Archive for the ‘First Amendment Rights’ Category

Secure the Blessings of Liberty

March 22, 2018

short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-D4

By Dahni
©️ 2018, all rights reserved

There can be no Blessings of Liberty without Security!

I find research, compassion, sharing, and being solution driven and calls to action, interesting. The call to take action may also, be thought of as, a “call to arms.” When it comes to the Blessings of Liberty, this is, “our call to ”arms”!!

Few people understand the 2nd Amendment or what is behind it, in having “it”, in the Constitution.

This ignorance is caused by our failure to understand the Constitution and what is behind it. We do not understand it because, we are not taught or we do not choose to take up “arms”, for it. That “it” is, the Declaration of Independence.

To be clear, the 2nd Amendment is, inextricably bound to the Constitution. It cannot be separated from it. The Constitution is, inextricably bound to the Declaration of Independence. It cannot be separated from it.

“Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.” (1)

Euclid

(1) A Mathematical axiom by Euclid, called the Father of Geometry, who lived around 300 BC, in Alexandria Egypt.

For clarity and simplicity, I will use two documents and 8 words from them:

1. “Life”
2. “Liberty”
3., 4., 5., 6. “The Pursuit of Happiness”
7. “Arms”
8. “Secure”

The Declaration of Independence is, declaratory of many things, but most importantly, of unalienable rights that among these are– “Life,” “Liberty,” and, “The Pursuit of Happiness.”

The Constitution is, the resolve to be readied and active, to protect, defend and preserve (“Secure”), these and all rights, for ourselves and our posterity– to, of and by, the collective, WE the People.

Although unalienable rights which are, endowed by God, would apply to all humankind the world over, the United States of America put it in writing, in our founding documents. Due to the presence of evil or if you prefer, the corruption of our innate imperfection and therefore, a proclivity (tendency), towards corruption, this necessitates “arms”, to protect, defend and preserve (“Secure”), these rights.

The issues are, behavior and responsibility. Neither can be legislated. No law can force anyone to behave responsibly. It can only warn and punish those, which do not act responsibly.

Does anyone have the right to be uncivil towards any other? Think about that the next time you think about “civil rights”, irresponsibly act or behave in any uncivil manner. Courtesy and responsibility are also, “arms” to secure, “The Blessings of Liberty!”

Courtesy and responsibility are also, “arms” to secure, “The Blessings of Liberty!

Every citizen in the USA has the right to bare “arms” and the right to exercise that right, in a responsible and “civil” manner. Because some may not act responsibly and in a civilized manner, this is exactly WHY, we have the right to bare “arms” in the first place. Actually, this second amendment right, follows the first–

First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

U.S.A. Constitution, First Amendment

The whole purpose of this entire amendment is inextricably bound to, the Declaration of Independence and to rights that among these are– “Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.”

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Following this, let us now read the–

Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

U.S.A. Constitution, Second Amendment

There are four phrases in this sentence. They are each separated by commas. But they are also, joined and form a complete thought, a whole sentence. This whole connected thought is, concluded with a period. A period (.),  as in – that’s it, done, moving on, next and etc.! Each phrase is separate, but–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

What does “infringed” mean?

Infringed – to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:

What shall (not will, but absolute or absolutely), NOT, be “infringed?” The right of the people to keep and bare “arms” shall not be infringed! Why? Our right to keep and bear “arms” is necessary because, it is NECESSARY, to the security of a free state! A union of free states is only possible if, each state is free. The state is only free if, its people are free! How is this possible? The “state” can only be “free” by, a “well regulated militia”. Notice the words, “well regulated.” It does not say– unwell, uncontrolled, un-responsible’ or unorganized, undisciplined, unwise, unrestrained un-financed’ or unregulated, but “well regulated.” This is not possible without the necessity, to secure the freedoms of each state. Each state is only free if, its people are free. This freedom is only possible if, the people have the right and responsibly exercise this right, to keep and bare “arms”.  And this is only possible, if they are NOT and shall not be, infringed.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

The importance of the second amendment is central to all our rights as individuals and as a people. Without the second amendment, no other right is possible to be exercised, realized and secured. Why, because of evil, infallibility and corruption inherent in all people, security is necessary. Servants of government are, after all also, just people, imperfect people.

In reading the Declaration of Independence of 1776, there are twenty-seven (27), separate acts of infringement of, unalienable rights, by the government (King George). He violated the separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial). This compelled the colonies, in legal terms, to separate and to self-govern because, government (King George), had broken the laws of “Nature and Natures God”, universal law. To secure those rights, the colonists were prepared to and did, take up “arms”!

As security is the primary function of government, government being a necessary evil, its secondary function is, to be restricted and limited, so as to not infringe on the rights of its boss, its master, its people, WE the People.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Again, our rights do not come from government. The Declaration and the Constitution merely declare or list, what some (not all), of our rights are. And it declares– certain restrictions and limits its government or anyone; any thing, from power and authority, not granted by, WE the People.

“…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:”

Excerpt from: the Bill of Rights or the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, March 4th, 1789

Note the words, “declaratory and restrictive clauses”. Any rights mentioned in these ten amendments are NOT given by our government, they are “declared” because, they have always existed, for and to all people, all over the world and for all time. What distinguishes our Republic from all other sovereign people is, we have many of our preexisting rights, and separation of powers and certain restrictions, put into writing and this Constitution is, the law of, WE the People. It was written to secure these rights, from even our government, which otherwise, would endeavor to infringe, violate, and transgress them!

It must be clear and clearly understood that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution gives or affords anyone, any rights whatsoever! The first merely declares some of them and the latter declares others, for the express purpose of, the government of, by, and for the people, to secure those rights. This is the primary responsibility of government, not to give anyone any rights, but to secure them. Rights cannot be exercised without security. Security is the responsibility of, not only our government to secure those rights, but also, everyone of us, WE the People!

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Then there is the argument as to whether the Constitution of the United States is “organic”, as something unmovable and not subject to change? Or, is the Constitution “living”, as something dynamic and subject to change?

The two polar opposites are– the Constitution being “organic”, cannot be changed by interpreting what strict constitutionalists believe, the original intents that the writers of the Constitution meant. If the Constitution is a “living” document, then it can be interpreted and/or applied to the current times in which people live.

The difference between “Organic” and “Living” are crucial to understand. By “differences” I mean as they are held as separate, but not equal. If it is only “organic”, then it cannot be altered or changed and relates to the past. If it is “living”, it can be altered and changed and relates to the present. This would mean that the past is obsolete and only the present matters. In other words, “organic” law was, for the times in which they were written, but are not relevant today? These words were written in the 18th century and they were fine or OK then. But this is the 21st century and the past is past?

Perhaps the phrase “organic law”, was first suggested by Abraham Lincoln? The following is from his first inaugural address, as president of the United States.

“But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration.”

Excerpts from the first inaugural address, by Abraham Lincoln, Monday March 4th, 1861

I would like to point out that Lincoln never used the words “interpreted” or ”pending judicial review”. He never said it was from the past or obsolete. But he did say and it is written and the word is,  “application.” Some believe that what he meant by “no organic law” was, to imply that the Constitution is a “living” document? In reading the entire address, others suggest that Lincoln interchangeably used “organic law” with the Constitution and that is all he meant, nothing more and nothing less?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably once the Supreme Court’s most conservative member,  grabbed headlines for his remarks made, while speaking to a group of students at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, Texas, January, 2013.

Scalia said law schools did not sufficiently emphasize that judicial decisions should reflect the letter of the law. You could replace the words, “letter of the law” with “organic law” or the single word, “constitution” as it was originally written. Justice Scalia spoke of schoolchildren coming to visit the Supreme Court and calling the Constitution, a– “living document” –

“It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead!”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

With all due respect to Justice Scalia, “organic law” is NOT dead and it is also, a “living document” because, it is also, “living law”! Yes, I believe the Constitution is both “organic” and “living” law, but not as you or others might think. Think of “organic” as something we need to sustain our lives. “Organic” is for, the “living.” What is “living” cannot long survive on inorganic matter. But the “living” thing changes throughout its life, like: seed —sprout, seedling, vegetative, budding, flowering and ripening (maturing or harvesting).

SEED —SPROUT, SEEDLING, VEGETATIVE, BUDDING, FLOWERING and RIPENING.

The seed (The Declaration & the Constitution), is “organic” law. There can be none without the other. They are one. It says what it means and means what it says.

The various stages of growth (the application), is “Living” law (dynamic and changing law).

As far as the Declaration and the Constitution are concerned, they are “organic” – unchanging and unmovable law, but it is also “living” – dynamic and changing law.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

How can the law be both “organic” and “living”? The principles and precepts, our rights are, “organic” – unmovable and unchanging law. It is “living” – dynamic and movable law, as to its current or present application. 

The key to understanding this is, a single word. This word is NOT interpretation, but the word is, “application.” This is most clear when we look at the second amendment and the word, “arms”.

The word “arms” may be defined and understood, according to the means and methods and manners of the day in which they were first written, in our founding documents. The same would be equally true today or at anytime, by its “application”. Application proceeds from its “organic” nature and thus, it is “living.” In other words, its application, its “living” nature may and can be applied because of, its “organic” nature.” Our rights do not change nor do the restrictions or limitations of government, to not infringe those rights. This is “organic” law. So the only thing left is the “application” which is, the “living” law. Our law is, both “organic” and “living”–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

U.S.A. Constitution, First Amendment

The context of the above text is, “organic” law. It, like the Declaration of Independence, declares that the former government (King George) had infringed universal, God-given, unalienable rights which are, from the laws of Nature or Natures God. The individual is endowed by their creator (not a person or persons), with certain unalienable rights that among these ARE, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The King tried to establish a religion (the Church of England of which he was also, the head). He prohibited the free exercise of any other religion. He abridged free speech and the press. He refused the peaceable assembly and the petitions to government (himself), for a redress of grievances.

The context of the above text is, “living” law. In order to form a more perfect union, the application of the organic law was to appoint and elect by the people, representatives of the people (Representatives and Senators). These representatives ONLY, are empowered to make law instead of one or a few. But they were not then nor are they now, able to make any law which infringe the right to secure any right, universal or God-given, from the Laws of Nature, Nature’s God, the creator whom, has endowed each individual with certain rights that among these are, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!”

The whole purpose of this entire amendment is inextricably bound to, the Declaration of Independence and to rights that among these are– “Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.”

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Following this, let us now read the–

Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

U.S.A. Constitution, Second Amendment

Some say and believe the words of the second amendment are opaque or unclear, too loose, faulty; imperfect and subject to interpretation, as the powers that be, see fit? Interpretation of law is, infringement! To understand the context of law is, how the law was applied!

Interpretation of law is, infringement! To understand the context of law is, how the law was applied!

Not you, not I and not anyone, has the right to interpret the law! It does not matter what anyone might think or believe that the writers of our founding documents originally meant and intended! That is interpretation and infringement. Their words were and are, specific and clear, crystal clear! The only thing different today should be, how these words apply.

There is much more to “arms” than bullets and guns

In the day in which this right was written, “arms” may have not been much more than a knife, an ax, a pitchfork or a single shot musket, as to physical “arms”. But in the past, today, and always, “arms” are more, much more than physical means to disarm an opponent, an enemy! Anything or anyone that would separate anyone, from their God-given unalienable rights is, an enemy.

To disarm would include— the physical means, mental, psychological, civil, responsible, courteous, emotional, spiritual or any other means necessary, to disarm an opponent or an enemy.

The fourth amendment states our right to be “secure” in our “persons, houses, papers and effects”, and that no one, no thing, not government and nothing, shall violate (infringe), that right. No one, not you nor I can can surrender, forfeit, transfer, trade give away or sell our rights because, they are unalienable, we are endowed with them! Our creator endows our rights! They are a gift! No one can take away our rights! It is so written in our founding documents. It is both “Organic” law and “Living” law when applied to their current or present time.

Not the NSA, not Google; not Facebook or any other person or thing, has the right to take and store our data, their agreements all be damned! And neither do we have the right to agree with those agreements! Why, because they infringe on our right, to secure our right, to secure our rights!

An application of our current times to our law (Organic & Living law), is to “arm” ourselves with data protection, virus protection, malware protection, ad-blockers, secure WIFI, virtual private networks (VPN’s), anti-spam, anti-phishing software and etc. or we should get off the Internet, away from social media, cellphones, anything digital or that which contains global positioning satellite (GPS), technology. All of these things are or can be also, “arms.” Competition is or can be “arms”! Build a better mousetrap, social media and etc. All of these “arms” are, a lot more than just knives, bullets and guns, are they not?!

Today, “arms” could include an AR-15 or some other high-tech number of “arms.” It does not matter what the physical means to disarm are, as they are inanimate objects, which have no ability to disarm! Only the individual can arm themselves and disarm an opponent, an enemy. Only responsible individuals so armed, form the security of a free state. Only responsible individuals are free. Only responsible individuals are well-regulated. Only responsible individuals, shall not be infringed.

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Does anyone have the right to be uncivil towards any other? Think about that the next time you think about “civil rights”, irresponsibly act or behave in any uncivil manner. Courtesy and responsibility are also, “arms” to secure, “The Blessings of Liberty!”

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Think of responsibility as, the ability to respond and to respond, responsibly. One could take a knife, kind words and courtesy to a gunfight and disarm their opponent if, they are first to respond and the first to disarm. A car, truck, home-made explosive, incendiary device, a drone and other such inanimate objects can be “arms”, but all of them, require the programming and control by people. It is responsible people that are to keep and bear “arms”, who shall not be infringed!

Just as the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and its amendments do not define “arms” in the past (organic law), or its application (living law), in the present. Neither do these specify how many “arms” anyone may have or how much ammunition one may “keep and bear”. Consider this– why should our government be allowed to “keep and bear…” any “arms” that its people cannot? That would be or is, irresponsible and infringement of our right, to secure our right, to secure our rights! Now I am not suggesting that we all go out an acquire a nuclear device, but I do sometime wonder about microwaves and our cellphones, pretty much doing the same thing only more slowly? But remember the words of Franklin—

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Benjamin Franklin

The second amendment does not define the purposes of bearing “arms” only its reason, for security. They could have been used; they could be used, to acquire food, for sport, for collections, for investments, for history, and for protection of property and persons, papers, effects, and for etc., and even our data, our intellectual property. No, this right does not specify the type of “arms”or how many one could have and how much ammunition one may “keep”. The second amendment is, just a simple and complete sentence (organic law), which ends with a period. Its parts, separated by commas are–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Behind this right (the context, for which it applied), were the British that tried to confiscate “arms” and disarm the colonies. Today, this same thing follows armed conflict and even under the banner of a well-intended protest, in the name of, ‘gun control’. Why not call it, “arms” control, to be accurate? Why would or why should any responsible parent, guardian or caretaker allow, their children to protest against the right to secure the right, to secure our rights? Ignorantly or intentional, these are not acts of responsibility! Why would or should any responsible teacher, administrator or other adult, paid and entrusted by the public to educate our children, allow our children to protest, against the right to secure the right, to secure our rights? Through ignorance or if intentional, these are not the actions of responsible adults! Well, neither “arms” nor type and number of “arms” and amount of ammunition, are the issues!

Rights and responsibility are inextricably bound to each other. One cannot be separated from the other. One could be on the right track, but get run over, if they were to just stand there. No, that would NOT be a responsible thing to do!

Education is another way to arm and disarm.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people…They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson

Self-government or self-governing, (Liberty) is, another way to arm and disarm (Secure).

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin’s words above are often quoted, but rarely ever explained in the context (how it was applied), in which they were given. Without its context, these words are believed to suggest that we may agree to give up some or all of our liberty, in exchange for “a little safety” (security)? But this is not, absolutely not, what Franklin said! The Penn family ruled Pennsylvania from afar and appointed their own governor. The governor repeatedly blocked the legislature from raising money (taxing its people), for their security. The Penn family were willing to “pay” for the security of the state, in exchange for the legislature NOT, taxing their lands. This was an attempt by the Penn family, to violate “separation of powers”. They were trying to give this authority to the executive branch instead of the legislative branch. These were attempts to prevent the legislative branch, from doing its job under its sole constitutional authority, to make law and to “provide for the common defense.” This was an infringement of the right to self-govern. But Franklin’s quote shows, “Liberty” and “Safety” are, aligned. We cannot have one without the other–

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

The application of Liberty and Security is, another way to arm and disarm.

“On every occasion [of Constitutional application] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” 

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Training and preparation is, another way to arm and disarm.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The history of application, and education with preparation and training is, another way to arm and disarm.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Our government could be considered as notorious, infamous, or having a proclivity (tendency), to use some crisis, some national state of emergency (real or imagined), to infringe our right, to secure our rights. A nervous populous may consider giving up some or all of our rights, in exchange for “safety” or some good-will cause. In its basic form, this is infringement and brought to bear by fear. WE need to see this, understand it and overcome fear, by the history of application, and education with preparation and training with “arms”. To arm responsibly is, the ONLY responsible way, to arm and disarm. It is the first law of nature (Laws of Nature or Nature’s God).

“This may be considered as the true palladium(2) of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

(2) Palladium is both an interesting and an excellent word choice by Tucker. Lets first look to its origin.  It is from the Greek word Palládion, noun use of neuter of Palládios of Pallas, equivalent to Pallad- (stem of Pallás) Pallas + -ios adj. Suffix. It is named after the epithet of the Greek goddess Athena, acquired by her when she slew Pallas. It was also, a statue of Athena, especially one on the citadel of Troy on which the safety (secure, security), of the city was supposed to depend. Palladium is also, a chemical element with symbol Pd and atomic number 46. It is a rare and lustrous silvery-white metal, discovered in 1803 by William Hyde Wollaston. He named it after the asteroid Pallas, which was itself named after the epithet of the Greek goddess Athena. On the MOH scale (measures weight from 1-7), platinum is rated at a 4 and palladium, a 5. When alloyed (armed), platinum goes up to a 4.5 and palladium to a 5.75. Just to give you some context as to what these numbers mean, the bottom of the scale is talc and at the top is diamond. Your finger nail would rate at 2.5, the same hardness as pure gold or pure silver. Stainless steel is a 6 and a diamond is 7. Perhaps Tucker knew of this discovery in 1803 when he wrote the text above? Perhaps he did not? To which ever application (“living” law) he was referring to, secure, security is, “organic” law!

Returning now, this last time here, to the second amendment, know this– our individual right to secure our rights, existed long before our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, (the first ten amendments), were ever written. In truth, this right has always existed, for as long as people, have populated this planet. They were written (“organic” law), so that we could apply (“living” law), to secure the Blessings of Liberty.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”

Preamble to the Constitution

Note the words, “SECURE the Blessings of Liberty”!

There can be no Blessings of Liberty without Security!

Any sovereign state, sovereign nation, sovereign country (because its people are sovereign ), have the right to secure our right, to secure our rights, for only our citizens!!!! This is stated in the Preamble to our Constitution, “WE the People of the United States!”

Anyone which would propose, protest, legislate, adjudicate, execute, regulate, limit, prevent, impede, alter, change and vote against our right, to secure our rights, infringe our rights! Any such, though friend or family; immigrant (not yet a citizen), illegal alien, or anyone illegally harboring and giving sanctuary to and giving notice of pending arrests, should all be considered as, enemies of, “the Blessings of Liberty!!!

If anyone asks why anyone would want or need an AR-15, for example, an honest answer would be, it is none of their business! But the best answer is, it is your right, to secure your rights, against any enemy and even our own government.

If you or I fear the use of “arms”, remember the following words in 1933.

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is …fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, first inaugural address, Saturday, March 4th, 1933

Let us not be like deer in headlights. Let us not freeze when the lion roars. Preparation is, a necessity, before and if, necessity finds us ill-prepared and unarmed! If our response to disarm cannot be with equal or greater force, let us be PREPARED to be, the first to respond, to disarm and secure our right, to secure our rights!

If our response to disarm cannot be with equal or greater force, let us be PREPARED to be, the first to respond, to disarm and secure our right, to secure our rights!

Overcome fear by becoming “armed.” WE must “arm” ourselves with whatever is necessary, to secure our right, to secure our rights!

WE must “arm” ourselves with whatever is necessary, to secure our right, to secure our rights!

WE should check with our doctors to ensure that we have sufficient physical ability and the mental capacity to arm ourselves. We should take safety courses. Join safe clubs. Purchase “arms” from reputable dealers. “Arm” ourselves legally and responsibly. Join the NRA. Practice often. Teach others. Teach and show our children. Start family and neighborhood clubs and watches. Watch over others. There is strength in numbers. There is peace through strength. Be a deterrent. Stop inviting criminals and the mentally unstable in, to– our homes, businesses, places of worship, schools and etc., with foolish signs like, ‘We are, un-armed here’!

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

We must become like the signers of the Declaration of Independence and pledge to each other, “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor”, for our individual right, to secure our rights, for ourselves and the futures of our children and the future of our republic!

Above all else remember, law (Organic and Living), is made, to inform and warn of what is lawless and to punish the lawless. It is not to punish or infringe the rights of the responsible, the law-abiding! The lawless and the mentally immature and unstable are NOT responsible. The law-abiding are responsible, they should be or WE should become, responsible! If actual or if it is a threat to infringe and if it is by evil intent, by a criminal, by our government, a mentally unstable person, an immature person, a family member, friend, associate or stranger, it is still, an infringement! They each and all are, enemies of and to, the Security of the Blessings of Liberty!

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

WE must each be or soon become, personally responsible, for ourselves and, for each other. These are the most civil, courteous, courageous, most responsible and most loving and compassionate things we can do to–

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

We are all and each, created equal and endowed by our Creator; not by people, not by the government, not by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America or its first ten amendments! We all and each are, “endowed with certain unalienable rights that among these are– “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These rights come from God. If you do not believe in God, then the laws of Nature or Nature’s God. Or they are just, universal!

Things equal to the same things are, equal to each other.

Secure your right, to secure these rights, to–

”Secure the Blessings of Liberty!”

1 of WE,

Dahni

Dahni, ‘The Patriot’

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”

 

 

The Making of Faking

March 12, 2017
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-zN

 

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

Making Faking

 

As this unfolds, Yes, Yes we are, embarking on a journey to discover, ‘The Making of Faking!’

Please Note: This article is not dependent on if you are a Democrat, Independent, Republican, some other political party, male or female, your religious or non-religious convictions, who you voted for, for president last November 2016 or if you like or do not like the current occupant of the White House! It does however; depend on whether you are a U.S. citizen and if you care about your Life, Your Liberty and Your Pursuit of Happiness!

 

For quite sometime now, the media is full (almost daily) of reports on:

  • Russian hacking of our election
  • The Trump campaign in collusion with the Russians to influence the election in his favor
  • Shakeup in the Whitehouse of firings/resignations/declinations to serve based on Russian ties
  • Suspicion of corruption or collusion with the Russians with members of the Trump administration
  • Wikileaks dumps (Vault 7) over 9,000 documents
  • Wiretapping of U.S. Citizens or No wiretapping
  • Former President Obama’s purported Shadow Government to take down President Donald Trump
  • Calls for Impeachment of Donald Trump
  • The Intelligence Community agreeing or not over wiretapping and/or possible collusion with the Russians and the Trump Administration, before and after the presidential election in November, of 2016
  • Calls for investigations from numerous sources
  • Calls for a special prosecutor to investigate these matters, from numerous sources
  • Fake News (actual and fake, fake news)
  • LEAKS

The last on the list above perhaps should be, first on the list. For this post, it should be! The number two should be, the word, FAKE. To be even more clear, first one fakes something (or sites something they known or unknown to be fake) and then they purposefully and intentionally or unwittingly, leak it (or cite leaks by others).

Maybe you are sick and tired of all of this? Rightfully so. Being bombarded with this stuff so much and so often, perhaps you don’t or no longer care? That’s understandable.

Perchance you have closed your mind to all of this because, it is too difficult to understand, figure out or even prove to yourself, what is and what is not true? That is a common reaction. But each of us should care and by the end, it is my hope; my intention that each of us do, and with a view to understanding all of it. And especially, with a further view as to what each of us can do about. Yes, each of us because, it is affecting and effecting our lives, each and every day!

Before continuing here, I would like you to know that I was a trained, investigative reporter. Though I have not been employed in this field for years, I maintain the skill set. I know how to research and source material, content and people, places and things. I am here, offering each of you, the benefit of my training. True journalism just reports. True investigative journalism, first investigates and then, it reports. This is not an editorial, my opinion or my theory or my speculation! It is based on what facts exist, which anyone can find, look up and know, that they know, that they know.

Some of the information I will provide here, does not require the intelligence community to reveal it, Congress, any court or any government agency, forced to provide it to the public. Most of it, just requires some investigative research (which I am providing) and just a fundamental understanding of how things work like, email and email servers – those storage devices that allow information to be sent and received over the Internet.

This begins with Edward Snowden. He was a whistleblower that leaked information about our own government about many things, which was and may well be still, engaged in. What things? Things like capturing what we previously believed was private information, from every citizen in the United States. Although his motives for, and the consequences of, doing so, may be subject to opinion, the content of those leaks has not been disputed. How could it be because, it was accurate! This information can come from a multiple number of sources i.e. a cell phone, and any e-mail address among other things. Our government collects and stores this information. What used to be, for all of us as, a reasonable expectation of privacy, has now become something you should be vehemently, adamantly and emphatically concerned about because now—

There is No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy!

What about our Constitutional rights? What about our right to be secure in our papers and etc. and our intellectual property? Not anymore! You and I should be concerned about that! But what about the Law (the Constitution) and other existing laws? Aren’t there laws in place to protect? Yes, Yes there are, but most often, to protect those that break the Law or laws.

This continues with the latest news about surveillance or what we understand as wiretapping. It is believed that a warrant must be obtained from a court, in order to wiretap. Enter, the FISA Court. FISA, The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance or simply, FISA Court (FISC). It is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Is there anything in the above information that suggests this may be obtained from a citizen of the United States? No there is not! But if this communication is between a foreign entity and a U.S. citizen, a warrant may be granted by the court. Like any warrant, there must be sufficient evidence, for a FISA Court judge to grant the warrant.

So now let us go back in time from the present (March of 2017), to around October last, then June and earlier of 2016.

President Donald J. Trump under his personal Twitter account tweeted on March 4, 2017,

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory [referring to the November 2016 election]. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! …Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by a court earlier [this would have been in June of 2016]. A NEW LOW! …I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones [would include email too] in October, just prior to election! …How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones [and data] during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

Donald J. Trump
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump 3.4.17

 

This sure set off a firestorm! What was the proof? Is there any? What were some of the responses to these accusations?

“A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

Obama Spokesman Kevin Lewis

Is the Attorney General that works, for the president, in the White House? No. So yes, one could president Obama never interfered in an investigation and maybe that he never instigated one either? But did he tell his AG to do it or did she know that is what he would have wanted her to do?

“I think he’s [Trump] right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general-at the Justice Department.”

Former Attorney General to President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey

“No president can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you [Trump].”

Former Obama National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes

Rather than decide who is right and who is wrong from the apparent contradictory statements above, how about a novel approach? Let’s look at one, actual law.

Excerpt from the U.S. Code

Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code “War & National Defense” ,
Subchapter 1, Section 1802

 

Does this law begin with the President then proceed to the Attorney General? Yes. So Could it be said that the president may order such surveillance? Yes. May it be interpreted that the Attorney General if so ordered, the president did not order it? Yes. Semantics? Perhaps, but understand all these people who serve in a presidential administration are not elected, they are appointed by the President; many of which are confirmed by Congress, but they “serve at the pleasure of the President!”

“Definition of at the pleasure of (someone) — used to say that something is done or can be done because someone wants it to be done, I serve at the pleasure of the president, and I will continue to serve as long as the president wants me to.”

Merriam Webster Dictionary

“I can’t speak officially anymore. But I will say that, for the most part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI [Director of National Intelligence] , there was no such wiretap activity mounted against his [Trump’s] campaign. I can’t speak for other Title Three authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity.”

Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper

When he was asked to confirm or deny the existence of a FISA court order, Clapper claimed, “I can deny it.” He then followed up with, “Not to my knowledge.” Well, which is it, does he deny it or just doesn’t know? Doesn’t want to say?

His statements were widely spread across the media, but his later claims were mostly ignored by the media. In an interview with CNN’s Chuck Todd, Clapper was asked—

“Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

Chuck Todd, CNN

“We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything— that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.” 

James Clapper

“I Understand that, but does it exist.”

Chuck Todd, CNN

“Not to my knowledge.”

James Clapper

Understand that this information about whether or not such surveillance was performed to which there would be a paper trail, is juxtaposed (side by side) with the longstanding theme of Russian hacking, interfering with our election in favor of  Donald Trump, winning that election. And if the scenario is true, Russian hacking is believed to be the cause for why, Hillary R. Clinton lost the election.

Now, right now it should be clear to anyone that our intelligence agencies are either incompetent or cannot be trusted to tell the truth! Both? If the idea of Russian hacking persists, how can it be denied that the intelligence community did not know about it if, they deny surveillance being ordered? This appears to be exactly what Clapper seems to wants distance away from. If our election was hacked by the Russians (and it sure appears our intelligence agencies were clueless), and since there is no evidence to support this, how would he know or would they (the Intel. Community) know, without some data? So, were we hacked? Was Trump “tapped?”  Is it one or the other or both? Let’s look at the credibility of the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

In March of 2013, then as DNI, James Clapper testified before Congress, under oath, regarding the National Security Agency’s (NSA) collection of data.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of American?” “No sir,” Clapper answered. To confirm, Senator Wyden repeated clapper’s answer— “It does not?” James Clapper responded— “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”

Which is it, wittingly (knowingly) or unwittingly (without knowing)?

In January 2014, Edward Snowden said his “breaking point” which led to him becoming a whistleblower in May 2013 was “seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress.

“There’s no saving an intelligence community that believes it can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realization that no one else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these programs.”

Edward Snowden

Just so it is perfectly clear, this is about not just warrant-less surveillance on just a few, but anyone and everyone the intelligence community sees fit to target. Now here is an ill-logical, logical reason for this. If you collect data from everyone, sooner or later it will surely lead to some potentially bad stuff/people or some bad stuff people who you or I may have wittingly or unwittingly, had some form of communication with or that used us to receive and send information. I’ll call it the ‘Spaghetti Effect.’ If you throw all the spaghetti (all data) against the wall, sooner or later, some of it is bound to stick!  I cannot answer for you, but I’m NOT OK with this! Even if you believe your data is harmless and you have nothing to worry about, do you trust the Intelligence Community to not use it against you if, it suits their purposes? I certainly don’t! Too much information in the hands of humans with opinions and purposes that are not in line with the Constitution and my personal Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is, a very, very dangerous thing!

On June 21st, 2013, just about three months after he testified under oath to Congress, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the following:

“My response [to Congress] was clearly erroneous for which I apologize. While my staff acknowledged the error to Senator Wyden’ staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified.”

Former DNI, James Clapper

OK, so you apologize for lying under oath, but it’s OK? He is really not guilty of perjury in the least or multiple perjuries? OK, does this make you feel any better or trust the Intelligent Community any more? Not me! Was it OK for Clapper to lie under oath to Congress because, the information then, was classified? And if not for Snowden leaking the information, how would anyone know or maybe even, ever know?

What matters is not whether you or I believe Snowden was a patriot or a traitor. What matters is the reach and over-reach of our servants in the government of US, WE the People? Can we trust them? Can we trust them to keep secrets? Can we trust them not to leak secrets?

With those matters out in the public, wouldn’t you think the Intelligent Community would scale-back or hide or change their ways? Wouldn’t you expect Congress to reign in the Intel Community or cut their funding? I would and I do! Perhaps they are reluctant to do so because, like you and I, all of their data is stored too? Maybe they don’t want their data leaked? Maybe they don’t want to be fired or arrest or have their lives and the families and their friends lives be put in jeopardy? But look at the following from January of 2017, even before Donald Trump was sworn in, as the 45th President of the United States.

From the Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Fact Sheet on E.O. 12333 Raw SIGINT Availability Procedures

January 12, 2017

On January 3, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, issued the “Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency under Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333” (the “Raw SIGINT Availability Procedures”).  The procedures were approved by the Attorney General on January 3, 2017.

The procedures are called for by Section 2.3 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12333, as amended in 2008.  The last paragraph of Section 2.3 of E.O. 12333 provides that elements of the Intelligence Community (IC) may disseminate information to a recipient IC element to allow that element to determine whether information “is relevant to its responsibilities and can be retained by it, except that information derived from signals intelligence may only be disseminated or made available to Intelligence Community elements in accordance with procedures established by the Director [of National Intelligence] in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and approved by the Attorney General.” [1]

Executive Order 12333, often referred to as “twelve triple-three,” has attracted less debate than congressional wiretapping laws, but serves as authorization for the NSA’s most massive surveillance programs — far more than the NSA’s other programs combined. Under 12333, the NSA taps phone and internet backbones throughout the world, records the phone calls of entire countries, vacuums up traffic from Google and Yahoo’s data centers overseas, and more.

In 2014, The Intercept revealed that the NSA uses 12333 as a legal basis for an internal NSA search engine that spans more than 850 billion phone and internet records and contains the unfiltered private information of millions of Americans.

In 2014, a former state department official described NSA surveillance under 12333 as a “universe of collection and storage” beyond what Congress has authorized.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who gave reporters documents that revealed the breadth of the 12333 surveillance, tweeted this:

“As he hands the White House to Trump, Obama just unchained NSA from basic limits on passing raw intercepts to others https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html …”

Edward Snowden
twitter.com/Snowden
11:54 AM – 12 Jan 2017

So if you would like to believe that the then president Obama, had nothing to do with this, then so be it, call it, “plausible deniability.” But these changes occurred in his administration and just days before the next president was sworn in and took up residency in the White House.

What does this mean to you and me? What does it mean to the Intelligence Community? Sharing information among the agencies can be a good thing, but what else? A better question is this, what lately, has the Intelligence Community being doing with this information? LEAKING it! Where is it being leaked to? The media or Wikileaks latest dump of some 9,000 documents called, ‘Vault 7.’ Where is there journalistic integrity among the media? Is it OK to publish illegal information that should have never been given them in the first place?

Every single one of US U.S. citizens should be greatly concerned about this! Our own Intelligence Community is leaking information they cannot legally give. They have one job and that is keeping secrets and keeping their mouths shut. Is it any strange thing that better than 90+ % of all the IC donated to other than Trump, voted for other than Trump and is still at their jobs within the present administration? OK, so they don’t like Trump. Does this give them any grounds to illegally leak this information to the press? Do you realize this is a criminal offense; a federal crime, a felony? Is the media complicit in the transmission of this illegally gotten information? Should they be arrested, tried and convicted too? And they do this in the name of protecting anonymous sources? Are they just fake people or are they real people that do not want to be caught, found out breaking the law?

OK, let’s move along to another subject, albeit one that is connected and in fact, may be central to this whole Russian hacking and the wiretapping controversy . It’s called, e-mail.

Before we go into email, it is important to get our terms correct. Hacking is an attempt to get into devices and systems without authority, for the purpose of discovering information from outside of the device or the system. Yes, it could be done on purpose to discover any vulnerability of the devices and systems, with a view to improvement and greater security. But when speaking of Russian hacking, the purpose is believed to have affected, the outcome of our recent presidential election. Leaking is not hacking, per se. The information might be gained from hacking and then, leaking the information. But why would anyone, want anyone to know, they hacked your stuff by leaking the information? Would this possibly close the door to one doing anymore hacking, at least in the ways it was done prior to leaking it? No, the current leaks coming from our government to the press are, coming from our inside our own government.

Remember the Email Scandal involving Hillary Clinton? Whether or not she did or did not do anything wrong may or may never be known. But the fact is, she did have a private server installed in her home, outside of the government. Another fact is, it was found out and that she did indeed, had a private server. That information was leaked to the press and the public at large. Why did she have such a server in the first place? Perhaps she had much, she wanted to hide? Maybe it was, that she, far better than you and I, knew, about the government’s collection of data and did not trust it herself? It could also be possible, it was both of these. Before we get into the possibilities of HOW this was leaked, the question is WHY her use of a private server would be leaked. There are only two possible reasons:

  1. To discredit her, to cast doubt on her credibility; to suggest she was doing something wrong, even if not. This is purely political.
  2. To illegally leak information about a possible ongoing criminal or potentially criminal investigation. This could have been political and it could have been from whistleblowers that right or wrong, believed the government was doing something wrong, i.e. trying to cover it up. Even so, those leaks even if true, are still illegal.

So, HOW could this information get found out? We already have looked into the massive collection and storage of data by the Intel Community. But an email server is used to send and receive information privately (Intranet) and over the Internet.

E-mail servers are devices and systems used to do this. As information comes in or goes out, this data is coded (computer language) in the form of packets. It is highly possible if this information is not encrypted, for others to snag this information out in cyberspace at some point after it is sent and before it is received, by the recipient. Another way is to hack into the system and have access to whatever goes out or what comes in. Another way is to log onto the system by way of a user name and a password. There are ways to discover one’s password if it is not long enough; strong enough. We know that the Democrat Convention was compromised. It has been blamed on Russian hacking and many may still hold to this belief. We know that much of this information was leaked to Wikileaks. At the forefront of this was, John Podesta. Through him, this information was leaked. How? A simple ‘fishing’ program was used to discover his password, which was, password! Some believe that someone within the DNC leaked this. Some believe that person ended up being murdered.

Email and email servers if used to transmit information over the Internet have, what we call, a ‘paper trail’ even if just digital as opposed to real paper (unless it is printed). This information is registered. It is extensive. It is public. These ‘whois’ searches include such things as the name of the server i.e. hillaryclinton.com or mail1.trump-email.com or mail.trump-email.com, physical address, the registrar such as, goddaddy.com, telephone number, fax number and administrative contact email and many other items.

It is no secret that politicians tend to smear, lie, spread rumors and cast doubt about their their opposition. Donald J. Trump was definitely trying to exploit Hillary Clinton’s private email server during the presidential campaign of 2016. Chants of “Lock Her Up” could be heard long loud and often, at many of Trump’s rallies.

It is now understood that in June of 2016, then Attorney General, Loretta Lynch (or a deputy/assistant attorney?), tried to obtain a FISA warrant to tap into Donald Trump’s e-mail server, for possible ties to Russia. It was denied likely because, it was lacking sufficient evidence. Perhaps coincidental, but this request in June, happened to be around the time that Former President, Bill Clinton, met with AG, Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.  Another request for a warrant was filed again with the FISA court in October, and was granted. So here is the question, what changed from June to October? What evidence existed that caused the FISA court judge to grant the warrant? Was it evidence or suspicion, due to the unusual amount of activity, found supposedly, coming from Trump’s server and a Russian bank? OMG, Did Donald Trump have Russian dressing with his salad? OMG he must surely be in collusion with the Russians? Yes, something that ridiculous, spread long enough enough could cause doubt and start to stick. But their had to be more data than just one bottle of Russian dressing for the Intel Community to get involved. There was and we shall see, it’s all the ‘Making of Faking.’

From May 4th –September 23rd, 2016, there were over 2,800 ‘hit’s’ called pings from a Russian bank and Trumps email server. Then in October of that year, the warrant was granted. How did anyone know about this unusual activity in the first place, before June, when in June, the first warrant was denied? How could they present sufficient evidence in October to receive the warrant if, Trump’s email was not already being looked into? Was all of this leaked? What were these pings?

On October 31st, 2016, two articles appeared from the press. One was from Slate and the other was from, The New York Times. On the same day (10-31-16), Hillary Clinton tweeted:

“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”

Hillary Clinton
twitter.com/HillaryClinton
10-31-2016 5:56 PM

 

What computer scientists? Who were they? What covert server? Where was it? How did they know? Who told Clinton, Slate or the New York Times?Two articles and one tweet all from leaked, unnamed, anonymous sources and all of it illegal, started the spread of doubt which continues to cloud the integrity of the United States Intelligent Community to this day! Not only do WE the People not trust our government, many of our allies have doubt. Do you see what a dangerous game is being played, for whatever the motives might be, well-intentional or not; wittingly or unwittingly? A game? A dangerous game? If their is something to the Russian hacking and the Trump Organization’s collusion with the Russians, so be it. But there is no evidence? And there is still no answer as to the government’s role in surveillance which included private citizens. The government can deny it all they want, but they’re in it “thick as thieves.”   Somebody thought I wonder if or let’s say there is suspicion of wrongdoing here so let’s use the the Intel Community to check it out. Well, look at this, nothing. Then again in October, well look at all the activity, look at all those pings!!!

Well back to those pings. For a simple explanation for what are referred to as a DNS (domain name server) lookup, think of them initially as, a request for information. It’s like— hello, are you at home right now, is this really you. You are simply trying to establish some communication and verify you are communicating with who you are intending to reach or that is attempting to contact you.

There are other ways to try to communicate with a device or system. You might just want to leave ‘cookies’ to see where the server goes onto the internet. Many businesses use ‘cookies.’ They may be harmless, but nonetheless, they are like intruding little unseen spies, removed when you clear your Internet cache. It can get more and more sinister. One might want to try out different keys (passwords) to see if they can get in through your front door or maybe some other door. They may look for some open windows or doors, some unsecured ports that would allow them entry.  These hacks and cracks might be used to just break in and steal our stuff one time, destroy the place or leave a back-door to get in at anytime and steal and/or break stuff little by little. And they may want to exploit your device or system, by using it to contact other devices and systems and blame you for it.

So, somewhere between May-June of 2016, Trump’s email server got pinged over 2,800 hundred times. If it was just a simple hello is this you (DHS) request, this article would never have been written, and no one would be talking about Russian hacking and U.S. wiretapping (all data from whatever source). It was more than just the volume of pings which alerted attention and caused a judge to grant a warrant. The activity was just unusual. What does that mean? I do not know, but it was unusual.

I have included the following link to a CNN article that does a good job of explaining much of this rather than just speculate, which many believe CNN does often. CNN has been called the Communist News Network, the Clinton News Network and just the Fake News Network. I am not a fan of CNN, but the article linked, offers a pretty good explanation as to this unusual activity. As I explained earlier, mail. trump-email.com is a current and legitimate server. So was mail1.trump-email.com. The Trump organization employed a marketing firm called Cendyn out of Pennsylvania. The administrative email contact was a vice-president of the company and coincidence or not, she is related to a former CIA agent.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

Click to read the above article and look for the links and click on the Slate and the New York Times articles as well.

OK, you and I know somewhat about, what marketing firms do, especially if we have ever stayed in a hotel or a motel. We went, we stayed; we receive emails (spam) about wanting us to return, about their other services and perhaps a lot of other things. You do realize that Trump Tower is among other things, a hotel right? People associated with the Russian bank in question, have stayed at Trump Tower. But the communication was one-way. There is no evidence that the Trump Organization ever returned the communication.

So, there was this server mail1.trump-email.com that was being administered by Cendyne a marketing firm in PA. At some point they were replaced by a German firm, but that server still existed and technically was still being administered by Cendyne. Were they or was the vice-president who was the administrative contact listed under email contact, mad about being replaced? Did they want to get back at Trump for outing them or try to cast doubt on Trump because, they favored Clinton for president? I don’t know. But that Russian bank had admitted receiving marketing email from Trump Tower in the past, but when they noticed the unusual amount of activity, supposedly coming from them, they used U.S. specialists to try to solve this. Their investigation and research showed this came from somewhere in Europe. Well, of course we would expect them to deny it, but what actually was done? A whole bunch of communication, supposedly from them to mail1.trump-email.com was sent, but no evidence was ever responded to. Then, when the Trump organization discovered their email server (address) was being used, they took it down. Next, the collusion with Russia conspiracy theory continues, see there, Trump is trying to hide something, he got caught with this email server and took it down?

Well, you can continue to believe that if you so desire. You can blame the Russian for hacking the DNC, trying to manipulate the election, trying to get Donald Trump elected, and that he was and/or is, in collusion with Russia, that there were or was not attempts to wiretap the Trump Organization or that it never happened. And you can believe that he is an illegitimate president, that he and the Russians cost Hillary Clinton the election. You can believe that his appointments had or have Russian connections. As for me, and this article and the research contained herein proves only one thing.

Someone or someone(s) (that would be collusion), conspired to make it look as if, Donald J. Trump was and/or is, in collusion with Russians. I don’t know who did this, exactly how it was implemented, where it originated (likely someplace in Europe), but the only evidence to support the requests for two separate FISA warrants and any surveillance originated in our country, by our Intelligence Community and during the Obama administration.  Is Obama running a shadow operation to discredit or try to impeach Donald Trump from his presently rented home just about two miles from the White House? I do not know. Iis he doing all of this to try and preserve his legacy at the expense of to hell with the law, intelligence, secrecy and protection of our Constitutional rights? I do not know. Has his former advisor/attorney Valerie Jarrett been given a room and an office in this home as several media outlets have reported? I do not know. Has Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, Laura (also a lawyer), been hired by CNN to cover Washington D.C. Politics and etc.? Yes? Does she have a journalism degree, background or expertise? No!

So in conclusion here, this entire so-called scandal is nothing more than, the ‘Making of Faking.’

People that believe something nefarious or evil is at the center of this controversy, are not faking what they believe. That could change, especially if, nothing to the contrary comes out, but then again maybe not. People believe what they believe whether it is factual or fake.

“You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. You can lead a man [or a woman] to the truth, but you cannot make them think.”

-unknown-

“A man [or woman] convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.”

-unknown-

Oh those pesky facts, alternate or alternative facts! But one more thing can be added here, our own government, our Intelligence Community and the previous administration has been involved with fake information, leaked that information and is in CTA (cover their ass) mode about their reach and over-reach against Our Constitution, Our rights, beyond the scope of Congressional oversight and is an out-control, illegal, clandestine operation of espionage against their own country and their own employers, US, WE the People! Fictionally Legally (legal fiction) or not so legally, they might defend, but they are guilty of if not treason, at least in not honoring their oaths of office to protect and defend the United States and Our country, you and I, against all enemies foreign and domestic. And for what? For what purpose? To continue the making of faking, unanswered and answering to no one especially not their employers, WE the People who are supposed to serve at Our pleasure because, most are not even elected. If WE do not put a stop to this, who will? In this, they are our enemies from within and they are not our friends!

You have just read a report. It has been reported on by the tools of investigative journalism. Your conclusions are your own. Sorry, there are only two pictures provided in this post. You will just have to get the picture, on your own, make up your own minds, but this is truly about and has been about and remains, the ‘Making of Faking!’

 

1 of WE,

MySignature_clr

 

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

Remember

May 30, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-vf

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

Half-Mast til' Noon

Half-staff til’ Noon

Most of you know I’m not, a veteran. I’ve family that have lived and died in service to this country. Most of my dearest friends are members of these services for my Freedom and yours! They are among the kindest, gentlest, most respectful, most civil, most dedicated, most disciplined, among the smartest, and most heart-serving, self-sacrificing people, I’ve ever known! I’m just honored, really honored that they let me hang out with them and shake their hands! I try my best to do for them more! To me, they are the living, breathing examples of the purpose of, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America! I REMEMBER you! And they, remember what Memorial Day is for! I will REMEMBER! What does this day mean to me and to all others?

Full-staff after Noon

Full-staff after Noon

Note: “Half-staff” or “Half-mast?” If a flag is hoisted on a pole on land, the proper term is half-staff. If it is a flag raised on a ship, the correct term is, half-mast.

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, a soldier stand guards by day and night at Arlington National Cemetery

Memorial Day, is an American holiday observed on the last Monday of May. It is supposed to, honor the men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military. Today, many people have forgotten this or have never known this and it has become something else. And sadly, there are those that do not care and may not ever care? How very sad and so very, very foolish are these whose breath and freedom has been provided by those who lived and died that they so dishonor! General Sherman of the Civil War said, “War is Hell!” Every soldier, from both the North and South, fought and died for FREEDOM, all politics aside!!

In 1966, the federal government declared Waterloo, New York, the official birthplace of Memorial Day. Waterloo—which had first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866—was chosen because it hosted an annual, community-wide event, during which businesses closed and residents decorated the graves of soldiers with flowers and flags.

Originally, this day was known as, Decoration Day. It was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11. “The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land,” he proclaimed. The date of Decoration Day, as he called it, was chosen because it wasn’t the anniversary of any particular battle.

On the first Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, and 5,000 participants decorated the graves of the 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried there. Soldiers still decorate the graves here, every year, for the unknown soldier and for those who families cannot or will not. It is fitting that both those of the North and of the South are buried here because, WE the People are one people! Arlington Cemetery by the way, is on property that once belonged to General Robert E. Lee. The name Lee, is a namesake in our family. Our grandmother Laura Lee was named by her great-grandfather, who fought with General Lee and respected him greatly! Our sister was named, Carol Lee. Her daughter was named, Sierra Lee.

Memorial Day became an official federal holiday in 1971.

Today, we have forgotten this history or have never been taught it. Many Americans observe Memorial Day by visiting cemeteries or memorials of their family and friends that may or may not have served in the military. Others hold family gatherings and participate in parades. Unofficially, at least, it marks the beginning of summer. Swimming pools often open up on Memorial Day and close on Labor Day. Many people just think of it as a three-day holiday. It has become a time for the gatherings of friends and family and backyard barbecues and picnics.  It is a time of ‘great deals’ for new car sales and sales for so many more ‘things.’ Then there is the matter of confusing this day with other holidays.

 

REMEMBER

VETERANS DAY

Veterans Day November 1, is an opportunity to publicly commemorate the contributions of living veterans. Every veteran has the right to a military funeral to include: an honor guard, the blowing of TAPS, their coffin draped with a flag of the United States of America and to have it properly folded by the honor guard into its triangular shape, representing the first patriots’ cocked three corner hat of 1776 and to have this presented to some loved one, “on behalf of a grateful nation.” 

ARMED FORCES DAY

Armed Forces Day, May 17 an opportunity to publicly commemorate the contributions of those presently serving in all branches of the military.

RememberMemDay3

Poem is written by -Unknown-  click to enlarge

MEMORIAL DAY

Memorial Day, May 30 (traditional), is a sacred day to all war veterans. It commemorates those who died while in service to their country or that died from wounds while in service to our country. My brother’s namesake, Richard, was an Air Force pilot in WW2. Neither his plane nor his body was every found. Memorial Day is for men and women like him. Like any veteran, these men and women have the rights to a military funeral with all the do respect, due them. America’s collective consciousness demands that all citizens be reminded of the deaths of their fellow countrymen during wartime or times of their sacrifice while in service to our nation. By honoring the nation’s war dead and those that died while in service, we preserve their memory and thus their service and sacrifice. All U.S. flags should be displayed at half-staff or half-mast during the morning hours. At noon, they should be raised back to full-staff or full-mast. Respectfully, the flag should be taken down at sunset and properly folded.

Note: “Half-staff,” Full-staff” or “Half-mast, Full-mast?” If a flag is hoisted on a pole on land, the proper term is half-staff or full-staff. If it is a flag raised on a ship, the correct term is, half-mast or full-staff.

This day is a sacred day to all veterans and to those serving. None of these never need, to be reminded of the reason that Memorial Day must be commemorated!

Far too often, the nation as a whole, takes for granted the freedoms all Americans enjoy and those that have made and will make it still possible! Those freedoms were paid for, or will be, by the ultimate sacrifice with the lives of others, few of us actually knew or will ever know. That’s why they are all collectively remembered on one special day.

Memorial Day should be regarded as a civic obligation. For this is a national debt that can only be truly repaid by individual Americans. By honoring the nation’s dead that died in service to our country, we preserve their memory and thus their service and sacrifice in the memories of future generations. For by them are we here! There is no greater example of love, commitment and dedication, for they gave and will freely give their lives to something far greater, than their own lives!

“Greater love hath no man [or woman] than this, that a man [or woman] lay down his life for his  [or theirfriends [and family and all others of our nation].”

John 15:13,King James Version (KJV)

They came; they will come, from all walks of life and regions of the country. But they all had and will have, one thing in common—love of and loyalty to country. This bond cemented and cements ties between them in times of trials, allowing a diverse lot of Americans to achieve monumental ends. They are the examples of what it means to be united, in the United States of America!

We remember the loss of loved ones, a sense of loss that takes group form. In essence, America is commemorating those who made the greatest sacrifice possible—giving one’s own life on behalf of others.

Nothing infuriates me more than the ignorance of flag burners. Not only do they not understand the purpose of Our Republic, and trample upon it, spit on it and burn it, they take these flags from those whose honor it is, to have their coffins draped by their Mother country, for whom they have freely given their all, to all and to even for those that burn their palls.

Perhaps those that disrespect, would be interested in knowing that if the government enforced our laws, they would be in violation of the U.S. Flag Code and subject to penalties. For more information on the flag code see: Flag This (an update)

Note: A pall (also called mortcloth) is a cloth (or flag) that covers a casket or coffin at funerals. The word comes from the Latin pallium (cloak).

Each year, members of the military have the honor of placing flags at the graves of every soldier buried, in Arlington National Cemetery. Soldiers understand and take this day and the words of JFK seriously. President John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”

This year marks the 72nd year since the Normandy Invasion.

RememberNormandy

Normandy Then & Now (click to enlarge)

The picture above is extraordinary! Two actual photographs were merged together to make it.  It is ‘D-Day’ in Normandy. It is the Landing of US troops on Omaha beach. The Black and white photo portion is from June 6th 1944; colour from 2010. Many lost their lives the day this was taken or shortly after. Most have since died. The rest will soon pass away. Our family honors two family friends (Joe & Don) that participated in the Normandy Invasion. They are honored to personally participate in the memorial in Normandy, France, on this seventy-second commemoration. They are just two of the few still alive from their ship, the USS DD603 Murphy, which participated in the Normandy Invasion. Though we may not know or remember those in this picture, they have all lived and died or will one day, for FREEDOM! They cannot and must not be forgotten! REMEMBER!

I am posting this with the hope that as many people as possible will see it, share it, learn from it and DO IT! Enjoy your long holiday. Enjoy your times together as family and friends. Enjoy your rest. Enjoy your barbecues, parades and picnics. I hope you find and make ‘great deals’ during this three-day weekend. Enjoy decorating the graves of your loved ones. But on Memorial Day, May the 30th, remember what it is REALLY for and for WHOM! Flags In! Flags in for their courage! Flags in for the cause! Flags in for the freedom! I will, REMEMBER!

“This weekend we honor those who gave it all to their country and then some. It amazes me often how men and women find the courage to put on the uniform and wear their patriotism freely and honorably. It also reminds me of what Nathan Hale said one time, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” The heroes of this country deserve a day to be celebrated and reflected upon, but not mourned. I conclude this post with a great quote from General George S. Patton, “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.””

excerpt from the words of a living Army veteran: Chuck Mcmillen

 

1 of We,

Dahni

Why Vote

September 26, 2015

short link to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-si

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

Why vote? In one word—FREEDOM!

VoteFreedom

Yes, that is the simple answer, but WE have a tendency of complicating things and may completely miss the simple. Perhaps the word “freedom,” needs some explaining?

If you have ever met, know someone or may one day meet someone, for which the following applies, then maybe this will help persuade them? If the shoe fits, then maybe the following will help persuade you?

I have heard and know people who didn’t vote or have never voted. There have been a few times that I did not vote, so the following is, for me as well.

Because of freedom, each of us are free to vote and we each have the freedom not to. But before continuing, I would just like to point out some very important facts about freedom.

We are NOT the first republic, but we are the oldest still in existence. Search the history of US and you will discover that what made our meteoric rise possible, as both an economic and a military world power is due to, FREEDOM. It is very simple. Where there is the freedom to think and dream and produce the things we have and have produced, for the world is because, WE the people are free! Therefore, WE have the incentive to produce, innovate and develop technologies, products and services and even produce food, like no other nation on earth! This freedom is NOT free. Men and women have paid for it and are still paying for it, to keep us FREE! If there were no other reasons than for them, each of us should vote! Freedom is NOT FREE. Someone(s) has to pay to protect it and WE should pay by voting to keep it!

I have selected the following videos, for all of us.

Dom Roso, a former U.S. Navy Seal, begins with a very somber wake-up call. Look beyond the sponsor of this video (the NRA – National Rife Association) and focus instead on, the message by someone who knows what he is talking about. He lived it on the front lines!

“Do We Deserve the WWII Generations Sacrifice?”

The next video is also, very sobering. As you watch it, think too of all the wars our soldiers fought before those on the video. Think on the Civil War and all others before it and then where our Country began, during the Revolutionary War, around 1776. FREEDOM has been fought for and paid for, for as long as the heart has cried for FREEDOM!

As many whine about how hard it is to sing or remember the words of our National anthem, listen to this five-year old little girl and behold her enthusiasm singing, The Star Spangled Banner.

As many may now grow up without ever learning and saying the Pledge of Allegiance because, it is thought to be ‘separation of church and state,’ due to just two words, “under God,” think about this next video from 1969.

Red Skelton, 1969 CBS television

To learn and sing our National Anthem, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and to vote, seems pretty simple and the least WE can do, for those that pledge with their lives, to keep US FREE. What can they fight to protect, if we will not fight to keep our nation FREE?

And for them, what more can we do? If you see a soldier, thank them, help them, drive them to a polling place and ask them about why you should vote! Feed them and support them, where ever they are!

Our big holidays are coming up. Many of our soldiers will be far from home while we be in comfort, during the holidays. Would you like to bring a taste of home to some of those serving, far away from home? Check out and donate to the GI Bar-b-que. see:

http://gibbq.com/about-us/

And finally, we’re almost done here. The Day is Done. Our last videos are familiar to every soldier and to many that have ever heard its powerful and meaningful sounds. As this plays, read the lyrics!

Taps

These many soldiers buried at Arlington National Cemetery and all over the world, were often given a recorded version of their beloved TAPS. These 33 buglers believed, every soldier deserves a ‘LIVE’ playing TAPS over their brow as they rest, having given the ultimate sacrifice for you and I. FREEDOM is NOT FREE! Every soldier believes freedom is worth dying for. Can we not honor them and believe and vote that freedom is, worth living for?

33 Buglers honoring our vets playing LIVE Taps

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr

To Secure these Rights

September 7, 2015

short link to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-s1

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

 

There are many things that make me angry and in time, I can usually get-over most of them, but this one really pisses me off. Now in public, I don’t normally use this kind of language, but it sure as hell fits here!

Not too often in the past, have I encountered such ignorance. Either I am starting to run into more of these people or there is a trend and the numbers are growing larger. I hope, I’m just running into them and they are NOT really getting larger!

Have you ever met people who almost proudly proclaim, “I don’t vote,” or “I’ve never voted,” well, I have, too often and too many times!

We are gearing up right now for another presidential election. Here is a summary of what I’ve read:

1. You can’t win the next election without the Latino, Women’s, Evangelical vote and etc.

2. Running third-party just splits the vote?

Are any of those things actually true? Third-parties spilt the vote? NO! Third parties provide an alternative to cast your vote as you believe, who is the best candidate. Win or lose is not the point. The point is exercising your choice and voting, that’s part of it, but there’s MORE! Consider the last presidential election. The ONLY reason the other party lost was because, 4 million registered voters stayed home and did not vote at all!

“If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.”

The Bible, Eccleasiates 10:4, King James Version (KJV)

To leave or to yield pacifies great offenses. We cannot sit idly by and expect government to protect our rights!  To do nothing gives consent, to the government to greatly offend!

“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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..”

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

Copy of the original Declaration of Independence

Copy of the original Declaration of Independence

Why vote? You are exercising your inalienable rights and giving consent to the powers that be, “to secure these rights!

For myself, IF I cannot or will not explain this to anyone that does not vote, I have no reason to be angry with them about not voting. But IF I do explain this to them and they do not change, I have no reason to associate with them nor do they have a reason for me to NOT, be angry with them!

My most recent experience is with another non-voter which is a citizen (as far as I know), but he came here over 15 years ago from another country. He operates a successful business and I have done business with him for years, that is until recently. In a conversation, he revealed that he has proudly, never voted. And he never voted in his mother country either. I asked him why not, here? He said, “Why should I vote, I do not have children in school, why do I have to pay school tax?” Well, I don’t like school tax either, we do not have any school-age children living with us or that go to any school where we live, but this is not the point. It’s not that I mind contributing to a more educated future, I mind having to, without my FREE choice to do so! And as to the non-voting businessman, wouldn’t a more educated community make better customers, for him? I think and believe most assuredly, YES! Well, he became busy with customers and we did not finish our conversation. It needs to be resolved, before I can with a clear conscience, continue to do business with him. Is this too strong of a response to, his not-voting? Why should I give him one penny more, IF he will not vote, “to secure these rights!” By the way, I like him, he is a nice man; he has a nice family; he has a nice store that I frequent.

Usually, when I meet legal immigrants that either are new citizens here or are in the process of becoming citizens, I find that they know more about our country and form of government than many people I’ve met that were born here and have lived here all their lives! And many of them, have lived here many, many years longer than these new citizens or legal immigrants in route to becoming citizens! So, I was really taken by surprise, by my recent non-voter experience.

To be fair and honest, I need to explain to him and all others I know or may meet that do NOT vote, why they should vote. And IF after that and they still refuse to vote, I need to excuse myself, disassociate myself from them and as it might be, to no longer do business with them! Too strong a response by me?

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of the United States

“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of the United States

Our rights being secured by the government of, by and for the people is, dependent upon all of us being educated and exercising those rights in voting and giving our consent, “to secure these rights!

I have a proposal.

Since WE the People know government wastes a lot of money that neither it or WE do NOT have, why not spend some of it on citizen education and voter registration! Who better to employ in these positions than returning soldiers or any veteran that needs and wants a job! Pay them a living wage so that they can support themselves and their families. Pay for their health care whereby, they can choose any doctor, medical service and hospital of their choice, for themselves and their families. And pay for their continued education and their families! Why? Because they have lived and live and many have died, “to secure these rights!”

Screw the VA Hospitals! Shut them ALL DOWN! Trying to compete with private healthcare supposedly, by controlling costs that actually bulge and inflate the federal government in costs to administer it, while denying coverage, increasing wait times for poor coverage and often which does NOT even give adequate coverage, to those that have served or are serving and to those families of those that have given the ultimate sacrifice, “to secure these rights,” is, dishonest and simply stated, screws OUR veterans!

MilitaryEmblems_sm

The department of Citizen Education and Voter Registration, would perform 4 functions:

1. Support our veterans who have paid, “to secure these rights!”
2. Determine who is and who is not here legally, “to secure these rights!”
2. Educate or re-educate our citizens for an educated “citizenry,” “to secure these rights!”
3. Register voters to continue, “to secure these rights!”

Send them out to every dwelling in the whole United States and every territory and wherever a citizen may be. It could go, something like the following:

Knock Knock – Ring Ring or Buzz Buzz

Hello, I’m      name      from the United States Department of Citizen Education and Voter Registration. I served     dates and places of service       in       branch of military      and I was [injured or served with those that were injured or gave their lives] to, “secure these rights” such as, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!” Now you may not agree with the political purposes, for which I and other soldiers were and are deployed or the political reasons our leaders would not allow us to complete the missions, or with the rules of engagement which restricts our service, for which were or are tasked, but I and all who served or serve, freely chose or freely chooses to do so, “to secure our rights!”

I am here to help educate or re-educate and to where necessary, help you to register to vote, that you too, might help to, “secure these rights!” A well-informed citizenry is necessary, to choose our political servants that will make the best possible decisions, “to secure these rights!”

SecureTheseRights

What remains, “to secure these rights,” is NOT which is mightier, then pen or the sword because, both are necessary to those desirous of freedom and, “to secure these rights!” Freedom is NOT FREE! The sword or our military is necessary, “to secure these rights!” The pen or the instrument used to cast our votes is necessary, “to secure these rights!”

Our military use the ‘sword,’ “to secure these rights,” that WE the People, may continue to be FREE to use the ‘pen’ to vote,“to secure these rights,” and that they might NOT have to use the sword, “to secure these rights!”

And should you and I find ourselves in a conversation with a non-voter, if we know a veteran, ask them to help us, to secure these rights!” If we don’t know a veteran, find one and ask them to help us, “to secure these rights,” face to face, by conference or video call, by email or mail or by whatever means available to help us, “to secure these rights!” And after they have helped us AGAIN, “to secure these rights,” for sure, thank them, for their service, “to secure these rights,” but also feed them or give them something they might need for this their service AGAIN, “to secure these rights!” 

Freedom continues to ring, as long as, all are educated and exercise their right to vote and our military continues to exercise their right to serve, “to secure these rights!”  Send this link by an means necessary to all military, all citizens and especially, to all those that are ignorant of the right to vote, “to secure these rights!”

SecureTheseRights2

“To Secure these Rights!”

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr

Are there Limits to Freedom of Speech?

May 7, 2015

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

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

 

Polite3Almost everywhere we go today inside and outside of the Internet and from any and all forms of information exchanged among all people, the words, “freedom of speech,” come up. Do we even really understand what those words mean? Oh, we probably understand that it is part of ‘The Bill of Rights’ and within the very first amendment to the Constitution. But do we really understand what these words mean and what ‘The Law of the Land’ had intended to protect? Smart people think they know. Lawyers and judges and particularly, the Supreme Court think they know. But here is the question, are there limits to freedom of speech? Depending on your perspective, you may not like the answer, but the simple answer is, yes. Yes, there are limits to the freedom of speech!

In almost every single argument that gets heated, one or all parties usually walk away from the others with similar words to follow, on their breath, “It’s freedom of speech, I have a right to say whatever I want!” Do you really? Well, for one thing, it is against the law to yell “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. It is against the law to yell “bomb” on a crowded airplane or jet, if there is no such bomb. These two illustrations don’t even begin to define what freedom of speech is or is not. “Not?” Well, sure, to understand what something is, it is also important to to understand what it is “not.”

Current phrases tossed around  now are: “haters,” “don’t be a hater,” “racist”, “race-baiters” and “hate speech.”

Here is where our subject really goes dark. Dark as, “in the dark,” clueless and pretty much useless as a tool for communication. The law of language states that it is absolutely impossible to articulate in words, that which is not understood. Well, darned if religious leaders (so called), politicians, lawyers, judges and other supposed “smart people” don’t try anyway! To some degree or another, all engage in this type of communication behavior. There are a couple of descriptions (perhaps more) for these. One is called, “talking out of both sides of your mouth.” Another is, talking from your rear posterior or your derrière, rear, buttocks, butt, ass etc. The ancient Greeks had a word for this and it is epiluō and is defined as: “using the voice without reference given to the words spoken.” It is used in literature as, letting dogs loose on the game as in a hunt. In the vernacular and today, it still means what it always has, talking without understanding, what your talking about.

We see this type of behavior everywhere today. Politicians say what they think we want to hear or what is politically expedient for them, especially if there is an election coming up and they want to be, re-elected. We see it in politics when executives try to legislate or interpret the law or both. We see it in the legislative branch when they try to execute or interpret the law or both. We see in in the judiciary branch when they try to execute the law, legislate the law, interpret the law or all of these. We see it in journalism when instead of reporting the news, it is either fiction or editorialized. Now most of these people, in all these fields are highly educated. So, this is where it all stems from, education. What has higher education given the rest of us? It has graduated people that know how to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, write binding contracts with loopholes and still, don’t understand what they are talking about. If they, the smart people in charge, are without a clue, what about the rest of us? So, before saying that our education system has failed, what is education? It comes from the Latin word ēducātus which means, “to lead out.”

How can anyone “lead out” anyone from trouble, failure and bondage to peace, success and freedom, if they don’t understand what they are talking about or where they are going? That would be, IMPOSSIBLE!

Without getting into a biblical discussion here, I find one verse of scripture and two  words in particular, very interesting, in light of what we are discussing here.

 

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

 2 Peter 1:20  King James Version (KJV)

 

The word “idiot” is derived from another Greek word, idios, and simply means, “ones own.” It is translated in the above scripture by the word, “private.” Remember the Greek word epiluō? There is another form and it is the word epilussis “‘letting loose” The word epilussis is translated in the above verse as, “interpretation.” So, no prophecy of the scripture (singular for the plural – i.e. scripture(s) of the Bible is, of any “one’s own” “letting loose.” No where in the Constitution is the right to “interpret” the Constitution ever even hinted at, that this is a function of the Supreme Court! But somehow, they think it does.

Where is this freedom of speech to be found? It is found in the first amendment to the Constitution, we often refer to as, ‘The Bill of Rights.’ What are its actual words?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment of, the United States Constitution

 Polite6

I would just like to point out that the very first words in the very first amendment are, “Congress shall (not will or maybe, but absolutely=shall not) make no law…” If congress cannot make any law, for these protected rights, then no executive branch can carry out what is NOT a law and no Supreme Court can rule or “interpret” any law that does not exist. But this is exactly what every single branch of government has done, is doing and will continue to do, unless stopped!

We are talking about the Constitution, which all states agreed to and it was required that all states and future states offer to its people, a republic form of government, like the Constitution, and have a balance of power (executive, legislative and judiciary) like the Constitution. Some states made their own state constitutions word for word, just like the U.S. Constitution while others patterned theirs after the Constitution, but made them to reflect the will of its own people.

As to freedom of speech, what follows is, the Supreme Court’s brief history of, interpreting our right to speak freely.

 

In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law:

“There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that;

“The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law. 

In 1992, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged there under. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the “fighting words” exception as follows:

“The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”

Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence. The opinion noted, “This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property”, among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn’t promote imminent violence. The Court explained:

“Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”

Hate speech was mentioned. What is it?

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics. In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet as well as hate speech in general.

Critics have argued that the term “hate speech” is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct

Excerpts In (red text above) from: Wikipedia – ‘Hate Speech’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

 

As you can clearly see, most of us are so confused, we can’t even see. The term “freedom of speech” is, so loose and so broad that it even includes “hate” speech as a protected right, I guess, as long as it it does not cause a riot? Come on, really? Have we lost or have we no common sense at all? Am I supposed to NOT be offended by what you do not find offensive and the same would apply to you? It is all, just a matter of opinion? You and everyone else and I all have the right to say anything we want? Is this freedom of speech? Is this a protected right by the law of the land?

Polite2

Now, this next thing might really offend some of you because, like our current president, you view the Constitution as a flawed document. Well, I don’t share his or this opinion. But what were they thinking in the late 1700’s, when this document was written? The same writ, has stood for over 200 hundred years, despite the many “flaws” of others that have tried to execute, legislate and interpret outside of it! Yes, what were those long dead and irrelevant people of long ago thinking?

Can you imagine any of our founders wanting to go against the king’s state religion to set up their own? Do you think they wanted the right to call the king an a–h–e, a MF, the N word or tell him to to go f–k himself? Do you think they wanted to jump up and down on and spit on and curse the Flag of England?  Do you suppose they wanted to replace the king’s media with their own elite media of— do as I say, not as I do, or to just make up whatever, to sell more stuff, for more money? The ridiculousness of all these things and the answers to them lie within the last words of the first amendment:

 

“…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

I have purposefully highlighted in bold text, “the right of the people to peaceably assemble…” Now how can the people assemble “peaceably” if, the individuals are not at peace? Impossible!

Polite1

Prior to the Constitution, there was written, The Declaration of Independence. It was a logical, civil and polite declaration. Logically, it stated its premises and logically concluded that its only possible solution was, to declare its independence. It was written in a civil manner and politely. Perhaps we should read or re-read this work, as it just might give us a clue as to what freedom of speech was really all about? Maybe instead of endless and needless speech policies, for companies, businesses, organizations and social media, all that really should be required and enforced is, IS IT POLITE Does the speech offend or build up? Does our speech lead others out or leave them in darkness or drive them deeper into it.

In the name of freedom of speech or expression, we have been subjected to that it’s OK, to use filthy language to hurl an expletive, almost every second. Comedians are near-perfect experts at this. This is no more language just heard behind closed doors, but is common in nearly every public and private place. It is language that most of our parents and caregivers scolded us and perhaps punished us for, its unacceptable use. And weren’t most of us taught the rhyming lie, “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me?” Go repeat this to family and friends who have lost loved ones to suicide and other non-peaceful acts because, of hateful speech, from mental bullies! But then, some of us make it through and become adults. We become adults that this language and these types of words and our children hear and see. What do they hear and see us saying and doing? Are they not confused by the old saying— “do as I say, not as I do?” Do they not grow up to think that hypocrisy is acceptable and confused about integrity or meaning what you say and saying what you mean really means, nothing!

Yes, the child that spits and calls out hurtful names and bullies other kids in the ‘sandbox’ so to speak, grow up. The brain expands. They become more educated and many become even, ‘highly educated’ and what do they do with it? They find faster ways, better ways, legal ways, loopholes and more so called “creative” ways, to destroy lives. All of it under the name of freedom of speech. It has become acceptable to and a current trend to disrespect the flag. And yet few people realize or have ever read the U.S. Flag code that makes it against the law, to do such things. And fewer people realize that our own government, does not enforce these laws. So, what do people think? They think and believe that they have the right to spit on the flag, burn it, jump up and down on it, crap on it or whatever and this is just freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of artistic expression and freedom to make your points known, even if it offends others. Oh come on now, how ludicrous is this! What is not somewhere, sometime and to someone,  NOT offensive and are offended something?

Since everyone is offended by something and most liberal minded minds don’t want to offend anyone, what solutions are offered? Pretty much the argument goes, I have freedom of speech to say pretty much anything. Courts rule on it. Laws are made by it and people pretty much say whatever they want. What kind of solution is that? That is not a solution! It is illogical! It sounds to me, a lot like lawlessness, rebellion in the name of revolution and anarchy under the guise of freedom of speech!

The solution is plain and simple. It is right in front of us. Are there limits to freedom of speech? YES!

What are these limits? You or I do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. We do not have the right to yell bomb on a crowded airplane or jet, if there is none. Why not? Common sense says this could cause a panic, start a riot, disturb the peace and people could be hurt, crushed and even killed. We do not have the right to say anything that is NOT true. These are called lies and are seen as libel, slander, copyright and patent infringement among others. We do not have the right to hurt and kill others physically, and we do not have the right to hurt anyone emotionally, physically and spiritually, with words. On and on we could go here and perhaps I am “preaching to the choir?” But the solution is much more simple than just endless examples, which many may view as nothing more than just, my opinion.

So, what exactly does the first amendment to the Constitution mean? What is the right? Who has these rights? And to answer these, we also answer to whom this amendment was written for and what it is designed to protect us from.

These first amendment rights are to, of, for and by us, WE the People. It clearly states what and/or to whom we are to be protected of or from. And what is that? Anything or anyone, that is not polite!

We each have the right to choose our own expression of belief, but in our discourse of expressing them, we must be polite. We have the freedom of speech, but our speech must be polite. The press (media) is free to express the facts, but they must be polite. We have the right to assemble peaceably and redress government of our gripes and griefs, but we must be polite and courteous about it!

Polite4

The FREEDOM to be POLITE, cost our founders everything!

 

As to speech itself, any speech that is not polite would be impolite. Hate-speech at its least is, impolite. So, any and all speech or any of the rights listed in the first amendment that is NOT polite, is against the law!!!!

Politeness and courtesy would eliminate the burden of the courts, drastically reduce riots, crime, destruction of properties and lives. Speech policies of all businesses, organizations and all manner of people gatherings would become so simple, even a child or a fool could understand them. Chat rooms, social media timelines and pages would suddenly disappear, if they were not polite and courteous. Terrorist recruitment and activity would cease using online social media because, they would all become illegal as, they are not polite.

This is what our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for, the freedom to be polite, to have the liberty to live life and to pursue happiness. This is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written for, the FREEDOM to be polite!

The executive branch, the legislative branch and the judiciary branch of government do not have these rights, they are but servants to those that do have these rights, us, WE the People.

Polite5

From same Greek word [polis] “people of the walled cities made to protect them from enemies without” are both the words politics and the word POLITE derived

This is, our country. It is our Republic. It is both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Let us politely, take them all back to ourselves and our posterity.

Polite5

 

 

1 of We the People,

 

Dahni