Archive for the ‘Rights’ Category

Secure the Blessings of Liberty

March 22, 2018

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

By Dahni
©️ 2018, all rights reserved

There can be no Blessings of Liberty without Security!

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

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

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

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

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

Euclid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Amendment:

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

U.S.A. Constitution, First Amendment

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

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

Following this, let us now read the–

Second Amendment.

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

U.S.A. Constitution, Second Amendment

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

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

What does “infringed” mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Amendment:

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

U.S.A. Constitution, First Amendment

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

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

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

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

Following this, let us now read the–

Second Amendment.

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

U.S.A. Constitution, Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benjamin Franklin

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

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

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

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

Education is another way to arm and disarm.

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

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

Benjamin Franklin

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preamble to the Constitution

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

There can be no Blessings of Liberty without Security!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

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

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

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

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

Secure your right, to secure your rights!

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

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

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

Secure your right, to secure these rights, to–

”Secure the Blessings of Liberty!”

1 of WE,

Dahni

Dahni, ‘The Patriot’

Advertisements

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

 

 

 

WE the People

May 31, 2017

Short url to this post:http://wp.me/pGfx1-AU

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

This September 17, 2017, We will celebrate the 230th birthday of the signing of, Our Constitution. Whether WE are history buffs or not, most will know the following quotes:

“WE hold these truths…”

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence July 4th, 1776

&

“WE the People…”

excerpt from: The Constitution of the United States of America, Signed, September 17th, 1787

These two documents represent our founding. The first, declaratory of such things as equality and unalienable rights and etc. Those signing, represented the People of the thirteen colonies which were declaring their god-given right to be free and independent states. Please note, no court in our country recognizes this as a legal document which has no standing and no state, according to, Our supposed-to-be-serving US, judicial branch. But that is WRONG! The same WE that held those “truths” are the same “WE the People” in the Preamble to Our Constitution, and the same “WE the People” of, The United States of America today. But please note again, no court in our country recognizes the Preamble as having any force or effect in legal matters as pertaining to Our Constitution. And again, that is, WRONG, so very, very, WRONG!

There is a familiar expression that those who live under a monarchy either in ceremonial or actual power understand. It was familiar in the times of King James, the namesake of the authorized King James Version of the Bible, in 1611. It was familiar to and in the writings of, a contemporary then, William Shakespeare. And it was familiar to King George of Great Britain in, 1776 and to our founders. The phrase was and may still be used today, “WE the King” (or Queen or other ruling monarch), “of England” (or other kingdom – rule by a monarch). These words are 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. This figure of speech empathizes the nearest noun as its antecedent which, in this phrase, would be the word, “king.” The power of the King is emphasized by including every person and even all the property and all resources of the kingdom.

Our founders were rejecting the rule of a monarch and the dominance of any religion in their desire to be free and independent states with each individual having equal and god-given (Laws of nature and Nature’s God), rights. “WE hold these truths” emphasizes the signers of the Declaration that behind them is, all of the people and all the property and all the resources of the thirteen colonies and not just their pledge of their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, but all of Ours too! “WE hold these truths,” was then and is now, in direct opposition of and in contrast to the words, the meaning and the monarch of, “WE the King!”

“WE hold these truths” in essence is, repeated and made specific in Our Constitution in the opening of its (Our) Preamble, “WE the People!” “WE the People” emphasizes all of the people and the property and all of the resources of the Free and Independent States of 1787 and not just the signers of the Constitution of the United States of America. “WE the People” was then and still are, in direct opposition of and in contrast to the words, “WE the King,” the meaning and the rule of any monarch, even a democracy (rule by majority) or any of the three branches of Our government, THEN and still TODAY!

“WE the People” are, the authors, the writers, the signers, the power and the authority and hold original jurisdiction over all our property and all of Our resources, Our Constitution, and Our Republic. “WE the People,” are, the rule of Law (the Republic), the Law of the Land! Never, Ever forget this!! WE made the government to serve US! We do NOT serve the government!

So, in preparation of the signing of Our Constitution’s 230th Birthday, September 17, 2017, How about baking a cake?! 🙂

Happily Ever After Birthday Constitution— Love, WE the People

 

For Instruction on how to bake this cake, see:

Gesine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For her recipe and how to make Our cake see:

G BAKES
“Get A Rise Out of Baking”

“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 of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

Next time: ‘In order to form a more perfect Union’
Last Time: ‘Ambling the Preamble’

Ambling the Preamble

May 31, 2017

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

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

 

Preamble — an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
Ambling — to go at a slow, easy pace; stroll; saunter:

“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

This is what I am proposing to do with these next few posts. Before WE can amble, this here is the preamble. 🙂

Out of many WE the People are!

 

1 of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

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!

Next time: ‘We the People’

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

 

The Inaugural

January 19, 2017
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-zq

The Inaugural

By WE the People
© January 20th, 2017
all rights reserved, by WE the People

inaugural1From a distance in the dark
Yon early morning light reveals
A blanket of fog across the amber fields
And monuments of testaments above the crimson flow
Comes a whisper
That shatters the stillness from afar
Through the years and years
Despite the tears, but with courage to the fears
Some 228 years ago and now the fifty-eighth time

 

 

 

inaugural2

Heat of mid morning melting away the cold
Its brilliance vanquishes every vast darkness
Dividing and separating
Uniting and attaching
Then a hush; then a hum, rolling through the unfurling
Of stars and stripes
A chorus and a shout
From all those standing; erected stones that stood for liberty
Whose crimson blood still flows beneath their feet
Wherein they stood or yet stand,
for freedom and,
gave and still give, their all,
for its birth and,
for its continuance

inaugural3
Solemn is the moment,
But joy adorns the lips
Waves of emotion rising
wafting like a hymn
that God would grant this peaceful transfer,
into living memory every fourth year,
as We the People once again,
Inaugurate Our Republic, anew

inaugural4

 

Are WE on the Verge of the Second Revolution?

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

To my Family, my Friends and anyone who still has a will to open their eyes and still, has ears to hear.

 

amrevolution

 

Are WE on the Verge of the Second, American Revolution?

I am writing to you and particularly, to all those like me, that have not yet voted, in the upcoming election, on November 8, 2016.

To begin, please forgive me in taking this one liberty, in assuming you know at least something, about the American Revolution, which began officially in writing The Declaration of Independence, signed July 2nd and published July 4th, 1776. What I would like you to take from this is, that every person signing, were guilty of treason. They mutually pledged their fortunes, their sacred honor and their lives. They broke the law to protect and defend the law of God-given equality and unalienable rights!

Now, here we are in 2016, just days before the election on November 8th. Is this more, much more, than just an end finally, to the most divisive time and election of our lives? Is it a harbinger of more tumult to come, than we have ever imagined? Or are WE the People, on the verge of, the Second American Revolution, for the life of our fragile Republic?

Surely, you must be tired of this whole thing like I am and cannot wait, for it to be over and to get on with our lives, in whatever state we may find them, after this damnable or wrecking ball to restore, this THING, is over!

By now, most everyone knows that the Clinton e-mail scandal ended last July, with the findings that there was no ‘intent’ and no recommendation from the FBI, for the Justice Department to prosecute. The FBI’s director’s boss, the Attorney General, for the United States, accepted the recommendation. About half of the country were pleased and the other half were not.

The two candidates seeking the office of president continued to accuse one another and present their plans to their supporters. Donald J. Trump, accused Hillary Clinton of being “crooked’ and that the whole system was “rigged.” Clinton responded in kind, with her or her supporter’s accusations. Every day and night, mainstream media at least, had lots to talk about and their ratings soared  and their advertisers were pleased, I guess? At least many people were tuning in, to this circus and their products and services were being seen. Follow the money.

WkiLeaks started releasing a lot of incriminating emails. Their authenticity was NOT denied. Instead, the Clinton campaign accused Trump of working with the Russians to influence the election. Then, the Clinton Campaign directly accused the Russians of hacking the emails, giving them to WikiLeaks and all, to influence the election. WikiLeaks countered, that it was impossible. Just remember that WikiLeaks showed, it was, “impossible.”

Two days before Halloween, on October 28, 2016, FBI director James Comey sent a letter to some members of the House of Representatives, indicating that new information had led them to review, the Clinton email case. This letter in full, was copied and leaked. Almost immediately, the word “review” was interpreted to, “re-opening” the case.

Next, Director Comey was accused in trying to influence the election. Many that previously (just the previous July) who had praised his decision then, now accused him of breaking the law and in trying to influence the election.

A few days later, it was leaked that on a laptop, jointly shared by Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Wiener, some 650,000 emails discovered. This is significant as, Abedin had told the FBI that she had released all her files and emails to them previously. It was leaked that she did not know they were still on this laptop and that she had previously forwarded all her files to her Yahoo account, to make them easier to print and that she had previously saved them to help in preparing a book for Hillary Clinton, sometime in the future. She told the FBI that she did not know all these files had been backed up on this laptop. She has disappeared from Clinton’s side, ever since. She and her husband are most likely, looking to make some kind of deal with the FBI and/or seeking legal council. It has been leaked that the contents of this laptop contains a treasure trove of information, which may contain classified material and new material, not previously viewed by the FBI. Her estranged husband’s legal issues go beyond this to an actual investigation into his possible, pedophilia. That’s what it is, not merely just sex-ing as the media has said. It is a very serious matter, for both of them and perhaps Clinton as well? There are deeply concerned members of many federal agents that believe, FBI director Comey, has not handled these investigations correctly. Yes, there is deep division among the agencies of all across the government! All of theses things have been leaked and are not disputed. What is disputed however is, whether or not it is all a conspiracy by one party or the other, to influence the outcome of this election. Everyone seems to e leakin g, accusing and blaming each other.

Over forty states have asked the Federal government, for help in possible fraud of the polling places, in every single state. This is your first assignment, to look that up as well as a— “master key” which exists, in the software, which can change the results of each polling place!

There are several states which allow voters to change their votes and Wisconsin allows them to change their votes three times. Look that up and for how many people who have already voted which now are, wanting to change their votes. If possible, go and change your vote if necessary. Trust me, your vote is, NECESSARY!

Look at the lead from polls, in both the popular vote and electoral vote estimates, for Hillary Clinton, just a few short days ago. Her lead was supposedly unbeatable and Donald Trump had already lost. Look at the polls most recently. Trump is either ahead and in places he was NOT supposed to be or at least the race is now, very, very tight. A few % points is one thing, but her popular vote lead was double digits and her expected electoral votes, around 333 or 63 votes more, than the 270, needed to win the presidency. What has changed in just a few short days? Was this all hype on the part of her campaign and the media? Did this many people, actually change their minds in just 3-4 days? Or, is there something else going on?

Hang on, we are just getting started!

I would like to offer a video. Please disregard the publisher’s title of this:

‘5 Minute Speech that Got Judge Napolitano Fired from Fox News.’

He was never fired! It is not true! Watch the video, which was most likely posted or copied from the original broadcast. Then, read the Judge’s comment about this program being canceled. He was not fired, because of, the content.

https://youtu.be/UgGnBCDfCLM

“In television, shows are cancelled all the time. Two of my former shows have been cancelled, and after each cancellation, Fox has rewarded me with more and better work. This cancellation—along with others that accompanied it—was the result of a business judgment here, and is completely unrelated to the FreedomWatch message. It would make a world of a difference for all of us, if you would KINDLY STOP SENDING EMAILS TO FOX. I am well. Your values are strong. I will continue to articulate those values here at Fox. But the emails many of you are sending are unfairly interfering with my work and that of my colleagues here. The emails even violate our values because they interfere with the use of private property. I have accepted the cancellation decision with good cheer and a sense of gearing up for the future. You should as well.
As a favor to me, and as I have asked this past weekend, PLEASE STOP SENDING EMAILS TO MY COLLEAGUES AT FOX ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF Freedom Watch; and please stop NOW.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, in response to his program ‘Freedom Watch’
being canceled on Fox News, in 2014

This video again, was from TWO YEARS AGO. How timely! How insightful! It is almost prophetic, as to the present time! This next video was published, on August 4th, 2016.

The NSA leaking to WikiLeaks? Remember how this began, in 1776? They broke the law to protect and defend the law! Is this the Second, American Revolution? WE haven’t seen anything yet!

Whatever is happening, something big is, underway.

I realize I have asked you to look up certain things. I want you to see for yourself. These things cannot be found in the mainstream media. Social Media is barely starting, to scratch the surface. Use the skills you were taught in grade school, how to look things up. Because, this information is so fluid, and changes so quickly! You have to look for it online, on the Internet.

Look up the following word: coup d’é•tat

One of these was recently attempted by the military in Turkey, not too long ago. What if, a coup d’é•tat was attempted the last few days, in our own country, without the military, but entirely on the Internet? Is its massive corruption covered up, by its massive co-option of the many interrelated, crony associations which may be complicit in this corruption, one way or another? Are some people starting to bail in hopes of protecting themselves from the avalanche that is about to come? Barack Obama, Michele Obama and Elizabeth Warren have all, stopped following Hilary Clinton, on Twitter, just within the last couple of days. Look that up.

What if at the same time, a counter- coup d’é•tat was also conducted on the Internet, by those in intelligence agencies that are (ongoing) breaking the law to protect and defend the law?

Now, look up the following name: Steve Pieczenik

Look first, at his bio. Now look, for any videos associated with him and recently, as of November 1st, 2016. Is he crazy? Is this man just part of another conspiracy theory? Or is he but a spokesperson, for a group of people in the NSA, CIA, FBI, NYPD (New York Police Department), Military Intelligence and other federal agencies that are willing to break the law, in order to protect and defend the law? Is this the Second, American Revolution?

For sure, there has never been anything like this, in our short 200+ years, as a representative republic! Is this or is this about to be, a Constitutional Crisis? Look that up. What do those words mean, “Constitutional Crisis?”

If WE the People are divided (and we are), is it any great thing to think that the very government which most of all of us do NOT trust, are not divided too? Is our dividing away from one another due to party, person and opinions formed, by a lot of misinformation coming from the government and the media? But the division within our government if the dual- coup d’é•tat is true, one is to cover it up and the other is to reveal it!

I realize that this all sounds so incredibly fantastic, as a work of fiction. American author Mark Twain (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910) once wrote:

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because
Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.”

Mark Twain

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall [absolutely] know the truth, and the truth shall [absolutely] make you free.”

The Bible, John 8:31, 32

Our founders had the fear and threat of the unknown. They persevered, for the hope of something better. We have their history of what they wrought, what republic left they gave us and the responsibility to VOTE, for its continuance! Do WE really know what the meesage of our Republic is? If we do, do WE not also, have the responsibility to protect and defend the messengers of our Republic? Keep digging, this is a whole lot more than just two people running for president. It could be the end or, the beginning of, The Second, American Revolution!

Are there true patriots which are actually, breaking the law to save our fragile republic? Will WE the People, VOTE to continue this republic of, by and for the people?

Vote! Pray! Pray for yourself! Pray for me! Pray for the true messengers! Pray for the United States of America!!!

AsEyeSeeIt

I implore you to share this everywhere!

1 of WE,

MySignature_clr

Class Action Lawsuit

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

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

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

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

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

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

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

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

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

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

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

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

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                              

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

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

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                      

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

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

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

ClassAction3

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

Dahni

The Secret of WE

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

 

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

EqualLibertyUnequal

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

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

Equality = Liberty = Inequality

How is this equal? First, equality:

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

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

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

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

Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EqualLibertyUnequal2

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

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

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

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

EqualLibertyUnequal3

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

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

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

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

Equality=Liberty=Inequality.

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

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

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

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

 

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

Good Afternoon USA What are WE having for Dinner?

July 1, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-xM

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

Good Afternoon USA, what are WE having for dinner? Would it be from the melting pot, a lunchable or a salad?

Why does it seem that often our comics, dead foreigners or even hundreds-of-years old dead presidents seem to have a better grasp of what WE are than WE do? Could this be that WE have forgotten or have never been taught who and what we are?

I’m not sure, but I think the words, “The American Dream,” may be familiar to most of us and might still be used currently? I grew up with this saying. It might just mean having your own home? The apparent confusion as to who and what WE are has been around for quite some time. Years ago, way, way back in the 20th century… 🙂
…one of our comedians said:

“The owners of this country know the truth: It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

George Carlin

Growing up and for as long as I can remember, WE the People have been referred to as the ‘Great Melting Pot.’ Consider the following:

WhatRWE

If we were all metals and all our individualities melted in one pot to become some new metal, this new alloy might not even be compatible. It could be weaker and not last very long.

If the melting pot were different cheeses melted together, the blend looses the distinct characteristics of each one.

If the melting pot were a soup or a stew, often it is overcooked and loses a lot of its nutritional value and its flavor.

A melting pot or ‘The Melting Pot’ is, really NOT a good description of who and what WE are nor what WE should be having for dinner.

Another current comedian thinks of US as more like:

“America as Lunchables, plastic wrapped, distinct entities thrown together, unified more by geography than conflicted cultural and political assumptions.”
.
Stephen Colbert

WhatRWE2

These may be somewhat delicious, but nutritious? Most are made by additives, over-processed, and so screwed up, vitamins and minerals have to be added back into this dead stuff, just to call it legal food, I guess? We the People remain separate and only ever get eaten together (unity or unified) if the eater so chooses. Not a very good analogy of who and what WE are supposed to be!

Well, as it happened, we had salad last night and one of our grandchildren ate with us, along with his Papa. Just like every one of US, children need to be taught what they need. Everything mixed together in a salad might be an excellent way to get kids or US to eat the whole thing, but still, we do have our favorites. This does NOT mean everything in the salad is NOT proper nutrition and a well-balanced meal, all necessary for our well-being. Think of US each as an individual piece or part of the salad. WE are unified. WE have the Liberty to eat the whole thing. Or like a child and all of us can pick and choose what we want to eat. You might like this and I might like that and a child or someone else, might like something else. So what am I saying here? A consequence of liberty could mean inequality. Inequality? But I thought –

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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.”

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

Well, WE each are equal, in the sense that WE each have the same rights and the opportunity or the Liberty, to be all that you can be individually, but only IF WE are together in this as a whole. Others have thought on something else. Like what?

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is, a French slogan first used by Louis Blanc in 1851 (French: De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins;

An earlier version of the saying appeared in Étienne-Gabriel Morelly’s, ‘The Code of Nature’ in 1755. According to ‘The Code,’ “Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society” including:

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

The slogan of 1851 was popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875, ‘Critique of the Gotha Program.

The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone’s needs.

Marx’s statement of the creed in the ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ is as follows:

“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

Consider the following that predates either of these two beliefs.

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Acts 4:32–35, The Bible King James Version (KJV)

This I would refer to as ‘Common Living.’ There is a HUGE difference between socialism/communism – communal living and ‘Common’ Living. But both recognize there is an inequality among us as our abilities and our needs. In socialism/communism – communal living, it is the government which decides what is taken and what is given. There is no individual. But in common living, each individual, willfully gives of their abundance and NOT out of their needs. Each individual did their best to contribute freely. Each individual determines what their needs are. Of this collected abundance, the excess was distributed to those that were also freely giving, but had lack and they were to receive according to their individual needs that there would be no lack of necessaries to anyone!

It’s like a salad!

WhatRWE3

A salad is not perfect, but it is certainly far better than a potential blah, melted pot of some new blended taste or individual kept apart lunchable, preserved and over processed and Yuk-Yak and on and on, all left to the whim of the eater’s choice. But it works far better as an illustration of who and what WE the People were supposed to be. It still allows for individual participation, according to their ability and to receive, according to their their need and would allow for choosing their favorites. Just like our grandson, we hoped he would eat the whole salad or at least more of everything good that education can provide, but he still did a little picking and choosing. 🙂

I do however believe, our grandson ate more of the individual ingredients in the salad, than he would have if just giving him the liberty to choose whatever he wanted. No matter what, he still had some liberty to choose and as said before with liberty, there is at least the potential consequence of inequality. If  WE all had the same thing and ate the same thing, it takes away from from our individual rights, our individual choices and our individual potential for greatness and innovation. Call that so ordered from a monarch, tyrant, an oligarchy, socialism, communism and even a democracy, but that’s not Liberty. No, not liberty, it’s bondage or slavery, whichever term communicates the best to you. But in this, WE all would be equal. WE just would not be free.

In the affairs of men and women, as Thomas Paine stated in his 1776 work ‘Common Sense,’ “government is a necessary evil.”

Our form of government is based on ideas and ideals, not by force or even perfection. WE are not like the Democratic state of ancient Greece or the Republic of the Roman Empire. We are not great because of some divine right, geography or even our incredible natural resources. Our greatness comes from the idea of Liberty and it was written in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and, “In order to form a more perfect union,” in The Constitution of the United States of America, in 1789. The early one declares our rights and the latter was purposed to preserve, protect and serve those rights. There is nothing more perfect or less than perfect than what is perfect. “More perfect” is a figure of speech. It is a goal and an idea to strive towards.

“Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.”

Margaret Thatcher

“Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments.”

Thomas Jefferson

40 years later, what Jefferson warned about became a reality when Abraham Lincoln consolidated all powers to himself. It has remained this way ever since! More is being taken from US, WE the People, almost every single day!

Returning briefly to the idea of the ‘American Dream,’ back in the eighties, our all wise and all knowing and benevolent government 🙂
decided that everyone should be able to purchase a home. The government forced the banks to provide these loans to anyone and guaranteed the loan repayments at the expense of US, WE the People. Well, no banker in their right mind is going to loan money unless:

1. They can make money (a lot of money) on loaning it
2. Without collateral or knowing it would be paid off

But since the government guaranteed the loans, they decided to get creative (or greedy) to make as much as they possible could, knowing full well, eventually, by sheer mathematical certainty, it would eventually end. So, they packaged a bunch of prime salad loans, with sub-prime salad loans (like some hidden wilted lettuce property) thrown in to make them more attractive to buyers that might not see the wilted sub-prime salad loans. This is exactly what was done. It did come to an end. WE the People had to pay for this and we still are! And many of these people, even those that could afford the repayment, lost their ‘American Dream.’ See, salad is not perfect, but the idea can be imperfectly used to our peril and unintended consequences.

Are our youth no more taught the Declaration of Independence, about what are our rights (equality) are. Have the rest of us forgotten? They and WE (those of us that have forgotten), are taught (or we assimilate with) privileges (inequality). Our youth and WE that have forgotten are not taught and do NOT understand the Constitution or how our government works (is supposed to work).

So what is this idea. What is this salad supposed to be. Who and What are WE the People and what will WE have for dinner?

It began with individual rights wherein lies liberty and where there is liberty, there is freedom. From this, WE the People formed and limited the government to be, remain or return to being small. In order for us to have a free economy, there must be capital or capitalism. These two things put into writing = Liberty. Liberty is to be protected, preserved and served by a small government. Liberty allows for the inevitable consequence of inequality. But without liberty, none can be free. Then it beckons to us from our equal and endowed unalienable rights, to be or return to, a God-centered population, rooted in Judeo-Christian values. This allows for a moral society which is formed by citizens exercising freely, self-control, rather than government forcing us to accept the privileges it bestows, through regulations, taxes and control.

Please note: I wrote “God-centered.” This does not mean that everyone has to believe in God, but it does mean that it is necessary to be rooted and centered in Judeo-Christian principles!

In order for this salad to work for one and all of US, each of us as individuals must choose to participate and freely share with others of our abundance (not our needs) that none of US, WE the People lack anything. This is Liberty. This is our salad and there aint’ no FREE lunch (breakfast, lunch or supper either)!

Until together WE become better, we’re stuck with perhaps bland, poor, and tasteless soup from the melting pot or pre-packaged, boring and poor quality lunchables either/or until we run out of other folk’s food. And there is no incentive for anything better! I’d rather pick and choose from a large quality, full of variety and color and texture, delicious and nutritious salad! Give me Salad (Liberty) or give me death! I aint’ eating porridge and plastic wrapped crap! 🙂

So, what are WE having for dinner? 🙂

 

1 of WE,

Dahni