? As a coffee drinker, your coffee beans are ground into coffee grounds, not coffee grinds. https://writingexplained.org/grinded-or-ground ground (adj.) "reduced to fine particles by grinding," 1765, past-participle adjective from grind (v.). the verb and noun date to mid 13c. to 1200 and the electrical usage dates to 1870 with its use with telegraphy. https://www.etymonline.com/word/ground#etymonline_v_41287
milled beef? The meaning "mechanical device for grinding grain for food" is from 1550s. The broader sense of "machine for grinding or pulverizing any solid substance" is attested from 1670s. Other types of manufacturing machines driven by wind or water, that transform raw material by a process other than grinding began to be called mills by early 15c. Sense of "large building fitted with industrial machinery for manufacturing" is from c. 1500. In old slang also "a typewriter" (1913); "a boxing match or other pugilistic bout" (1819). https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=mill
