Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

“Nature’s God”

May 15, 2017

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-Aj

by Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

A friend of mine recently said, “I can’t seem to find any reference to Nature’s God prior to the time of Thomas Jefferson. I’m trying to figure out exactly what he meant by that term and where he picked up the concept.”

The words, “the Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God,” appear in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, in 1776.

“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.”

Opening of: The Declaration of Independence, 1776, 1st paragraph

The idea that the United States of America is a, “Christian Nation,” has been argued since likely, our beginning in the years which led up to 1776 and ever since. You might be surprised as to its true origins?

We know from basic U.S. history that Thomas Jefferson (one of the youngest, if not the youngest earliest representatives to the 1776 body, The Continental Congress and other patriots), was tasked with the writing of, The Declaration of Independence. It was so because of his skill with language. But even so, it may be understood that there was one writer, but many authors. This is clearly seen in the opening of the second paragraph of ‘The Declaration,’ We hold these truths…”

Let us examine the writer, Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson was basically a deist, although the term in his day had negative connotations such as being heretical or being an atheist. As revolutionary as it was to revolt against their mother country, their king ordained by supposed divine right, the greatest standing military and naval force of the times, words such as “the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them,” were just as revolutionary!

Thomas Jefferson lived during the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ 1715-1789. In France, the central doctrines of the French worded, les Lumières (the lights), were individual liberty and religious tolerance in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church or of any one church, for that matter. The Age of Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy—an attitude captured by the Latin words, Sapere aude, “Dare to know.”

Reductionism is the theory of reducing complex data down to its basic elements to understand and apply that knowledge. An example of reductionism may be better understood from the Bible?

“Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:”

I Corinthians 10:32 KJV

Whereas we may view the complexities of humanity with its many races and variations, according to what we just read, the God of the Bible reduces this complex data down to there being just 3— Jew, Gentile or the Church of God (which is made up of both Jew and Gentile).

Jefferson also lived during the ‘Age of Reason.’ It follows in the tradition of eighteenth-century British deism, and challenges institutionalized religion and the legitimacy of the Bible. It was published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807. Jefferson died in 1826, but these two ages” shaped his thinking and that of our other founders and their manner of life. When Jefferson wrote our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, agreed to by all the signers of all 13 colonies, he and our founders, believed in a creator whom created all equal and endowed them with certain unalienable rights. Some of the signers were Christian and some held other beliefs. Jefferson’s belief in God the creator was not revelatory. He did not believe in miracles. He believed in the value of the moral code of Jesus, but not necessarily that he was God’s Messiah. God, Jefferson believed, was known or could be known by design in the laws of life, hence, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” He believed in ethics and morals and science and reason and he believed this is how the creator was made known. This was believed possible by exercising the Latin term, Sapere aude, “Dare to know.”

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

Thomas Jefferson

It was believed that this was not only the right of all to know, but the responsibility of all, in order to realize and live them – “We hold these truths.” But where did such ideas come from?

“The ideas that inspired them [our original founders] were neither British nor Christian, but largely ancient, pagan, and continental:”

excerpt from a description of: ‘Nature’s God,’ The Heretical Origins of the American Republic, by Matthew Stuart © 2014

Now this is interesting and it may or may not have been the origin of Jefferson’s belief and even it were the belief of every other signer of ‘The Declaration,’ it is, Christian, in that it is written in the Bible and specifically, in the New Testament and even more specific, in the first doctrinal (how to believe rightly) epistle, to the Church, the Book of Romans.

Please note: All scripture references from the Bible herein are from, The King James Version, KJV.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:18-20 KJV

Without controversy, those three verses basically describe, “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Now lets look at more of this chapter to see in contrast to “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” what the God of the Bible (His revelation of Himself) has to say.

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel
[good news] of God,
2 (Which he [God] had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith [Greek pistis believing] is spoken of throughout the whole world.
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. [Greek pistis believing, a verb which connotes action or if you will, the exercise of the right to, the Latin term, Sapere aude, “Dare to know.”].”
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [shown] it unto them.”
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [created thing] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1:1-8, 13-25 KJV

Whether you or I believe as did Jefferson or in any of the beliefs of our original founders is not what is most important. For one thing, they believed that equality was created in all and rights were given to all by the creator, the “Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God.” There is no contradiction if you believe God is made known by nature or revealed by His Word, the Bible, Himself the Word or His namesake and only begotten son, Jesus Christ the Word. These all agree. They conciliate in The Declaration of Independence. It is concluded in, The Declaration of Independence. There is no contradiction that our Republic is indeed, based on Judeo-Christian principles. Even if one is an atheist, and believes in the theory of evolution (the big bang theory), there is no contradiction because, equality and rights are a gift of this life force, “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, a “creator,” a design and etc. otherwise, there is no equality and no rights, only inequality and privileges. Look at the final sentence in The Declaration.

“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.”

Except from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776, last sentence

This ‘Declaration’ of equality and rights from “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” which relies on “Divine Providence,” the creator, is equal to and…

…as The Declaration is Declaratory of “Nature’s God,” so are the heavens

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth [shows] his handywork.”

Psalm 19:1 KJV

Thomas Jefferson, our founders and our founding documents were not anti-God or atheists. All were anti-divine right and anti-religion. From since the fall of Adam and Eve in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, our species have tried to dominate by force of arms or religious dogma. They have tried to un-separate or conciliate (bring together), Church and State. Kings, Queens, emperors and etc. from ancient times, were thought of as gods or as God’s representatives on earth. This is called, “divine right” and may be thought of by expressing— rule from the throne. The church and specifically, the Roman Catholic Church, uses a Latin phrase, ex cathedra “from the seat of authority” or simply, “from the chair.” I like to think of that as, from the toilet because, it is just crap. 🙂

There is one problem with this concept, Biblically.

”When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Greek petros, a small grain-like stone that can be blown about, with every wind of doctrine], and upon this rock [Greek petra, a large unmovable rock or stone] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Matthew 16:13-20 KJV

In English, what this verse seems to say is that Jesus Christ would build his church upon Peter. This is the verse used to promote and substantiate the concept of apostolic succession. Please note that this verse says absolutely nothing about apostolic succession. But if you look in the Greek translation from which the King James Version came, just knowing and understanding the definition of two Greek words, this verse says something entirely different. The name Peter (petros in Greek), is very similar to his personality. One moment he was ready to die with Jesus and the next you can’t find Peter (a little grain of sand), anywhere. Jesus Christ used the word “rock” which again, is the Greek word petra, an unmovable stone. Jesus Christ simply said [my paraphrasing], Hey, look Peter, you are like a tiny grain of sand. You blow hot and cold and blow about at the whim of the wind. But on this rock (Jesus pointed to himself), I (Jesus Christ), will build my church!

So much for certain ones dominating over the church or of apostolic succession. 🙂

Throne or chair, take your pick or as it was or is, as to whomever in actuality, is in control of the rest of the population. These beliefs were rejected by Thomas Jefferson and our original founders and in our original documents.

From the throne of a king, queen, prince, princess and etc. or from the chair of a Pope or head of some other religious order, both have one thing in common, genealogy or privilege. Whether by birth or royal blood line, this “divine right” is equal to the pedigree or some spiritual association like apostolic succession. This belief was that from the line of the Apostle Peter of the Bible, all true authority of God on earth, being infallible, is thought to be the legitimate authority over all others. Thomas Jefferson, our original founders and our original documents rejected these ideas!

In their day and time, Thomas Jefferson, our original founders and our original documents were revolutionary because, they rejected the “divine right” of the king, the rule from the throne and the rule of the church (any church), “from the chair,” or the toilet. This established the concept of separation of Church and State, but certainly not, the separation of God and State. This is clearly seen in the words, “The Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God.” As The Declaration Declares, “All men [a plural noun inclusive of all men, women and children], “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.”

Any religion that is contrary to these universal truths would be unequal and would be based on privileges, not rights, and the divine right of royalty or spiritual authority, based on some pedigree of even ANY moral and ethical church, from dominating the affairs of our republic. However, this would not prevent any of the “Free and Independent States,” by “consent of the governed,” of that state, from having a state religion. But among the other states, their state religion would not/could not prevent the rights of any other state or any other individual. But the United States, interdependent, would not/could not have either a dominating governing force (see checks and balances in the Constitution of the United States), or religious force.

“The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” clearly declares that we are all created equal and are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And though it does not declare whom this God is, whether by what is known from the study of these universal laws (Sapere aude “dare to know”), or what is revealed, it does not prevent God, a creator from revealing its self (male or female) in its manner and provides for, the Freedom of religion which includes, the truth! In other words, religious freedom or religious liberty, allows anyone to worship or not, as they deem appropriate, as long as, their liberty and their rights, do not prevent those of any others.

In 2015, Chris Cuomo, a lawyer, son of Mario Cuomo (former NY governor a Democrat candidate for president), brother to Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of the state of New York, is a paid contributor and host at CNN. He interviewed the then Alabama Chief Supreme Court judge, his honor, Roy Moore. The following picture is a quote from that interview.

Our rights do not come from God?

Cuomo is lecturing a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice at the time, of the State of Alabama and addresses him with an air of respect in calling him, “your honor.” But the insulted Chief Justice, respectfully, did not agree with Cuomo. In contrast and in direct contradiction to Cuomo, this is what the writer of The Declaration, Thomas Jefferson said,

Our Equality and Our Rights come from God!

Does it matter if Jefferson was a deist, a Jew or a Christian? No it does not. Does it matter if any of our founders were deist, Jewish or Christian? No it does not. Does it matter if any were Jew, Gentile or Church of God? No it does not. Does it matter if our original founding documents were based on ancient, pagan, continental, desist, Jewish or Christian principles? No it does not. “Nature’s God,” in concept or in reality is not contradictory, but is conciliatory. Our equality and our rights do not come from man, mankind, humanity, collective agreement or compromise, but from, “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” from the creator, however you freely choose to believe in one. What really matters is not what we may or may not believe, but that “Nature’s God” gifted us with equality and rights!

“Nature’s God” allows for the free choice, or religious freedom or religious liberty, to believe as one sees fit, provided that it is ethical, moral, is equal to all and does not prevent the rights of all, of every individual!

There are two compound words that are now, much easier to understand, inspiration and enthusiasm. Inspiration is made up of in + spirit or in spirit action. Enthusiasm is made of the Greek preposition en meaning, totally within as opposed to, from without and the Greek word theo, which is, God. Combined, its meaning is, in totality or wholly within God, the origin or power of God. “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” are equal to a “creator,” all people being “created equal,” and the “endowment” “of certain unalienable rights.” Things equal to the same thing, are equal to each other!

In conclusion, “Nature’s God” are words written in our original declaratory founding document, The Declaration of Independence. Though equality and individual rights are inclusive or universal, they are written and authored by Free and Independent States that have the right to govern their own affairs, as does any other Free and Independent State or country. We have the right to allow in or remove anyone or anything which is contrary to universal rights and the privileges of citizenship we hold together, as Free and Independent States! And we also, have the responsibility of both now and in the future, to prevent anyone or anything from dominating our republic and any church from dominating our United States, religious liberty.

If these things were not so, there would be only inequality and privileges; no equality and no rights! “Nature’s God” is, the origin of equality and of our rights. And this equality and these rights did not come by humanity, but by the creator and these rights can therefore, not be bought, sold, bartered, traded, surrendered or taken by force from anyone, by anyone or anything, under any circumstances! The Constitution of the United States is the second, but equal part to our republic. Whereas The Declaration declares the origin of our equality and our rights, the Constitution is, for the defense and protection of this equality and these universal rights and our “collective agreement and compromise,” as to our privileges as citizens and how this republic is to be served— of the people, by the people,  for the people and to the people! And this is the responsibility of every one of us, to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic!

For more information about the beliefs and times of Thomas Jefferson see:

http://www.constitutionaleducation.org/index.php?page=Jefferson&loc=fathers

 

1 of WE,

 

Advertisements

Unalienable or Inalienable

April 19, 2017

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-A4

by Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

“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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” 

The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776, 2nd paragraph

 

Does it matter if your rights are unalienable, inalienable or alienable? Many have no idea what these words truly mean in context of what was written in the Declaration of Independence. Look at the article from the following link.

https://fee.org/articles/why-it-matters-that-some-rights-are-inalienable/

Although the link above is an interesting read (and I did read it word for word), it fails to use the word as written, in the familiar clause of the Declaration of Independence. That word is, “unalienable” and not “inalienable” as used in the title of the afore mentioned and linked article. It fails to define the word “unalienable” and like our rights, it cannot be separated from the source from which they are derived which is, “their [our] creator,’ God. And finally, the article fails in that it does not show original intent of our founders that authored it (WE the People are the authors), and written by, Thomas Jefferson, one among us, WE the People.

Our founders, many of which were from England and influenced by the work of John Locke, English jurisprudence (English Law) and were familiar with the words “inalienable” and “alienable” as they relate to property rights, to rights of property. But this was not, absolutely not, what their intentions were, in the Declaration of Independence or how the words were used, in the context of this document. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” are certainly not referring to mere property rights.

Very, very simply, the words “unalienable” or “inalienable,” which as defined in most any dictionary are, exactly the same. Both can be understood by the root word, “alien.” Basically, something or someone that is “alien” or is, an “alien” is, foreign or just not from here. What separates us from any other foreigner or alien? These “truths” were written down, put into and left, in our founding documents. It is a record. It was recorded. It is a recording and like a sound recording, is considered more permanent than having to rely on the fragility of memory which is prone to leave out, put in or change things over time. Let me say that again in another way. The only thing that makes us UN-aliens any different from any other alien outside of this country is that we put our rights into writing. They are the laws of our republic. We are all aliens, but our rights are unalienable and are given by “their [our] creator,” God. If they are given by people, they are not rights, but privileges and could be bought, sold, given away or forcibly taken. They would be then, alienable privileges, but they are not. One cannot separate another from their unalienable rights, any more than they can separate the source of Him, “their [our] creator,” God that gave them, gives them freely to all, for all are, “created equal!”

Having written those things, I will leave a link below, which digs into the depth of these two words, “unalienable” and “inalienable.” Even though they are defined the same in a dictionary today, were both understood as the same in the 18th century and there were even drafts of the Declaration of Independence that used the word “inalienable,” before the final document which used, “unalienable,” most courts, corporations, and even state constitutions, only recognize inalienable rights. According to their interpretation, those rights are separate from unalienable rights and can be transferred with your permission or without it if, the court, corporation, and/or state decides it so. This is a perversion, an interpretation, a corruption; a usurpation of our unalienable rights, given freely by “their [our] creator,” God, for those rights cannot be bought, sold, bartered, transferred or taken away, with or without our permission! Why not? Because we are all aliens or foreigners in a strange land. We are pilgrims. We are just passing through. We and our unalienable rights will all one day, return to the source that gave them, “their [our] creator,” God.

Understanding of these things is of paramount importance! In addition to separating the words “unalienable” and “inalienable,” though they are defined as the same, there are those which believe the Declaration of Independence, has no place in our government nor standing, in any court of Law. There are those which believe that the preamble to our Constitution, has no place or standing, in any court of law.

The We that hold “these truths” are, the same WE behind, “We the People.”

The “We” that hold “these truths” are, the same WE behind, “We the People.” The Declaration of Independence cannot be separated from, The Constitution of the United States of America. And the preamble to the same, cannot be separated from the document including, the ‘Bill of Rights.’

To separate unalienable from inalienable, seeks to separate rights from “their [our] creator,’ God, whom gave them, from  “their [our] creator,’ God, God, being just a figure of speech, a legal fiction when in fact, it is humans (governments) that give us those rights (privileges) and can therefore, take them away? As no one can separate the Preamble from the Constitution from or the Bill of Rights, no one can separate the Constitution (a more perfect union) from, the Bill of Rights, all which are given limited power by consent of the people, to protect the rights of the People. And no one can separate the Constitution (the protector of these rights) from the Declaration of Independence (the declarer of those rights and from whence those rights have come (“their [our] creator,” God.

There are those that believe we are a democracy (rule by majority) as opposed to a republic (rule by law, a representative government). There are those that believe the electoral college should be eliminated and presidential elections should be decided by popular vote. Popular vote is, democracy, rule by majority. This is not the same thing as a republic, the rule by law, a representative government.

Nothing could be more clear in understanding the failures of democracy and the intent of the republic, than a map of the United States showing by county and by colors red or blue from the national election, November 8th, 2016. The popular vote (majority of votes) is in blue and the electoral college votes, in red.

The popular (majority) vote is in blue and the electoral college votes are in red

 

Votes from the areas in blue above show both where the majority of the votes were received and are where the majority of the people live in the USA. But it is obvious that not everyone lives in the blue areas. To control the government in this manner, all one needs to do is to receive the majority of the votes from where the majority of the people live. Now I ask you, which color (blue or red) truly is more representative of the United States? If you ca see red, then this is indicative of a republic, a representative government in action and our founders original intent. If you still desire the blue, a majority, a democracy, this was not our founders intent and you should seek to legally amend our Constitution.

There are those which believe as the times have changed, even our Constitution is subject to change. The Constitution may be amended, but it cannot be changed. We the people have the right to:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.

Separating unalienable and inalienable is to separate rights of all to the priviledges of the few. Separating the Bill of Rights from the Constitution, the Constitution from the Preamble, The Constitution from The Declaration of Independence, rights from “the [our] creator,” God, reduces all to a democracy instead of a republic and robs every man woman and child from their equal rights that among these are, “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These are all very dangerous ideas. It is only WE the People which consent to those powers which government may by only specified limits, execute on our behalf. We the People have those rights because, WE the People are all and each, equally endowed by “their [our] creator,” God, whom gave us these rights! These rights which cannot be bought, sold, bartered, transferred or taken by force, with or without our permission! Government is neither an individual or a person (corporation), it is just a servant, our servant, the servant of WE the People.  Government’s sole function is, to protect and defend our unalienable rights from all enemies, foreign (alien) or domestic (from within us).

I offer the following link to a PDF file for your consideration. It is an except from my book of 2012, ‘RESET “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”

 

I of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

“UN-alien” or “Inalienable”

 

 

Order of Court

February 9, 2017
Short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-zA

 

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

orderofthecourt

 

What the immigration stay really means

(Or what it should mean to the country and to you and I)

 

To begin, let me make it perfectly clear that the words I write are mine and what I truly believe. Call it my opinion if you like, unless I am to be accused of purposefully and intentionally reporting fake news. Although I have been previously a member of the press and may still be technically and to be specific, an investigative reporter, it is not with this title or in this capacity that I write these words. Keeping this firmly in your mind, look up the information I present to follow, on your own as to whether or not it is true.

Before the current status of the temporary immigration and refugee pause and its present stay, it is awaiting the decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as to whether it will remain a stay or overturned and allowed to continue as was originally written, for limited days. Yesterday, 2/9/17, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals  unanimously (panel of three judges) decided in favor of the Washington state judge’s ruling. The ‘stay’ is stayed.  But either way, it will likely go forward, to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Over the last eight years, the seven countries temporarily denied from coming to the United States, have been considered to be potential threats to the US, and have insufficient vetting policies. Six of these seven countries have been bombed over the last eight years with over 100,000 bombs. Our country has a long-standing history of not allowing immigrants or refugees from countries, we are at war with. Since FDR, there have been many more pauses of immigrants and refugees by Democrat presidents, than Republican presidents. But also this power to protect the citizens of the United States by the president as Commander and Chief, is both granted by The Constitution and given him or her by Legislative authority of the Congress, regardless of which party has been in the majority. The years 1952, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953 and another law passed by Congress in 1965 have been the precedents. Search this information for yourselves.

“Our country has a long-standing history of not allowing immigrants or refugees from countries, we are at war with.”

As a writer, I am employing and providing, any reader here, with back-story. If necessary, you may look that term up. To often see where we are or where we are going, it is important to see where we have been.

Search the recent private donor party of the founder of Media Matters and a recent disclosure of a confidential memorandum of how it and it’s entities seek to delegitimize the current administration with ways to impeach, impede or prevent its agenda from moving forward by way of the courts and reassert the present gurgling and on life support, Democrat Party, by 2020.

Enter, the George W. Bush appointee, a federal court judge in the state of Washington. His appointment, by a Republican president, neither make his rulings Republican or conservative, but should not control the outcome of the other 49 states and our territories. But this is how it has shaken out. One state judge has affected the rest of the nation. Research it for yourselves.

So the Justice Department acted to overturn this stay and its present status sits with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although I cannot prove this, I really do believe that Media Matters searched out this judge on purpose, knowing full well that it would lead to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is known to be a progressive and liberal court, whose decisions are often struck down by the US Supreme Court. Search these things, for yourselves.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, the Democrat Party continues to block, obstruct, resist, or call it what you will, slow the confirmation of the United States Attorney General. The US attorney was confirmed and sworn in yesterday, 2/9/17.  Had he already been confirmed, he would have most likely presented a more excellent argument at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but I am doubtful that the decision this court will rule on (as it now has), would have been any different. That should’ve been, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should’ve never even heard the case and the judge in Washington, should’ve never challenged it in the first place and especially with words such as causing, “irreparable harm.” Those are the Washington state judge’s words that this so-called ban has produced, “irreparable harm.” One of the current countries is Syria and recently,  after this order was signed by the president, a Syrian was allowed into this country, for emergency medical treatment, which could certainly be argued that had they not received it, it could have caused irreparable harm. Inconvenience to businesses, workers and families are not the same as irreparable harm. And whether or not that this order was rolled out properly, is not as important as national security, national sovereignty, and the protection of its citizens. Search for this, the research has already been done. Make it your own.

The likelihood of the presidential nominee to the Supreme Court, will be slowed and prevented from being confirmed, for as long as possible is, very likely. I suspect it is not only for the prevention of nine judges being seated on the Supreme Court or overturning what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will likely decide shortly. If there are not nine justices seated, the case goes back to its last court, which in this case would be, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The research about this exists. Search for it.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical and that sounds great on paper, but many would argue that it is equally divided with four conservatives and four more, liberal judges. The presidential nominee if confirmed is, considered to be a conservative judge and his decisions aligned with four others, would overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if so they decide and the order would be left in effect and the stay lifted. You search and research these things.

But there is something else to consider or I should say, someone else. Supreme Court judge Kennedy, resides over the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is often a swing vote as his record shows, he is highly resistant of anything which prevents or lessons judicial power and especially, judicial review. Judicial review, in my opinion, is unconstitutional and only came about because, judges did not feel they had enough to do in the Supreme Court. Since adoption of the Constitution in 1789, courts have played around with the idea. In 1803, a law was struck down as being “unconstitutional” for the very first time, by the Supreme Court. Ever since that case, the Supreme Court seems to believe that judicial review is their constitutional right. Even judges are human beings, appointed for life with passion, political leanings and etc. but judicial review sets the precedence that it is the judiciary which determines what is or what is not law and has led to the idea of, “legislating from the bench.” Research it yourself.

“ You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

-Thomas Jefferson 1820-

The US Justice department, now with Attorney General Sessions sworn in, could request an en banc. In law, an en banc session (French for “in bench”) is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. Supreme Court justice Kennedy has a choice: He can either decide the appeal on his own or refer it to the full court of all 29, 9th Circuit Court judges to hear arguments from both sides. In a case of such national gravitas, he’ll probably chose the latter. Feuer says if Trump’s lawyers do appeal to the Supreme Court, “they’ll probably ask for an emergency stay of the Seattle judge’s nationwide injunction” Research these things and perhaps the unfamiliar terms here, for yourselves.

All three branches of government are supposed to be, equal branches and yet history has shown that each branch has tried to garner more power, for themselves. So, Justice Kennedy could side with the other liberal judges and the opinion could be decided 5 to 3, in favor of overturning the executive order. This of course depends on whether or not the Supreme Court hears this case, before the ninth Supreme Court justice is seated. And even if the ninth judge was seated, Kennedy could still side with the other four liberal judges and the outcome could be, 5 to 4. I would hold Media Matters accountable, for orchestrating this, as there are odds in their favor of success, with either the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court. Then, there are all the other pending lawsuits, basically about the same thing and basically orchestrated, by Media Matters. Research these things, for yourselves.

How would they or could such as Media Matters be, so calculating, devious, intentional and corrupt. They would argue that their efforts are in resistance to others which are, calculating, devious, intentional and corrupt. Call this the Hegelian Dialectic or order out of chaos, when your efforts pit the very institutions and its own people to accomplish, whatever is their intended end and by whatever means. Research these things and perhaps the unfamiliar terms here, for yourselves.

What could this all mean to you and I??? Does this mean our rights do not come from God, they are not protected by The Constitution, they are not executed by the executive branch and legislated by the legislative branch, but only exist, as what the judicial branch says is law and what is lawful or unlawful and of, to, and by whom????

orderofthecourt2Contrary to what many people believe, we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. If We the People do not reform our government to be of, for and by the people, having three equal branches, we are not even a democracy, which is, the rule by a majority nor would we be a republic, which is ruled by law, but we would be ruled by an oligarchy, the rule(s) of a few, for all of the rest of us. That is not freedom, it is enslavement!

And the protestors deceived with good intentions, co-mingled with rioters that are often paid, and the media complicit in failure to report, and education failing to inform, are unraveling the very fabric of the Stars and Stripes of our Republic, whose flags they fly and trample beneath their feet.

And did you think this was just a mean-spirited, religious-banning executive order? Was it to protect our rights? Or will it be the end of, the United States of America, by order of the court?

 

1 of WE,

MySignature_clr

 

 

 

 

1 of WE

The Ideal Liberal

September 1, 2016
Short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-yH

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

In a video I posted on my Facebook page by KC Kerrie, ‘You Move’, she clearly showed her deep wound from our country being so divided.

With often tears pouring, voice quaking and hands trembling, she visibly put on display the wounds from political correctness, being told what to say and think or NOT, and to tolerate anyone and anything and from being pushed and pulled to apologize, for love of country and belittled, for her patriotism.

The WHY of our present division can clearly be understood by how the viewer sees the following video. She is either a crying, whiny, intolerant woman; unbending that will not move anymore and that in the name of progress, she is one that stands in the way of liberalism and progress. Or, she is, a woman who has been deeply wounded, but will no longer just ‘take it anymore,’ and has taken a stand, for loving our country and that those that have wounded her are “concrete blocks,” which are in the way of a united people, who love this country and the republic in which it stands. To those blocks she yells, “Get out of our way! You Move!!!”

Strip away every issue, distraction and cause and all can clearly see WHY, WE the people, are so divided! And from just this video and just this one woman, WE the People can see the consequences of this division!

If to separate love for country from tolerance and progress and being liberally minded, what are these voices and who is, the ideal liberal?

Political correctness pretends and contends that nothing said or done should ever offend anyone. It is illogical because, it is impossible! For just one reason alone, we are imperfect lifeforms. For another, it was never our differences which united us, but it is our differences, which divide us even now.

Differences from our ages, sex, sexual preference, culture, color of skin, education, economics, politics, laws/rules/regulations, privileges and religion and all other differences are supposed to be lauded, applauded, celebrated, accepted, and tolerated. There is nearly an organization and a champion(s), for almost anyone and anything it seems, today. Now here is where this all falls down upon itself and will implode.

In the name of tolerance and acceptance of all, and in the name of equality and freedom of expression, if anyone does not accept this, then they are intolerant, without empathy and unpatriotic. This is illogical and impossible because, if you are not tolerant then you are intolerant. This is group or herd mentality. How can you be tolerant, if you do not tolerate anything and everyone?

And this has been pushed and shoved down all of our throats, for perhaps our entire lives. It has a single name and it is, democracy. Democracy may simply be defined and understood as, the rule or the will of the majority. But WE are supposed to be ruled or held together by law, by a republic.

Freedom of expression has become the freedom of suppression, tolerance intolerant, equality unequal and political correctness, politically incorrect.

But all these opposing forces need causes and champions. Beyond the small, the weak, the different, the disenfranchised, those in the shadows and the silent, what better spokespersons could be asked for, then the super intelligent, the rich, the powerful and the celebrities!

The old adage comes to mind, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

If the most educated, the richest, the most powerful, the most popular celebrities come together in one voice, surely they will grease, the rest of us?

But why would they fear any outcome, but their desired outcome? Why have many threatened to leave the USA if, they do not get what they want? Or do they want us to be afraid that we may lose them, to another country?

Many of these have said they would leave this country, if the presidential nominee of their choice, does not win this November.

In a recent post, there was a video interview with “Babs,” “The Voice,” Barbara Streisand. In it, she didn’t know what she would do if, Trump won. “Either,” she said, Australia or Canada, she may move to.

Now you may not like her type of music and that’s OK. But she still has an incredible voice and is still, very, very talented. I have not liked her politics, for many years, but I can still appreciate her talent. I have supported her lavish lifestyle and contributed to her wealth, by paying for her movies and music. And by default, it could also, be said that I have indirectly, supported her politics and her causes.

Though I do like her music, I am seriously considering ending my support, but not because I disagree with her politically. To threaten to leave, even to consider the possibility of leaving or to actually leave, if she does not get her way, does not appear to me, to be a person that really cares about this country or me or those I love. Even children know they can’t always get their way, but they get over it and keep on going.

Why do our choices always seem to be, fear motivated???? Can there never be any other emotion or reason?

I have also wondered, for many years, WHY is it that it seems like so many of the artist types are all Democrats? I am an artist type, although no one famous or anyone you’ve most likely, ever heard of, but I had to grow up in my home, to be able to think for myself.

Before my change to just an independent, non-party person, as a matter fact, I grew up in a family that were pro-Democrat. But long ago I changed. Maybe it is the coming of age thing, the cutting loose from my home, the rebel, the independent desire most young people experience? Perhaps this is why I never became a successful artist-type? But I will answer as Ronald Reagan did, “I didn’t abandon the Democrat party, the Democrat party abandoned me.” And as another matter of fact, not the Democrat, Republican or any other party, has ever invited me to their party. I guess I’m just socially unacceptable? 🙂

But the only thing I can figure out is, the artist-types must just believe in something so strongly, something they so want to be true, something so idealistic that it is unrealistic that it becomes next to impossible, for them to actually see what is happening. They are maybe just living the persona or the character of some script. In the land of fiction, detached from reality they are, I suppose, perpetual believers in the land of OZ, instead of the land of, WE the People!

All these many causes and these many outspoken uber intelligent, super rich, almost all powerful and the popular celebrities are WHY, WE the People are divided. They are the idealistic, ideal liberals, who are in the way of our real liberty!

IdealLiberal2

The True Picture of Tolerance & Political Correctness

But despite all these things and the people who divide us, it and they are all a smokescreen, an illusion, a mask; like characters in a book, a play or a movie of fiction. Though the consequences of our division are real, HOW WE the People are being divided is, being purposefully and intentionally hidden from US (all of US). Virtually no one sees it because of, a veil of secrecy and the many distractions by which we are kept blind to the truth. But if the cause is discovered and removed, the symptoms will disappear.

Next time, I will show HOW WE are being systematically divided and what the real cause, really is!

 

 

1 of WE,

 

 

 

MySignature_clr