Posts Tagged ‘Democracy’

“Nature’s God”

May 15, 2017

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

by Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us examine the writer, Thomas Jefferson.

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

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

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

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

I Corinthians 10:32 KJV

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 1:18-20 KJV

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

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

Romans 1:1-8, 13-25 KJV

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 19:1 KJV

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

There is one problem with this concept, Biblically.

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

Matthew 16:13-20 KJV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our rights do not come from God?

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

Our Equality and Our Rights come from God!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 of WE,

 

Advertisements

Unalienable or Inalienable

April 19, 2017

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

by Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

I of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

“UN-alien” or “Inalienable”

 

 

The Ideal Liberal

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IdealLiberal2

The True Picture of Tolerance & Political Correctness

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

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

 

 

1 of WE,

 

 

 

MySignature_clr

 

What Difference at this Point Does it Make?

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

by Dahni

© 2016, all rights reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What difference at this point does it make?”

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

“What difference at this point does it make?”

WhatDif1

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

former secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

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

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

“What difference at this point does it make?”

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

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

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

WhatDif2

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

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

WhatDif3

1980 Campaign Button for Ronald Reagan Republican

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

WhatDif4

From a 1992 campaign video, Bill Clinton Democrat

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

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

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

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

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

“What difference at this point does it make?”

WhatDif5

2016 Donald Trump campaign slogan – Republican

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

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

Four years or more-y of Hunky-dory

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

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

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

“What difference at this point does it make?”

Make America Great Again?

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

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

“What difference at this point does it make?”

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

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

Make America Great Again!

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

As Eye See It

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

Tuesday, March 1st, 2016

(I dare you to read)

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

AsEyeSeeIt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reset

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

Apple of Gold

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

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

just 1 of WE,

Dahni

MySignature_clr

Fragile Whispers

July 4, 2014

by Dahni

© 2014, all rights reserved

FragileWhispers

In the midst of this, our 238th year of Independence, on this fourth of July, I am reminded and reflect upon the costs of the many freedoms, many here in the United States, enjoy.

In the midst of our pomp and circumstance, parades and parties, pyrotechnics and the propensity toward a plethora of pleasurable activities that many will enjoy today, there remain, many that will not.

In the midst of our celebrations, the fury of nature has left many with joy-interuptus’, changed plans, stranded and forced to deal with the havoc of hurricane Arthur.

In the midst of remembrance of our birth of Liberty, and Freedoms in this country, there are many that are far from home, in foreign lands that will to die and some have and some will die, to defend ideas. Ideas such as a republic, a democratic process, equality, and rights among these as: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

In the midst of these, I am reminded and reflect upon histories long ago that these are not new ideas nor do they represent some finished and completed work, wrought and won in times past, but ever present hopes and dreams, of every man, woman and child, the world over. These precious ideas, ever remain fragile and like whispers, with always the possibility that they could vanish from the face of the earth and without a sound to the human ear or heart; forgotten and to be never recalled in the memory of HOPE.

I am reminded and reflect upon that from these many histories, these fragile whispers were almost nonexistent in the backdrop of insurmountable odds, vast numbers of opposition and even the fury and the ravages of nature. Our present WE, was born thousands of years ago, during many empires of the ancient world; in Greece and Rome, civilizations built and which thrived upon these fragile whispers and only endured until, the fragile was trodden under dust and the whispers were silenced. The costs of freedom have always been high and ever will be. Sometimes these fragile whispers were lost, but not forgotten, for you cannot silence the unspoken desires of every man, woman and child, from the beginning of human-kind upon this earth until the last breath of the very last soul.

I am reminded and reflect upon the reasons or the WHY, for conflicts and perils endured. Not numbers, not technology, not superior intellect, luck, nature’s cooperation, training, skill, or discipline – each separate or all together combined, could not answer; cannot answer. These merely may play, some minor part, but something else propelled and will propel, hope against  all hope. Search your own heart and you will answer, Love of Life, Love of Liberty, and the Freedom to Think, to Pursue Happiness!

I am reminded and reflect upon HOW any of these ends could have ever been or ever shall be enjoyed in part or full by all, by many or by any. Search your heart and you will answer, Unity of Purpose!

I am reminded and reflect upon that during conflicts and perils, many, many men and women stood shoulder to shoulder and that they were men and women of many different backgrounds, languages, color of skin, cultures, states and colonies, villages and hamlets that for their individual Love of Liberty and with Unity of Purpose, they became each other’s brother and sister. But I am also reminded and reflect upon that behind them stood men, women and children of equal Love of Liberty and with equal Unity of Purpose, they became the families of Family, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, brothers, sons, sisters and daughters. These families would bare more sons and daughters; they would be the children to rise and fall and to continue!

I am reminded and reflect upon that through these struggles there have been many losses and defeats, but  “…right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.”

I am reminded and reflect upon that today, my wife and other family members are safe from the ravages of hurricane Arthur and are safely on their way home. I enjoy relative good health. I have a roof over my head, food and drink, and many freedoms, but there are many that do not. Am I therefore free? How can I be when there is anyone in the world that is not? I cannot!

I am reminded and reflect upon the idea that no matter the outcome of conflicts and perils, I still hold that which no one can take, steal or destroy, my Freedom of Thought! I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men [and women] have torn down, men [and women] other-centered, can build up.”

I am reminded and reflect upon the ideas that conflicts and perils so great, so long and so lasting, so continuing, yet still, nothing can stop the idea of Liberty that cries within every heart and as a barbaric yawp from every voice, and yet it cannot long endure, without Unity of Purpose.

I am reminded and reflect upon that even with Unity of Purpose, and the Love of Life, the Love of Liberty and the Love to Pursue Happiness, none of these can be or ever are, sufficient to claim these things for all to enjoy, without the proper foundation to drive them and make them a reality! “Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy [lament] into a creative psalm of brotherhood [sisterhood]. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

On this day, July 4th, 2014, I am reminded and reflect upon these fragile whispers. They remain fragile and they remain, but whispers, for they are not finished. There ever remain forces that would obliterate them. There remain many that have not or do not taste the fruits of equality and unalienable rights. I am not free while any are not free or anyone is not free! And though I may continuously and continually pledge to these ends, my life, any fortune of any real or intrinsic value or influence I may control or access, they are NOT ENOUGH! For I am one. But with others, I become a WE! He or She that will stand for me, are He and She that stand with me. And our individual Love of Life, Love of Liberty, Love of Freedom and Love to Pursue Happiness are NOT enough! For WE must become more than we may be, because of our differences and in spite of our differences. WE must be, Unified in Purpose, but that is not enough either! For WE, must become bound by a foundation of LOVE, for ONE ANOTHER! And then and only then will the fragile whispers become unbreakable cries of victory, for once and for all!

WE the People, United and Undivided is founded by Love! May this foundation,; may this fourth and may this force be with you, within you, for you, in front of you, over you, underneath you, behind you and ever be, by your side!

 

MySignature_clr
Dahni,

1 of  WE

 

 
= excerpts from acceptance speech, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Norway, December 10, 1964, by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

RESET

October 16, 2011

By Dahni

© 2011

all rights reserved

For well over two years now I have been trying to get a book out. Originally it was titled: PURPLE HAZE “An UN-alien’s Guide to Finding Our Republic. The book was finished with around 481 pages. It was not published. It needed work, a lot of work to be precise.

For one thing the title and subtitle were all wrong. The artwork for the cover was all wrong. What follows is a sample image of the former cover.

 Although Purple Haze is certainly a two word description of what many people think about our country right now, I certainly would not want to stay in a haze or a purple haze. Would you? Do you?

The idea for the title was that if you take the red, white and blue of Our flag or Republic and mix it all together, mess it all up, you end up with purple, or a purple haze. Descriptive yes, but it just does not communicate visually what this book is about.

The same thing would be true about the words “Finding our Republic.” I n order to find something, I suppose we needed to know it was lost. Most of US either don’t know there’s something wrong in Our Republic or WE don’t know what the true cause is. “True Cause,” could there be such a thing? Yes.

So a new title was needed. It needed to be more descriptive and more positive. Sure, describe the symptoms, but where is the cause? Eliminate the cause and the symptoms will disappear!

In the new book, I’ve trimmed by almost a hundred pages of needless repetition. But there is even a whole lot that is new. It is more targeted. The premises and the conclusions are really tight. Perhaps this entire book could be considered as an historical narrative, with analogies, current events, facts, fiction and non-fiction all thrown in together.

Having now completed the writing and my own personal edit, I just finished reading it from start to finish. It reads a lot better. It was written for the reader in mind. Is it interesting? Does it hold the attention. Is there humor? Is it factual and can it be proven? Can people relate to this in their every-day lives? Can I relate to it? Would I have read this book if you wrote it? And the biggest question of all, will its “prescription” (solution) really work? If it is even possible for me to be objective about my own work, my answer to all the questions is YES! You will just have to read it for yourself to see if you agree.

But the new title is:

RESETAn UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic

The title itself shows what this book is about. The word “Our” shows who this book is for. It is for you and me. It is for US, WE the People.

Here is a sample of the cover art:

Original Cover Art © 2011 by Dahni

The plan at present is to have this out in digital format around December of this year 2011. The hardback book will possibly be available by January of 2012. One way or another, it will be out before the November elections of 2012. It needs to be. WE need to RESET our Republic! For more information click the button below:

An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic

The Conservative and The Liberal

May 19, 2010

By Dahni

© 2010 all rights reserved

Once upon a recent day, somewhere on Main Street America, a group of conservatives got together to ‘peaceably’ protest something. The police were called. A bias media was informed. The media showed up and branded the marchers with all kinds of unsavory names like “twits,” “Far Right Extremists,” “dangerous,” “radicals” and “racists.” The police dispersed the crowd.

A little time went by and a group of liberals got together to ‘peaceably’ protest something. The police were called. A bias media was informed. The media showed up and branded these marchers also, with all kinds of unsavory names like “Libs,” “Far Left Extremists,” “dangerous,” “radicals” and “racists.” The police dispersed the crowd.

A few days later, two couples crossed paths on the sidewalk and recognized one another. One couple had been supporters, marchers and protestors at the conservative gathering earlier. The other couple had been supporters, marchers and protestors at the liberal rally previously.

The couples were mixed – one White American, one Black American or African American or Negro American, one Chinese American and one Hispanic American or Latino American or Spanish Origin American.

After a few angry words were exchanged, they walked out into the center of the street. The police were called and the media was informed.

Some enterprising American Indian Americans, Alaskan Native Americans, Mexican Americans or Chicano Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, Cuban Americans, Asian Indian Americans, Japanese Americans, Native Hawaiian Americans, Korean Americans, Guarmanian Americans or Chamorro Americans, Filipino Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Samoan Americans, Other Asian Americans, Other Pacific Islander Americans, and some Other Race Americans, all kids (youts’ or youths) plus Miss Piggy and Kermit the frog, set up a lemonade stand.

Disclaimer: All the above racial and ethnic categories come from the U.S. 2010 Census form, so don’t get mad at me.

Anyway, some environmental people stood in trees while others sat on benches made from trees. Some rode horses and other were crossing guards for an endangered species of turtles. The global warmers sat inside air-conditioned homes and others could not understand why it was so cold outside.

Some Christians, Roman Catholics, Jews, Moslems and ‘Other Religions’ religious people prayed. Some Agnostics could not decide if they should pray or not pray. Some Atheists, it was assumed, just Un-prayed.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the day off as there was no minority or disadvantaged people to represent.

The whole neighborhood turned out and it was a small representation of everything and everyone on planet earth.

The media never showed up as there was no story for any of them to ‘spin,’ so they just ran with a re-make of yesterday’s news or made up stuff.

Government was upset as there was no apparent crisis to solve or muck up.

When the police finally arrived, they did not know what to do, so they left, leaving the two couples in the middle of the street, to “work it out.”

After the police left and no one in the neighborhood seemed to care anymore, everyone went home or to where-ever. The street was quiet.

The two guys proceeded to beat the crap out of each other. The ladies got down and dirty in a knock-down; drag-out cat fight.

The guys were last seen arm-n-arm, with red, white and blue bruises and black eyes. They were each drinking their favorite All-American beer or near-beer. One ate an All-American backyard burger (meat or non-meat) and the other an All-American hotdog (meat or non-meat). Then one had some Fourth of July Cherry Pie (with or without sugar) and the other a piece of American Mom’s Apple Pie (with or without sugar). Together they stood smiling, laughing and screaming; rooting for their own favorite baseball team. And there at the stadium, the score was tied. Score – Conservative won and the Liberal won. And the bent, bruised and twisted sisters went shopping.

Yep, they were more than equally divided, but they found a way to Unite! What about you and me and US, WE the People? OUR American math may be complicated long division, but WE the People are the result of simple addition.

Divide & Conquer

April 10, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 4/10/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today: Divide and Conquer

Last time WE looked at Civil War Ignorance from the Southern Perspective and its part in shaping the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” within and around OUR republic. In the midst of so learned and freedom seeking society in the 1800’s in what is now the U.S.A.ignorance still prevailed in matters of slavery. Generation after generation passed this ignorance forward often without detection, but certainly without correction. Over time, this ignorance – justified and rationalized, became a ‘mindset.’ WE need to understand how this “mindset,” this ignorance; this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” not only caused the Civil War, the the so-called Reconstruction period after and has reached all the way to our present day.

Today WE will look at what transpired in the four years of the American Civil War and the consequences WE the People are still adversely affected by today.

Remember the words of Abraham Lincoln from his first inaugural address.

“…no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Excerpt from the 35th paragraph

Perhaps I could have titled this ‘What Could Happen in Just Four Years,’ but since its effects were so far reaching; so generational and remains with US today, ‘Divide and Conquer’ just has a better fit. The idea may bring to mind military tactics and that is appropriate since the beginning or the setting of this ‘mindset;’ this ignorance and corrupt, corrupting and corruptible ‘system’ was the American Civil War.

Lincoln had promised in his inaugural address March 4, 1861, not to interfere with slavery.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Paragraph 4

But about eighteen months later, he apparently had some purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery and believed he had the lawful right and inclination to do so. For what reason or purpose was this apparent contradiction or hypocritical change made?

“That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;”

Lincoln, Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, September 22, 1862

Note: Only the slaves from those states which had seceded from the Union were freed.

The South fired first on Fort Sumter which was the official start of the Civil War. Lincoln believed this was sufficient justification to suppress a rebellion or an insurrection against the authority of the United States. Both the North and the South were now firmly engaged in defense of their perspectives. The principal revenue of the South was from agriculture and specifically, cotton. Most of their revenue and their entire economy including the need to raise money for the conflict between the North and South depended largely on cotton. Slavery was used to produce this revenue. So why would Lincoln only free the slaves of those states then part of the Confederate states under their control. Here is the first use of the idea of dividing and conquering. WE need to understand southern culture of these times.

Though many slaves could neither read nor write, they could hear and they could speak. Contrary to the beliefs of many, slaves could think too! Southern plantations depended on slavery to not only for the production of their chief revenue producing crop, cotton, but for the continuance of Southern culture and comforts. Slaves not only worked in the fields, but they served their masters in the master’s home. Slaves did most of the cooking and cleaning, but basically everything necessary for the comforts of their masters including entertainment. Some slaves were house servants and were privy to many conversations of their owners and guests which gathered and discussed the events of the day.

Imagine a dinner party in some southern plantation. People are gathered around and discussing Lincoln’s audacity in freeing ‘their’ slaves. No doubt some may even stated that Lincoln was wholly ignorant and that this action would avail to nothing. Meanwhile, house slaves and perhaps were serving the guests cookies, cake and punch. These house slaves could hear the conversations and their masters would need not be concerned about it because after all, they were ignorant and slaves, what could they possibly understand or do anything about it? Well they could think and they could hope and they could talk to other slaves on the plantation. Some were emboldened to escape with just a small hope that if they could just get to the North or some area under the control of the North, they would be free!

There were some whites of both the North and the South who would help them to become freed because they were compassionate people and rejected either the cruelty towards slaves or the idea of slavery. There were also those whites from both the North and South that saw this as an opportunity to start a new business and make a lot of money in helping slaves escape. Some would for a certain price help the slave escape and for another fee, get the same slave back into the control of their former masters. Often re-captured slaves were subjected to horrible cruelty and sometimes even death to make them examples to other slaves. Lincoln’s first emancipation proclamation was to some degree effective, but it also came with great costs, especially to the slaves.

The board was set and the pieces were in motion. The North at all cost must put down this rebellion. The South at all costs must defend itself. WE now return to the onset of this conflict, about a month after Lincoln’s inaugural address in March of 1861. Plans must be made to divide and conquer the South and bring them back into the Union under the authority of the United States government.

Lincoln as commander and chief had begun to fortify the nation’s capitol in Washington, D.C. with troops. This came to the attention of Congress and particularly the Senate. They wanted to no why the troops were there, how many there were and their purpose and the how long they would be in place. The questions went unanswered by Lincoln. Congress adjourned sine die (without a day) to reconvene. On April 15, 1861, Lincoln made the following proclamation.

“Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union,…”

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress, 2nd Paragraph

“And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date. Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o’clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next,…

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress, 5th Paragraph

Lincoln’s authority was based on sections of the U.S. Constitution

Article II

Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;…

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall…

Under the “extraordinary Occasions’ clause, in calling out the military and convening the Congress, Lincoln assumes power normally granted to Congress, but according to his interpretation, he was exercising his power from the Constitution to suppress a “rebellion” or an “invasion.”

Article I

Section 9. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

With this section from the Constitution, and with the “extraordinary Occasions” clause and in calling out the military and convening Congress, Lincoln is essentially setting up the framework of Martial Law. Martial Law would actually be declared, but basically, the Congress, the Judiciary and the military were under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch of government and ultimately the president of the United States.

Article IV

Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Part of Virginia remained loyal to the Union and out of the state of Virginia a new state would be formed which is and remains to this day, the state of West Virginia.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

U.S. Constitution

Amendment X

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

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Paragraph 37

Although the Confederacy technically fired fist on Fort Sumter, which officially started the Civil War, there is more than sufficient evidence to support that Lincoln manipulated the response in favor of Union justification to put down a rebellion.

“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Paragraph 38

Perhaps, there are no greater to compare with these? Where is a clearer example as to heartfelt and sincere desire for peace among the states and to avert war? If a man is to be believed to say what he means and to mean what he says, perhaps there is no greater proof of the intentions and the innermost being of President Abraham Lincoln, than this last paragraph of his inaugural address. But sadly, these words of a man for those which agreed were from decisions based on ignorance. False premises lead to false conclusions. These conclusions led to consequences so great, they are still felt by every person within thee United States of America and maybe even the entire world today!

Even though the Constitution with its set of checks and balances had endured to this point, if it were perfect and all the people were content, then secession would never have been considered throughout the history of the United States nor first attempted by the Confederate States of America. Lincoln stated that no administration “by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Yet in four years the loss of life was greater than that of all the conflicts involving the United States up to 1861-1865 and through the first year of the Vietnam War, combined.

In four years, the entire country was reformed under ‘legal fiction,’ having two separate United States and two separate sets of states with the same identical names.

In four years, the Constitutional Congress became an Executive Congress.

In four years, the Judiciary branch was dominated by the Executive branch.

In four years, the president of the United States called out the military and convened both houses of Congress.

In four years, the president instituted a military draft, excluding certain individuals including those that could afford to be excluded by either $300 dollars or sending an adequate replacement. In four years, as a direct result of this, the Conscription Act, riots broke out in the country and the worst of which was in New York City, the worse riot in injuries, loss of life and property damage from OUR beginnings since 1776 through the present-day.

In four years under the same Conscription Act, all of the states were set as “district” states under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. These “district states” still exist today. This presidential proclamation or order, having never been rescinded, cancelled or overturned since 1863 to OUR present day, remains in force.

In four years the Federal government would interfere with the institution of slavery, first by freeing only the slaves in the Confederate States in 1862 and then only certain slaves (not all) with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.

In four years it would take until 1871 for all the former Confederate states to be re-admitted into the Union and until 1965 for segregation to become officially abolished and Civil Rights to be enforced.

In four years, the banking industry would be taken over by the Federal Government as it remains to the present-day.

In four years the president of the United States declared Martial Law and suspended habeas corpus.

In four years, the term “legal fiction” would be first instituted and used in legal dictionaries.

In four years the seeds of the weeds of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” were sown.

In four years a ‘mindset’ would be so established that it would place all the races, the sexes and adults above the age of eighteen, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of which is still in force today.

In four years a faux government, the United States, Inc. would be framed and would incorporate all the “district” states under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia officially by an act of Congress in 1871.

In four years, Lincoln was officially the first president of the United States to have been assassinated while still in office.

Note: William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia after only 31 days in office, but some conspiracy theorists believe he was murdered. But to be sure, he was the first US president to die in office.

All of these thing were either done in four years or the blueprints for a nearly complete take-over of OUR republic were drafted and has continually been constructed and expanded ever since. All of this was instituted by the Executive branch of government which no doubt was passionate and committed to saving the Union. All of this began by ignorance and the consequences so grave, yet there is no evidence to support that it was of evil intent. The premises were wrong, the conclusions were wrong and this ‘mindset’ remains mostly still undetected and uncorrected to this day.

Lincoln was not alone in these actions which lead to such consequences and neither was the South in their part of this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” This has been not an exercise to blame or to defame anyone, but to only show how ignorance; a ‘mindset’ and how a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible ‘system’ has become the dominate force in politics.

It is power that can corrupt and absolute power absolutely corrupts. Corruption cannot be changed or rehabilitated. It can only be eliminated.

Corrupt power can only be fed by more power. It only accepts equal power. It only recognizes greater power. OUR government was purposely designed to be limited and its limited powers were granted by US, WE the People. WE the People are, the greater power!

WE the People must detect and correct this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible ‘system!’ It’s only correction is its elimination!

The idea to divide and conquer has long been used as a military tactic throughout the history of the human race. This as a tactic was done in the American Civil War by the North to re-take the South, but it went much further. Next time WE will look at how this ‘mindset’ continued after Lincoln through what is referred to as the Reconstruction Period from 1865  – 1871. It is still going on today.

Next Time: De-Construction

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – De-Construction Coming Soon
Previous Post – Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective

April 7, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 4/7/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today: Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective

Last time WE looked at Civil War Ignorance from the Northern Perspective and its part in shaping the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” within and around OUR republic. In the midst of so learned and freedom seeking society in the 1800’s in what is now the U.S.A., ignorance still prevailed in matters of slavery. Generation after generation passed this ignorance forward often without detection, but certainly without correction. Over time, this ignorance – justified and rationalized, became a ‘mindset.’ WE need to understand how this “mindset,” this ignorance; this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” caused the Civil War. Today WE will look at the Southern Perspective. WE will look at 1 man – Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States, his ‘Cornerstone Speech’ and the Confederate Constitution for the justification or rationalization of this ignorance from the Southern Perspective.

Before WE begin, it is important to understand why Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States was not chosen in comparing his inaugural address to that of Abraham Lincoln, which WE have already detailed, from the Northern Perspective. However, some of Jefferson Davis’ speech will be presented to follow.

Having read Jefferson Davis’ inaugural speech in its entirety and several times, it is interesting to note that he does not even one single time, mention or imply the word “slavery” or any of it’s forms. One would think that if slavery were the cause or the issue of the American Civil War, surely the president of the Confederate States would have mentioned it at least once in his inaugural address? He did not!

From the northern perspective, the issue rested solely on the belief that no single or several states could secede from the Union as it was ‘perpetual’ and only all the states could disband it. Therefore, what the southern states did, were considering, doing or that other states would later do, was illegal, according to the Union perspective. The resolve of the Union was to suppress or put down what it considered to be a rebellion or an insurrection. Lincoln made slavery the single issue which caused the separation and could not, would not address the possibility of any other cause.

Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address as president of the Confederate States had a completely different perspective.

“Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861
Excerpt from the 2nd paragraph

Davis drew his perspective above from the Declaration of Independence. He continues with the view that the former Union, which the Confederate States had withdrawn from, was a “compact,” a contract which could be rescinded by any of the parties in concern.

The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;” and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable…”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 3rd paragraph

It is clear from Davis’ words above that the separation centered upon states rights and ultimately, the right of the people. His view was that their former association with the Union was considered a “compact” and that this agreement or contract had become perverted which necessitated their withdrawal from it. Much of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of his address alludes to the Declaration of Independence and implies their reasoning for the separation. It is interesting that Davis uses the word “inalienable,” above. This supposedly is taken from the Declaration of Independence. However, the word “inalienable” was not used in this document, it was the word “unalienable,” in at least as it has come to US.  Several copies of Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address were compared and each uses the same word “inalienable.”

This word was either intentional or an oversight. If an oversight, it was due to Davis or on the part of those which copied his original text with the original word having been “unalienable, ” which is the word actually used in the Declaration of independence. Words have meaning. Do the words “inalienable” and “unalienable mean the same thing?

According to most dictionaries in common use today, they apparently are defined the same and used interchangeably. Later, WE will look at these two words and find that there is a distinction between them. Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural addresses in March of this same year basically considered this new Constitution, was an illegal act. Therefore, all those that voted for it and all those which had or would vote to secede were considered to have been involved in illegal acts. Again, from Davis’ address we read:

“…rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 3rd paragraph

“As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy…”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 5th paragraph

Just as Lincoln would argue the idea of ‘perpetuity’ in his inaugural address less than 30 days later on March 4, 1861, Davis used the same idea here. The idea of a perpetual Confederacy is just as illogical as the Union being perpetual from which the Southern States had or would withdraw from. How can one separate from something considered perpetual (the Union) and suggest the perpetuity of a Confederacy? This is just ignorance.

Actuated solely by the desire to preserve our own rights and promote our own welfare, the separation of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon others and followed by no domestic convulsion. Our industrial pursuits have received no check. The cultivation of our fields has progressed as heretofore, and even should we be involved in war there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples which have constituted our exports and in which the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 9th paragraph
According to Davis, the whole cause of separation was the preservation of rights and the promotion of their own welfare.

“When they entered into the Union of 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government whenever, in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated. By virtue of this authority, the time and occasion requiring them to exercise it having arrived, the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpts from the 2nd paragraph
“As a necessity, not a choice we have resorted to separation, and henceforth our energies must be devoted to the conducting of our own affairs, and perpetuating the Confederacy we have formed.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 5th paragraph
Here again, Davis addresses the idea of perpetuity. Lincoln apparently having read this address, would argue the same ignorance in perpetuating the Union.

It is quite clear in Davis’ address that he believed along with all those which voted to secede from the former Union, had every right to do so. It is clear that their cause was assumed just, for the preservation of state rights and ultimately the individual. It is also clear that their cause for separation was the promotion of their own welfare which would suggest it was not being promoted on their behalf, by their former association with the Union.

Newspapers across the country at the time, including those principal papers in New York, were in support of the right to secede. The idea was not new to the times!

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in union… I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’ “

Thomas Jefferson

With relative ease some may seek to quote and invoke the name and words of someone of fame and or of historical significance when attempting to justify their position. It is quite another matter when words of others are interpreted, omitted or taken out of context to support some cause for its justification. Lincoln did not know or chose not to include the words of Thomas Jefferson when he would declare in his inaugural address that the Union being perpetual was “unbroken.” Jefferson Davis in his address with 5 of the 11 states which would make up the Confederate States having already seceded or separated suggests the concept is unchanged in “perpetuating the Confederacy.”

The idea of perpetuity is indefensible and wholly ignorant from both the northern and southern perspectives. How can perpetuity be argued when the original 13 colonies had separated from England? How could Lincoln have argued perpetuity, but that all the states could disband it? How could the south argue that they had the right to secede from the Union in order to form a perpetual Confederacy?

It is my firm belief that that the South and any state today, has the right to secede if they so choose. Having separated from mother country (England) or from sister states (the Union), each have the right to form whatever government they deem appropriate to the needs of the people. While both Constitutions of the United States and the Confederate States are remarkably similar and in many ways, word-for-word declarations identical, the Southern version cannot be considered an interpretation in how the original was changed. They had every right to make whatever changes they deemed necessary. For comparison, look at the Preamble to their Constitution.

Preamble

“We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

From the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, March 11, 1861

Notice some of the differences from the U.S. Constitution in bold red italics above. The C.S. Constitution adds to and makes clear the sovereignty and independent character of each state, which would indicate that they had the right to secede again if they so chose. Notice how they changed “in order to form a more perfect Union,” to “in order to form a permanent government.” If the word “permanent” does not refer to the idea of perpetuity then perhaps it refers to the provisional government from which the Constitution of the Confederate States sprang. What may have been alluded to in the U.S. Constitution, the C.S. Constitution was clear in the inclusion of God in their government. Although no preamble carries the same legal force of the Constitution’s intentions, it does show the foundation upon which it was built.

From the entire address of Jefferson Davis’ inaugural speech and at this point in the Confederate Constitution, there is no mention or implication of slavery as to the cause, a cause or even an issue existing which precipitated the South to separate from the North. WE will need to look deeper into the Confederate Constitution and the ‘Cornerstone Speech’ by Alexander Hamilton Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America.

Alexander Hamilton Stephens was an American politician from Georgia. He was Vice President of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. He also served as a U.S. Representative from Georgia before the Civil War and after the Reconstruction period, after the Civil War. He later became Governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883.

The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated…”

Excerpt from the 4th paragraph: Cornerstone Speech
Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia

Stephens alludes to the essence of the former constitution was preserved in the new one and also uses the word “perpetuated.” WE have previously and more than sufficiently have dealt with the ignorant notion of perpetuity and need not address this any further.

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 5th paragraph March 21, 1861

Stephens here by the words “revenue power” is referring to the power of Congress to tax and the broadly used Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The principal way in which revenue was raised during these times was the ‘tariff,’ which is basically a tax. Federal law prohibited tariffs or taxes on exported goods. The North was primarily concerned with industry and the South with agriculture, particularly cotton. The South often needed to import other goods and services from either a foreign country or states from the former Union. On their imports, tariffs were applied, but not on their exports.

Raw cotton was exported to the North to be turned into finished goods. The North was not taxed or did not have the tariff applied to what was exported from the South. Once the raw goods were finished, if the South needed them, it was considered an export from the North and they were not taxed or the tariff did not apply to them. In many cases, the South was taxed twice. Once for whatever goods they needed to produce the cotton and the second time in importing ‘finished’ goods made with the cotton they had produced.

This inequality fell on deaf ears in Congress though the South technically had representation. In essence, the Southern perspective was similar to that of the original 13 colonies when they cried, “taxation without representation.” So here, Stephen lays out both the causes which had resulted in their separation from the Union and how the Constitution of the Confederate States had resolved the issues for their future.

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system.

Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall.

“…we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad.”

The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it.”

This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, Excepts from the 6th paragraph

The South, in order to compensate for what they saw as an unequal tax burden, would by necessity, force them to reduce their costs. With the invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, their prospects for success and their production increased greatly, but the cotton would still have to be brought in from the fields to be ginned. They needed manual labor and cheap labor to accomplish this to remain competitive and profitable.

The labor of slaves long in the history of the United States and even before the South separated from the Union, had been used. Slave labor and the cotton gin enabled the South to produce even more raw cotton and as their production went up, so did their tariffs or taxes. To the South, this process was unequal and no longer acceptable.

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a reelection.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 9th paragraph
“This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 10th paragraph

Note: This change might appear to and clearly intends to limit the term of office of the president. It would however, eliminate wasted time and resources of the People, particularly the last year of a four-year term in trying to get reelected for another term. In contrast, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in his third term as president of the United States. This precipitated the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, which would only allow anyone to serve in this capacity, only two four-year terms, maximum. But no matter the length of term, it does not prevent corruption of the one holding office or the possible consequences of that term of office held. Just remember the words from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address.

“…no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Excerpt from the 35th paragraph

Under the title of ‘Divide and Conquer’ WE will look to see what was done, “in the short space of four years.”

Having established the justification for the South to have seceded from the Union, under such issues as equality, state rights, fair and just taxation, Stephens then moved to the subject of slavery.

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.”

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.””

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, Excerpts from the11th paragraph
Note the words “peculiar institution,” from above. It is not clear to whom Stephens was speaking as slavery was familiar to most people in the country, even while Thomas Jefferson penned the famous words, “all men are created equal,” from the Declaration of Independence. Slavery by circumstance and population had become familiar in the South, years before Stephens made his ‘Cornerstone Speech,’ in 1861.

Stephens considered slavery as the “proper status” of the slave. According to Stephens, slavery was “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution,” which caused their separation from the Union. If this were so, then why did not Jefferson Davis, the new president of the Confederacy, in his inaugural address, mention or imply slavery even once? And in the Constitution of the Confederate States, slaves were not mentioned until Section Nine. Stephens made slavery an issue and now begins to justify this position. He even quotes Jefferson in saying this was the “rock upon which the old Union would split.”

Note: This quote believed to be made by Thomas Jefferson, has not been verified as to him being the author. Every Internet reference to this quote that was found (at least 100), points to the ‘Cornerstone Speech,’ by Stephens.

Going back to November of 1860, after Lincoln had been elected President, Governor Joe Brown of Georgia called the legislature into session to consider the question of calling a secession convention. The legislature heard from the leading Georgians of the day on the question. The following excerpt from his speech to the legislature, future Secretary of State for the Confederate States, Robert Toombs, delivered on Nov. 13, 1860, the following:

“…In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better – they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits – surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death.”

Excerpt from: Robert Toombs’s Speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 13, 1860

Though slavery is mentioned above, it is in reference to future expansion of not the already determined borders of the then existing states, but the expansion of the entire country (The United States of America) in the forming of new states from the existing territories at the time.

Returning to the ‘Cornerstone Speech’ by Stephens, WE will see the clear and bold position of slavery in contrast to Lincoln’s non-stance on position of slavery and his promise to not interfere with slavery in his first inaugural address. Stephens however, makes his position clear.

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, Excerpt from the12th paragraph

No one could dare argue that slavery was unique to the South. It had long been in existence in both the North and the South. Slavery cannot be argued solely from the standpoint of equality as both the North and the South viewed the slave as not being equal. For those which owned slaves and those which even near slaves, would break upon three viewpoints.

  1. A slave was not human, but more like an animal and force and even cruelty would be necessary to control the slave.
  2. A slave was not human, but more like an animal and humane discipline would be necessary to control and guide the slave to become a content with his or her place in life.
  3. A slave was a human being, just inferior to others; not able to have their own rights, but protected by compassionate treatment and perhaps then guided to some future freedom upon heaven’s shore in the hereafter.

But in all of these three, a slave was still considered to be property, by both the North and the South. The Southern viewpoint just made this position clear. As property, the Southern viewpoint was not about slavery as an institution, but among other things, it was about property rights. WE cannot even argue that this position was racist as the word was not used until 1865, after the American Civil War had ended. It is just ignorance, for it is what they knew and believed to be true. For any that knew it to be wrong for conscience sake, the conscience had long been seared as if by some hot iron, the nerves deadened, the ‘mindset’ of this ignorance no longer allowed them to feel right from wrong.

Stephens said that, “slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.” WE cannot argue that the word “his” was a wholly Southern ‘sexist’ term as both the North and the South considered all females inferior to the male. This was just ignorance, for it is what they knew and believed to be true.

Not knowing or understanding ‘Mendel’s Law’ in the variations and the potential for the evolution of a species, based on internal and external circumstances, false conclusions end from having had false premises. It is just ignorance.

Not knowing or understanding genetics and functioning of the human brain, false conclusions end from having had false premises.

I am a man, but I am not nor ever will be as intelligent as Albert Einstein or as many great and notable women of many races. I can run, but have never been able nor will I ever be able to run a four minute mile. Because of my genetics, environmental conditions, my upbringing, educational background and other factors, I accept that I am inferior to others in many regards and in comparison to many races. But none of these things negate the truth that, “All men…” (all inclusive noun – women, races and by age of adulthood) “…are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 12th paragraph

Stephens accurately describes a logical argument in that false premises lead to false conclusions. However, he does not take into account that false premises and therefore false conclusions can not also, be due to ignorance as opposed to “fanaticism” and “insanity” as he purports. And he contradicts himself in concluding this paragraph with the words in reference to the slave as, “things equal which the Creator had made unequal.”

Having said those words, he must substantiate or justify those words. Truth needs no defense, only error does! Stephens will attempt to justify this ignorance.

“As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 14th paragraph

It is no secret that for many years prior to the American Civil War, the negro race, the brown race, the black race, the African American race, the darker skinned race or what ever words you want to use, were considered to be cursed by God, which resulted in the color of their skin, inferiority and unequal status. It is interesting that it was not until around 1860, that “the curse against Canaan,” was first used to justify slavery.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 15th paragraph

What are these so-called “truths,” that Stephens alluded to and implied that people had or would need to evolve in their acceptance and understanding of them? What was, “the curse against Canaan?”

In forming the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, it was based upon the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the United States Constitution of 1789. In the Preamble of their new constitution, they added the words, “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God…” Their constitution and the South as whole were based on Judeo-Christian beliefs in a Supreme Being, God the Father and God the Creator.

Stephens’ argument that a slave is a slave either by “nature” or as a direct result from “the curse against Canaan,” is based on the idea of natural superiority or religious belief. He does not explain either. He only presents them as established “truths.”

According to the Bible, all people descended from Adam and Eve. Wickedness and corruption dominated the entire world as it was populated at the time. A flood was prophesized to Noah and he was given instructions to build an ark. After the flood, Noah, his wife and the three sons of Noah and their wives would repopulate the earth. Noah had three sons, Japheth the elder (Genesis 10:21), Shem the middle son (Genesis 10:21) and Ham the youngest son (Genesis 9:24), from which all the nations of the earth, after the flood, would descend.

All the gentile nations would come out of Japheth such as, Europe including England where many of the fore-parents of the 13 original colonies came from.

Shem, the eldest son of Noah, is the father from which the Jews (Israelites), as well as the Semitic (“Shemitic”) nations in general have descended.

From Ham, the youngest son, would come Cush or Ethiopia (Genesis 10:6), after which comes Mitsrayim, or Egypt, then PuT or Libyia, and Canaan last.

Sometime after the flood, Noah planted and cared for vineyards. One time he was drunk from too much vine. Ham the younger son according to Genesis 9:22 “saw the nakedness,” of his father Noah and told his two brothers. When Noah awoke from his drunken state and understood what his younger son Ham had done, he cursed just one of Ham’s sons, Canaan. According to the belief formed in about 1860, this curse instantly turned the skin of Canaan black. This belief is purely ignorant and cannot be substantiated from biblical text, history or science.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, it suggests the meaning of the names of Noah’s three sons as follows:

  • Japheth – “fair”
  • Shem –  “dusky”
  • Ham – “black” supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means “to be hot” and “to be black,” the latter signification being derived from the former.

If this is true, from a scientific point a view, Noah’s three sons by dominant and recessive genes were lighter, medium and darker skinned, that all. However, the nation of Egypt descending from Ham from the son of Canaan (see Psalms 105:23), were not as dark skinned as Cush, also a son of Ham.

As to a “perpetual” curse to the black race, this is ignorant as well and there is nothing to support it. In contrast, a curse was considered ended by the third of fourth generation.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

Exodus 20:5

In context, theses curses were a consequence of a ‘mindset’ which caused certain actions and the cause(s) was because they hated God, which means the walked a different path, contrary to the will and protection of God.

It is true however, that because of what Ham had done, his one son Canaan (not all his sons) would be cursed to the 3rd or fourth generation into servitude. Remember also, that Israel was enslaved in Egypt whose nation had descended also, from Ham through Canaan.

The Bible is full of mixed marriages, mixed blood, interracial relationships and even incest. There are two genealogical records in what many refer to as the four Gospels.

In the book of Matthew this genealogy traces the legal standing through Mary, the mother of Jesus, which enabled her son to be a king from the tribe of Judah, from David, the king of Israel. David was the son of Jesse. Jesse was the son of Obed. Obed was the son of Boaz and Ruth. Ruth was the daughter from one of the daughters-in-law of Lot. Lot’s daughter-in-laws husbands had died. They got their father Lot drunk and slept with him which resulted in them bearing children.

So Jesus Christ was born from a history of incest and interracial relationships.

Equality and superiority has absolutely nothing to do with pure bloodlines as this does not exist in the human species. But it does however, have absolutely everything to do with unalienable rights and that all are created equal for the same opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Stephens’ arguments for slavery being property and this being the slave’s true status and race and skin color being the consequence of being a cursed is, just wholly ignorant. He would have just been better off never mentioning it, but at least he tried to justify it whereas, Lincoln was mostly uncommitted in defining slavery and promised not to interfere with it.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln’s inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to

adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 27th paragraph

The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 28th paragraph

It is interesting to note that many believe that 80% of the population of the South which fought in the Civil War were neither slave owners nor fought for the institution of slavery. In the North, many refused to fight against slavery or for the black race. Clearly, there were more important issues from these facts alone!

Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 29th paragraph

That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 30th and final paragraph

From the paragraph above, compare this to a paragraph in Lincoln’s inaugural address.

“It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, From the 19th paragraph

From these two paragraphs above, it clearly shows the perspectives of both the North and the South. There was only one true issue which caused the American Civil War. Lincoln believed along with many from the North that no state or less than all the states could get out of the Union. Stephens believed along with many from the South that any one or several states had every right to secede.

Everything else was secondary, but slavery was made the issue by both sides.

Not soon after Stephen’s speech, Fort Sumter was fired upon first by the South, April 12 – 14, in 1861, which officially was the start of the American Civil War.

Soon after, the Northern public wanted the military to march against the Confederate capitol of Richmond, Virginia, hopefully to put an early end to the war.

On Wilbur McLean’s farm near Manassas, Virginia, some 60,000 ‘green’ and unseasoned troops from the Union and Confederate armies met.

Former friends, neighbors and even family members drove wagons with their families and picnic lunches to watch the sight. Perhaps they were close enough to wave to those they knew on the other side of the armies which met in the middle. Perhaps some were there to be a part of history? Perhaps others had a sick sense of what they considered new, different and entertaining? Perhaps others like what WE refer to as ‘ambulance chasers’ today, felt that they needed something so traumatic, in order to feel something?

Whatever the motivations, this was the first major land Battle of the Civil War, known as the Battle of Manassas or Bull Run on July 21, 1861. It was on a farm owned by Wilmer Mclean. The entertainment was not expected to last very long. Perhaps it would be over before dinner?

It was however, like an omen, for not only was this one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War, it would foreshadow the length of four years to come. It would in the costs of lives lost, be greater than all the wars fought in and by this country, from the Revolutionary War to the Vietnam War combined!

In coming full circle, four years later, it would end at Wilmer McLean’s new home in Appomattox, VA.  The signing of the surrender documents occurred in the parlor of the house owned by Wilmer McLean on the afternoon of April 9, 1865. On April 12, a formal ceremony marked the disbandment of the Army of Northern Virginia and the parole of its officers and men, effectively ending the Civil War.

Note: Wilmer McLean (May 3, 1814 – June 5, 1882) was a wholesale grocer from Virginia. Some say the Civil War started in his front yard (his farm in Manassas, VA) and ended in his front parlor of his home in Appomattox, VA.

But the seeds of ignorance; a ‘mindset;’ a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” had already begun to root and expand and is still among US to this present-day and in OUR present time.

WE here today, have the benefit of history to not make the same mistakes as OUR families, friends and neighbors past, from both the North and the South. If WE do not know this history of ignorance; this ‘mindset’ and this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system,” then WE are sure to allow it to continue!

In closing, remember the words of Abraham Lincoln from his first inaugural address.

“…no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Excerpt from the 35th paragraph

This is where WE are going next time.

Next Time: Divide and Conquer

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – Divide and Conquer Coming Soon
Previous Post – Civil War Ignorance – Northern Perspective
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction