Archive for the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ Category

Impeachment (a remedy) Part 1 of 2

January 18, 2020

Short url to this post: https://wp.me/pGfx1-I7

 

Impeachment (a remedy) Part 1 of 2

By Dahni
© 2020, all rights reserved

There have now been four presidents not three (as presently believed), the House of Representatives have supposedly impeached. There have only ever been two trials in the Senate (now the third is about to begin), but thus far, no president has ever been convicted by the 2/3 majority of senators voting to convict, as required by the US Constitution. And it appears that the present will not lead to conviction either. It does make you wonder why impeachment is ever brought up in the first place??? What does the Constitution say about impeachment?

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Article I, Section 3.6, The U.S. Constitution

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article II, Section 4, The U.S. Constitution

“The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I, Section 2.5, The U.S. Constitution

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Article I, 3.7, The U.S. Constitution

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

Article I, Section 5.2, The U.S. Constitution

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed”

Article III, Section 2.3,The U.S. Constitution

An Impeachment trial is to be tried by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding (not sitting as a judge or to judge for dismissal, conviction or acquittal). The senators are NOT jurors, but Senators that vote for dismissal, conviction or acquittal and must concur with 2/3 of a majority of Senators voting. Senators (2/3 majority), are the collective judge(s), of an impeachment trial and may actually overturn the Chief Justice, provided that a simple majority of sworn or affirmed judges (senators), concur.

On all other matters except for an impeachment trial, if there is a 50/50 vote, the Vice President may cast the deciding vote. But in the case of an impeachment trial, the Vice President of the United States would NOT be a deciding vote or determine a simple majority because, it would be 51 votes to 51 (including the ruling of the presiding Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

An ‘Active Quorum Call’ calls out as present, 100 Senators. Those present shall vow by oath or affirmation, administered by the presiding Chief Justice of the Supreme Court before the whole body and sign the ‘Book of Oath’ confirming their oath or affirmation was administered and they freely are bound to administer impartial justice. Any member not present at a ‘Live Quorum Call’ shall be required to take the same oath or affirmation and sign ‘The Oath Book’ before the actual trial can begin.

The founders of our Constitutional and Representative government and framers of our Constitution perhaps wrestled with the ideas of impeachment more than any other issue.

For more information, seek out, read and research ‘The Federalist Papers #65’. Any public library may have this and it could be checked out for FREE. Someone you know or that they know might have a copy which you could borrow for FREE. There are several online sources, which you can source for FREE.

No. 65: The Powers of the Senate Continued
Written by: Alexander Hamilton
March 7, 1788

But our Founders and Framers recognized the seriousness of impeachment! It would in essence be overturning an election and subject the accused if convicted, to be removed from office, to never again be allowed to serve in any public office and may be subject to other indictments and punishments that arise after the removal from office, even if such charges arose during their time in office. If the person or persons is convicted by a 2/3rd. Majority of the senators voting, they cannot be pardoned by any acting president of the United States. Richard Nixon was pardoned, but he was never convicted, he resigned before the Impeachment trial ever began.

Our founders and framers further realized that by impeachment and conviction, this is primarily a political remedy. With a further view, they recognized that “government is a necessary evil”; subject to the faults, failures, fragility and imperfection of our human race. In so acknowledging these human facts, they provided checks and balances and divided government into three separate and equal branches of government— legislative to write the laws, the executive to execute the laws and the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of the laws.

Fundamental or foundational (that upon which the government rests and is to serve), is WE the People. Fundamental or foundational (that upon which WE the People rest and are to be served by), is the individual’s God given (“endowed by their creator”, not the government), “with certain and unalienable rights (rights which cannot be taken, earned, given, bought sold or forfeited), that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, according to, the Foundation of our government— The Declaration of Independence and “in order to—

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

Preamble to The U.S. Constitution

And set forth in the ‘Bill of Rights’, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution.

Therefore, in the case of Impeachment and conviction of an individual or individuals to be impeached and convicted, they must first be given every protection and considered innocent until proven guilty. So serious a thing to deny anyone of their God given rights, our founders and framers wrote and as duly representatives of their individual states, ultimately all agreed and signed their names (an affidavit), that they were who they said they were and were sworn or affirmed that the Constitution would become the ‘Law of the Land’ of our collective states and all individuals of the Constitutional and representative government of, by and for the people, of the United States of America!

And therefore, to remove any president from office, overturn an election, and deny any of their individual rights, any crime or crimes against the Constitution, and the People of the United States, must be so great that it warrants impeachment and conviction!

The manner or process by which this is to be done is simply as follows and is careful to include all branches of government— the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary.

The House of Representatives must, by a simple majority, vote to impeach and then present their charges (Articles of Impeachment), to the Senate for the purpose of trial to dismiss, convict or acquit.

The Senate must call for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over the trial and administer an oath to the Chief Justice that they (he or she), swears or affirms to administer justice impartially.

The Senate shall call all senators and the Chief Justice will administer the same oath to all senators.

All senators will take the oath freely and sign their names freely in ‘The Oath Book’, acknowledging their sworn or affirmed oaths to administer justice impartially.

By a 2/3 majority of senators, senators may dismiss, convict or acquit, the person or persons impeached.

Contrary to what you may believe or have recently heard, once impeached always impeached. Or as stated by the recent Speaker of the House (House of Representatives), who signed the Articles of Impeachment and sent this to the Senate, “He (the current 2020 president), “is forever impeached!” Emphasis intended by exclamation point.

“Forever impeached?” This is NOT true! It is a lie! Impeachment is but one part. The Second part is a trial, which could end by a 2/3 majority of senators to dismiss, convict or acquit. Only IF the person or persons is convicted are they impeached. If the trial is dismissed, they are not impeached. If they are acquitted, they are not impeached!

Our system of justice requires that all are presumed to be innocent, unless proven guilty. Articles of Impeachment by The House of Representatives are no different than any charges against the accused. They are charges. But the one or ones accused are still presumed innocent, until proven guilty. If the case is dismissed, they are still to be presumed innocent, even if they were guilty. If the accused is acquitted, they are still to be presumed innocent! This is, our system of justice! If this were not so, an innocent person or persons could be found guilty as charged.

Impeachment Dismissal and Conviction is so serious a matter, our founders and framers knew it could begin and end in a wholly political and partisan conclusion. They tried to make the process both as simple and as difficult as possible! The work of their simple vision is clouded by imperfect beings who interpret to their own leanings, what our laws say as well as, inserting what they do not say. But along with their simple vision to always strive for perfection, they also desired that the removal of office, be as difficult as possible.

Impeachment, Dismissal and Conviction is not intended to take place because of mere dislike or disagreement or like and agreement.

Our Founders and Framers rejected the idea of the smaller number of Supreme Court Justices and the Chief Justice, deciding the fate of those accused. The Supreme Court is often not familiar with the accused personally and may be thought of as being more independent and impartial, but their smaller number with the potential of the Chief Justice deciding the fate of the accused, was considered not enough protection to the accused.

The Founders and Framers rejected the idea of The House of Representatives, being both accusers and judges.

They rejected the idea of the Senate being both accusers and judges.

The House of Representatives are not supposed to vote on and submit to the Senate, Articles of Impeachment, for unproven charges or because, they may not like or agree with the accused.

The Senate is not supposed to dismiss, convict or acquit because, they may like or may not like, or they may agree or not agree with the accused.

Impeachment is a remedy solely for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Though there may appear to be a lot of wiggle room or broad latitude for the word “misdemeanors”, this is NOT its purpose or intention. Therefore, any representative of the House of Representatives that seeks to make valid what is invalid or valid what is invalid, they are guilty of perjury and have violated their sworn or affirmed oath to the United States Constitution.

Any Senator that does the same is also, guilty of perjury.

Any Chief Justice presiding over an Impeachment trial that accepts as valid what is not or accepts what is invalid as valid, is also guilty of perjury. The Chief Justice presiding over an Impeachment trial, although not a judge, he or she as the Chief Justice represents the collective and entire body of justices and the Judiciary Branch of government of the United States. Although not a judge of the Impeachment trial, he or she is not harmless if they do NOT uphold the highest standards of good faith, credibility, impartial justice,
Jurisprudence, and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Any president, executive or any other public servant as the Constitution prescribes, who is under subpoena and refuses to comply claiming— Presidential or Executive Privilege, for the purpose of evasion to conceal confidential information, under the pretense of national security or protection of the public, violates their sworn or affirmed oath to the Constitution and is guilty of perjury. The remedy is to petition the court and if evidence is found that the person has falsely claimed Presidential or Executive Privilege, to evade or conceal pertinent facts to a crime or crimes committed, may order the President or Executive to produce the required information. Failure to do so will result in the additional charge of Obstruction of Justice.

Our Founders and Framers fervently desired the Impeachment process to be as simple as possible and as difficult as possible, affording the greatest possible protection to the accused that are considered innocent, until proven guilty. And if not found to be guilty, or the case is dismissed, they remain as if UN-impeached and innocent of any and all charges.

The Preamble to Our Constitution states in part, “In order to form a more perfect union…” It is NOT to form a perfect union! It replaced the former ‘Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual’ and removed the word “perpetual”! Perfection and Perpetuity is not possible by such imperfect beings as our human race, but it is a goal in which WE should always strive for, always! Because of this, our founders and framers would rather that all the guilty be acquitted if their guilt is not proven, than one innocent individual believed to be guilty, but is not! Think about that and the principal of innocent until proven guilty!!!

Armed with the accouterments of the Patriot Warriors of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, next time we will look at the history of impeachment, how imperfection has validated, everything you have just read!!!

Everything you have just read with regards to Impeachment is, not exactly how it has been applied since the first time in 1868. You might ask why, why not or how has this been applied? The single answer is, “Legal fiction.” It is legal because it comes from the Constitution, but it is fiction (does not exist or is made up), because of interpretation. For more information, see: ‘RESET (An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic)’ Chapter 16 ‘Legal Fiction (Fiction of Law) –

https://resetbook.com/

If you are not too depressed or stressed out about Impeachment, enjoy “Impeachment Polka,” written in 1868 by the composer Charles Dupee Blake. It may seem like an odd thing for the present, but in 1868, everybody was talking about impeachment. It had never been before in the history of the United States. The Civil War was pretty much over. The wounds of president Lincoln’s assassination had been begun to subside and people were looking for entertainment and something new. Not unlike today in 2020, in 1868, a lot of people were happy about impeaching a president. What should be a solemn occasion with the potential effects of overturning an election and the negative impact to the accused, a lot of people were looking for some excitement. On January 16, 2020, the Speaker of the House had used many pens to sign the Articles of Impeachment and passed them out like candy. But then, the House Managers marched this over to the Senate like a funeral procession, as if this were a solemn thing. It was a “solemn thing,” but many people were excited about it! It was the same thing in 1868. And then and now, there is always those that seek to make a buck off of, just about anything.

“Tickets to the impeachment trial in the Senate for Johnson in 1868 were the hottest items in town,” said Brenda Wineapple, author of ‘The Impeacher: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation.’ Tickets were hard to get. “People were lined up outside the building early in the morning to try to get in,” Brenda Wineapple. And again, Charles Dupee Blake, sought to earn some money with his ‘Impeachment Polka. ‘

Michael Adcock performs “Impeachment Polka.” (Michael Adcock performs “Impeachment Polka.” Zach Purser Brown/The Washington Post)

Now listen to Michael Adcock perform, ‘Impeachment Polka.’

Next time: ‘Impeachment’ (History of Imperfection) Part 2 of 2

 

 

 

1 of We

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

March 26, 2019

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

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

By Dahni
© 2019, all rights reserved

The Mueller Report, no matter what it contains or what is released to the public, should be rejected by all, for it is, “Fruit of the poisonous tree.”•

•source link: Cornell Law

“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Legal Doctrine

“The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation.”

source: legal-dictionary thefreedictionary.com

Perhaps another legal doctrine may be familiar and similar to you, your Miranda Rights.

“Miranda Rights are named after the landmark US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for stealing $8.00 from an Arizona bank worker. After two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed not only to the robbery, but also to kidnapping and rape. When he was brought in for questioning, he was never told that he did not have to speak to police, or that he could consult with a lawyer; he simply confessed to the crimes. He was found guilty.”

“Miranda’s conviction was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Justices ruled that the statements Miranda made to the police could not be used as evidence against him because, he had not been advised of his Constitutional rights. Since this decision, police are required to recite the Miranda warning to suspects before, any questioning is conducted.”

“The Miranda case did not establish new rights, but rather instituted further protection of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.”

source: Legalzoom.com

WOW, from a known criminal and for an initial charge of just $8.00 theft, but who also confessed to kidnapping and rape, we have this namesake legal doctrine of Miranda Rights! What happened to him?

“Ernesto Miranda did, indeed, get a new trial based on the Supreme Court ruling, and his original confession was thrown out. However, based on the evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and rape, and served 11 years in prison before being paroled in 1972. In 1976 at the age of 34, Miranda was stabbed to death in a barroom brawl. Police arrested a suspect in the killing who, after choosing to exercise his Miranda Right to remain silent, was released without being charged for the crime.”

source: Legalzoom.com

Now don’t you wonder how the prosecution ever knew about “evidence” to look for in this second case? I do. Technically, Miranda should have only been charged and convicted, for the initial crime and charge of $8.00 in theft!

Exceptions (loopholes) to the Miranda Rights? But of course (sarcasm). Each state must follow the four points, but each state writes their own rules, for applying them. One exception is…

“We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.”

used by:  Some police departments in Indiana, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska

In other words, we are not going to pay for your attorney, you the interrogated or charged are. We will appoint one (our choice as to which one), IF you wish and IF you go to court. This exception gets the taxpayer off the hook and it’s good for lawyers that are are all generally paid, win or lose. And it could be good for the prosecution too.

Unfortunately, for certain people, these two legal doctrines (Miranda Rights and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree), though designed to protect individual rights, have exceptions (loopholes). Law, which is supposed to protect the law-abiding and punish the lawless, is so constructed that often the lines between guilt and innocence are blurred. Exceptions (interpretation of law), are often just a tool of government, to circumvent constitutional rights or to shield and/or justify its own actions. In other words, if it is in the government’s best interest with exceptions, it can interpret the law and seize constitutional rights, as if it is their property or not prosecute at all, if it is one of their own or not in their interest. Does a counterintelligence, an FBI investigation or did Mueller’s investigation, support or seize the individual’s rights? There can be no silence or opposing counsel to help those being questioned, by the government and this should be illegal! Neither is it legal to require sworn testimony of some, but not of others. These exceptions to the law, makes law, useless in our Republic!

The special counsel (Mueller Investigation), was begun without legal precedent. It only had the appearance of being legal. It never met the legal requirements, for a special counsel to operate. It only had the appearance of a legal operation. The named individuals on the counsel were openly and blatantly chosen, despite bias, partisan politics and many of its lawyers conflicted or known to have corrupt practices of their own. There is simply no way this counsel could muster public trust and is but “fruit from the poisonous tree.” It was hidden from the public, it was empowered to serve. The scope of its power, its tactics, its randomly veering off its mandate (at its own discretion), its refusal to release certain information and it leaked information as it suited them while ruining lives. And it prevented even Congress charged with judicial oversight and other investigators from interviewing potential witnesses and documents non-redacted, keeping it to themselves and secret, all in the name of national security or not compromising an on-going investigation. Charged to look into one thing, they looked into many other things. This is just, “fruit from the poisonous tree.”

Some of the “fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

However, after nearly two years, countless hours of investigating companies, countries, private individuals and public officials; after the near constant media and public distraction, all who waited in mistrust and fear or waiting with bated breath, for the release of what many already believed was true, before it even began, it has been released to the Attorney General (AG). After untold millions of dollars paid for by the United States Taxpayer, The Confidential Mueller was ended.

By law, it has been delivered to the deputy attorney general, who authorized the investigation. The investigation was to determine whether or not, the Russian government, working with certain US citizens colluded with and conspired with, to influence the 2016 presidential election. By law, the deputy attorney general immediately delivered this report to the US Attorney General. By law, the AG immediately delivered a letter to the Chairman and ranking member of the House of Representatives, Judicial Committee, and the Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judicial Committee. And the same he released to the public. By law, all were notified that the AG was in receipt of the Confidential Mueller Report and that:

1. The investigation had ended and no new indictments would be coming or are left hidden.
2. More information to these individuals of the two judicial committees was promised to be forthcoming and perhaps as early as, the following weekend.

The above, by law, and as promised, more information was delivered by the AG (signed by both the AG and the deputy AG), to the specific four members of Congress and simultaneously to the public.

This summation stated:

1. No collusion or conspiracy was found
2. The AG and deputy AG concurred, there is no sufficient evidence to pursue obstruction of justice

But this summation by law, is not good enough for many and they clamor loudly, daily and incessantly, for the release of the full report and all documents, which were used to make up the Mueller Report. Without the patience, for the release of as much as possible and as promised, foolishly and ignorantly they are distrusting the integrity of the AG, and in essence, are inciting him to break the law and to commit perhaps multiple felonies, in releasing information which may contain:

  1. sealed Grand Jury information
  2. classified information
  3. presidential privileged information

The damage already done to our Republic is so great, as it is now, it will take a long time to repair it!

Though the length of this investigation is not the longest one on record, but because of its almost endless and daily coverage by most of all media, blinding our eyes with it and blaring it in our ears daily, it certainly seemed like it was! For no other reason, I am relived, it is now over!

I am relieved…

…not to rejoice in the vindication of the president and anyone associated with him.

I am relived…

…not to criticize, condemn or complain about anyone whose expectation was that collusion, conspiracy and/or obstruction of justice, justified this investigation.

I am relived…

…I am just relived that no foreign power colluded, conspired and obstructed justice, to interfere with, the 2016 presidential election of, WE the People!

It would be apropos if WE the People could now focus our efforts upon matters of great importance to the Republic of, The United States of America, But this report, no matter what it concludes and whatever is released to the public is, but “fruit from the poisonous tree.” It should be rejected by every individual in our Republic. One cannot obstruct justice from collusion/conspiracy, which does not exist. Sadly, I suppose, this is just the end of the beginning?

But just because someone (anyone), appears to be guilty or is made out to be guilty, charged as if they are guilty, and convicted in the court of public opinion, does not make it so. To usurp an individual’s (any individual citizen of the United States), constitutional rights is, “fruit of the poisonous tree!” Any results (consequences meted out), by anyone; from any such manner or method is, “fruit of the poisonous tree!” Perjury traps violate constitutional rights. Gather the evidence legally. Indict or charge. Convict or dismiss. Acquit, set free and make whole. There should never be an exception to anyone, for any reason or under any circumstance, for the use of, “fruit of the poisonous tree!” 

Anyone (any citizen), charged and found guilty, by way of “fruit from the poisonous tree,” should have all charges dismissed, their rights restored and restitution made to them, for any loss. Anyone that relies on or uses “fruit of the poisonous tree,” should suffer the consequences and/or be made to pay, for using “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Without exception (without interpretation), I do not want the guilty to go free, but neither do I want the innocent to be bound due to, “fruit of the poisonous tree!”

The damage done to our Republic and to individuals these past several years is innumerable and not because of the doctrines to protect the individual’s (all individual citizens) rights. It is the exceptions (interpretations), in using, “fruit of the poisonous tree!”

Truth and Reason and appetite (an Intro.)

February 25, 2019

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

Truth and Reason and appetite (an Intro.)

By Dahni
© 2019, all rights reserved

Latin—

Order— “A Reasonable Introduction”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following three-parts to this series will be:

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

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

November 8th, 2018

November 8, 2018

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

By Dahni
© 2018, all rights reserved

Eight denotes the number of a new beginning. In music there are a series of notes, one through seven. Then it starts anew with the eighth note (an octave). All the music ever, is written with a total of 88 keys as on a piano. What looks like an 8 on its side is the symbol of infinity, it just continues. Everything in life has a beginning. Let this be Ours today, on this eighth day of November, 2018!

All great literature is like this too, it just continues, even though it may be fiction. The great thing about fiction, besides its passion is, it can invoke in us a great sense of adventure. It ignites our imagination to lead us to find new discoveries. Fiction can give us rest or pause or enjoyment, in the midst of our everyday toils. And fiction is, often based on facts or at least plausible possibilities. Fiction can cause us to believe so deeply and completely that we accept it being either real or attainable.

Such are the works of French author, Alexandre Dumas. Among his many works, perhaps the most famous, most known and most often read are: ‘The Count of Monte Christo‘, ‘The Nutcracker‘ (yes he revised an original story which became the ‘Nutcracker Suite’, with music composed by Tchaikovsky). And Dumas penned ‘Prince of Thieves’ (about Robin Hood). Then, this famous French author wrote, ‘The d’Artagnan Romances’ (series) which include, ‘The Three Musketeers’ and ‘The Man in The Iron Mask’, among others.

In the 1998 movie adaptation of Dumas’ work, ‘The Man in The Iron Mask’, we see the characters of the four Musketeers. One was d’Artagnan, as captain of The Musketeers. His character was based on an actual man with that name. And that man was also, really, The Captain of The Musketeers.

The man in the iron mask is portrayed as the identical twin brother of King Louis XIV. But did you know that there is evidence to support that there really was a prisoner that some say wore an iron mask, while others say his identity was hidden for years, behind a black velvet mask. His identity has long been argued and disputed. But the point to all of this here is— there was, a man behind a mask, d’Artagnan was, a Captain of the Guard, Musketeers existed and their famous motto has been around, for many years, before Dumas wrote it in his ‘Three Musketeers‘! So, we see how just enough factual information, can capture our attention and the characters are turned into heroes and heroines, the stuff of legends! And we so often want to be them or at least, be like them.

In this story, the ruling King Louis the XIV was, a corrupt and cruel dictator. To protect his perceived right of rule, Louis kept his identical twin brother Phillipe, in prison for years and his true identity hidden, behind an iron mask.

The Four Musketeers conspired together, to replace Louis with Phillipe. Out from behind his iron mask and with the Four Musketeers together, they now five, do one thing as one and say all together their famous line.

What was that famous motto? “One for all, all for one”. The phrase is from Latin “unus pro onnibus, omnes pro uno”. Symbolically raising or lowering and crossing swords while saying this, marked it.

All for one, one for all”!

The phrase was likely, first used in 1618, in a meeting between leaders of the Bohemian, Catholic and Protestant communities, resulting in a letter in, ‘Defenestrations of Prague’.

Next it was used by Dumas in, ‘The Tree Musketeers’ – 1844.

In 1874, it became the official motto of Switzerland.

Dumas draws us in to his works, by building his characters and making them come alive. In, ‘The Man in the Iron Mask‘, Dumas not only etches the reader’s mind with the specific characteristics of the Four Musketeers, but gives enhanced meaning, to their crossing swords with their spoken motto—

One for all, all for one”!

The virtues of the Musketeers, are virtues we should all strive for:

• Aramis— for his faith (believing), in a cause
• Porthos— for his Passion, for Life
• Athos— for Love, his love of his son and the love he bestowed upon Phillipe, all without reservation or hesitation
• D’Artagnan— for Devotion to something greater, than his own life
• Phillipe— for the potential of us all, to be Great and Kind, Merciful and Forgiving.

There’s nothing so kingly as kindness, and nothing so royal as truth!”

Alice Carey, (April 26, 1820 – February 12, 1871), American poet, educator, librarian, and civil rights activist-

How powerfully these all combined, to make something even greater in, “All for one, one for all”!

Does all the above, remind you of something equally, as powerful?

In signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, unanimously, they all together, for each and all pledged themselves, to what George Washington often referred to as, ‘The Cause’! They pledged— their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Benjamin Franklin said that if they did not all “hang together” (unite), they each, “would hang separately” (by the neck literally).

Even while the words were being signed in 1776, work had already begun on a motto and designs for a seal. Should their seemingly impossible and far-fetched vision be realized, they would need to rely upon divine intervention, “Divine Providence” (favor)! In hope, they prepared and they planned a Great Seal, for official documents. Does this not also, sound like a great work of fiction?

This design, for a great seal, was based on another Latin phrase:- E pluribus unumOut of many, one

It is interesting to note that in 1776, there were 13 colonies and there are 13 letters in this Latin phrase!

By an act of Congress in 1792, the Great Seal and E pluribus unum was, the de facto motto of, The United States of America. This stood, for over 100 years. Then, in 1956, it became and now is, “In God WE Trust.”

Note again: Even in our present motto, unity is still implied by the word, “WE”!

The opening of Our Constitution begins with this unity by one word, “WE” Next, it defines who, “WE” are, not a few nobles or the elite, but “..the People”. Finally, Our Constitution defines under whose authority this government may serve and operate, but also, for whom, for “The People of the United States of America”.

The unity of WE is, applied and connected to Our Constitution, our Great Seal, Our Motto, and inextricably bound to the “WE” of, The Declaration of Independence, in 1776.

These are not mere ideas and ideals of past real people or fictional characters. These are virtues, proven time and time again, to exist. And in reality, where they thrive— Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, all flourish and nourish the entire world!

The words and writings of our founders were not mere words, but histories of these virtues— applied and realized.

Life is a series of challenges, victories and defeat. It is full of sorrow and grief. WE have WEPT individually and together. It is full of laughter and joy. WE have WEPT, one by one, and all together.

Each of US is, wholly and totally unique! There never has been; there is no one anywhere on earth and there never will come anyone, exactly like You!
Each of US are equal! Each of US is, independent! Each of US is, independently responsible! You are strength, without measure! But WE are, even stronger, TOGETHER!!!

So, my Brothers and Sisters, let us take off the masks of our individuality, which keep us hidden and separate, from one another. Let US rely upon Providence (Divine Favor). Then, let us each individually, use the full measure of our individual greatness and let US draw swords of our individual hearts and cross them and together, stand unified, Out of many, one, as WE the People, all for one, one for all!

All these things considered and on today, November 8th, 2018, I do hereby proclaim this, the first annual, National Musketeer Day, or WEPT (WE People Together) Day, or WE Day or, WE The People Day!!! Happy New Beginning!  🙂

By the Authority Vested in Me—

Dahni

1 of WE

Wear Your Button Proudly!

#Musketeer Day
#WEPeopleTogether Day
#WEPT Day
#WEThePeopleDay
#WeDay

WE the People are, The  Apple of Gold in a picture of Silver. The Silver (government), WE made to serve US (The Apple), and not to serve the picture of silver (the government)!

Behold, WE, WEPT (WE. People Today), with tears of Grief and Joy! What is, reflected in the Apple of Your Eye; for what virtues do you cry?

The Quest

September 24, 2017

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

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

Good Morning WE the People!😃🇺🇸

I do not generally, recommend products and services other than my own, but this one is right up my flagpole so to speak…

My flagpole May 30, 2016

…and brings a tear of joy to my eye…

Tear of Joy

With all the ‘take a knee’ during our National Anthem being played at sporting venues and the ‘everything is racist’ mentality of individuals, groups and even cities and towns, with the consequences of the attempts to change history, by the removal, defacing and destruction of public and private property, of statues and other historical artifacts, perhaps those that are protesting and all of US should actually know something about, The Constitution of this, Our Republic?

If you agree or if you would consider such, I am pleased to recommend the following family friendly and non-partisan, something for every age, board game! WE the People are family, are we not?

Constitution Quest board game

for:

◊ Birthdays
◊ Holidays
◊ Anytime
◊ Schools
◊ Groups
◊ Friends
◊ Families
◊ Any Age

Full website:

http://www.constitutionquest.com/ecommerce/constitution-quest-board-game.html

Mobile site:

http://www.constitutionquest.com/ecommerce/constitution-quest-board-game.html

Facebook:

https://m.facebook.com/ConstitutionQuest

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

Patriotic 1 of WE 🙂

Happily Ever After Constitution Day!

September 17, 2017

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

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

Happily Ever After Birthday Constitution!

Today marks two hundred and thirty years since 1787. It is Constitution Day! Today commemorates the formation and signing of the U.S. Constitution, by thirty-nine brave souls, on September 17, 1787, recognizing all who are born in the U.S. or by naturalization, have become citizens. It was signed in Philadelphia, PA, the city of “brotherly love (and sisters too). For better or worse, indifferent or just different, WE’re still here! That in and of itself is a reason to celebrate. That’s it for history today. Rather than a lengthy essay or a long drawn-out post, let’s us just take some time today, to consider:

  1. How far those original 13 colonies had come in 1776
  2. How far those sovereign 13 states had come, from being so anarchistic and so un-united, in 1787
  3. How far this republic has come since 1787
  4. How far you and I have come in 2017
  5. How much further, are WE willing to go

How Much Further?

Happy Birthday!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

 

 

 

What Happened to Love thy Neighbor?

August 17, 2017

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

What Happened to Love thy Neighbor?

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

 

There was a day. It was warm and beautiful. The skies were blue and friendly puffy floating clouds drifted by. Birds were on the wing and in song. Hope was in your heart. Possibility in the air was blowing through your hair. You felt good and walked with confidence in every step you took. You smiled. You smiled at others you knew or met. You said hello and they in turn, gave it back freely and friendly, like a hug and kiss from just a gesture. You opened doors for others and they for you. You complimented and were complimented. You helped out and others helped you. You checked on others and they checked on you. You stood together with them and for them and they stood together with you and for you. Your joy was theirs and theirs was yours. Their sorrow yours and yours, theirs. You were alive and glad to be. You stepped as if you knew where you were going. You were fearless with nothing to fear as all you met and would meet, had your back. You had no doubt, no worry and no fear. You loved and you were loved. The sun and moon and planets and stars and the whole earth revolving under your feet, were all in alignment, for you. You were in agreement with everyone and everyone agreed with you. Life and Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was good, very good, good for you and good for everyone and anyone!

Then, something you did not agree with happened. Someone that was different happened. What happened to— Love thy Neighbor?

A fever of the mind took you. It took your heart. It started slowly – no opinion, no confrontation, no questions asked, no getting involved, no making waves, no want to offend. As evil surmising(s) began coursing through your veins, you kept to yourself, you kept quiet, but your temperature continued to rise. Your apathy began to boil and boil over and out of your words and deeds. Disagreements led you to arguments and the fever took your heart. It was only a matter of time; it is only a matter of time until, the fever took and takes, all of your body, your heart, soul, mind and strength. And it is contagious. It is highly contagious. What happened to— Love thy Neighbor?

I am writing here, to you, you of this country, The United Sates of America. Whether loving your neighbor is, a universal truth like, the golden rule, doing unto others as you would them do unto you or not, I am writing this and speaking to you. WE were never united because, we are all the same. WE were and may yet still be united because, all of us created equally, are all equally fervent and desire the same— Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! What happened to— Love thy Neighbor?

What happened to— Love thy Neighbor? I will tell you, whether you believe in God and believe God or not—the love of money happened! Not money, but what it represents—power and control. Not just power and control, but the love of power and control! Things like money, are made to be used, not loved. People are made, not to be used, but to be loved. What happened to— Love thy Neighbor? The love of money (power and control), happened. It is, the root of all evil! If you require a reference, here it is: 1 Timothy 6:10 King James Version (KJV)

How easy it to love Him that we cannot see, if we cannot/will not love him or her we do see? How can we say we love Him, if we cannot/will not love them He created equally? What stone do you first cast at yourself, for your own weaknesses and errors, sins, shortcomings, your differences and flaws, and corruption and imperfection? If you are to love others as you love yourself and you do not, how much even self love do you have?

Whom or what has made you feverish? Whom or what has infected you? Whom or what owns you? Whom or what controls you? Whom or what bribes you? Whom or what gags you so that you cannot/will not speak? Whom or what blindfolds you that you cannot/will not see? Whom or what has stopped your ears that you cannot/will not hear? Whom or what binds your hands or places instruments of destruction in them? Whom or what chains your feet so that you cannot or will not move or threatens you, your loves and/or whips you, harms you, kills you or your loved, unless or until you do? Whom or what has stricken history, from all your memory or your recall and whom or what strikes it still? Whom or what will come to your aide, if you cannot or will not come to the aide of others? What happened to— Love thy Neighbor?

I write these words. I have read these words. I read these words. I am just like you. What happened to— Love thy Neighbor, my Neighbor?

Do you remember, do I? Do you know, do I?? What are you, what am I, going to do about it???????

If I have a fever, I do not need or want to spread it! I do not need or want the undertaker, the mortician! I need and want a physician! I need and want to be healed! I want and need to Live! I want and need Liberty! I want and need, the Pursuit of Happiness! I want and need to be made whole! Please come my neighbor, come and love me and make me whole!!!! I will do the same for you!!!!!

“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, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

 Excerpt from: The first inaugural address by Abraham Lincoln

Fourscore and seven [now, Twelvescore and three (243=1774], years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion–that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863


 

Dahni

1 of WE

 

 

PS My inspiration for this piece is from a four-year old movie I just watched yesterday (twice in fact), called: ‘Copperhead.’ It is very similar to the times in which we are living in today. It has always been thus—What happened to— Love thy Neighbor?

 

D

A More Perfect Union

May 31, 2017

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

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

After stating the authority and the power and the origin of this Our Republic (“WE the People’), the Preamble to the Constitution sets forth its six (6), purposes or principles of Our Republic. The following is the first purpose or principle.

 

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union…”

Excerpt from: The Preamble to The Constitution of the United States of America

In order is, in contrast, to disorder. Order is, the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other, according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method. It is, an authoritative command, direction, or instruction.

to,” from the Greek preposition pros is, to, towards, or with a view towards.

form” is, the visible shape or configuration of something. It is a mold, frame, or block in or on which something is shaped.

a” as a letter of the English and the Greek alphabet (Greek- alpha), is, the first letter, a beginning.

As an article, “a” (indefinite) it is defined: One; any indefinite example of; used to denote a singular item of a group.

Note: The word “the” is NOT used which would suggest something definite as, “The United States of America.” This order was to form a beginning, something new; something in process, something in progress, and something which can be changed, improved upon, altered, amended and even eliminated if according to the authority of, WE the People, as we grow and as WE deem necessary.

more perfect?” – Can something which is perfect become more perfect or less perfect? NO it cannot! This strange usage or combinations of words should arrest our attention. Can our attention be arrested? “Arrest our attention” and our three words here, “a more perfect…” together form each, a  figure of speech. A figure of speech is a legitimate grammatical usage of words that are truer to truth than the literal statement of fact. Figures of speech are used for emphasis, to emphasize someone or something.

Have you ever heard or read, “Practice makes perfect?” But would not one have to start with perfect practice? I heard a child spokesperson for a recent adoption campaign say, “You don’t have to be a perfect person to be a perfect parent!” Do either of these two line make any literal sense whatsoever? Not without understanding figures of speech!

“In order to form a more perfect Union” is, a figure of speech. This particular figure of speech literally emphasizes the word “perfect.” Figuratively, it makes the word “perfect” truer to truth than the literal statement of fact. This figure is used as a goal to strive for, a viewpoint to ever reach for. It is NOT a final destination to be reached by such finite and imperfect people as all of humanity in this life, but a continual reaching for excellence. Only God (the laws of Nature and Natures God) is perfect and only He or it by our willingness to follow Him or its principles, His Word (or the natural law principles), and His principles can perfect us. “More pefect” removes the previous impediment of the former or first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. It removes the inability to grow and change by removing the word “perpetual.” One cannot excel or strive for perfection, if they are locked into perpetuity of an unchanging system!

One cannot excel or strive for perfection, if they are locked into perpetuity of an unchanging system!

Union” – Union is, the state of being united or joined. The Free and Independent States united, to “form a more perfect Union.” This is referring to the former or our first Constitution, ‘Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States of…[list of the 13 states which signed the document on 11/15/1777 and ratified 3/1/1781]’

When the greater came (This Constitution on March 4th, 1789), the former (Articles of Confederation), the lesser was terminated.

The new Constitution was believed to be “a more perfect Union,” better, with its ability to reach towards a more worthy endeavor and to secure and protect and defend the individual’s God-given unalienable rights such as, “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!”

In conclusion, please note that this preamble and this constitution omits the word “perpetual” which was part of the Articles of Confederation. If something is perpetual, it continues. It was and remains the ever pursuit of excellence or Our lifelong journey in always seeking to excel. This constitution was NOT intended to be necessarily “perpetual,” but to grow as WE the People grow and deem it necessary to change or abolish it and therefore, it was envisioned as a continual pursuit towards, “a more perfect Union,” among us, WE the People.

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

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

Please note, it is my purpose and intent to repeat the entire Preamble word for word throughout this series. Perhaps WE all will have it memorized at its conclusion and keep it!

 

1 0f WE,

 

 

 

 

 

Next time: ‘Establish Justice’
Last Time: ‘WE the People’

“Nature’s God”

May 15, 2017

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

by Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us examine the writer, Thomas Jefferson.

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

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

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

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

I Corinthians 10:32 KJV

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 1:18-20 KJV

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

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

Romans 1:1-8, 13-25 KJV

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

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

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

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

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

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

Psalm 19:1 KJV

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

There is one problem with this concept, Biblically.

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

Matthew 16:13-20 KJV

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

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

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

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

In their day and time, Thomas Jefferson, our original founders and our original documents were revolutionary because, they rejected the “divine right” of the king, the rule from the throne and the rule of the church (any church), “from the chair,” or the toilet. This established the concept of separation of Church and State, but certainly not, the separation of God and State. This is clearly seen in the words, “The Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God.” As The Declaration Declares, “All men [a plural noun inclusive of all men, women and children], “are created equal…” “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

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

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

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

Our rights do not come from God?

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

Our Equality and Our Rights come from God!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 of WE,

 

Unalienable or Inalienable

April 19, 2017

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

by Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

I of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

“UN-alien” or “Inalienable”