The Progressive Iroquois

The Iroquois Great Law of Peace liberated Native American women centuries ahead of Christianity

Here in America, from the north and even unto the east, men now control women’s rights through a series of punitive common laws and entanglements. But that hasn’t always been the case.

“The Iroquois”, according to former U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs’ John Collier,
“wrought out a social institution, a system of greatness of human relationships, a system for evoking maximum genius and for socializing it, and a role of women in society which well may stand today as the most brilliant creation in the record of man. Then from a world unknown, a ravenous race swept in a dark age for the native life which was hurled into the pit by cannon, by rum, by money, by unconscionable intrigue.”

“If the tenets of equality that so pervaded the Iroquois Great Law had been adopted by the American legal system or overlaid onto the existing common law framework, the status of women in colonial America would have been radically altered”.

Beaver tail Wampum Belt

Under the English common law system embraced by the colonies, women were not considered “persons” or “citizens.” ‘Correspondingly, women were disenfranchised and thereby precluded from directly changing their conditions. I wonder what the root of that is…

It has been noted that the subjugation of women in early common law was not entirely dissimilar from the way slaves were treated. Unlike the co-equal status of women in the Iroquois society, women under Anglo-American common law were, as noted by feminist legal authority Sylvia Law, relegated merely to roles of production, reproduction, maintenance, consumption, and acculturation in the home. Home and family – the core social unit upon which [Anglo-American] constitutional, political, economic [and common law] arrangements are built—are constructed on the premise that women are not active citizens or people free to pursue the full range of common occupations and callings.

At common law (as developed from Blackstone’s Commentaries) a woman merged her legal identity into that of her husband when she married. She could not sue, be sued, enter into contracts, make wills, keep her own earnings, or control her own property. Married women were civilly dead. This concept of coverture (legal status of a married woman), or femme covert, meant that upon marriage, a woman became quite literally “veiled”; clouded, covered by her husband.

Correspondingly at common law, a man could chastise his wife, restrain her freedom, beat, and rape her. The husband gained control and management of his wife’s real property and complete ownership of her personal property, including a woman’s clothes. AMERICAN INDIAN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 16]The Iroquois Great Law of Peace and the United States Constitution: How the Founding Fathers Ignored the Clan Mothers

The Great Law not only elevated and embraced the status of women, but also secured the natural rights of the people as a whole. Among the admirable aspects of the Iroquois system was the Council’s system of checks and balances, which resulted in unanimous decision making. Disputes were remanded for solutions. An issue would be debated by the Mohawks and Senecas, then referred to the Oneidas and Cayugas, establishing a process of’checks, although the legislative council was unicameral.

It also insured women’s rights as sole controllers of the reproductive lines. But we settled for Christianity, in spite of its massive shortcomings—and kept women as baby makers under the control of men embracing a second rate religion. So much for the debunking the noble savage, Tildeb. All this was done by oral tradition and a shell record in a wampum belt, coupled with superior intellect, of course.

“The Iroquois Confederacy, founded by the Great Peacemaker in 1142 is the oldest living participatory democracy on earth” ARTICLE


Mississippi Abortion

Is 15 weeks a reasonable limit? Is anyone in favor of this?

The Supreme Court should return the issue of abortion to the states, which would mean overruling Roe. The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice,” he said, adding that the Court should “return to a position of neutrality.”—Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Overturning Roe would not be a neutral act. The Constitution protects liberty, but if women cannot make decisions about their own pregnancies, then they will never have equal status under the Constitution.

At least if the court takes a stance of neutrality, many states would still be available for safe and legal abortion. Either way this is pretty exciting drama.

Why All Lives Really Don’t Matter Right Now

All lives matter is a distracting end-around justice

There is a fundamental why the ongoing situation is so offending to African Americans concerning “All Lives Matter”, as a response to “Black Lives Matter”.

When someone says that Black Lives Matter, they are meaning it with an expectation that those responsible for the problem accept ownership of the problem.

This is one of the many irritations that offend African Americans (and me too) when people respond with all lives matter—it is blatant virtue signaling and another distraction to sidetrack a cause that should have resolved years ago—and like telling them to clean up after someone else’s mess in an area they have not had access.

Of course all lives matter—but not as much as this does right now. Maybe today the iron is hot enough to make a lasting difference?

Like pro-life is to women’s rights, the counter-movement all lives matter, is an endaround to maintain control and saddle black people with fixing a problem they didn’t create.

And don’t forget, blue lives matter—now, signing up for a dangerous job to stroke your ego is the same as facing down the barrel of those sworn to serve and protect—now serving and protecting themselves by abusing the oppressed? All lives matter is fundamentally racist to the core of white denial.

Justice uneasily reasoned—2020 By LP

Abortion Laws—No Help Yet for the Forcibly Born.

More religious overreaching to remove freewill

My Daughter came home from high school today ready to fight! Anti-Abortion laws are religious laws and have no place in state constitutions. However, 20 states are attempting to pass ridiculous “heartbeat laws.” Georgia and Ohio’s just passed theirs. Ohio’s new law prohibits rape and incest victims from having an abortion. In Georgia, having a miscarriage could result in an investigation. Is this really true? Or reasonable?

Ohio governor Mike DeWine signed the state’s Human Rights Protection Act, which bans abortions as soon as doctors can detect a heartbeat—about six weeks. A law that protects 1/2 of the parties involved, one of which is not yet alive.

The fact that many women do not yet know they’re pregnant is irrelevant to the good governor. Actually, that’s part of the plan—ignorance is embedded in the design of the legislation.

Also from the religious right of contradictions; isn’t it odd how financial and pro-life conservatives generally don’t support government assistance to mothers that can’t afford children, yet do everything in their power to make sure they have the baby anyway. Born baby born! What happens after that is if no concern.

Abortion is Biblically Moral

How abortion is ordained by god.

God ordains the governments of nations (especially here in the USA) God instructs us to follow the laws of the land and to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Romans 13:1 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.

So when the government passes a law it is ordained of god and we have no fundamental right to fight that law on religious grounds—It is our duty to comply. We clearly have the government god selected. They have clearly and repeatedly said Trump is gods guy. That made Obama gods guy. Nixon and the Supreme Court of his time ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that a woman’s right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.—which came from Gods anointed and appointed. He is in control.

Legal abortion is a god-ordained law of the land—Jesus Christ!

Abortion or Miscarriage—Is there a Difference?

If a woman has a miscarriage, it is widely considered a normal/natural rejection due to implication from the mother or fetus. In some circles “gods timing” or his wisdom is an unreasonable reason for the inefficiency of human fertility. Of the nine most common causes of miscarriage, eight are a direct result of uterine imbalance or other health issues of the mother or father. One, genetic or chromosomal abnormalities is due to the fetus itself.

When a woman chooses to have an abortion, her mind, inseparable from her body is rejecting a fetus in the interest of mental and physical health. Abortion rates for health reasons could easily hit 25% of all pregnancy to fall in line with other spontaneous abortion. How can you separate the psychological needs from the physical?

If one doesn’t want the fetus, it is only an extension of her physical rejection and cannot be differentiated. Here are the most common reactions to pregnancy;

•Feeling scared and anxious


•A sense of “why wasn’t I more careful”, “How did that happen”, “I thought I’d be ok”.

•Feelings of being alone and isolated.

•Feelings of confusion and guilt.

•A sense of panic, lack of control and feelings of crisis.

•Disappointment and sadness.

•Surprise, happiness, shock and delight. An unplanned pregnancy can also be joyful.



Mental health affects physical well being and physical well being affects the mental. Who should be the judge of what one can tolerate in the name of social acceptance?

When considering the confluence of mind and body and what is best and wholly natural for the individual woman concerning abortion, terminating pregnancy by choice is as natural as miscarriage, with personal reactions to miscarriage, abortion, and pregnancy being nearly identical.

Pro Choice and Bodily Autonomy

This is one of the best pro choice/women’s rights arguments I’ve heard.

“In our society, we grant bodily autonomy to all members of society. What this means is that you have no rights to my body and vice versa. We extend these rights to corpses. If I am not a registered organ donor, doctors cannot harvest organs from my body even if they would save the lives of multiple patients. Because my express permission was not given during my life, no one has the right to my organs after my death.

We can take this further. If my daughter is stricken with a disease and the only way for her to survive is for me to give her a kidney, I cannot be forced to do so. It may well be morally superior for me to do so and for my kids I would be willing to do so, but this is not a legal requirement. If my child needed to be connected to me via machine for six months to stay alive, I would again be under no legal obligation to undergo that procedure. While I may feel a moral (or other) obligation to undergo this procedure, I am in no legal way required to do so.

What this means is that a woman who is pregnant must consent to allow the fetus to use her body, and consent can be withdrawn at any time. If you deny this and thus force women to remain pregnant, you are literally—not figuratively, giving more bodily autonomy rights to a corpse than you are to a living woman”