Posts Tagged ‘Sovereign Rights’

Happily Ever After Constitution Day!

September 17, 2017

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

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

Happily Ever After Birthday Constitution!

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

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

How Much Further?

Happy Birthday!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

 

 

 

Advertisements

A More Perfect Union

May 31, 2017

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

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

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

 

1 0f WE,

 

 

 

 

 

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

WE the People

May 31, 2017

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

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

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

“WE hold these truths…”

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

&

“WE the People…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happily Ever After Birthday Constitution— Love, WE the People

 

For Instruction on how to bake this cake, see:

Gesine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For her recipe and how to make Our cake see:

G BAKES
“Get A Rise Out of Baking”

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

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

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

 

1 of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

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

Ambling the Preamble

May 31, 2017

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

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

 

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

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

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

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

Out of many WE the People are!

 

1 of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

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

Next time: ‘We the People’

“Nature’s God”

May 15, 2017

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

by Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us examine the writer, Thomas Jefferson.

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

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

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

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

I Corinthians 10:32 KJV

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 1:18-20 KJV

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

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

Romans 1:1-8, 13-25 KJV

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 19:1 KJV

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

There is one problem with this concept, Biblically.

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

Matthew 16:13-20 KJV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our rights do not come from God?

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

Our Equality and Our Rights come from God!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 of WE,

 

Unalienable or Inalienable

April 19, 2017

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

by Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

I of WE,

 

 

 

 

 

“UN-alien” or “Inalienable”

 

 

The Inaugural

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

The Inaugural

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

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

 

 

 

inaugural2

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

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

inaugural4

 

Class Action Lawsuit

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

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

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

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

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

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

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

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

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

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

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

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

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                              

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

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

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                                      

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

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

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

ClassAction3

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

Dahni

The Secret of WE

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

 

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

EqualLibertyUnequal

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

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

Equality = Liberty = Inequality

How is this equal? First, equality:

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

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

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

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

Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EqualLibertyUnequal2

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

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

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

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

EqualLibertyUnequal3

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

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

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

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

Equality=Liberty=Inequality.

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

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

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

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

 

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

Good Afternoon USA What are WE having for Dinner?

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

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

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

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

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

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

George Carlin

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

WhatRWE

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

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

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

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

Another current comedian thinks of US as more like:

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

WhatRWE2

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

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

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

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence, 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider the following that predates either of these two beliefs.

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

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

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

It’s like a salad!

WhatRWE3

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

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

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

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

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

Margaret Thatcher

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what are WE having for dinner? 🙂

 

1 of WE,

Dahni