Archive for the ‘Balance’ Category

Truth and Reason and appetite (an Intro.)

February 25, 2019

Short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-FO

Truth and Reason and appetite (an Intro.)

By Dahni
© 2019, all rights reserved

Latin—

Order— “A Reasonable Introduction”

Our species was originally created as Tripartite beings (sharing 3 parts). Each was to have a body, formed of the same elements found in common dirt or soil. The soul was “made” of “breath life”. Whereas the brain is part of the physical “body”, the mind is part of the soul. Whereas the brain is the organ of physical perception (via the five senses), the mind (reason), is the organ of mental perception. The spirit was created.

To restate, the body was formed from “the dust of the ground”. The soul was made. The spirit was created. Body, soul and spirit are, the original intended parts of our species as, tripartite beings.

Each of these three separate parts are unique in their scope and activity. It is common sense to understand that to maintain order (whenever there are two or more parts), something or someone, must be in charge. When spirit rules the soul (the mind), and the soul (the mind), rules the body, this tripartite being has the most optimum opportunity to become its whole and best self. Any other way will always end in the consequences of error, disarray and disorder.

The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle alluded to this hierarchy of life. Truth and reason were valued above the appetite.

It is NOT my intention to either diminish or elevate the body, soul and spirit (truth, reason and appetite), beyond or below their purpose, but only to show their individual and willful obedience by choice (free will), the proper arrangement to the order and unity of this tripartite being’s wholeness. In contrast, I will endeavor to show, the consequences of disrupting order, unity, balance and wholeness.

For simplicity’s sake, each of our three parts requires “food” to live and thrive. The body (“appetite”), requires physical food (and water). Emotions, passions and desires are its drivers. So the soul (the mind), requires the thinking of thoughts (reason). It processes the physical stimuli from the five senses. The spirit needs, truth.

Even Jesus Christ, after a forty day fast and his temptations of the devil implied these things, when he answered the devil. The very first question he was asked was about his obvious hunger (appetite), in his body, having not eaten, for those forty days.

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Matthew 4:1-4 King James Version (KJV)

First off, it was not the body (appetite), or soul (reason), which led him to the wilderness, but spirit. There is no indication that he had physical hunger until, it was written in verse two. Without getting into many health benefits of fasting, for many of our species, our normal fasting only lasts, for about an eight-hour period following sleep, when it is then broken by hunger pains at breakfast (breaking fast). But Jesus, was obviously hungry after forty days. How interested would you or I be about truth and reason when appetite is raging? But, when answering the tempter (the devil), he did not deny the need of the body, for physical food. He did not deny the mind’s (reason), recognition that the body needed food. In contrast, he placed appetite and reason into their proper places, for the unity, balance and order of all three, by truth!

By truth must be understood as the truth or simply truth, not your’s or mine personal truths as is popular today, but truth. Our differences may be varied as we may not all have the same appetite or reason, but truth is (or should be), the same for all. And if truth is subjected to appetite or reason, imbalance and disorder will always be, the consequence. All things should be decent and in order!

An analogy for our tripartite beings could be illustrated by a computer. Spirit (truth), could be the operating system. Programs and applications, the soul (reason). Body (appetite), would be physical hardware and the gates or switches, normally opened or closed. The one thing which connects these three (makes them all work together), is electricity (life). If our computer is not plugged in, turned on or has crashed and burned (no life), it is dead or just will not work. If the operating system (spirit-truth), is corrupted or non-existent, it will not work or at least not properly. If the programs and applications are corrupted, neither will the operating system (spirit-truth), or the hardware (body-appetite), work properly, if at all. If the hardware (body-appetite), is corrupted, the entire computer (body-appetite-hardware, soul-reason-programs and applications, and the spirit-truth-operating system will not work properly, if at all.

All three parts of this tripartite being are independent, but all three are designed and purposed to work together interdependent, NOT solely independently or as dependents. Body, soul and spirit  in order was, formed, made and created. Thus a unique tripartite being was in harmony with, in balance with and unified with, appetite, reason and truth!

Although there are many differences in the scope and activity of the body, the soul and the spirit, this is by no means an exhaustive, thoroughly researched or a complete list here. But for illustrative purposes I would like to share a few examples to hopefully make these clear.

Imagine you were stranded in the dessert, hungry and thirsty with no food or water. You are obviously hungry and thirsty and your body (appetite) responds to this stimuli. The soul (reason), reacts and seeks these needs. Do you turn left or right, go forward, back, up or down to find these? It is your choice and you could be right or you could be incorrect. Now let us suppose you see what appears to be an oasis and you head towards it, hoping for needed food and drink, only to discover that the oasis was a mere mirage. The oasis does not exist, the soul-mind-reason only thinks or believes it to be true, and the body’s need (appetite), is driving.

Have you ever observed railroad tracks from a distance where they appear to converge (come together)? As you walk down, you discover that this sensual information in the body (appetite), is not always reliable. The soul-the mind (reason), solves the apparent contradiction or at least alludes to  appetite, requiring more information.

Now memory could assume that every time you see tracks appear to come together in the distance, (reason), would reject what your eyes (appetite) demand. But what if at sometime in your future, those tracks were actually built to have come together (truth)? Do you now see all our parts (body, soul and spirit) are important, but must be ordered properly to make the whole tripartite being (appetite, reason and truth), a unified whole. And if in disorder, they will NOT serve us properly!

Having laid this foundation of this tripartite being’s common order, next time in Part I of this series, i will offer a reasonable explanation, for the current political culture of the United States of America. With the intent to show a reasonable explanation, for the tripartite beings disrupted, out-of-order and in disarray.

The following three-parts to this series will be:

(Part I) – Disorder— “A Reasonable Explanation”
(Part II) – Disorder— “A Reasonable Hypothesis”
(Part III) – Disorder— “A Reasonable Theory”

Next time: Truth and Reason and appetite (Part I) – Disorder— “A Reasonable Explanation”

Advertisements

Class Action Lawsuit

July 8, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-yk

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

If pure law was made to protect the law-abiding (and it was) and not the lawless (and it wasn’t), why does it seem that the law-abiding are punished (and they often are) and the lawless get off FREE, (and they often do)? What is the problem? Is it the law or is it the lawyers? You can answer that for yourself.

But whether you intend to break the law (have criminal intent) or just break it because you are ignorant, unknowing or just incompetent, does this mean there should be little or no consequence? And please do not use the Bill Clinton (lawyer) response, “That it depends on what is, is.”

Dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s might be useful (but not necessarily, necessary to understand, in writing sentences and reading them, but it appears to be absolutely necessary; a requirement in legal terms, as is punctuation, capital letters or not, certain words, keywords, and all kinds of extraneous and a superfluity of bullshite loopholes. Lawyers make these legal terms or direct them.

I can certainly understand that punishment for ‘intent’ would be greater than the punishment, for just breaking the law, but because ‘intent’ has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not or should not mean that no charges are filed, there should not be a jury, or a grand jury, or judge only, should NOT hear the case, try the case and judge that consequences of breaking the law applies, convict if proven guilty and mete out a just punishment, swiftly!!!!

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

The quote above is a legal maxim— an established principle or proposition. Just like lawyers, and congress and government in general can’t agree on much of anything, no one seems to agree on where this quote came from either.

‘Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, attributes it to William Ewart Gladstone, but it CANNOT be verified.

Some believe it was first used by William Penn in the form of, “to delay Justice is Injustice,” according to:

‘Penn, William (1693), ‘Some Fruits of Solitude, Headley, 1905, p. 86.

Mentions of ‘justice delayed and denied’ are found in the Pirkei Avot 5:7, a section of the Mishnah (1st century BCE – 2nd century CE): “Our Rabbis taught: …

“The sword comes into the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied…,”

10 Minutes of Torah. Ethical Teachings Selections’ from Pirkei Avot.
http://tmt.urj.net/archives/4jewishethics/052605.htm

The Magna Carta of 1215, clause 40 reads, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., used the phrase in the form, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied,” in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, smuggled out of jail in 1963, ascribing it to a “distinguished jurist of yesteryear”.

Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:

“A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.

Burger, “What’s Wrong With the Courts: The Chief Justice Speaks Out”, U.S. News & World Report (vol. 69, No. 8, Aug. 24, 1970) 68, 71 (address to ABA meeting, Aug. 10, 1970).

The courts are made up of judges and judges are first, lawyers. Lawyers graduate from law schools. Law schools are supposed to teach law and many of the professors may be lawyers or former lawyers that also, graduated from some law school. Sometimes, presidents are lawyers or have a law background. Congress has many former lawyers. The supreme court judges are all, first and foremost, lawyers. The entire government is riddled with lawyers.

Our biggest problem is not with the law per se, it is with the lawyers or the executives, legislators and the judiciary that make the laws, enforce or not enforce them and are more prone to NOT seek justice, but to win their cases, make their arguments, profit from them, protect themselves and their profession; their intuitions of law, and rather than protecting the innocent, they protect the lawless. Loopholes and interpretations, legislating from the bench and not whether one is guilty or not, but what can be proved is, their training and their focus.

No matter what side you may be on with the latest FBI conclusion that no criminal charges against the former Secretary of State and presumptive Democrat nominee for president of the United States, Hilary Clinton, with her mishandling of classified material and the Justice Department accepting that recommendation and no criminal charges will be filed, it’s not the law which is troubling, but the lawyers that wrote, write, interpret, defend or prosecute them, apparently at their discretion and their benefit.

If this is purely political theater (as was said by those who seek to keep this matter going), the Republican Party response seems to go to yet another law and associate it with what the FBI and the Justice Department views as, a closed case. And what law is that? Did the former secretary lie to congress, but not the FBI? But the FBI did not include that testimony in their “comprehensive” investigation. When asked why not, the Director of the FBI said that Congress had not sent them a formal request. To this the person asking said, “You will have one shortly!” So, if this continues, it could only end in a charge or charges of perjury. But perjury will be difficult to prove. The entire matter is laden with corruption and perversion. If the “careless” mishandling of classified material were not concerning on its own, as it is, the lawyers or lawyer-directed legalese that have corrupted and perverted the intent of the law, the law of the land— which is, to protect US, WE the People, from the lawless and punish  the lawless, to me is even more egregious an a threat to national security!

I will give you an example of this corruption and perversion from my own state of New York and my own personal experience.

About a year ago, I was pulled over on the ramp of an entrance to a highway. It was an obvious traffic stop, looking for drunk drivers or to see if people were wearing their seat-belts, I supposed. This was, seat-belt related. After I stopped, an officer approached me and gave me a ticket, as he was told to do, by his supervisor. His supervisor said, that he saw me NOT wearing a seatbelt and to ticket me. Now of course, I would, as most people charged with anything would say, “I’m innocent.” And it does not matter if I really was or not, as you will shortly understand. But I had two choices. I could pay whatever fine was required by my state and county and etc. or try to fight it in court. I decided to go to court.

On my court date, I was given two more choices. I was to either plead guilty and pay whatever the judge said or I could have a trial. Ooops, and I thought I was at trial and the officer would be there? Nope.

OK, I wasn’t there because I was guilty, but before I said I wasn’t, I asked the judge a question, which he allowed. “If I come to trial and plead innocent and win, will they drop all charges and any costs to me, except for my time wasted in coming to court twice? Well the judge informed me that there are no court costs, but there is an administrative fee, which I would have to pay, one way or another. Sure, label that jar of peas, peanut butter, but it’s still peas! Costs or fees, it’s still monies. That’s legalese and PC (political correctness) all rolled into one lump court cost that’s not?

So, let me see if I have this straight? Plead guilty to something I did not do. Pay whatever fine the judge decides. Points are deducted from my license. Enter a plea of guilty that become public record. My insurance most likely will go up. AND I still have to pay the (about) $100, the administrative fee? Yes. And if I go to trial and lose, I may have to pay a larger fine and the $100 administrative fee? Yes. Oh, and one more thing. The police can give me a ticket, even if they know I’ve done nothing wrong because, one way or another, I’m going to have to pay that $100! Is this messed up or what? Does this sound like extortion, racketeering and collusion to you? Is it the law or the lawyers that wrote it or directed it? Well, my prosecution rests! 🙂

WE the People, should ALL file a class action suit against the law profession?! WE the People should just sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them! But who would do it for US? Who could WE get to represent US?????

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

This proverb is based on the opinion, probably first expressed by a lawyer, that self-representation in court is likely to end badly. As with many proverbs, it is difficult to determine a precise origin, but this expression first began appearing in print in the early 19th century. An early example comes in ‘The flowers of Wit’, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814:

…observed the eminent lawyer, “I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.

In the play, King Lear, by William Shakespeare, In Act I, Sc. 4, the king’s fool makes a lengthy rhyming speech, containing a great many trite, but useful moral maxims, such as:

Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest, &c.,

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

Lear. This is nothing, fool.
Fool. Then, ‘tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer: you gave me nothing for it.

Representing oneself in Latin is, acting pro se, which means, for oneself.

If WE could find among US, a lawyer(s) that could and would represent US, would they be a fool, in representing themselves as well? And their profession might think them a fool, if they dare go against them? Are WE then just shite (old English term, you figure out its current meaning) out of luck? Are WE, without representation? Are WE, without a prayer? Are WE, up a creek without a paddle? NO!

WE the People have two, to represent us— The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. One these two documents, all the law and all the laws of the United States are supposed to be based on. The legal profession does NOT view them like that!

Regardless of what the courts might rule, the Declaration of Independence is not some past historical writing of its time and just some relic to be archived in a museum. I was then and remains a legal document, an affidavit  of fact and conclusions. In logic, it presents its factual premises (whereas) and its conclusions (therefore). It is the the foundation of Our Republic. It is Our raison d’être (reason to be). It is (WE are), The Apple of Gold in a picture of silver. It is Our Constitution which is the picture of silver, made of , by, and for WE the People, to protect, defend and preserve for ourselves and our  posterity, Our unalienable rights! The picture was made to serve US, WE the Apple of Gold, and NOT US, for the picture of silver!

Regardless of what any court might rule, the preamble to Our Constitution and the entirety of Our Constitution is relevant, essential and inseparable to the Declaration of Independence and to US, WE the People, the Apple of Gold! WE the people do have standing, and state, and original jurisdiction, to bring this case before them! Consider the following excerpts.

                                                                                                              

“The word “Unalienable” appears in one of the greatest phrases of The United States of America’s history.”

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [all-inclusive noun] 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.”

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

“The Kansas City Court of Appeals for the State of Missouri quoted verbatim the above language of 1776 with approval in Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App 1952), and then went on to say (also quoting):”

Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred, at least without one’s consent.”

Webster New International Dictionary, Second Ed. Vol. 2,
Page 1254. 252 S.W.2d at 101.

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

“You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.”

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952).”

“You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons (not individuals) have inalienable rights.”

“Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. Here we have the so-called same defined words of unalienable and
inalienable being separated, not as the same thing, but differently and by an appellate court judge.”

“You and I may think inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing, but apparently, courts and states do not. Therefore, what is unalienable cannot be taken or transferred and relates itself to rights, and what is inalienable, could be surrendered or transferred if by consent and relates itself to privileges. Words have meaning and carry rights and results or privileges and consequences.”

“In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,”

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.”

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.

Here again we find a federal court judge using both the words “privilege” and “rights.” From the context, this is referring to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Did you ever think that a judge would make such a ruling?”

“OUR privileges and inalienable rights could be taken or transferred, but if you or I want OUR unalienable rights protected, WE have to fight for them and become “belligerent.” WE out of necessity, to protect OUR rights, must stand in contempt of court. Words have meaning and they carry results or consequences.”

Here in the ruling is, but one example of division, or separation and in essence, an adversarial relationship.”

“If WE the People do not know OUR rights and fight for them, who will?”

Excerpts from: ‘RESET’ (An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic)
Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

                                                                                                      

Just imagine, just suppose we were able to actually get a court to hear this case. What do you think their decision would be? Yes, for themselves, the defendants! OK, so what if we get it appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court? What would be their decision? Would they allow US, WE the People, to RESET our Republic or rule in their favor, to keep their jobs appointed for life? Most likely to keep their job, but for US? Probably— NOT!!!!

Let’s sue the Legal Profession? Let’s bring a class action suit against the legal profession? Let US, WE the People, sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them? Probably NOT!

Do you know why Lady Justice is blindfolded? Well, I used to believe she could see, but she blindfolded herself on purpose or purposefully, for equality; for equal justice. Now, I’m really starting to think the legal profession poked her eyes out so, she would not know the scales were being tipped (imbalanced) and the whole legal profession rigged the system, for their exclusive benefit!

ClassAction3

There must be a better way? There is! It involves bypassing the legal profession entirely, but it is legal and the legal profession must YIELD, to the authority and power of, WE the People! Another Blog post on another day. Look for, The Thirteen Coming Soon!
1 of WE,

Dahni

The Secret of WE

July 2, 2016
Short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-y1

 

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

EqualLibertyUnequal

What is the secret of US, WE the People? If we look behind the shades, What are WE?

Here is a mathematical axiom (a self-evident truth that requires no proof). An example would be, even though we may not be able to prove that Hippocrates (the father of medicine) said, “First do no harm,” it is an axiom, a self-evident truth. Here is another axiom: “Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.” Have you ever thought about liberty being part of a mathematical axiom?

Equality = Liberty = Inequality

How is this equal? First, equality:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

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.”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, 1776

This document reveals an entitlement, equal station (equality) with any other power of earth and it is by the “laws of nature and nature’s God.” This document reveals the source of rights. They are endowed by the “creator” “the laws of nature and nature’s God, and “reliance upon the protection of divine providence.” These rights “endowed by their Creator,” are “unalienable” rights, which cannot be taken, surrendered, traded, bought or sold. No one has more rights than any other and no one has less than any other! There is no difference in the quality or percentage of these rights. All have the same rights! All have the same full measure! Among these rights there is “liberty.” Equality therefore, equals Liberty. But this document also, shows the consequence of liberty which is, separation, which is inequality.

The words “men” and “mankind” may be plural nouns grammatically speaking, but it does not say women or children. This is, inequality. When these words were written, the writer and many of the signers owned slaves. Slaves were not considered by most people in the day to be people, men, women or children. They were thought to be more closely aligned with animals and like animals, property. This is certainly, inequality whether you believe slaves were people or just property. Some people did not have slaves by choice or could not afford to own them. This is inequality too.

So are the rest of the words in this document and the document itself flawed because of its inequality. Or is equality (sovereign rights) equal to liberty which is equal to inequality (not all having the same abilities)? The mathematical axiom is, ‘Things equal to the same things are equal to each other. Remember the words, “separate and equal.”

In 1777, the first Constitution (or confederation, first government form, for the United States) was, formally named, ‘the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.’ It was connected to, ‘The Declaration,’ by the words, “To all to whom these Presents shall come…,” the word “Free and Independent States,” “good people and the words, “In the Year of Our Lord.” This was a longstanding custom to recognize “the Lord.” The same words close out ‘The Constitution’ of 1789 and ‘The Declaration,’ also.  They are all of them connected. The words “Perpetual Union,” were replaced with the 2nd Constitution of 1789, and its words, “…a more perfect union.”

Now let us look at some of the Constitution of the United States.

We the People” “of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

“…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,…”

Excerpts from the Constitution of the United States of America, 1789

Following upon the Declaration of Independence, this Constitution connects “WE the People” of this document to the words in ‘The Declaration’ — “one people,” “them,” “we,” “all men,” “among the powers of the earth,” “mankind,” “representatives of the united States of America,” “their,” “good people of,” “these united,” “Independent states,” “Free and Independent States, “they,” and “we.”

Either the words “all men” and “mankind” are just a plural nouns, which would include all men, women and children or it is just another example of inequality. If it is a plural noun (all-inclusive), it is still, inequality. That men were considered superior, women second class and children less so equal— boys first and girls second; then slaves, is exactly what people thought and I would say, this still has a dominate stance in our present society. But all, all men and women and children the whole world over have the same equal rights and opportunity (Liberty) as WE the People do in this country. The only differences are:

1. It is in writing and it is, “the law of the land”
2. If there were no Liberty, this country or no people anywhere, could realize their full potential.

Both ‘The Declaration and ‘The Constitution are, connected to each other. There could be not the latter without the former. There would have been no revolution fought or won without recognizing “equal rights.” Without these rights fought for, there could be no Liberty. So, ‘The Declaration’ was written to declare these rights and ‘The Constitution’ was written to preserve, protect and defend these rights. Equality and inequality must be balanced by liberty!

EqualLibertyUnequal2

Where there is liberty, equality and inequality will be in balance

All men, women and children though created equal are by nature and/or opportunity unequal. WE do not all have the same or identical abilities, opportunities, experience or the will to exercise them. So this is, inequality. But WE all do, have the same potential (equal rights). Again, without rights, there can be no liberty. To exercise liberty will both increase equality and its consequence of, inequality. For this purpose was our government constructed to limit its power over the rights of WE the People. Three branches— the executive, the legislative and the judicial  were intentionally designed to have separate (unequal), but equal limited power. There is inequality in this separation of powers.

When the focus is upon what makes US unequal instead of what makes us equal, liberty wanes and inequality waxes.. So, our focus should be on what makes us all equal. It is because of this equality that WE have liberty. The consequence of liberty will always be inequality until IF or WHEN, WE all become perfect.

Homosexual rights, Transgender rights, Women’s rights, children’s rights, Animal rights, White privileges, Black rights, Hispanic rights, Religious rights and who knows the complete list of rights there could be to promote, are these one and all not focusing on the inequality? Would they even be possible to address in any other country which does NOT have equal rights and the liberty to exercise them? But focusing on the inequality increases the inequality, is divisive and serves only those that seek to profit from it by diminishing the rights and the liberty of all.

EqualLibertyUnequal3

When the focus is on inequality, the scales become out of balance

When the focus is on the individual, the scales become out of balance

When the focus is on the individual, the scales become out of balance

WE the People by Our written and published ideals, are no more perfect than any other person in the world. But our written and published form of government is the goal, “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” As it is, this perfectly imperfect form of government, devised to protect, preserve and defend the rights of all and to give liberty to all with the potential to elevate our inequality to a “more perfect” equality, has no equal in the history of the world! WE are NOT perfect, but there is no better form of government among the hearts of all, throughout the entire world, past or present. Only our Creator, can provide us with future perfection! Until IF and When such a time may exist—

Equality=Liberty=Inequality.

The mathematical axiom is, ‘Things equal to the same things are equal to each other.

Let me close this out by asking you to consider the following questions.

1. If you did not live in a country that in writing, declares that all have equal rights given to them by God, how much liberty do you think you or anyone might realize, experience; enjoy?
2. If you lived where there are no rights and no liberty to all, what would be the quality of your life?
3. If you feel unequal to anyone in this country, what do you suppose the quality of life would be like here, if you did not have equal rights and the liberty (any at all) to exercise those rights?
4. Even if you are poor here or were a slave in the past, what do you suppose the quality of life (or lack thereof) would be like, any other place that does not have written and published equal rights that among them is, liberty?

The Secret of WE, WE the PEople is the balance of Liberty in the middle of equality and inequality!

 

 

1 of WE,

Dahni