Posts Tagged ‘Legal Fiction’

“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”

 

 

Class Action Lawsuit

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

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

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

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

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

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

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

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

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

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

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

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

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                              

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

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

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                      

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

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

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

ClassAction3

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

Dahni

Legal Fiction (an Introduction)

March 2, 2015

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

By Dahni
Copyright © 2015, all rights reserved

LegalFiction2First, what is legal fiction and why is it or should it be important to you?

Each word in the phrase separately is easy enough to understand by almost anyone. “Legal” because, it is just that, legal. “Fiction” because, it is just that, it is fiction. Fiction as in contrast to non-fiction, does not exist; it’s not real; it’s imaginary; it’s made up. When combined, these two words together, don’t appear to make sense, make no sense at all or they are, just, nonsense. But to lawyers, judges, law and courts, there is a different point of view.

In ancient Greece, rhetoric was used to convict someone of a crime when, everyone knew they were guilty of the crime, but there was NO circumstantial evidence to convict. Let’s suppose the crime was, for stealing a neighbor’s chicken. No one saw it being stolen, but the chicken just happened to appear on the suspect’s property. There was insufficient evidence, but again, everyone knew the suspect stole the chicken. But they did not want the suspect to get away with the crime. So, since the chicken was found on their property, it was ‘as if,’ they were guilty of theft, even though technically, the crime would have been possesion of stolen property. This is an example of, “Legal Fiction.’

Another example from ancient times that still applies today is, adoption. An adopted child or person is not a biological heir, but adoption makes it possible ‘as if,’ they were and affords them all the rights and privileges bestowed upon them by, those that adopt them. It is a legal proceeding that is awarded and protected by the law.

What if you were to discover that the very United States of America you live in is, ‘as if,’ it were real, but is really just, ‘Legal Fiction?’ Would this be important for you to understand? What if, your rights have been infringed upon and your money has been confiscated ‘as if,’ this is was ‘purely’ legal. Would this be important to you? OK, maybe you think NOT, but what if you and every citizen of this country is owed a lot of money and you are, do you want it back?

As this introduction continues, please remember the two keys words in understanding ‘Legal Fiction’ and they are, ‘as if.’ Legal Fiction is, ‘as if,’  it was real. Let me share now. some terms and definitions from my book, RESET “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic.”

'Legal Fiction' - Just because, it's legal, does NOT make it real and just because, it seems real, does NOT make it legal!

‘Legal Fiction’ – Just because, it’s legal, does NOT make it real and just because, it seems real, does NOT make it legal!

Legal Fiction 

“In the common law tradition, Legal Fictions are suppositions of fact taken to be true by the courts of law, but which are not necessarily true. They typically are used to evade archaic rules of procedure or to extend the jurisdiction (authority) of the courts in ways that were considered useful, but not strictly authorized by the old rule.”

“Legal Fictions were used by courts prior to the existence of handling offences. In a situation where one person sells stolen property to another person, they can then be accused of handling stolen property. Legal Fiction has been used to declare that: as the first person did not have the power to sell the property to the second person, the second person in possession of stolen property was considered to have also, stolen the property, and was therefore guilty of theft.”

“According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 804 (5th ed. 1979), “The term “Legal Fiction” is not usually used in a pejorative way in spite of the negative connotation of the phrase, and has been characterized as scaffolding around a building under construction.”

“A maxim or a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct as it compares to “Legal Fiction” is:

“Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.”

Unknown origin

FICTION OF LAW (Legal Fiction). The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing, a quality which is not natural to it, and establishes, consequently, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribe; or authorizes it differs from presumption, because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true. Dalloz, Dict. h. t. See 1 Toull. 171, n. 203; 2 Toull. 217, n. 203; 11 Toull. 11, n. 10, note 2; Ferguson, Moral Philosophy, part 5, c. 10, s. 3 Burgess on Insolvency, 139, 140; Report of the Revisers of the Civil Code of Pennsylvania, March 1, 1832, p. 8

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

John Bouvier published three editions of his Law Dictionary in twelve years, the first in 1839. He was preparing a fourth at the time of his death in 1851. The fourth revision was published in 1856. Other well known legal scholars contributed to its several revisions. By the year 1886, there had been fifteen editions. We are approaching the discovery of the “cause” and the specific time when Our Republic was changed. It is important to note that Bouvier’s Law Dictionary would have been in use at this specific “time.” Legal Fictions have been used for centuries whether they were called this or not. Bloodlines were valued as being important, especially in royal or noble households. In ancient Rome if there were no physical heirs to assume the parental status, adoption was used. This was a Legal Fiction in that the adopted individual was assumed or presumed to be the legal heir as if they were the legal heir by birthright. “Legal Fiction,” as far as this book is concerned, is compared with government “de facto.” A true child or true law (government de jure) is to each other as “Legal Fiction” would be to an adopted child or government (de facto). See: de facto/de jure

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”  Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms pages 141-143 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

de facto/de jure 

“dē jūrē  or de jure is a Latin noun and pronounced [di joor-ee, dey joor-ey]. Its origin is believed to have first been used sometime around 1610. Its literal meaning is “pure law” or “of law”, thus “legitimate, lawful, by right of law, required by law.”

dē factō or de facto is a Latin noun and pronounced [dee fak-toh]. Its origin is believed to have first been used sometime from 1595-1605. Its meaning is, “in fact; in reality.” It carries the idea of something actually existing, especially when without lawful authority. It may also be understood as something existing for such a time that it is as if, it was the law.

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic” Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms page 140 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

Legal Fiction” is to government “de facto” as both are related to the word interpretation in this book. See: Private Interpretation.

Perhaps this sounds very complicated and this is the point. What began as simple and clear, became complicated, unclear, a haze.

Like a purple haze and essentially hidden, it continues by ignorance of it and from a “mindset” to it. It is a corrupt “system.” WE need to RESET Our Republic.

Excerpt from: ‘RESET’ “An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic”  Chapter 12, ‘Defining Terms page 143 Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

The United States operates today, NOT as, government de jure, but as, government de facto‘as if,’ it was, the pure law. It is NOT! It is, ‘Legal Fiction!’ In a future post, I will share the entire chapter from ‘RESET’ “An UN-Alien’s Guide on Resetting Our Republic. The title of the chapter is, ‘Legal Fiction’ and it provides more detail and how it impacts, every single one of our lives. Until then, here is a link to a visual picture of what  ‘Legal Fiction’ looks like, in our government today.

What Legal Fiction Looks Like

or

http://www.i-imagine.biz/Day10.htm

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr

Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver

February 26, 2015
Shortlink for this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-mf
by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved
Apple_pic

Apple of Gold in a picture of silver – click for full size

What is the meaning of this picture? What do the words mean?

In the front, we see an apple of gold with a green leaf. This is indicative of a gold (precious and beautiful, and very valuable) apple. The green leaf means it is a ‘living’ and growing object. There are words within this apple. They are the words from, The Declaration of Independence, in 1776. The apple of gold appears to be three-dimensional and is emphasized by the shadow it casts onto the frame of silver beneath. The apple of gold takes up most of the space of the interior frame, but it also appears to suspend over the space. For it alone is, free and independent. The picture of silver is only a servant and protector.

Beneath this apple of gold there are other words. These are from The Constitution of the United States of America, in 1789. To the left of the apple of gold, the word “WE” is emphasized. It is from the Preamble to The Constitution and the single word “WE” is, suggestive enough that the first three words of The Constitution, “WE the People,’ are filled in by our minds and understood.

The entire image is framed by a frame or a ‘picture of silver.’ Framing enhances; is used to draw attention to and emphasizes the object or the subject that is framed.

From The Declaration of Independence, WE have in our founding writing, a preamble if you will that in part states, its purpose for the writing.

 

“…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.”

excerpt from the first paragraph: The Declaration of Independence

 

In the second paragraph of the same document, the foundation and source of this entitlement is, set forth.

“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.”

excerpt from the second paragraph: The Declaration of Independence

 

The Declaration of Independence is, a legal document which states the just causes of separation from England. It clearly states its logical premise and its logical conclusion. This premise and this conclusion are based on and centers on the truth that all (men, women and children) are, “created equal!” Each are endowed with certain unalienable rights (rights which can NOT be taken, surrendered, forfeited, sold, bartered or given away. Among these certain rights are: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness!”  This is or WE each are together, the ‘Apple of Gold.’

In 1776, 1789 and even in the King James Version of the Bible in 1611, common language used of those days (sometimes still today) were, “we the king.” This has been used of the present Queen Elizabeth of England as, “We the Queen of England.” The plural pronoun was used, for a single entity, to empathize the power of the station. The king would include, every man, woman and child of the kingdom. In our Constitution, the picture of silver, the words are, “We the people.” This phrase too, emphasizes the power of the station and would include, every man, woman and child.

The “all men” of The Declaration of Independence is, an all-inclusive noun and would include, every man, woman and child. Each and all are, apples of gold, framed by pictures of silver.

The people of a kingdom are bound by compulsion and often, by a sworn oath to obey. We the people are bound together by the creation of our equality and each apple of gold is endowed with, certain unalienable rights. Whereas the people of a kingdom have in common, the royal that binds them, we are bound not by sworn oath, but liberty to choose for ourselves and together, by our unalienable rights. What WE the People, the apple of gold have in common is, not our multiple colors or beliefs or anything other than, such unalienable rights as, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! This connection is reflected in the phrase that appears on the Seal of the United States and is stamped on our currency, every dollar and every cent. The words are Latin and are, E pluribus unum, “Out of many, one” or alternatively translated as, “One out of many.” or “One from many!”

It is our unity of purpose, our equality of creation that connects us as family. The same bloodline of liberty flows in each of us. Each of us carry the identical DNA code of, unalienable rights. Each of us are, an apple of gold and together, the Apple of Gold!

But before these universal truths became the law of our land; an accomplished reality and having exhausted every civil and logical means to address their grievances to the king and his agents to no avail, our fore-family resisted by first, civil disobedience, as in the ‘Boston Tea Party.’ After every civil, courteous, and logical means were spent and all having fallen on the figurative deaf ears of the king, our fore-family, the apples of gold then, they legally declared their just causes against the rule of any man, royal or tyrant.

Our fore-family, their commitment and resolve, far exceeded their own efforts to realize for themselves; to hold and to be the accomplished reality of, the apple of gold. Their hope was, that their efforts if never realized for themselves, would one day be a realized and accomplished and a living reality, in their progeny. WE the people are, their progeny! WE the People are, their children! WE the People are, their family! WE the people are, the apple of gold in a picture of silver!

If you look upon the present day with horror and at the terror within our present world that this present is, somehow unique to our day and time, WE the People, need to read or re-read; research the history of our own fore-family. They endured equal if not greater acts of barbarism and acts of less than, animalistic cruelty. They endured rape and pillage and plunder. They endured chemical warfare. They endured drowning, burning by fire, slit throats and scalping and even the visage of some that were beheaded, whose heads were placed on spikes as, trophies of defeat and warnings to fear, the conquerors! It was their hope by which they fought and endured. It was their hope which drove them forward to, hope against all hope. It was their love of liberty and this seemingly impossible thought of defeating, the greatest military and power of the time. It was their hope which drove them forward beyond starvation, lack of resources, sickness, disease, capture and imprisonment and even probable death! It was this slimmest of hope by which they endured, death and destruction by their own mother country (England) and even at the hands of or opposition from, their own friends and families. That hope was, for the living truth of, WE the People, the apple of gold!

The Declaration of Independence was in essence, an affidavit. It was signed unanimously. In a sense, John Hancock, whose signature was visibly larger than the others (as if on purpose) was, like the notary public, since most probably, he was the most recognized signer.  This affidavit, with its “whereas(s)” and concluding “therefore” was, a legal document in that it showed their just cause to the king and to the entire world that the king himself, had broken laws (the Magna Carta) that he had no legal right to do. It showed to the king and to the world, their right to be recognized, to represent themselves in all matters as a sovereign state, to conduct commerce and trade with the world as, free and independent states.

The Declaration was written and delivered to the King. It still fell on deaf ears and was wholly rejected. The Declaration of Independence was again, signed unanimously and each and every signer, pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, for the vision of independence and the right to self-direct and self-govern.

In the preamble to The Constitution, its first words read, “We the People…” The word “We,” refers back to The Declaration of Independence and again these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and all women and all 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.” The “WE” of The Constitution are, the same “WE” of, The Declaration of Independence!

When independence was won, We the People knew then that government is or can be corrupted and is, an evil thing, but that it was a, ‘necessary evil.’ So to protect the rights of individuals, the individual “states” (then 13) unanimously agreed to form a government and this legal document was called formally the, ‘Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,’ in 1781.

The words, “perpetual union” were stricken from The Constitution and replaced with the words, “…in order to form a more perfect union.” This is a figure of speech because, there can be nothing “more perfect,” than something that is already perfect. The idea of the union of individual states, full of individuals, in a sense or as a concept was perfect, but a “more perfect union” was, just the idea that the union by growth and change could aspire to; become better as, the individual states; individuals, grew and changed. But the Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual was, terminated when, The Constitution was ratified and signed and became the “Law of the Land,” in 1789. With the coming of the greater, the lesser terminated. But The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold is, still connected to this new form of government,  The Constitution, the picture or frame of silver.

Each individual state agreed to and would pattern their own government as a republic just like, The Constitution.

The government and governments of individual states were designed to protect the individual rights (the apples of gold) and limit the government; all state governments from taking and exercising power over the people that they were, NOT, to ever have. This Constitution of limiting government execution, legislation and judicial decisions is, the picture or frame of silver.

The words, “apples of gold in pictures of silver,” come from the Bible.

 

“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.”

The Bible, Proverbs 25:11, KJV (king James Version)

 

“A word fitly spoken by you now would be like ‘apples of gold in pictures of silver.'” Alexander H. Stephens, a former Georgia congressman, wrote these words to Abraham Lincoln on December 30, 1860. He quoted from Proverbs 25:11 to persuade Lincoln that a public statement from the president-elect would help greatly in the mounting crisis of the divided country. A student of the Bible in his own right, Lincoln reflected on Stephens’s biblical reference and, in a note to himself, used the “apples of gold” reference to clarify the connection between America’s constitutional union and the principle of “Liberty to all.”

“When (Abraham) Lincoln was elected the first Republican president of the United States on November 6, 1860, he received no votes from nine southern states; what Lincoln called in 1858 the “crisis” of the American “house divided” had come to a head. On December 22, 1860, the president-elect wrote Stephens, a former Whig ally in Congress, to assuage his fears about the incoming administration:…”

“Stephens, who in February 1861 would be elected Vice President of the Confederate States of America, replied with his December 30 letter, which led Lincoln to jot down what is known as his “Fragment on the Constitution and Union.”

Excerpts from the, “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union” from the: “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln”, Roy P. Basler ed., 1953).

 

Fragment on the Constitution and Union 

“All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all” — the principle that clears the path for all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all.” 

“The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.” 

“The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple — not the apple for the picture.” 

“So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.”

Abraham Lincoln

January 1861

Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, volume 4 (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 1953), 168-169.

 

Returning once more to The Declaration, we read again the following:

 

“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.–“

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

This is, the purpose and reason for, The Declaration of Independence. And this is us, you and I, WE the People that collectively are, this apple of gold, but individually, each of us are an apple of gold, protected by and each with, a picture or frame of silver. This would be what the verse in Proverbs states, “…apples (plural) of gold in pictures (plural) of silver.

To secure the rights of each individual, WE the People (the true power or source of government or the real government) instituted a limited government in The Constitution. This government, this Constitution is, the picture of silver.

As a point of interest, on the Periodic table of the elements, gold is heavier than silver. In dollars and cents, gold costs more than, is more valuable than, silver. You, an apple of gold, carry more weight (greater importance) and are more valuable than, the picture or frame of silver that adorns you!

As a point of comparison, read he following verse from he Bible.

 

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

Psalm 12:3, King James Version (KJV)

It is my understanding that silver cannot be any more pure than, by being purified seven times. Silver has long been known, for its purifying properties in medicine and science. Numerically, seven (7) in the Bible is, the number of, spiritual perfection. The “Lord” is, the author of those words and His words were pure words as, silver, purified seven times. The words of The Constitution, the picture of silver in comparison are, the pure words of us, you and I, We the people, from The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold.

In another Psalm of the Bible, the psalmist says –

“Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings,”

Psalm 17:8, (KJV)

The apple of the eyes is, the central aperture of the eye.

 

“The phrase apple of my eye refers to something or someone that one cherishes above all others.“

Oxford English Dictionary: Apple (section 6 B) “the particular object of a person’s affection or regard; a greatly cherished person or occas. [sometimes] thing.”

 

This is exactly what We the people of The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold, ordained and instituted our government, The Constitution, the picture of silver to do, to ever keep us each an apple of gold, in the apple of its eye!

Wings indicate the ability to fly and soar, to preserve and protect us, the apples of gold, to carry us and hide us (protect us) under the shadow of its wings. And this is precisely what We the people, the true and only government, the foundation and purpose of The Declaration of Independence, by which, we ordained and instituted our servant, The Constitution, the picture of silver to do. And this is, to preserve and protect our rights, our liberty and our freedoms!

 

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

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

This institution of, by and for the people is, the purpose and reason, for The Constitution, the picture of silver. And WE the People are, the apple of gold. We, the apple of gold, should ever be, the apple of the eye of The Constitution, the servant-serving government, the picture of silver!

 

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Preamble to: The United States Constitution, 1789

 

WE the People, ordained and established this Constitution, this picture of silver and WE the People, can alter it or abolish it and institute and ordain new government IF, and WHENEVER, WE so choose!

 

“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, 1776

Some believe that our form of government is wholly unacceptable, for our day and time. They would argue that it was perhaps the best in its day, but its day has long gone. They would say that our form of government is unable to handle the needs of over 300 million people who live here today, without expanding the frame or picture of silver. Some also, argue that our original system of government was, only for men, white men and men that owned property. Many today argue that our original form of government excluded women and children and all other races, religions and ethnic backgrounds, but especially all others of any other socio-economic status, except for those of wealth. They would point towards the miss-treatment of slaves and the native Americans of  this country as well as, others. Under the premise that they are addressing the needs of all, they are actually on behalf of a select few, in practice, trying to rob all of us, of our unalienable rights. Even with good intentions, they have grown the picture or frame of silver, at the expense of the apple of gold. Many of these people are graduates of our finest Universities and Colleges in this country and may themselves purport to be of superior intellect. Many of them hold doctorate degrees. Many are lawyers and judges. Surely all these people know what is best, for the rest of us? In case you missed what I just wrote, let me say here now so there is no misunderstanding – it was with sarcasm!

The whole aim of education is to act. To be able to act, there must be understanding or blind following. The purpose of education is NOT to make blind followers, but to lead out of darkness and into the light; into something better. In order to do this, everyone must understand – every child and even a fool. Education that cannot be presented clearly and simply in order that ALL CAN UNDERSTAND is, not education or what the meaning of being educated is!

But all of them, all of these elite people, the smart-people in charge, work in and around government. Their fortunes and careers, center in or around government. And they tell us that they are aware of many problems and daily put forth their best efforts, we are told, to solve them. This government, this picture of silver has grown of such size that it is, the largest employer in our entire country. But government is, not a for-profit business. It makes nor produces anything. It is merely a service, empowered by, WE the People, the apple of gold.

There is another group of people who also realize that there are many problems today, in our union, our government, the picture of silver that is supposed to be made, for the apple of gold. They call for a re-resurgent call of say, 1970. In a speech by Howard Zinn, he titled his work then, ‘The Problem is Civil Obedience,’ 1970, from the Zinn Reader, Seven Stories Press.

IF the problem is, civil obedience then by sheer logic, the solution would be, civil disobedience. In fact, this is precisely what Zinn proposes in his speech. He even references The Declaration of Independence, as an example of civil disobedience. But this is an error! The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold was, and still is, a legal document, not a threat or an act of civil disobedience! They were not disobeying the king. The king had disobeyed the laws that he was not supposed to do. His was an act of, uncivilized disobedience! His was an act of war!

Recently, in the 21st century, just two short years ago, the American actor, Matt Damon, seemed to channel Howard Zinn. Matt Damon read excerpts from a speech Howard Zinn gave in 1970, as part of a debate on civil disobedience. Matt Damon and his family were lifelong friends of the Zinns. If you so choose, the you tube video can be heard and viewed in its entirety at: (http://youtu.be/S2li9E_94MA). This performance was part of “The People Speak, Live!” show, featuring Damon, Lupe Fiasco and a cast of Chicago’s finest poets, actors, activists, artists, musicians, and writers. The show took place at the Metro in Chicago, on January 31, 2012, and was produced by Voices of a People’s History (peopleshistory.us) in collaboration with Louder Than a Bomb: The Chicago Youth Poetry Festival (youngchicagoauthors.org).

Others may like to believe and suggest that Martin Luther King and the march on Washington was, an example of civil disobedience. But it was merely a constitutional –

 

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

– Bill of Rights, part of the first amendment

 

That March on Washington was NOT a protest, for the government to pass more laws, but for the government to protect the rights of all, that all, already were endowed with! Those rights were written in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and amended in The Constitution, over hundred years before, this march ever took place. They merely marched that the government, their government would enforce the laws they were sworn to uphold, for every citizen, every apple of gold in the picture of silver!

CNN added to its website, a video at 10:23 AM ET, on Thursday, February 12, 2015. On this video, Chris Cuomo, interviews Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roy Moore and he (Cuomo) states clearly that our rights do not come from God, “they come from man.” If you so choose, you may hear and view it for yourself, on You Tube at: http://youtu.be/Er5aU9c1Dbc

Despite his intellect and education, this is an ignorant opinion, with absolutely no basis for fact or truth. We the people, the apple of gold were created equal and endowed with, certain unalienable rights, not by man (humanity), but by, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God!” It was from man’s law, the laws and broken laws of the king (a man) that We the People, sought separation and independence from and ordained and instituted government to preserve and protect and to remain at liberty, separate and independent of the laws of Man (humanity) and man’s (humanity’s) laws! For rights that come from man (humanity), can be taken away from man (human kind), by man (human kind). But our unalienable rights come from, “the Laws of Nature and Natures God!”

 

“…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”

excerpt from The Declaration of Independence

 

Note: Christopher Charles “Chris” Cuomo is a television journalist, currently at CNN. He previously was the ABC News chief law and justice correspondent, and co-anchor for ABC’s 20/20. He is the son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and the brother of current New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo.

Arguments for the egregious usurping of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” are put forward and pressed because, times have changed and definitions have changed. In fact,  unnecessary, almost un-numbered (seemingly without number) and unholy laws (laws unconstitutional or extra-constitutional) and interpretations have, diminished the apple of gold and greatly increased, the picture of silver!

Almost everyone would agree that there are many problems within our government, our picture of silver that is supposed to enhance and protect us, the apple of gold. But each problem seems to have its own nearly innumerable symptoms and there is some temporary band-aid for the nearly, infinite number of symptoms. But the real problem is not that our system of government, the frame or picture of silver is not enough to frame and protect the apple of gold. For centuries now, ever since 1776, government has grown under the idea that is must grow, in order to protect the many more apples of gold of today. To civilly disobey is, not the solution, unless the government de jure (pure law) was never sufficient, even when first written. But that was and are NOT the facts, the case or the truth. The best way I know how to explain the real problem is, by a picture.

 

Apple2_pic

Almost hidden apple of gold in a Picture of Silver – click for full size

In the picture above, the apple of gold and The Declaration of Independence have nearly all, but disappeared. The Constitution (the original picture of silver) has been, overtaken by many, many other laws, rules and regulations, and interpretations by, the judicial system.

The original Constitution has been, overridden by the books you see within the frame. These are individual volumes which make up the many sections of the U.S. Code. All total, these and other laws and rules and regulations have come to, supersede the original Constitution. The apple of gold has not shrunk, the picture of silver has inordinately become, OVERGROWN! It is more like a mutation or a virus. This may be considered as, government de facto. Another legal term, for this monstrosity of a frame or picture of silver, which now dwarfs the almost invisible apple of gold is called, legal fiction. It is legal because, it proceeds from The Constitution (government de jure), but it is fiction (government de facto) because, it does not really exist. It is merely implied and accepted as, this is, just the way it is (government de facto). But this is NOT the way it is! Why and how can I say this? Because, our system of government, our Constitution, our picture of silver may have been altered, but never abolished nor have We the People, the apple of gold, the source and power of government, ever ordained, established or instituted new Government!

Have you ever heard or read, “the forest cannot be seen, for (because of) the trees?” Today, the apple of gold is almost NOT seen, for the largess of, the picture of silver.

Oh, the apple of gold still exists in theory and once in a while in practice, while the picture of silver continues to grow and expand, for itself, thriving at the expense of us, We the People, the apple of gold, in a picture of silver, pure silver. The bulging present frame is neither silver nor pure!

The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold, the foundation and purpose of our government, has no legal standing in any court of law! The Preamble to The Constitution, the foundation and purpose of our government, the original picture of silver, has no legal standing in any court of law! This is how The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, has been interpreted by the law, not of the land, but by man. And this is legal fiction!  But in truth, ANY court of law that does not preserve and protect the apple of gold and the picture of silver, has no legal standing, in either The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution of the United States of America!

The real and true problem lies NOT, in The Declaration of Independence, the apple of gold, or the original Constitution, the frame or picture of silver. The problem is clearly and simply, the fault of usurpers and interpreters that have intentionally or not, in contrast to Abraham Lincoln’s work in ‘Fragment on the Constitution and Union,’ the apple of gold has diminished and has been made, for the largeness of, the Picture of Silver!

But both The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, provide us with the ONLY remedy. We the People, the apple of gold, need to RESET_but the picture of silver!

To do this, we must know HOW. But before that, we must know WHY. To do that, We must know WHEN, the exact place and time when, the picture of silver, took over the apple of gold. For the future, we must know and understand our present. To know and understand our present, we must know and understand our past that has gotten us to this day and time. And for this, we must start in 1861. That was the exact year when the picture of silver grew and has not ceased from unnaturally growing, ever since!

What is the reflection in the apple of your eye? Is it the largeness of the picture of silver or an apple of gold?

Apple_cover

What is reflected in the apple of your eye? – click for full size

 

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr

 

 

 

Note: This post will most likely be the introduction to the sequel, for, ‘RESET “An UN-alien’s guide to Resetting our Republic.”’ The title of this future book, already in process and all art work here is, for: “An Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver” – In progress.

D.

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 – Northern Perspective

April 2, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 4/2/10

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 – Northern Perspective

Last time WE looked at ignorance 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 1600’s and 1700’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 Northern Perspective. WE will look at 1 man – Abraham Lincoln, his first inaugural address and the U.S. Constitution for the justification or rationalization of this ignorance from the Northern Perspective.

Even before Lincoln was sworn in as president of the United States, several states had already seceded. After Lincoln’s first inaugural address, other states quickly followed. Representatives and Senators had already made their intentions known in Congress. Congress had already passed a motion to remove their names from the roll call, but not to expel them. Lincoln knew this.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln begins with the issue of slavery.

4

“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.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
4th paragraphMarch 4, 1861

First of all, Lincoln in his opening remarks, made slavery an issue, because in his mind, the constitutions of the previously seceded states and those considering secession, already made slavery an issue. Remember the bold red and underlined words above, as WE will later see an apparent contradiction to each of them.

Lincoln’s address then proceeds to states rights.

5

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address, 5th paragraph
March 4, 1861

The words “domestic,” “perfection” and “lawless” are interesting. Domestic rights would by the omission here, exclude the state’s foreign rights to be exercised between other states, which would be foreign in the same sense that the state would have no rights to deal with a foreign country. The word “perfection” refers to OUR system of government and it would later in his address, imply that it is perfect. The word “lawless” would only mean that invasion by armed forces of any state or territory could only occur if there was such a law allowing it.

8

“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 8

9

[“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”]

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 9

(Lincoln quoting from the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, 3rd paragraph)

His answer or solution to resolving this issue is in:

10

“Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 10

But then he argues that oaths should still be kept despite any difference of opinion as to how they should be kept.

11

“And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 11

13

I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 13

Lincoln’s suggestion implies that those states which had seceded or that were considering secession were violating the law “to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Lincoln continues and addresses the idea or concept of secession.

15

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 15

The words “I hold” are in direct contrast to the first three words of the Constitution which are, “WE the People.” Perpetuity though Lincoln believed it may be implied is not written in the Constitution to which his words “if not expressed” indicate his belief that perpetuity is implied. However, the absence of “perpetuity” in the Constitution relates to its jurisdiction (the creators not that which is created) which is, “WE the People.” The argument that no government including OURS has never provided a means for its own termination, may be true for other governments, but not OURS! OUR government may be changed by amendments by congress or the people and it may be terminated by the very source from which it began, by the same three first words of the Constitution, “WE the People.”

Lincoln continues to argue the perpetuity of OUR union.

16

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-break it, so to speak-but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 16

This is the address of the president and Chief Executive. Lincoln was a lawyer and he here presents a legal argument as if addressing the court, the judges being the people. His arguments are interpretative of the law. This is the first indication that the executive branch of government would take control of both the Legislative and Judiciary branches of government, which Lincoln would later do.  Not only does the Constitution not mention contracts and associations, neither does it mention perpetuity which Lincoln in his address has already indicated it was not mentioned.  He mentions that contracts cannot be peaceably terminated, but there is no mention that they could not be forcibly terminated by one or all parties in concern. The Constitution was not ratified by all the states, at the same time, but by a majority of the states and at specific times. His premise that all states would be necessary to break a contract or comparing contracts to a “government proper,” is based on the premise that OUR union is perpetual. He then uses history to substantiate his premise in support of his conclusion.

17

“Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 17

Although over a hundred years of associating with one another, confederating or constituting with one another, may seem like the union is perpetual, but this is not a logical argument, because the premise is wrong and therefore so likewise, is the conclusion. The only accurate reference in writing or in the above history to which Lincoln referred to in citing the word “perpetual,” was the Articles of Confederation. The literal title of this document is: The Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual. The word “perpetual” does not appear in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution was a wholly new government which ended the previous one in replacing the Articles of Confederation. John Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson referred to all those in attendance as “demigods.”

To be honest however, Jefferson later came to respect many of the changes made and the Constitution itself. But he and other founders of OUR republic wrote of the states rights to secede. Some states had even considered secession long before the birth of Lincoln. Newspapers all across the country in 1860 including New York wrote editorials in support of the states rights to secede. Of these historical facts, Lincoln does not mention in his first inaugural address when using history, endeavoring to argue that the union was perpetual.

Lincoln relates in his argument that the Union is perpetual with the words from the Constitution, “to form a more perfect Union.” WE need to understand these words and to be perfectly clear about them. They are not literal!!! They are a figure of speech. If they were literal, it would be completely illogical. If something is perfect, it cannot become more perfect or less perfect. As a figure of speech, the emphasis is on perfection as a goal to strive for. The Constitution was considered to be a better union than the previous Confederation. But the fact that Lincoln views these words in a more literal sense and to further make his argument on the perpetuity of the Union is seen, in his next paragraph of his first inaugural address.

18

“But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 18

Lincoln himself uses a figure of speech to further his argument with the words, “less perfect.” His reasoning that the Union would be “less perfect” if it lost the “element of perpetuity is illogical.” It is illogical because his premise is incorrect. Less perfect in the literal sense is illogical. The figure of speech here emphasizes “perfect” as a goal, but to the infallible human being, perfection is not possible, nor is to make something more perfect or less perfect.

Having stated his false premises, Lincoln then makes his conclusion, which would also, be false.

19

“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,
Paragraph 19

The words, “the authority of the United States,” clearly state Lincoln’s perspective and that of many of the north. This is indicative of the idea that the thing created (the Constitution) is superior to the creators, WE the People.

Lincoln according to his conclusion states that “acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.” According to the dictionary, an “insurrection” and a “revolution,” are defined as follows.

Insurrection: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

Definitions based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Lincoln further cements his conclusion with the following paragraph.

20

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 20

If the Union was “unbroken” according to Lincoln’s argument, there was no reason to state that “the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States,” unless the southern states by an “act of violence as either an insurrection or a revolution under the authority of the United States required it. This requirement would necessitate force, which contradicts what he already said and what WE have already read from the 5th paragraph of his first inaugural address. Here it is again:

5

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address, 5th paragraph
March 4, 1861

So this action would necessitate the South in essence, to fire first which would be responded to by the use of force. However, to execute the law in “all the States,” since the southern states were not abiding by this Union, either coercion or force would be necessary according to Lincoln’s argument. Coercion is defined as follows:

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Definition based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010

Coercion could include other means, methods and manners to enforce the law besides force, whereas the word force is clear.

Coercion or force is implied by Lincoln in his next paragraph.

21

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 21

How would it be possible to enforce the law in holding, occupying and possessing the property belong to Government unless by coercion or force if this property was questioned as to its ownership? How would it be possible to enforce the law in collecting duties and imposts unless by coercion or force if they were questioned as to its legitimacy? The southern states believed it was their property and as a foreign nation, they were not subject to the duties and imposts of the United States. Therefore, the only action the Union could take against the Confederacy would have to be by coercion or force, whether the South would invade or not.

Lincoln has gone further than as if to argue a case before a court. His conclusions and subsequent actions are indicative of judgment being made by a court. His interpretation of the Constitution is indicative of “legislating from the bench.” In his first inaugural address, Lincoln has become the Chief Executive, and has dominated both the Legislative and the Judiciary branches of the Government. This will be substantiated as WE continue here.

23

“That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 23

If he neither affirms nor denies that there are those that “seek to destroy the Union,”

Why bring this up and why use the word “destroy.” Was there only two types of people at this time, those that “seek to destroy the Union,” and those “who really love the Union?”

The opposite of this would be if you do not love the union then therefore you seek to destroy it. The words used here are inflammatory.

24

“Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 24

Lincoln suggests here that perhaps there is no real reason for their secession and the possibility of greater consequences in leaving the Union. Is this statement to discredit the South and a veiled threat? This is the second use of the root word or “destroy.” He also suggests that perhaps there exists no “real” reason for the South to secede and the consequences would be greater in so doing than for having left it for no reason.

25

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one.”

What is a vital right as opposed to a non-vital right? It is obvious that the south was not content to remain in the Union. If his argument is correct that there is no Constitutional reason for the South to secede, it must rest with slavery on the part of the South, according to Lincoln’s viewpoint.

25

“But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length, contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpts from paragraph 25

This obviously shows that the Constitution is not perfect, was never intended to be perfect and the Union of the states are not nor ever were considered to be either perfect or perpetual. Again, Lincoln argues that no Constitutional right has been violated and so therefore the only disagreement between the Union and the Confederacy would be slavery? This is spelled out plainly in the next paragraph.

26

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 26

Now his argument centers on two choices, to “acquiesce” or not and the latter would cause the government to cease. If neither the majority nor the minority are willing to cooperate, then another choice would be to separate? And if separate, government could still continue for both.

26

“There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 26

The words “the Government” relates to the 19th paragraph of this address with the words, “the authority of the United States.” Again the thing created appears to be greater than those that created it (WE the People), it is perpetual and only all the states could disband it.

27

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 27

28

“Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 28

First of all, what is the definition of “anarchy” and what was its origin?

Anarchy – a state of society without government or law.

Origin:
1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an-1 +arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y3

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

From where does Lincoln derive his interpretation that secession is anarchy? What would the Revolutionary War have been, anarchy? And just because changes to the Constitution are made from popular opinion or sentiment, does this mean any have lost their unalienable rights or opposing those changes would be considered anarchists flying to anarchy or despotism? According to Lincoln’s viewpoint and those of the North that agreed with him, it would be anarchy or despotism. But what then was the Revolutionary War? What then are unalienable rights?

According to Lincoln, it is only the Constitution which is, “the only true sovereign of a free people.” The Constitution is a created thing, created of, for and by the people, and it is OUR unalienable rights which are the true sovereignty of a free people! And what are the sovereign nations of the Native American Indians and in many respects, the nature of exemptions of the Amish people?

Lincoln states that, “Unanimity is impossible.” Was not the Declaration of Independence a unanimous decision? Was not the Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual, a unanimous decision? Do not all members “All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution,” (from Lincoln’s 10th paragraph) and is this not unanimous? Seventy two years later in 1933 and even though only ¾ of the states were required to amend the constitution (36 of 48 states at the time), 39 states ratified the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. This included all the former Confederate States except for Florida. However nine additional states including Florida subsequently ratified this amendment.  Since Hawaii and Alaska were not then states in 1933, 48 states were unanimous in ratifying this amendment. Total agreement or unanimity may not always be probable or possible, but it is not impossible!

29

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 29

The words in bold red italics are the true purpose of secession, that the people are the rulers (creators) and not the government (the created thing).

30

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpts from paragraph 30

Again, slavery is made an issue here and that according to Lincoln, “the only substantial dispute.” In as he has thus argued, the Union is perfect, to withdraw from it would make it “less perfect,” and “the only substantial dispute,” (slavery) “can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before.”

31

“Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 31

Why would is not be possible to physically separate? Why would it not be possible to build a wall of separation between the North and the South, impractical, but why not possible? China built a wall thousands of years ago. Kingdoms built walls for protection to keep enemies out. The analogy of a divorced couple is inappropriate. It is possible to divorce and due to custody and other issues, the former husband and wife could remain in the same location and even the same house with or without ever speaking to each other. So the states could do the same thing.

“Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.” Who is the word “you” repeatedly used here referring to? Is it not the Confederate States? And are WE not in essence face to face with Canada and yet separate nations, but for the most part WE each maintain an amicable relationship? The words here are accusatory – you go to war, you can’t fight forever, you cease fighting and then, “the same old identical questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.”

32

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 32

These two sentences are accurate, but WE have already seen from Lincoln’s address that “the people” refer to all the people of the United States. His argument is that the Union is perpetual, the Constitution was written as “a more perfect union,” and to disband it would make it “less perfect.” Along with perpetuity and perfection he equates the “revolutionary right” in overthrowing the government can only be done by all the people of all the states since all got into the Union when OUR country first began. This would therefore be a unanimous decision and Lincoln has already stated that “unanimity is not possible.” This all appears to be contradictory. He finishes out this paragraph in basically referring to Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution about amendments.

32

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 32

The amendment referred to here was called The Corwin Amendment and was passed by Congress on March 2, 1861 and just two days before his inaugural address. The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to “abolish or interfere” with the “domestic institutions” of the states, including “persons held to labor or service” (a reference to slavery). The Corwin Amendment was intended to prohibit the Congress from banning slavery in those states whose laws permitted it. This amendment has never been ratified by the states, although it was submitted to the states without any time restraints. Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, ended any realistic chance of it ever being adopted. It reads as follows:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Non-ratified Corwin Amendment

Why did Lincoln bring up this amendment other than to strengthen his point that it was only slavery which was the sole point of division between the North and the South? See paragraph 30 previously and note the words:

“One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 30

33

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 33

Magistrate – mag·is·trate    (māj’ĭ-strāt’, -strĭt)  noun

a. A civil officer with power to administer and enforce law, as:

b. A local member of the judiciary having limited jurisdiction, especially in criminal cases.

[Middle English magistrat, from Old French, from Latin magistrātus, from magister, magistr-, master; see meg- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

It is interesting that Lincoln chose the word “magistrate” here, having its root in the word “master.” As president of the United States he was the Chief Executive and he states that authority “comes from the people.” He also stated that there was no authority to “fix the terms for the separation of the states,” and the duty is to administer the government as received and pass it on to the next executive, “unimpaired.”  Then why has he presented in his first inaugural address arguments as if before a court? Why has he interpreted the Constitution? In so doing, he is as if legislating from the bench and by his conclusions, he makes rulings as if a judge. In essence, which will become clear in a future presentation here – ‘Divide and Conquer,’ Lincoln would later dominate both the Legislative and Judiciary branches of government in prosecution of the American Civil War, or technically, the suppression of a rebellion.

35

“By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Paragraph 35

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.”

For now, this is where we will leave off.  But WE will look at the consequences of those four years another time under the title of: ‘The Basis and Consequences of Ignorance.’

37

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.”

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.

38

“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.”

Paragraph 38

Perhaps, there are no equal words 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 and for those which agreed with him 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 United States of America and maybe even the entire world today!

Next Time: Civil War Ignorance  – Southern Perspective

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 – Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective Soon
Previous Post Civil War Ignorance
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

Pre-Civil War Ignorance

March 23, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/23/10

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: Pre-Civil War Ignorance

Last time WE looked at the hypothetical possibility of what life would look like today, if the Southern states were allowed to secede from the Union in 1860-1861.  The previous post ended where this one begins and it begins with slavery. Despite the many experts and theories as to the cause or causes of the Civil War, I do not believe slavery was the issue. Does this surprise anyone? Slavery was not an issue! It was made an issue, by both the North and South!

WE will now look at some history of slavery in what is now called, the United States of America. This understanding is important as it relates to “legal fiction,” the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” and the “mindset’ WE have been endeavoring to discover and remove from OUR republic.

This “mindset” is related to the title of this post, “Pre-Civil War Ignorance.” Let us now look at “mindset” and its origins in this country, as it pertains to slavery.

Everything has an origin or a beginning. The words ‘gene,’ ‘genetics,’ ‘genealogy,’ and the first book of the Jewish and Christian Bible, ‘Genesis,’ all share the same root word. From the Greek word [genus], its definition is origin, beginning, race, kind etc.

Before actions are taken, they are preceded (originate, begin) by thoughts. Through time, a ‘mindset’ develops. This thinking and the corresponding actions get passed on from generation to generation. An evolving or otherwise civil society, when faced with something that is not understood, will often seek to justify or rationalize its position even through logical discourse. But in logic, no matter how logical the premise, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion will be wrong.

So without knowledge, WE are ignorant. Ignorance is just the state of being without knowledge or understanding.

Stupidity is to know and understand, but refusing to change.

As long as people have been a species upon this planet, slavery in some form or another has existed. Every continent, country and culture has some history of slavery in their societies. It has not always been an issue of race or the color of skin. Any person or people could have been under the subjugation, involuntarily servitude, or considered as the property of others. Some of those under whatever form or names you want to call slavery were enslaved, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and all of the above. Some were treated kindly and some cruelly. But slavery kind or cruel is, still slavery!

Imagine living in a little village thousands of years ago. It makes no difference the color of your skin or your race, but everyone in you village are all the same color or race. One day, for the very first time in your life, you meet someone that looks similar, but has a different color of skin, culture and even language. What would you think?  The world has a history of making up stuff. Instead of finding the answers to OUR differences by conversing with the person and instead of looking at OUR similarities, the differences become the focus. Maybe WE ask others instead of the person WE meet about these differences. Maybe they don’t know and no one wants to look foolish, so things often get made up, fictionalized and even vilified. What WE do not understand, WE often fear. WE often defer to others that seem to be wiser or have some connection to the ‘divine ear.’ These wise and ‘spiritual’ people are, themselves, people too. And if they don’t know, they make up stuff too. So here WE see clear examples of ignorance and how it is often passed from one generation to the next. Religion is often the source from which this ignorance begins and continues.

Slavery as it came to this country must have had some beginning. To the best of my understanding, slavery as it evolved in America, started with the Roman Catholic Church.

In 1441, Portuguese captains Antão Gonçalves and Nuno Tristão captured 12 Africans in Cabo Branco (modern Mauritania) and took them to Portugal as slaves. This no doubt continued so that around 10 years later, the Roman Catholic church was the dominate religion of the area and addressed slavery officially.

June 18, 1452, Pope Nicholas V issues ‘Dum Diversas’, a bull authorizing the Portuguese to reduce any non-Christians to the status of slaves.

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property […] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”

Excerpt from: ‘Dum Diversas’ by Pope Nicholas V

Note: A papal bull is a letter or announcement from the Pope to the Catholic world. It is so named, because a lead bulla or seal was attached to the Pope’s edict by a cord, thus authenticating it was from the Pope.

January 8, 1454, Pope Nicholas V issues ‘Romanus Pontifex’, a bull granting the Portuguese a perpetual monopoly in trade with Africa. Nevertheless, Spanish traders brought slaves from Africa to Spain. By the time Christopher Columbus sailed the blue in 1492, slavery was already imbedded in his country of Spain.

Natives of various countries were enslaved by the Conquistadors (from Spanish and Portuguese languages meaning “Conqueror”); were taken as slaves from one place and put or sold as slaves in other places.

By the 1700’s, African slaves was the preferred choice for the Colonies.

Note: The reason African slaves were the “preferred choice,” was that as a people, they were found to be more adaptable to conditions and training (discipline); could work harder and longer than Native Americans, or slaves from South America, Central America and the Caribbean. This is just one fact that should shut the door to the argument that the African slave was an inferior race.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were known to have slaves. Although there is no evidence to support that they were cruel to their slaves, slavery is still slavery. Perhaps they thought it was their Christian, civic, or human duty to help those inferior? The ‘mindset’ of slavery nonetheless, prevailed in the minds and the culture of the colonies and our founding fathers.

When George Washington was 16 years old, he had copied by hand, ‘110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.’ These rules were based on a set of rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595. The first English translation, appeared in 1640, and is ascribed to Francis Hawkins, the twelve-year-old son of a doctor.

These many rules today may seem fussy and silly, but courtesy, manners, decency and good behavior were believed to be an absolute necessity, if one desired to be a true civic minded person; a gentleman or a gentlewoman of the 1700’s.

Thomas Jefferson was by the standards of the 1700’s, a highly educated man. He lived in or near Williamsburg, VA as a young man and was tutored and mentored by many of the finest minds of his day. Through his association with George Wythe, young Jefferson was afforded many opportunities and was introduced to the Governor and became a frequent visitor to the Governor’s mansion, in what we now call, Colonial Williamsburg.

George Wythe was the first signer from Virginia whose name appears on the Declaration of Independence. He was also a framer of the Constitution and instrumental in the design of the seal for the state of Virginia.

Jefferson wrote of George Wythe the following.

“No man ever left behind him a character more venerated than George Wythe,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. “His virtue was of the purest tint; his integrity inflexible, and his justice exact; of warm patriotism, and, devoted as he was to liberty, and the natural and equal rights of man, he might truly be called the Cato* of his country.”

*Cato – Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95 BC, Rome – April 46 BC, Utica), commonly known as Cato the Younger (Cato Minor) to distinguish him from his great-grandfather (Cato the Elder), was a politician and statesman in the late Roman Republic, and a follower of the Stoic philosophy. He is remembered for his legendary stubbornness and tenacity (especially in his lengthy conflict with Gaius Julius Caesar), as well as his immunity to bribes, his moral integrity, and his famous distaste for the ubiquitous corruption of the period.

Wythe lived a long and prosperous life and was well respected. He was the first Law Professor of the College of William & Mary. He even boarded many students and treated them as his own children. He was long opposed to slavery and freed his own, which included one that chose to stay with him for the rest of Wythe’s life. One of Wythe’s heirs had gambling debts and forged checks of his uncle to pay them. To avoid detection and inherit his uncle’s estate, he is believed to have murdered George Wythe. The evidence was circumstantial and there was no conviction. The only possible witness was the black woman, the once former slave that chose to stay with him. But no black person was allowed to testify against a white person in court.

This is just one example of the consequences of ignorance, which ironically allowed a guilty person to go free, because of the ‘mindset’ of slavery.

But of books and learning and influence, there can be no doubt of the education of Thomas Jefferson. Even his work in the Declaration of Independence was inspired by the Magna Carta and clear influences from John Locke.

John Locke (1632 –1704) was widely known as the Father of Liberalism. He was an English philosopher and physician and regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of the times. In London in 1689, he published, ‘Two Treatises of Government,’ which arguably offers a justification for slavery.

Many Europeans came to America for religious freedom. But slavery was a form of persecution which, in the eyes of colonial America, had to be justified. So the black slave was viewed as being inferior, subhuman, and fated for servitude. The early Christian churches did not consider eliminating slavery until much later in the century. In 1693, Cotton Mather, a famous theologian from Boston, in his ‘Rules for the Society of the Negroes’ wrote,

“Negroes were enslaved because they had sinned against God.”

Later, Mather included a heavenly plan for the slaves in writing,

“God would prepare a mansion in Heaven.”

In the Colonial religious mind, the plight of the slave was servitude on earth and freedom was only possible in heaven.

King George on Dec. 10, 1770, issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor of Virginia,

“…upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.”

In 1772, the Virginia Assembly earnestly discussed the question, “How shall we get rid of the great evil?” Jefferson, Henry, Lee, and other leading men anxiously desired to rid the colony of it. “The interest of the country,” it was said, “manifestly requires the total expulsion of them.”

Interestingly, the 1600’s and 1700’s is commonly referred to as part of the ‘Age of Enlightenment,’ with such forward thinkers as Descartes, Isaac Newton and John Locke among others. All of these influences had significant weight in the mind of Thomas Jefferson.

Despite the rules of conduct, manners, and civility as mentioned earlier about Washington and the learned environment of the Colonial mind and the mind of Jefferson, slavery was wrestled with as “the great evil,” but left uncorrected, continued to be justified.

From a capitalistic or economic view, slavery was justified as for the good of the people, and slaves were not people but property.

Some indentured servants were freed after their terms expired. Some of these became slave owners themselves. Some slaves were freed and some of them also, became slave owners. Some servants and slaves had their issues by others challenged in court and were successfully freed legally. Some of these cases were overturned by other courts. But in practice and policy, slavery continued, deepened and expanded in the consciousness of people as a whole.

From a religious or humanistic point of view, slavery was justified as the master’s duty to treat their property kindly and to bring them to independence in heaven or their contented place on earth, under the benevolent hand of the superior master race.

Looking back to the history of this ‘mindset,’ and comparing it with OUR most treasured documents, many people see exclusion and hypocrisy. What then is the profit of such beautiful and flowery words as, The Declaration of Independence?

“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.”

From the Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson

Though slavery existed in the home of the writer and perhaps even in very room where these words were penned and “men” did not include slaves, women, or children on July 2 – 4, 1776, the truth of these words cannot be negated!

How can such language be justified when in practice, it was exclusive, contradictory or hypocritical? There is no justification as WE will see this definitively in the next post. But neither is there justification for discarding truth, because it is not practiced of, for, and by ALL of US, WE the People!

These words were authored by Enlightenment and penned by a collective civil and learned, Colonial ignorant mind or ‘mindset!’ It was and is wherever it may exist today, part of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”

The concepts and practice of slavery was wrestled with during the formation of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, but was never settled; never corrected.

The whip or shackles are not the only means to enslave. The pen can be used to enslave. The law and the courts to enforce them can enslave. Even OUR Constitution if interpreted, has and in the present-day,  can, enslave. But it is ignorance; a “mindset;” a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” which perpetuates the ignorance and enslaves the bodies, souls and spirits of people.

Though it is possible that some knew the truth during these times and practiced otherwise and therefore, were and may still today be hypocrites, slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, to occur almost 100 years hence. It was a “mindset” passed down from one generation to the next. It was part of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”  In a single word, it is simply, ignorance.

Next Time: Civil War Ignorance

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 – Civil War Ignorance
Previous Post – What if – The U.S.A. & C.S.A.
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

The Beast Must Eat

March 17, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/17/10

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: The Beast Must Eat

Last time WE looked at how the Hegel’s Theorem or the Hegelian dialectic   intentionally or not, drives OUR country, OUR republic and OUR lives. What WE cannot detect, WE cannot correct. What WE fail to correct, by default, WE allow this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” to continue. Hegel’s Theorem or the Hegelian dialectic simply stated is:

Thesis – Antithesis and Synthesis

or

Crisis + Reaction (fear) = Solution is government (but ends with a loss of Liberty)

So today WE will go back in history to the year 1861, when the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” first started. From that year, WE will look at some of the events forward through the years and how each event was considered to be a crisis. WE need to look at what the reactions were to these crises. WE need to see how government responded (synthesized the crisis & reaction) or attempted to solve the crises and what was seized in the process. WE will see that intentionally or not, it follows the Hegelian dialectic. The Beast Must Eat!

Crisis + Reaction (fear) = Government is the Solution

  1. In 1861, Congress had adjourned sine die (pronounced sign-e die-e, Latin “without a day”), to reconvene. President Abraham Lincoln summoned them back by presidential order April 15, 1861, invoking the “Extraordinary occasions” clause of the U.S, Constitution Article 2 Section 3. Congress responded as ordered and citing the same clause as the president, re-convened July 4th, 1861. What was the crisis? To suppress a rebellion. What was the reaction? Unless the president responded, the government would be overthrown. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? The military and Congress was under the control of the executive branch and ultimately the president. Ever since, Congress remains to this day, an Executive Congress. The military still answers to the commander and chief, the president. Presidential orders circumvent Congress by not declaring war, but referring to some type of police action, peace-keeping mission, special operations, or to suppress a rebellion etc. These ‘way-around-s’ allows the president to call out the military at will without congressional approval.
  2. If the Congress was under the jurisdiction or control of the Executive Branch, how did the Judiciary operate? No matter how one looks at this, whether they choose to use the words Martial Law or not, this was not a normal constitutional Judiciary Branch. The president from the proclamation of 1861, called the military into service as the Commander in Chief, to suppress a rebellion, not to declare a war as only Congress could do. The military and/or military justice (rule by force) would replace the courts (rule by law). Therefore, it was an Executive Judiciary. If you prefer, call this an Extraordinary Occasion Judiciary. In Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution it states in part “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it…” Even though the Judiciary Branch has continued to operate since 1861 and specifically 1863 under the Conscription Act ever since, it has done so as an ‘extraordinary Occasion’ Judiciary. What was the crisis? The Civil War was technically a rebellion. What was the reaction? Unless the military was able to keep order, the judiciary would cease to exist. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? The Judiciary Branch of government has been under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch since 1863, specifically.
  3. On February 25, 1863 The National Bank Act became federal law. It established a “system” for a national security holding body for the existence of the monetary policy of the state. The Act, together with Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of “greenbacks,” raised money for the federal government in the American Civil War by enticing banks to buy federal bonds and taxing state bank issued currency out of existence. The law was later replaced by the National Bank Act of 1864 and other such laws, including the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (income tax) ever since. What was the crisis? There was not enough money to support the suppression of a rebellion. What was the reaction? Unless the president acted, banks would fail. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? ‘Greenbacks’ were offered and banks were induced to buy bonds for profit. In the end, the government took over the banking industry. This remains in effect today under the name of, the Federal Reserve System.
  4. In 1863, Congress passed the Conscription Act and it was signed into law by President Lincoln March 3rd, 1863. Not only did this law require people to be drafted into the military, but to enforce the law, it set up “districts” among all the northern states and when under control of the union army, all the southern states as well. While appearing constitutional among the states, in having representation in congress, the true power of enforcement was a provost-marshal of each “district.” Under this law there is a crisis within a crisis. What was the first crisis? There were an insufficient numbers of union forces, to suppress a rebellion. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, the North would be overthrown.  What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? The government instituted a national draft, but to enforce it would require the military to take over the states and thus made them “district” states ever since. What was the crisis within this law? The sick, poor, and elderly would have no one to care for them if their only provider was drafted. What was the reaction? The poor, sick and elderly would perish without provision made for them. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? The government granted exception to the draft for legitimate reasons, and also provided exceptions in the form of $300 or if a suitable replacement was sent on the person’s behalf. Basically, only a person of means could afford either means of being excepted. These two exceptions caused riots, the worse of which was in New York City, New York lasting several days and was only put down by military force where brothers literally fired on their own brothers. Even after the conflict among the states ended, the states are still, “district” states today. This law has never been rescinded, cancelled or overturned.
  5. General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863, effectively put the entire country under Martial Law. It is specifically so named in SECTION I – “Martial Law – Military jurisdiction – Military necessity – Retaliation.” Even though Martial Law was lifted after the war, southern states re-entered the union and habeas corpus was restored, the plans or modifications of Martial Law remain. What was the crisis? The suppression of a rebellion was the crisis. What was the reaction? Unless the president acted, the government would be overturned. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? The power to call Martial Law can be brought to bear by an Executive Congress and ultimately the Executive Branch (the president) invoking the clause in the U.S. Constitution, “extraordinary Occasions.” It is interesting to note however, that Martial Law technically is only in force until the crisis is abated. Martial Law was lifted at the end of the conflict. But ordinarily, when a crisis exists and the solution is put in place, even after the crisis ends, the government still has the jurisdiction. Another way to look at this is that nothing is ever fixed by government; it is an on-going process of modifications and expansion. The Beast must eat and continue to eat.
  6. On January 31, 1865, Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, making it law that slavery or involuntary servitude “shall not exist.” It was ratified by the several states December 6, 1865. What was the crisis? Not all slaves were freed. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, slaves not freed in the Emancipation Act of 1862 (all southern states of the Confederacy) and the Emancipation Act of 1863 (only specific areas, but not all), slavery would continue in areas not defined. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? All slaves were freed and slavery was outlawed, but this amendment goes on to show that while anyplace within or the territories of the United States would be, “subject to their jurisdiction,” meaning the federal government.
  7. The Secret Service Division was created on July 5, 1865 in Washington, D.C., to suppress counterfeit currency. In 1867 Secret Service responsibilities were broadened to include “detecting persons perpetrating frauds against the government.” What was the crisis? Counterfeit and fraud. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, wide-sweeping counterfeit currency and other frauds against the government would produce anarchy and take the republic down. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? In addition to the Secret Service, later a police force was created for the ‘District’ under the Secret Service. It’s powers would later include, protection of presidential and vice presidential nominees, those serving in this capacity, their immediate families, protection of the above after their terms of service, protection of embassies, dignitaries (foreign and domestic), control of events featuring such dignitaries, and now ‘cyber’ or Internet crime among others. It is now part of Homeland Security.
  8. On June 13, 1866, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and it was ratified by the several states July 9th, 1868. What was the crisis? Citizenship and the enforcement of rights was the crisis. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, citizenship would be questionable and rights for all would not be secured.  What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? Citizens were no longer born or naturalized citizens of the state where they were born, but where they “reside.” The amendment makes all citizens of the several states, also citizens of the United States. From the 14th Amendment Section 1. – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” So this amendment makes all its citizens under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Section 2 allows voters of the several states to vote for the members of Congress to represent their state, their state representatives; for the Vice President and President; electors and it raises the age of voter eligibility to 21. But all voters are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” of the federal government and this amendment increases a person, persons, or party’s potential control, by increasing the availability of votes received in an election.
  9. Amendment 15 was passed by Congress February 26, 1869 and ratified by the several states, February 3, 1870, giving power to vote to all races and color regardless of previous servitude. What was the crisis? Former freed slaves were denied the right to vote. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, citizenship would be questionable and rights for all would not be secured. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? This amendment following the 14th amendment, the 15th made all races and colors of people citizens of the state where they “reside” and citizens of the United States, but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
  10. To supposedly consolidate the area in and around Washington, D.C., Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, creating a constitutional government “not inconsistent with” the U.S. Constitution and making this a corporate municipal government giving Congress “exclusive” control over it. It is set up as a republic. It does have a constitution. Its physical boundaries are confined to 10 square miles. What was the crisis? Overlapping areas in around Washington had no consistent government. The other crisis was the reconstruction of the country from the Civil War. Money was needed to re-build the North and the South. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, the city of Washington would be in disarray and there would not be enough money to rebuild the union. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? Congress by presidential order in 1861 to which Congress complied, became under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. The Conscription Act of 1863 took jurisdiction over the states making them “district” states and the Judiciary was under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. The 14th Amendment made all citizens of the state where they reside, also citizens of the United States and the jurisdiction of all citizens resides with the federal government.  The 15th Amendment made all races and colors subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. The Organic Act of 1871 made all “districts” and all citizens under the jurisdiction of ‘The District” also incorporated. This gave the government “exclusive” power to enter into contract with any and all investors, banks etc. both foreign and domestic to borrow money for reconstruction or any future need.
  11. Amendment 16, passed by Congress July 2, 1909 and supposedly ratified by a sufficient number of states February 3, 1913, allowed the government to collect taxes “…from whatever source derived…” What was the crisis? Insufficient money to run the government and secure the rights of the people. By 1914, just a year after ratification, the entire planet would be effected by WWW I. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, it would run out of money and the security of the nation would be in jeopardy. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? This amendment gave “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
  12. Amendment 17 was passed by Congress May 13, 1912 and ratified April 8, 1913. It modified Article I, section 3, of the Constitution in that the people were allowed to elect senators from their state and for the governor to appoint senators temporally when vacancies occurred, provided such appointments were approved by their state legislatures. What was the crisis? The people did not always approve of the appointment of senators by their state Legislatures. What was the reaction? Unless this amendment was ratified, the people did not believe they were properly being represented. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? Though elected by popular vote, elections could still be decided by a certain numbers of ‘electors.’ The governor with approval of the state Legislature could still fill vacancies with those not necessarily the choice of the people. Congress would still have the power to accept or deny the appointments.
  13. Amendment 18 was passed by Congress December 18, 1917 and ratified January 16, 1919.  From Section 1, the amendment made the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes…” illegal.  What was the crisis? Mobs and gangsters were controlling much of the liquor trade. What was the reaction? Unless the government stepped in to control the corruption, the country would be overrun by the ‘Mob’ and rival gangs. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? The government took control of not the mobs and gangs, but a legitimate industry. Although this amendment made it difficult for the mobs and gangs to operate, it had the opposite effect in that it influenced the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. Many turned to homegrown ‘stills.’ These were prevalent in the hills of Arkansas and difficult to find. Many not detected during prohibition were abandoned after prohibition (see. Amendment 21 for the appeal of Amendment 18). But many of these stills were re-used many years later for the production of methamphetamine (Meth) and at one point; Arkansas was the largest producer of this illegal drug in the entire country.
  14. The 19th Amendment passed by Congress June 4th, 1919 and ratified by the several states August 18th, 1920 allowed all sexes the rights of all citizens including the right to vote. What was the crisis? Women were becoming organized and protested inequality. What was the reaction? Unless the government acted, it would run the risk of alienating women and making a mockery of “created equal” and “WE the People” clauses from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? With the government giving equal citizenship and the power to vote to all sexes, following the 14 Amendment, all sexes are subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” and this also would increase the numbers of votes cast in an election to potentially secure the power of a person, persons or a party’s control.

Time is insufficient to write of many other such events, laws and amendments. But research for you, the crisis, reaction and synthesis (government solution) of almost any law, any agency, any amendment and essentially, anything the government does.Ÿ

  • Stock market crash in 1929
  • FDIC – Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 1933
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission 1934
  • Presidential, Executive Order 6102 made all privately held gold of American citizens, property of the US Treasury.
  • Gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until President Ford rescinded the order in 1974. Even so, the silver and gold standard of the Constitution has never been restored and the money has been replaced with ‘Federal Reserve Notes.’
  • Social Security – What was the crisis, the reaction and the synthesis? What did the government seize or have access to?
  • December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor in Hawaii was attacked
  • Monday, November 9, 1942 the case that challenged the Commerce Clause, was decided in favor of the government and has ever since favored the government.
  • February 19, 1942 – Executive Order 9066, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed authorized military commanders to designate “military areas” at their discretion, “from which any or all persons may be excluded.” These “exclusion zones,” unlike the “alien enemy” roundups, were applicable to anyone that an authorized military commander might choose, whether citizen or non-citizen. Eventually such zones would include parts of both the East and West Coasts, totaling about 1/3 of the country by area. Unlike the subsequent detainment and internment programs that would come to be applied to large numbers of Japanese Americans, detentions and restrictions directly under this Individual Exclusion Program were placed primarily on individuals of German or Italian ancestry, including American citizens.
  • Withholding Taxes were introduced in1943
  • Origins of: CIA, FBI, ATF, IRS, ERA, FDA, FAA and many other federal agencies. What was the crisis, the reaction and the synthesis (solution by government) – what did they seize. Note: all the agencies have their own swat-team-like police force.
  • Manhattan Engineer District (MED). MED refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. Secret installations all under the jurisdiction or control of the Federal Government, sprung up all over the country to test and to produce the atomic bomb which was dropped on Japan at the order of President Truman, the next president after FDR. The veil of secrecy began to hide funding, to answer questions with plausible deniability and rationalize its intents and purposes under the phrase of, ‘National Security.’ National Security tends to cover any and all actions the government decides to hide from the people.
  • Amendment 26 passed Congress March 23, 1971 and was ratified July 1, 1971 by the several states. This amendment lowered the age of citizenship and the power to vote from 21 (Amendment 14 Section 2 U.S. Constitution) to 18 years of age. What was the crisis? Insufficient numbers in the military existed to support a potentially long and drawn-out military action in Vietnam and the rights of the people in Vietnam would be in question. What was the reaction? The national draft had been reinstated even though it technically has remained in force since the Conscription Act of 1863 (ages 20 – 45). What we refer to as the Vietnam War was never technically a war, but a ‘police action.’ Unless the government acted, it would run the risk of alienating the eighteen year olds. If the draft age was lowered and one was to risk their life in service in the military at age 18, they should be entitled to vote and have equal protection under the law. What was the synthesis or solution by the government, what was seized? The draft age was lowered and the voting age afforded them equal protection under the law. But following the 14th Amendment, all 18 year olds and above are subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” This amendment also allowed greater potential control of a person, persons or party by increasing the number of potential votes cast in an election. It also decreased the numbers of people protected as juveniles. Please note: All military in essence, supposedly surrender their constitutional rights, except the right to vote. Their justice is administered by military justice. Jurisdiction resides with chain of command and ultimately the Commander and Chief, the President of the United States.

It is more than abundantly clear that the Hegelian dialectic has been used in making decisions for US by the government. It is more than abundantly clear that what government seizes or takes control of, it does not forfeit, even after the crisis has ended. Instead, laws and control are modified and expanded. The beast must eat. Quite often exceptions supersede and overtake the rules. No matter what, the beast must eat, continue to eat and eat at any and all costs.

Whether these decisions were made or are made as a conspiracy or not, does not matter. The consequences are still the same. It is more than abundantly clear that this is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” It is more than abundantly clear that it is a mindset, deliberate and continual. This mindset; this “system” is just one error not detected and not corrected, built upon one after another, for well over a hundred years. The beast must eat. The only solution is to no longer feed it and allow it to die!

Next Time: What If USA & C.F.A.?

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 – What If – USA & C.F.A.?
Previous Post – Mind Control
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

Mind Control

March 12, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/12/10

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: Mind Control

Mind Control? OH my, is this about drugs or some group manipulating OUR thoughts? Rest assured, neither of those ‘extreme’ measures are the purpose of this post. But every voluntary action taken is preceded by thought. If the thought or thoughts are askew, the actions taken will produce consequences. Like garbage in = garbage out. It does not matter if this manipulation is intentional or errors left undetected and uncorrected, the outcome will still end with consequences.

Last time, WE saw that WE the People are precariously in the middle of two different, but similar forces. From one hand, without realizing that it is OUR differences that keep US divided, it is as if WE had taken some blue mindset altering or maintenance pill. From the other hand, without realizing that it is a corrupt “system” that always seeks power and control, it is as if, WE had taken some red mindset altering or maintenance pill. The all pervading effects of each, act as if WE had taken both the blue and the red pill. This mix of colors makes purple. The effects of which, keep US in a Purple Haze, where WE hardly recognize ourselves or OUR republic anymore. But WE have a choice. WE have the power to end this confusion and mindset and restore OUR republic, OUR balance and OUR control over the security of OUR unalienable rights and those of OUR posterity.

Have WE ever heard or read something similar to the following?

WE have looked into the face of OUR enemy and it is US.

-unknown-

or

“…WE are OUR own worst enemy…”

-Louis Binstock-

In OUR failure to recognize what divides US, or the corrupt “system” that always seeks power and control over US, WE by default, allow both to continue. Have WE ever heard or read “knowledge is power?” This is only true in that this power, is only potential power. If WE the people, being informed; empowered by this knowledge do not act upon this knowledge, WE by default, allow the division and the corrupt “system” to continue.

In a previous post WE were introduced to the Hegelian Dialectic. See:

Convening a Constitutional Congress

Hegel is known for the theorem:

‘Thesis, antithesis and synthesis.’

Another way to see this is:

Problem – Reaction –  Solution

And yet another is:

Crisis – Fear – Rescue (but ends with a loss of Liberty)

This theorem may be simply known as, the ‘Hegelian dialectic.’

“…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'”

-Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his book, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ (1959, page 144)-

In 1847, the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel’s theory (Hegelian dialectic) to back up their economic theory of communism. In the 21st century, this thinking affects our entire social and political structure. This theory is a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to a predetermined solution. Simply seen:

Have a crisis, produce a crisis or make US think WE have a crisis + the government comes to the rescue = solution.

“The State is the march of God through the World, its ground is the power of reason realizing itself as will.”

-From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1929), pp. 443-444, 447.-

Intentionally or not, if WE the People do not recognize how the Hegelian dialectic drives OUR country, OUR republic and OUR lives, WE by default, allow this “system” to continue.

Hegel’s theorem as applied in OUR country is based on the thesis – the state (OUR government) encounters some conflict, some crisis. The antithesis is the reaction of fear that unless  – the state (OUR government) can solve the crisis, there will be consequences. The synthesis is that if WE the People encountering the crisis and react with fear to it, WE exercise OUR freedom of will to the state (OUR government) to relive US of OUR fears. In so doing, each time the state attempts to solve the crisis, WE the People relinquish more and more of OUR control to it.

As per this theorem, all conflicts of interest are controlled within the state. And remember, according to Hegel, the “state is God’s march through the world.”  Let’s look at an example of Hegelian dialectic in a situation most of US are all too familiar with.

There is a campaign in progress. WE the People are pretty close on the issues. There are two candidates and WE are equally divided on the candidate WE think has the best qualifications. For whatever reasons, let’s say candidate A. is quite certain they cannot win strictly on the issues alone. So candidate A. digs up dirt on candidate B. Candidate B. responds in kind and releases dirt on candidate A. The worse the dirt is and the scarier either candidate appears to US, the further away from each other WE become. In the political spectrum, WE call these positions either ‘far-left’ or ‘far-right.’  In the final outcome, candidate A. wins the election in numbers of votes, not cast for their position on the issues, but by votes cast against the other candidate and that their candidacy would save US from the other. So the process ends by all OUR votes merging as a single entity.

The debate is framed and controlled by candidate A. that wins the election not on the issues, but by convincing both sides that voting for their candidacy would avert the crisis (perceived or real) that candidate B. would cause if elected. WE call these ‘smear campaigns’ and have seen this type of behavior, time and time again. What is the common reaction heard to this? Oh, “it’s just politics,” is commonly something WE hear. WE complain about it, dismiss it, but it does not seem to go away, why? Why, because it is allowed to continue.

Another example of Hegelian dialectic would be, using the same election, is to get some to consider wild accusations and think, maybe they’re true. On the other side, if you can get people to not care because of the negative campaign, they become less likely to vote for candidate B. and not vote at all, which helps candidate A. They are also, more likely to vote for candidate A. if they are promised something they care about; not offered by candidate B. Look at this purely from the standpoint of finances.

Candidate A. has lots of money to spend and candidate B. does not. Candidate A. becomes a ‘darling’ to business and the media, now benefiting from the infusion of cash. Question: Are you more or less likely to favor candidate A. if you are being paid to cover their campaign? People siding with Candidate B. might perceive this as Candidate A. ‘trying to buy the election.’ But their reaction to this could very easily be manipulated by the fear of loss. They do not want to vote for a loser and vote for candidate A. perceived as a winner. With more money to spend than candidate B., candidate A. can spend more money on making promises, specifically to those that don’t care. Even apathy is fear.

In all the examples above, a crisis is perceived and instead of reason applied to voting, fear is the factor and the election is won by candidate A. not on the issues, but by being perceived as the only solution to the crisis. Now take all the same examples and apply the Hegelian dialectic, to the dominating two-party political “system” in OUR country.

Look at every advertisement; every marketing strategy, for nearly every single product or service sold through every vehicle possible. Look at them with new eyes. Are most of these not directed at some fear and the desire to not have the fear and then those offering the product or service come to the rescue as the only solution?

Now it’s one thing for a writer of fiction to develop plots involving heroes and villains; heroines and villainesses and lead the reader to a preconceived conclusion, but this is real life WE are discussing here.

This next image might be somewhat familiar to most of US, but also strangely unfamiliar at the same time. Four wise monkeys, but I thought there were only three?

Iwazaru                  Mizaru                Kikazaru             Shizaru

Speak no evil  –   See no evil  –   Hear no evil  –   Do no evil

The three wise monkeys (Japanese: san’en or sanzaru, or sanbiki no saru, literally “three monkeys”) are a pictorial maxim (saying). Together they express the idea to: “Speak no evil, see no evil and to hear no evil.” But quite often there is a fourth monkey, usually not seen in western culture. Shizaru, symbolizes the principle of “do no evil“. This monkey may be shown covering its abdomen or genital area, or crossing its arms.

Note: Both chimpanzees and monkeys are primates, though monkeys are less closely related to people. The main obvious difference between the two is that monkeys have tails and chimps do not. Monkeys  are structurally closer to four-legged animals like cats and dogs, while chimpanzees and other apes are more similar to human beings, both structurally and in terms of their level of intelligence and behavior. Sorry if I offended any monkeys, chimpanzees or apes. I liked the picture of the chimps better than others found with monkeys. But the story, the pictorial maxim (saying) is about monkeys.    🙂

Perhaps the comparison to monkeys and OUR lives is a little simplistic, but still a great way to live. But what if there is uncertainty or confusion over what is evil that WE should not speak, see, hear or do?

Thomas Jefferson was very keen on education so that OUR decisions are ruled by reason and not by fear. A 1700’s solution is still appropriate for today.

“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-

The same four little monkeys (chimps) above, could they not be manipulated by fear to not speak, see, hear or do that which is right? And could these same four little monkeys (chimps) be manipulated to speak of darkness and call it light; see evil and perceive it as goodness; hear evil and internalize it as righteousness, and do that which is wrong and rationalize it as right and justified?

Does this smack of conspiracy or smell like Orwellian fiction coming true?

“The adjective “Orwellian” describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the “unperson” — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments”

-Quote from: Wikipedia-

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

From the book, ‘The ideological origins of the American Revolution,’ by Bernard Bailyn the following is found.

-from: ‘The ideological origins of the American Revolution’- Bernard Bailyn, page 120-

Here is the father of OUR country in 1774, using the word “systematic,” the root being, “system.” Did he believe in or was he suggesting some conspiracy theory?

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

-Thomas Jefferson-

Here again, Jefferson uses the word “systematic” and the root of course, again, is “system.” Did he believe in or was he suggesting a conspiracy theory? “Conspiracy,” “deliberate” and “systematic” words aside, is not a reconciliation of the above quotes by Washington and Jefferson possible?  Did either have access to any such written conspiracy? It matters not if there was such a plan existing, actions taken were still “systematic” and “deliberate.” Errors that occurred in the past, neither detected nor corrected and therefore continuing in the present is still a “system,” a mindset. Yes, it is a “system.” Yes, it is a mindset allowed to continue, by failing first to detect it and then failing to correct it.

“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”

-George Washington-

To take, hold and keep power is seductive. With power comes what I call the “trappings of power.” It is like the flame that draws the moth or a baited ‘trap.’ Fear of loss of power often brings the reaction of fire, the claws of a predator or the venom in the fangs of a snake. It will defend itself. It will justify itself. It will always seize more power, if left to its own devices.

In our present-day, it is illegal for you and me to have a poker game, to play for money, in the privacy of OUR own homes. But it’s OK if the state sanctions it as lotto or racetracks etc. because it is all for some good cause? It’s OK to go to Las Vegas, visit a casino or if you take risks at the stock market on Wall Street? Extortion is illegal, but high interest like what a ‘loan shark’ might ‘shake down’ people for, is perfectly legal for a bank to charge? Bribery – the offering and  acceptance of a bribe are illegal, but lobbying and accepting campaign contributions is not only legal, but perfectly acceptable? Perjury or lying under oath is a crime, but little ‘white lies,’ ‘spin,’ and depending on “what is, is,” is OK?

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

-George Washington-

Conspiracies and conspiracy theories, what do they do; what do they accomplish, even if true? There have been many such theories in our lifetimes of the 20th Century and even today. Was it known by OUR government in advance, of  the attack on Pearl Harbor December 7th, 1942? What about the JFK conspiracies and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Another theory suggests that no one has ever landed on the moon? Then there is the theory that our own government planned the attack on the ‘Twin Towers,’ September 11th, 2001? There is the New World Order Conspiracy? The list goes on and on. There are two things for certain that all these theories do, whether or not they are true. These conspiracy theories promote fear and influence the casting of blame. What good does fear do or what does blaming others accomplish? Intentional or not, fear and blame are still the by-products of a corrupt “system;” a mindset of that’s the way it is; that’s the way it is done. Do WE not see that this is a corrupt “system;” a mindset?

Question everything and everyone with boldness said Jefferson. WE must research and re-search OUR research again. Then WE must research and re-search until WE are sufficiently educated and well informed. Then WE will see how every time in OUR history that some of OUR liberty has been taken, it is always preceded by some real or perceived crisis. Then the government has been perceived as the only entity to solve OUR problems and allay OUR fears. The price for this service is to charge US dearly for the privilege of taking OUR liberty and to keep US dependent! None have such a right to take what can neither be taken nor forfeited!

For OUR purposes here, it does not matter if this all were some purposed Grand Scheme, an intentional conspiracy with a real person, persons, party or international consortium to blame. It does not matter that it is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system,” that has evolved from errors in the past that have not been detected and therefore, have never been corrected. Why does neither of these matter? Because the consequences would still be the same and they are the same! The beginning was still in 1861! The solution is still in OUR hands!

Next time WE will go through some (not all), of the events since 1861, from the perspective of crises and how laws and even amendments to OUR Constitution ended with more and more of OUR liberty being seized. Am I suggesting the Hegelian dialectic is present in OUR republic? Yes!

Next Time: The Beast Must Eat

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 – The Beast Must Eat
Previous Post – Purple Haze
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction