Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

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

 

Advertisements

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

Class Action Lawsuit

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

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

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

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

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

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

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

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

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

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

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

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

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                              

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

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [all-inclusive noun] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                      

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

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

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

ClassAction3

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

Dahni

Damn the Appearance of Evil

June 11, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-wH

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

4Monkeys

The four wise monkeys— speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil and do no evil

Damn the appearance of evil!

Now maybe this will anger you or maybe not, but this is from me. It is from my blog, this blog. These are my words and my thoughts and the last time I looked, this is still the home of the brave and the land of the FREE! When last I knew, I am still entitled to my opinion. I think there are sufficient facts to bear out the reasons for my conclusions.

My opinions were formed long ago, when both the Clinton’s and I were living in the state of Arkansas. So it’s clear, we three were not living together. 🙂 We were just in the same state. I’ve never met either of them. Setting one aside, suffice it to say, I have never liked, respected or trusted, Hillary Clinton. Let there be no mistake about this, she is presently under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That is a fact.

Possible charges of espionage and corruption by the Clinton Foundation and/or the Clinton Global Initiative aside, whether intentional or not, she is at least lacking PERMISSION if not guilty of, having used a private server for email. She did have and did use a private server and that is a fact.

According to many polls, about 60% of those asked, do not trust her handling of this matter and many other matters, not here addressed. That is a present fact. Her favorability is way low and that is a fact.

It is a presidential political year and that is a fact. She recently became the presumptive Democratic Nominee for president, based on the delegate count (including super delegates) and she was recently endorsed by the current president and a U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Those are facts.

After almost two years, Hillary Clinton finally agreed to appear on Fox News. That is a fact. It is no surprise that she as well as many, do not like Fox News. In an election year such as this, it only makes sense to get your message out to as many people as possible, wherever possible, even if it happens to be through Fox News. But she did appear recently and sat down for an interview with Bret Baier, June 8, 2016. That is a fact. Please watch the following video, all the way to the end (about 7 minutes 56 seconds), before you return to this post.

My take and my point in the above video and for this entire post is, the confidence in which she replied, to Bret Baier’s final question.

BAIER

“The Clinton Foundation Investigation, The FBI Investigation, The Email Investigation, what you’re saying is, there is 0 chance, for this to be a problem, for you in this election?”

CLINTON

“Absolutely. That’s what I’m saying. That happens to be the truth.”

I marvel at her confidence!!! Although I question her judgment, ethics and ulterior motives, I have never and do not question this woman’s intelligence! I believe it is in NOT within the realm of possibility, for her to look anyone in the eyes and boldly and with conviction, tell a lie! However, I do not perceive this in her final statement above, to Bret Baier. So, I take her at her word and she said it confidently— without reservation or hesitation. Is it “truth” because she has done nothing wrong or is it “truth” (her word even though it would be a fact) that she will never be held accountable for her actions? Truth is universal and unchanging, but facts can change.

Now, all of the above leads me to my opinion.

I do not believe the Obamas’ or the Clintons’ have ever liked or respected one another. I still don’t! I believe her appointment, as Secretary of State was, nothing more than appeasement and for God knows what, political purposes. I am quite confident that the president would like to see his legacy continue into at least, the next four years. There is no one running, for his office, more suited than Clinton to his purposes, with all due respect to Bernie Sanders.

I believe that Hillary is smarter than the president. I believe she purposefully set up a private email server to control the data between herself and the State Department and even the White House, and to hide the trail of her doings so to speak, and to shield her from Freedom of Information requests (FOIA), even IF it was just a matter of her not trusting our own government, the same government that employed her.

It is a fact that the president has been found to have sent and received at least two emails, over the past however many years, from then Secretary of State Clinton’s, private email server. IF the FBI ever recommends to the Department of Justice, criminal charges, and IF the DOJ proceeds with a grand jury, and IF she would ever be indicted, the president of the United States could be called as a witness, and he would be complicit in corresponding (knowingly or not) over an unsecured email server! And it would not matter if it was sensitive, confidential, classified or even personal!

I do not know what and when the FBI will conclude their investigation. I do not know what their recommendations will be (if any). But based on Clinton’s confidence that there is “O chance,” of any of these things being a problem to her in this election, even IF the FBI recommends charges to the Department of Justice, the DOJ will NOT, absolutely NOT bring charges, convene a gran jury, nor will she ever be indicted or spend a moment in jail or prison for any, if any, wrong doings!!!

It won’t matter how many emails were deleted (at least 30,000), how many that have been redacted, how many were sensitive, confidential, classified, if her email server was hacked once or possibly more (and even possibly by foreign governments), how many lives may have been put into jeopardy or that the security of the United States of America has been compromised, there is “O chance,” she will ever be indicted! And if she were, I am CONFIDENT that the president of the United States has the power to not only pardon her, but himself as well!

Damn my evil surmising imaginings or damn this corruption within the bowels of Our Republic, but damn Hillary Rodham Clinton, for— THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL!

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

1 Thessalonians 5:22 The Bible, King James Version (KJV)

1 of WE,

Dahni

From the Pen of the Revolution

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

 

PenofRevolutio2John Dickinson, often referred to as the “penman of the Revolution,” was an American statesman, and a delegate to the Continental Congress. During the Second Continental Congress, there was high tension among the delegates and intense debate over revolution, but Dickinson refused to vote for or sign the Declaration of Independence, saying the emerging nation was not ready for open revolt against the most powerful empire on earth. In the end, he abstained from voting so that the overall tally for independence would be unanimous. He supported the revolution in many other ways and even in battle. He was one of the writers of the Articles of Confederation. Dickinson also helped draft the U.S. Constitution. He was born in 1732 and won fame in 1767, as the author of, ‘Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ his Pennsylvania Chronicle, a series of 12 essays.

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ by John Dickinson

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ by John Dickinson

“If Parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any, of HER rights, it may deprive all the other colonies of THEIR rights. And nothing can possibly encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.”

John Dickinson

Indeed, United WE stand, but divided WE fall!

PenofRevolution3

Insert on cover of: ‘Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,’ by John Dickinson

Think of John Dickinson, the next time you read or think about the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution!

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment X

1 of WE,

Dahni

What Difference at this Point Does it Make?

June 3, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-we

by Dahni

© 2016, all rights reserved

WhatDifI used to think, vote your conscience. Vote for the best person you believe will do the best job. I don’t believe this anymore. “What difference at this point does it make?”

Our founders, in their wisdom knew that all of us are imperfect beings, corrupt and can often, easily be manipulated and corrupted. They understood that government is, a necessary evil. But they also, realized that the lust for power and control would attract certain types of people and personalities that would desire to— run everything, law everything and interpret everything.

So, rather than put the whole bunch under one tent, they purposely constrained, restricted and limited government, to three branches.

This has worked out pretty well for the last 240 years, except? Except theses power-hungry people have always been trying to find loopholes or language they could interpret to gain, maintain and expand their powers.

Our founders knew these three branches would each try to take over the others. They made making changes to the Constitution NOT easy, but hard, to limit the government from taking over our unalienable rights such as, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! It was a limited government, NOT an UNLIMITED one where the president executes, legislates and judicates or adjudicates; the Legislative executes and judicates; and the Supreme Court executes its own interpretations and legislates from the bench. Is this limited government? I think NOT!

For example, baring in mind the original intent was to limit government, the Supreme Count decided long ago, to interpret that the, “under good behavior” phrase from the Constitution means, they can keep their jobs for life? I think NOT!

Do you really suppose the original intent for representatives and senators was for them to make lifelong careers? I think NOT!

If congress won’t go along, isn’t this what executive orders and presidential proclamations are for, to circumvent Congress? I think NOT!

Should not the president tell the Supreme court what is and what is not the law? I think NOT!

Then what about dynasty families like the Kennedy’s, the Bush’s and the Clinton’s? Is this the real limiting of government as was intended? I think NOT!

Do you really think our founders ever intended a 3-term president like  Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who might have had four had he lived? I think NOT!

I think that presidential term of only 8 years was amended in the Constitution?

Government has even tried to regulate elections, if they can’t outright control and eliminate them. What a pain in their collective arses to be subjected to the humiliation of having to get elected or re-elected again? Too bad, not sad, deal with it!

Well, obviously, for them to have to deal with it, there has to be elections. This means, voters and actually voters, voting! If we don’t like that jerk or jerk-et (feminine equivalent of the masculine jerk), we can vote for the lesser of two evils and maybe get a whole new box O’ rocks (or dumber than) and have a whole new crop of jerks and jerk-ets?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

So, yes, WE the People must vote, for the lesser of two or more evils. Well, in this presidential election year (2016), there is one presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and one for the Republican Party. Not everyone likes either one. What to do?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

WhatDif1

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

former secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

I’m not sure, but maybe the families of those that died Sept. 11, 2012, from the bombing at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by Islamist radical terrorists, might want to know why you lied, why you never sent help, why you were sleeping, why over half of the country do NOT trust you, trust or believe your answers to your handling of email, trust the Clinton Foundation or believe you are qualified to be president of the United States? But all that aside, “What difference at this point does it make?” I want alternatives! Okey-doke.— see later in this post

1. Vote for Bernie Sanders (Hello, he can’t, cannot, nope— he absolutely can’t win, unless of course he is the only one left standing at the convention)?
2. NOT vote at all (stay home because I am bitter or a baby (didn’t get my way), an idiot or an idiotic illegal alien and can’t vote or am not supposed to be able to anyway)?
3. Vote for some third-party candidate? see: #’s 1 & 2 above
4. Vote for Hillary Clinton (assuming she is not indicted and/or jailed, prior to November 3rd, 2016?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

THERE IS, NO DIFFERENCE, WHATSOEVER!!!!!

A vote for Hillary or no vote, is still a vote for her! Well, what if?

What if Trump becomes president and he’s been lying?

WhatDif2

This could equate to four more years or more of SOS (same ole’ sh-t) until— we run out of sh-t, which is about yesterday anyway!

What if Trump Becomes president and he’s been telling the truth? Is his motto anything new or something we have never heard before?

WhatDif3

1980 Campaign Button for Ronald Reagan Republican

This slogan uses just six (6) words (counting the word Let’s, as 2). It is a complete sentence. “Let’s Make America Great Again. ”Let’s…,” let us, (implies a suggestion). It is an all-inclusive vision. “Let’s… (let us)…Make America Great Again.” It is an appeal for help, from US, us being, WE the People. It is suggestive of, permission. It implies that at that time, America was not great. It also, implies, that WE or US, might NOT (did not) make America Great Again.

WhatDif4

From a 1992 campaign video, Bill Clinton Democrat

This campaign slogan was most likely borrowed from the Reagan campaign in 1980. It uses 11 words. It is also, a complete sentence. “I want to attack these problems and make America Great Again. It implies that at that time, America was not great. “Notice the personal pronoun “I,” “I want to attack these problems and…,” and by following the nearest noun (personal pronoun) as its antecedent, I want – “…to make America Great Again.” Absent in this remark, is WE, US, you and I. This statement is exclusive of all others except, for the one making it. In other words, all we poor pathetic peons needed to do was vote for him and he “wants” (wanted) to, “attack the problems,…” and he, “wants…” (wanted) “to make America Great Again.” There is nothing in this statement that he either did or did not attack the problems or make America great again. But maybe he will become the  ‘First Man’ and economic adviser to the president, his wife? Then he could finish the job and make his America great again. “Giant Sucking Sound,” said opposing candidate, Ross Perot in a 1992, Presidential Debate.

“We’ve shipped millions of jobs overseas and we have a strange situation because we have a process in Washington where after you’ve served for a while you cash in and become a foreign lobbyist, make $30,000 a month; then take a leave, work on Presidential campaigns, make sure you got good contacts, and then go back out. Now if you just want to get down to brass tacks, the first thing you ought to do is get all these folks who’ve got these one-way trade agreements that we’ve negotiated over the years and say, “Fellows, we’ll take the same deal we gave you.” And they’ll gridlock right at that point because, for example, we’ve got international competitors who simply could not unload their cars off the ships if they had to comply — you see, if it was a two-way street — just couldn’t do it. We have got to stop sending jobs overseas.”

“To those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young — let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time and you’ve got a mature work force — pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expensive single element in making a car — have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a Giant Sucking Sound Going South.”

excerpts of Transcript of the 2nd TV Presidential Debate, comments by candidate Ross Perot, in response to a question from the audience and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which later, president Bill Clinton signed into law

Perot was right! Now, government wants to expand this crap. Clinton helped Clinton pass NAFTA. She/they, HillBill-y are globalists. Remember ‘It Takes a Village’, Hill’s book and Obama’s statement, “You didn’t build that,” (business)?”

“What difference at this point does it make?”

WhatDif5

2016 Donald Trump campaign slogan – Republican

“Make America Great Again.” This statement is, a complete sentence. It is visionary. It is inclusive. It is inclusive as it does not single out anyone(s) nor excludes anyone(s). It is not an appeal, a suggestion, a desire, a hope or merely something that one person wants to do. It is an imperative statement, as simple as, JUST DO IT! It is left as the responsibility of every man, woman and child that are citizens of the United States of America or those seeking to become citizens legally. It is the responsibility of all that have the power to make it great again, to make it great again! One way is to vote, by all those that are eligible to vote! As long as the USA remains, this is a timeless statement, for as long as, America is not great. The statement suggests that America is not presently “great.” Is this true? You know it’s true because, we are NOT presently great.

I have never seen nor presently see a campaign slogan that says something like the following:

Four years or more-y of Hunky-dory

And with all due disrespect to president Obama’s speech in Elkhart, IN, on June 1, 2016, no one is running on a campaign of “Okey-doke,” either! “Okey-doke” or okey-dokey is an urban language term for the reduplicated, reduplication of OK. It also suggests that anyone that believes in okey-doke are just witless wonders. The pres said that, “…Okey-doke, on June 1, 2016 in Elkhart, IN. He went there to take credit for Indiana’s economic recovery, when in fact, it was not his policies that made the difference, but it was due mostly to fracking and the recovery of shale-oil! News Flash, soon to be, ex-president, not everyone believes you or in you; and many can’t wait for your bye-bye and could care less about your legacy! We are more concerned with making America great again!

The statement suggests that America is not presently “great.” Is this true? You know it’s true because, we are NOT presently great.

So, if we are NOT great, then it’s up to you and I, all of US, WE the People (including Trump), to make it great again! Why would this statement also, include Trump? Because he is running for president, to do his part in making America Great Again. He’s campaigning on better trade deals, winning again and in essence—AMERICA FIRST!

“What difference at this point does it make?”

Make America Great Again?

OK, so you don’t like being told what to do, being told to, Make America Great Again? Maybe you don’t want us to be great again? Maybe you just want the return of “business as usual?” A vote for Trump might help make America great again? Maybe not and if not, then maybe if he’s lying, we would all just return to, “business as usual?” So, we have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong with Trump. Don’t like those odds? Then by all means:

1. Vote for Bernie Sanders (Hello, he can’t, cannot, nope— he absolutely can’t win, unless of course he is the only one left standing at the convention)?
2. NOT vote at all (stay home because I am either an idiot or an idiotic illegal alien and can’t vote or am not supposed to be able to anyway)?
3. Vote for some third-party candidate? see: #’s 1 & 2 above
4. Vote for Hillary Clinton (assuming she is not indicted and/or jailed, prior to November 3rd, 2016?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

THERE IS, NO DIFFERENCE, WHATSOEVER!!!!!

After all the votes are cast and counted, it’s still up to You and I to:

Make America Great Again!

I’m willing to make a difference! What about you?

I will end this post with two videos. The first is an editorial, by a real judge.  The Last one is fiction, by a real actor.

5-Minute Speech that Got Judge Napolitano Fired at Fox News

The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER…

 

Note: I’m sorry, but the above video does not allow embedding. You must watch it onYouTube_icon and then return here

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

As Eye See It

February 29, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-tb

Tuesday, March 1st, 2016

(I dare you to read)

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

AsEyeSeeIt

Dear reader, I write this NOT to convince anyone or persuade anyone of anything. I write it ONLY because, I care. I care about you! As Eye See it, the United States of America is at a crossroads of unknown challenges or consequences, IF we fail to get this one shot right! If WE the People fail to act, this may be our last opportunity? The time for uniting is far past. We are divided. We are upon a precipice. The past is rapidly disappearing behind US. The time for going back is no more. We must leap to something unknown. I dare you to continue below!

There are those that do not care; have never cared; will never care, but rather take pleasure in gutting this whole republic and seeing it burn down in flames! And those enemies are not only from without, they are among US, not a people supplanted or brought here, but our own. I dare you to continue below!

For many, with anger and fear, they find themselves upon unfamiliar ground to have to leap, to believe and trust in something they cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch. But leap WE all must! I dare you to continue below!

But this is not yet, the time of despair, for as long as life beats within our chest and breath still fills our lungs, we are alive. As long as WE still have our Constitution, we have hope. HOPE, slim as it might be, but there is still hope. There is always hope, for some of us, if not all of us. I would like it to be, all of us! What is reflected in OUR eyes; in your eyes? What is in the apple of your eye and mine? What is the core or in the depth of your being and mine? I dare you to continue below!

Dear reader, I appeal to you to read this from start to finish. I dare you to share this with your every beloved and every friend you have un-friended or that has un-friended you; every enemy— to mail it, email it, post it, repost it, shout it and tweet it from sea to shining sea! I will submit this for your consideration and I will use whatever means I can, to communicate this, even to quote from little known and the most unlikely of sources. I dare you to continue below!

“The brutality of censorship.”
“The Consequences of free expression.”

“Beloved reader, I leave you now, a man who found freedom in the most unlikeliest places, in the bottom of an inkwell on the tip of a quill. Come I dare you, turn the page!”

All the above quotes are from, the Marquis de Sade. I dare you to search, the Marquis de Sade! Unlike the Marquis de Sade, the format in which you are reading this is not written with ink and quill and you may not be viewing it as a page in a book. Still, Dear Reader, still continue to the next line, I dare you!

Dear reader, have you not read; have you not heard, that truth, even on the lips of the devil is, still truth? Have you not read; have you not heard that truth can hurt? Do we not understand that even if we may be upon the right track, we can be run over, if we just stand there? Do we not understand that truth, the precious healing power of truth, can hurt if unheeded? Remember our quote of childhood, “sticks and stones can break our bones, but words can never hurt us?” Do we still teach this lie to our children? Have we ever recovered from broken bones? Can we EVER recover from the toxic words that can disintegrate our bones, break our hearts and cast us into the abyss of, as if we were, never known; have never lived, and will be remembered no more? Words can do that. “A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.”—Will Rogers, 20th century writer/speaker/humorist. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Our times are nothing new, but where we go from here, will be, to us and future generations, determined by, what we now do. But our times remind me of something I’ve read, long ago that was written far, far longer ago— “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…” These are the opening words of chapter 1, ‘A Tale of Two Cities,’ by Charles Dickens in 1859. Dear reader, I dare you, to continue reading below.

This book was written about two cities, two main characters and two contrasts (possible outcomes or destinies) during the times of, the French Revolution. This is not unlike our times. Today, our choices reside in two dominant political parties, two ideas, two main characters and two possible outcomes. We are divided and this division between us is predominantly, fear and anger. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

The Democratic-Republican Party was the American political party in the 1790’s of, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, formed in opposition to the centralizing policies of the Federalist party. It came to power in 1800, and dominated national and state affairs until the 1820’s, when it faded away. This party split and resurfaced as the separate parties we know today as, the Democrat and Republican parties. Each claim Jefferson as their founder, then later one was the party of Lincoln and the other of FDR or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These two divided parties are still divided, but now more than ever, many of us have come to realize that they are the ones that divide us, to gain or maintain their political power and influence over us, for whom they treat US as their servants. They are angry and they are afraid and they pass this on to us, WE the People that they are, supposed to serve. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In short, these two parties target us by promising more from the government and the other promises us less government or limited government. And both promise democracy, but the power they hold is not by the majority of the people that give it, but by the money, delegates and the electoral college (the few) that decide the elections. We are angry and we are afraid and even more, we have never known or have forgotten, who and what we are. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked a question by a woman (emphasis implied). It was NOT, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a [democracy] or a [oligarchy]?” It was a, “republic or a monarchy?” And his answer was not a democracy, but— “A republic if you can keep it.”— Benjamin Franklin. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In most of our lifetimes, this has been what we’ve been taught and what we still believe that we are a democracy. But this is NOT what the signers of our Constitution thought, taught or signed. For simplicity sake, let us be clear. A democracy is the rule by the majority. A Republic is the rule by law, NOT to limit US, but the government! Use the word “power” if you do not like the word “rule” for both. Laws are replaced with regulations by Congress, presidential proclamations or executive orders, and overthrown, upheld and even changed by the Supreme Court. Into the hands of our government, WE have surrendered more and more of our liberty under the fear of threat to national security, national crisis, state of emergency or the promises made, un-kept. “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”— Benjamin Franklin. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Amidst the troubles of our times, our practical and all but declared bankruptcy, our loss of jobs and the fears for our futures and that of our children, we turn towards the government to help us or we turn from it. We are angry and we are afraid. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In the midst of this turmoil and in this presidential election year, it began quite simply with two presumed choices for president. One is named Clinton and the other is named Bush. But the people spoke and there has been an uproar and an uprising. Bush is out or has at least suspended his campaign, for perhaps the hope for something to happen or a brokered convention? But for now, he is out and Clinton is NOT the all-but-done deal. Over 60% of people asked, don’t trust her and yet, she has still been winning about 50% and more of the vote and a whole lot more of the delegates than she has earned. The math simply does not add up. Why, if she is not trusted, would so many vote for her? Is it experience? Is it fear of losing what they believe the last seven years has brought them? Is she their hope of continuing the legacy of the present administration? Is she just a vote against the anger and fear of the other party taking over? But there is fear and anger that what this administration means to many and what she stands for, does NOT do enough; go far enough! Enter another candidate that speaks to this anger and to this fear that even this administration has not done enough; gone far enough. Enter a democratic socialist. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Bernie Sanders has been made by not only the Democrat party, but the Republican party, the media and a divided people as well. He speaks to many with his voice, their silent voices of anger and fear. He is well liked. He is trusted. He is an insurgent who speaks of the wanton waste, abuse and corruption in government and capitalism, particularly of those of great wealth at the expense of all others and often even their bailout, by the people. But it is not so much his person that is met with anger and fear, it is what he represents. Few care or know that his first paycheck in life was at age forty and it was then and has been ever since, been provided by the government, “of, by and for the people…,” he so often quotes, Abraham Lincoln, a republican. But he himself, he is not a republican, he is a socialist, a democratic socialist. Some argue against any form of socialism and some argue that we already are, a socialist country, just as we are already, a democracy. But socialism is not new to this country. It has been here as a party in some form, since the 19th century. Many think of the ‘Hippies’ of the 1960’s as Utopian socialists. Socialists were here in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and are still here in the 21st century with several of their members serving, in our present government. But after losing many national elections, a leader of their party suggested they stop using the word socialist and use progressive instead and move it all, into the democrat party, and the people will vote for them! Most of us have no idea what socialism is. Democracy, progressiveness, and socialism are all, one and the same. They all share the idea that government must provide for all, all we need. But I will only be brief in a description of socialism. As Eye See It, democracy is, the goal of socialism. “The goal of socialism is communism.”— Vladimir Lenin. Dear reader, I dare you to search Lenin and then continue reading below.

In keeping with Charles Dickens and his Tale of Two Cities, Bernie Sanders represents the “best of times” because, he clearly shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, what is on people’s minds. He rallies against waste, abuse and corruption. He defines our present government as an oligarchy. He has raised more individual contributions (about 4 million) than any candidate in history, with the average contribution of around $27. His support is broad-based among the many differences of many men and women. He is beholden to no major donors or super PACS (political action committees). Bernie Sanders is, “the best of times.” But, Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Bernie Sanders represents, the “worst of times” because, he shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, one possible outcome of our fragile republic. His support clearly shows how far people are willing to go to revolt and transform this country even further than, it already has been. Most don’t believe we now are under or understand what an oligarchy is until— they realize it basically means, power in the hands of a few. And if Sanders’ is successful in his call for revolution, he will become one of the few, a different kind of a few perhaps, but still one of the few. But his non-lead shows that either the majority of his party are not willing to go as far as his vision promotes or he is just not considered electable. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

On the republican side, enter one outsider, made by both the Democrat and the Republican parties, the media and the divided country. His name is, Donald Trump. He is a wealthy billionaire businessman, celebrity and author. He has been made or brought to presidential candidate status by the perceived failures of the Democrat party. He has been made or brought to the forefront of the 2016 political process by, the very party he represents (the Republican party), and the media and a divided people, angry and afraid. He is greatly disliked and feared by the democrats, his own party, independents and the media. And despite all of this, he is outperforming ALL expectations. Pundits cannot figure him out. He is self-funding and beholden to no one, though many argue he is, only to himself and his own self-interests and his perceived, braggadocios and all encompassing ego. But he cannot seem to be caused to cave or pushed aside. His support is broad based and his supporters appear to be unmovable. He is the break against and the champion against, political correctness. In keeping with Charles Dickens and his Tale of Two Cities, Donald Trump represents the “best of times” because, he clearly shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, what is on people’s minds. He rallies against waste, abuse and corruption and especially ineptitude and incompetence. His support is broad-based, for he appears to represent the former silent majority. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

With Donald Trump, we have only to look at his history of business. Will like his business history, will he make a better deal in ‘making America great again’? Trump represents the “best of times” because, a better deal is, what many are seeking, not a politician, someone well-spoken, polite or even a deeply religious leader, but a better deal-maker. His own running clearly shows that our government has been poorly run as if, it were a business. Surely a businessman, could make a better deal? But these are also, the worst of times. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Donald Trump represents, the “worst of times” because, with his vision and the agenda he has set for America, he has brought out the opposite of a quote from the first inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln— “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Donald Trump represents, the “worst of times” because, we are not friends, but enemies; our passions have been strained perhaps, beyond measure  and our once united and bonds of affection are broken. And we are now so close to forgetting that there ever was a time we were united. The lie is now called the truth and the darkness is called the light. Those that believe he is nothing, but a con-man, are themselves conned. For WE all have been conned by the two parties of con! Donald Trump represents the “worst of times” because, those that oppose him clearly show that WE the People are divided. Many have promised or threatened to vote for the other party, not vote at all, leave the party or the country if, he becomes the republican nominee or is somehow elected president. These threats or promises (depending on your perspective) are not just from the democrats, but the republicans and independents too! In Donald Trump, we clearly see and vent the worst devils of our nature. These are, “the worst of times.” Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Political unrest! Economic uncertainty! A future paused, interrupted or a republic lost! We are divided! We can no longer even agree to disagree. We are heading towards the unknown, fueled with a great and seemingly, bottomless reservoir of explosive anger and fear is a lit match. The time for uniting is, no more. We will either push off and on towards a revolution or a movement. Nothing stays the same; all will be changed. Whether we end up with more government or less of a government or even a functioning one, is only part of what lies ahead to be seen, if the smoke ever clears or any is left alive or still have eyes to see? The Supreme Court now has only the possibility of a 4-to-4 split. A new judge must be appointed to maintain the balance or totally transform it, depending on the results of the presidential election. There may soon be more judges, for the new president to appoint? The court will side towards either more or less government. The pendulum has already swung far left. Will it cease from swinging, swing further left and stop or swing far, far right? Either way, a pendulum swinging must return to its center; its balance. And for the moment of this writing, our only political hope for balance is, the Constitution of the United States of America. Whether it is allowed to remain as is; as was written; as was intended, a document written with a pen of iron, upon a rock, a bedrock, for all generations or as others believe, a ‘living thing’ changed at will, it is, still here! It is our contract with the government to limit the government or our right to abolish and form something new. If we head over the cliff in this revolution, it does not ever need to be replaced, as it remains now changed and thus, permanently altered? But if we head over the cliff of this movement, will we ever regain what it was? Will it then be replaced with or without our will, with something new? But it is, for now, still here! WE are divided. WE will either push US off this cliff to one possible outcome or the other. WE all will leap or we will be pushed. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

As Eye See it, what is in your eye? What do you behold? What WE all see is anger and fear of both parties, the media, business and greed! And I submit to you Dear reader that WE have allowed this. We have brought US to this day and time. I, in my own weakness and failure to stand for you and for what is right have diminished you! I, in my own ignorance have misled you, ill-fed you with unintended consequences and I, have in anger and fear aided and abetted the enemy as if, I had willingly conspired. No Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Sanders, Trump, or any other can unite us, there are no more those that can unite, nor are WE even looking for them. WE are, divided. ONLY WE the People can save us by what has been given to US and the truths and the principles upon which others lived; pledged their lives; their fortunes; their sacred honor; their“last ounce of devotion…,” — [Abraham Lincoln] and  died to defend! Now is not a time to unite, but to take a stand! And if over this cliff i or WE must, it is far, far better to stand upon our feet and leap, than to kneel and be pushed by the anger and fear of slavery, unless we kneel before the throne of mercy and find grace! What WE now hold in our hands will be left or lost to the next generations. But I give to you another option; another hope? I dare you to read my book, ‘RESET “An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic.”ResetBut_sm

Reset

And if time remains or God allows it to be so, another gift, another hope, the work I am trying to complete to give to you for FREE; on or before Tuesday, November 8th, 2016— ‘Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver.’Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver

Apple of Gold

But more than this, there remains hope. There is always hope! If not, for all of us, some of us. I would like it to be, for all of US! For myself, I will cling to my God and Father, His Word, my family and friends; guns if necessary, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America, and the precious hope of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! God Bless You and May God continue to Bless, the United States of America! All that I could have done and should have done and may want to do, may be too late, for tomorrow, I may be, out of time! Today, this moment is, all that any of US have! I cannot and will not tell you who to vote for, I just implore you to— VOTE! Dear reader, I leave you now with a few lines from the poem ‘Ulysses,’ by Alfred lord Tennyson, written in 1833 and published in, 1842. I dare you to read below, then turn the page to the future!

“We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

just 1 of WE,

Dahni

MySignature_clr

Make America Great Again

February 9, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-sX

MakeAmericaGreat_med

Well sure, for what it’s worth, you could say that this is an endorsement of Donald Trump for president. I endorse the slogan, and all it could mean, and the ability to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! But this post is even more than this. There’s lyrics below to a potential song. If you do not want to read this entire post, then scroll down to bottom of the page, for my song (lyrics) or first—

Political campaigns or politicians (even if they are only about 6 months old like Trump) using songs by musicians who do not support them has been a thorny issue for decades.  But people need to get on the facts train and get off the band (opinion) wagon. Yes, band, that was a pun, a little punny’ or funny, if you will.

Facts:

Does a songwriter/singer/musician/group etc. publish music for profit? Of course they do! Would they like as many people as possible to purchase their music? Absolutely!

Now if you or I purchase their music, we can play it anywhere and at anytime we like (almost) and that includes at home or work where other people hear it that have not paid for it.

Public performance require additional licenses (legal permission with financial payments being made). If this is not what the artist intends, then they should not publish their work, sell their work and perform their work in public. These things are all supposed to be spelled out in the contracts, between the artists and their record labels. Unless the artist spells out in the contract that their music cannot be used ‘politically,’ like the artist Prince has been known to do, the artist really has no legal legs to stand on, as long as their music has be legally licensed.

Why would an artist object to their music being played anywhere, at anytime, by anyone for any reason, as long as they are being paid or the music is being heard, which could potentially get them more money? Because, they don’t like the politics, the person(s) using their music? OK, that is a legitimate response, but is that spelled out in their contracts? USUALLY NOT!

And if offended, so often they send messages, cease-and-desist letters and etc. to try and stop those they think are abusing their music or using their music, for any thing other than what they have intended. Still, they really do not have the U.S. Copy Right Law in their corner. But not wanting to offend the artist that has sent such a request or made such a demand, it will most likely be settled out of court and their music will cease from playing in political venues. And why not? If you offend the artist, you might also offend their fans. And I submit, therein lies another reason why the artists do not want to be associated with politics. Their fans might not like it and stop buying their music. That’s all about money under the pretense of political correctness!

Another curious thing is, the type of music being played. Although there are exceptions to this, for the most part, rock-n-roll, hop, hip, the so-called ‘cool music,’ the supposed ‘smart music,’ the live and living popular music, all seem to be associated with the Democrat Party. That leaves what they consider the dead, dumb, unpopular, country/western, hill-billy, redneck, country bumpkin or hick music that should only be used by the Republican Party. How ridiculous are these stereotypes? RIDICULOUS!

Music is, universal. It is NOT that I think it is, music IS, UNIVERSAL! Music transcends ages, culture, languages and countries. It is used for many things like: marching, patriotism, inspiration, mourning, comfort, dancing, happiness, political statements, social commentary and well, music may be, without limits and without bounds as to what it means  to people and how it is used. There is both a science and an art to music. It can be used to build-up and it can be used to tear down.

What difference does it make what kind of music I like, as long as I pay for it? The artists should be grateful that I like their work and that I like it so much, I buy it. Isn’t this kind of like I am endorsing them? I have never heard any artist that protests over using their music, where they reimburse anyone that paid for their music, to stop playing it!

I like many different kinds of music. Does that make me a Democrat, Republican or Other or does it just mean I like many kinds of music? There are artists whose music I like, but not them personally or their political slant. Does this mean I should not like their music or just that I do not like them as persons? If I still like, enjoy, purchase and play their music, does this make me a hypocrite or that  I endorse their political views? Of course not! If they discover that I do not like them or agree with their politics, have they ever asked me to stop liking their music, to stop buying it and stop playing it? NOT, as of this writing. And if they did and I agreed to stop playing it (“agreed to” not forced to as if I did something wrong legally because, I did pay for it), shouldn’t they then give me back my money? Well. none of this is going to happen anyway, but the point is, this is, all RIDICULOUS!

Now when it come to lyrics (if the music has them), and I don’t like the words, I won’t play it, even if I still like the music. If it’s just the music or the instrumental version I may, but if I don’t like or agree with the words, I won’t play it. And I may be, just referring to one song or even all, but one song on an album or CD/Download etc. Yes, I may buy an album just for ONE SONG or purchase just the one. But none of these things mean I like the artist or their politics, just their music.

In the future, artists should write their contracts out that their music is NOT allowed to be used by certain people and/or for certain purposes AND THEN ALSO MAKE IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY CANNOT PURCHASE THEIR MUSIC. Well, that ridiculous, but it does make the point. In the future, change the copyright laws to have all music excluded from all political parties, not just the the one you don’t like. That would be fair. Or just quit acting so offended and be grateful that your music is being played and purchased in the first place!

Now here is a wild idea. DON’T WRITE LYRICS that you do NOT want the public to read or hear and that even a child or a fool can’t understand and that in so reading or hearing them sung, the words don’t tear down people, but build them up! Wouldn’t this be acceptable to all parties? YES or YES IT SHOULD!

To Donald Trump, here’s another idea. Forget all those politically incorrect people and make your own music. People will still complain about that too, but it will still be yours. To follow are some lyrics I wrote. You may surely use them. I’d be proud if you do! Find someone to write the music, something that gets people excited (musically) and their hearts pounding, equal to the purpose of your running for president of the United States of America to—

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

By Dahni, 1 of WE
© 2016, all rights reserved

Lively Intro (music)

Verse 1

From sea to shining sea— you can hear it
And the powers that be do fear it
Rolling up, from the deep
The silent awaken from their sleep
And shouting, “We’re not gonna take it anymore
North, South, East and West from shore to shore

Refrain

“We’re not gonna take it
“We’re gonna make it
make it great again

Verse 2

And to the powers that be, you have taken our trust
Broken it, crumbled it and turned it into rust
Oh, NO, “We’re not gonna’ take it
Instead, “We’re gonna’ make it
So the angry chorus becomes a glad refrain
Make America Great Again!

Bridge

Verse 1 (partly repeated)

Rolling up, from the deep
The silent awaken from their sleep
And shouting, “We’re not gonna take it anymore
North, South, East and West from shore to shore

Refrain

“We’re not gonna take it
“We’re gonna make it
make it great again“

We’re gonna make it
make it great again

Make America Great Again

MakeAmericaGreat_sm

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

Appearances

April 23, 2015

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

 

What do you get when you pair two lawyers (one a Rhodes Scholar) with Uranium?

TheClintons

 

“The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.” 

“The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.” 

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.” 

“Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.” 

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.” 

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

excerpts from: The NY Times article by By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE, APRIL 23, 2015 – http://goo.gl/j2phCF

 

It’s all perfectly legal? Nothing New Here? Move along!