THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT: ABSOLUTE RIGHTS AND CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

 

In a recent article Titled; "BY DEFINITION: GUN CONTROL, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT," I began an analysis of the Meaning contained in the TERMINOLOGY used in the 2ND AMENDMENT. To complement that line of reasoning, I have decided to use this post to look at other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and see if that can aid us in properly interpreting the true meaning contained in the 2nd Amendment. 

To do this, we must understand the following: THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED AND DRAFTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND INTERPRETED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRECEDENT.

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS- RIGHTS THAT CAN NEVER BE LOST OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE. (ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY.) ALSO, THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

For Example:

   Amendment VI- INCLUDES SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

  "All criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    

CONTINGENT RIGHTS- RIGHTS EXTENDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE LIMITATION OR TERMINATION DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS AND/OR INTENT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OR SPECIFIC EVENTS. 

    For Example:                                                                                                                        

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

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

FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR...AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHEN DISCUSSING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

THAT EVEN IF YOU HOLD TO THE OPINION THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO OWN OR POSSESS A GUN OR FIREARM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE CAN NOT SET GUIDELINES OR RULES TO:

-  RESTRICT THE FIREPOWER OR DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF EACH FIREARM.

-  SET A MINIMAL STANDARD OF INTELLECTUAL AND/OR

MENTAL COMPETENCE OF THOSE OBTAINING SUCH A WEAPON.

-  MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF MORAL CHARACTER (CRIMINAL) OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT UNRESTRICTED SPEECH AND UNINHIBITED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS AND SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, CAN CAUSE SUCH DESTRUCTION THAT IT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WHOLE SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. THIS IS WHY EVEN OUR MOST REVERED "RIGHTS" MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE.

SO, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SUBJECT EVERY AMERICAN TO A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE "RIGHTS" OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE "RIGHT"  TO POSSESS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON WITH AN AMMO CLIP THAT COULD KILL SCORES OF PEOPLE IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES?

To find a reasonable solution or compromise,

we must ask the following questions.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-   Have Previous Judicial Decisions and Legislative Actions set

 PRECEDENTS as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE and COVERED BY THE

"BILL OF RIGHTS" SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

WHAT MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO FORGET IS THE FOLLOWING:

YES, IT SEEKS TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, BUT IT ALSO...

...CREATES GUIDELINES THAT THOSE SAME CITIZENS DO NOT USE

THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" TO ABUSE AND HARM OTHER CITIZENS WITH

UNREASONABLE, MALICIOUS, AND UNJUSTIFIED WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Question #3- CAN ANY PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE 2ND

AMENDMENT BE...

-   ...UNACHIEVABLE, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  ...AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  ...A PUNISHMENT ON HONEST GUN OWNERS, INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

You can help support a life-saving bill. SANDY HOOK PROMISE.

 

David,   Accidental shootings are preventable. Yet every day, it seems like there’s a new story of a family devastated by an accidental shooting or suicide. Kids shouldn’t be able to access dangerous weapons or medications – but in reality, they often do.  The Kid PROOF Act can help stop these heartbreaking tragedies. This recently introduced bill can prevent kids from accessing dangerous items they shouldn’t have. Will you take action? Urge Congress to help prevent accidental child shootings and injury.  The Kid PROOF Act will reduce accidental deaths, including suicide and overdose, in young people. It makes sure more people can have access to lethal means safety supplies, such as a safe or lockbox. The bill supports grants, so children’s health providers can help families store lethal means at no cost to them.  This bill can save lives, and your legislator has the power to help pass it into law. No family deserves to endure the heartbreak of a totally preventable death at home. Storing medication and firearms securely can stop a tragedy in its tracks. Please, take action and urge your legislator to support the Kid PROOF Act in Congress.     Take Action Thank you for being a champion to protect our Nation's precious children and families.   Natalie Tietjen  Senior Manager, Federal Policy

CBS NEWS: Trump's businesses got at least $7.8 million in foreign payments while he was president, House Democrats say.

By Kathryn Watson, Stefan Becket

Washington — Donald Trump's businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from foreign governments and government-backed entities from 20 countries while he was in the White House, according to a new report by House Democrats.

Drawing upon 451 pages of documents received from Trump's longtime accounting firm Mazars and a federal agency, Democratic staffers on the House Oversight Committee on Thursday issued their 156-page report entitled "White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump." 

The records, the report said, "demonstrate that four Trump-owned properties together collected, at the least, millions of dollars in payments from foreign governments and officials." The Democrats alleged these payments violated what's known as the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or other benefits from foreign countries without congressional approval.

"This report sets forth the records showing foreign government money — and all the spoils from royals we can find — pouring into hotels and buildings that the President continued to own during his presidency, all in direct violation of the Constitutional prohibition," said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.

The Democrats noted that they had access to a limited number of financial documents and that "the foreign payments to President Trump identified in this report are likely only a small fraction of the total amount of such payments he received during his presidency." 

Where the payments came from

The Democratic report focuses on payments to four Trump-controlled businesses: the Trump hotels in Washington, Las Vegas and New York, and Trump Tower in Manhattan. 

While Trump turned over day-to-day operations of his businesses to his sons when he entered the White House in 2017, he declined to divest his assets and retained "personal ownership and control of all his businesses, as well as the ability to draw funds from them without any outside disclosure," the report alleged. This arrangement, Democrats said, "reinforced (rather than severed) his ties to his businesses and enabled him to prioritize his personal interests over those of the nation."

During his presidency, the Trump International Hotel in Washington attracted many foreign diplomats and dignitaries hoping to mingle with Trump allies and administration officials. According to Trump's financial disclosure reports from when he was president, he earned more than $40 million from the D.C. hotel in 2017, and $40.8 million the following year.

Despite Trump's frequent criticism of China and insistence that the country was taking advantage of the U.S., the majority of foreign payments included in Thursday's report came from the Chinese government and two state-owned entities.  

The payments totaled nearly $5.6 million at properties including Trump Tower, and the Trump International Hotels in Washington and Las Vegas, the report found. The bulk of the payments came from the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which paid $5.35 million in rent for space in Trump Tower from February 2017 to October 2019.

The nation that spent the second-most at the Trump properties, according to the report, was Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government spent more than $615,000 at Trump World Tower in New York and the Trump hotel in Washington from 2017 to 2020.

The report noted that Trump praised Saudi Arabia and mentioned "his transactional relationships" with the kingdom before taking office. During an August 21, 2015, rally in Alabama, Trump said Saudi nationals had spent millions of dollars on his apartments. 

"Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," he said. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!" 

The report said that Trump "oversaw several highly consequential decisions on a range of issues involving U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia" while his businesses were receiving payments from the Saudi government. The Democrats noted Trump's response to the 2018 death of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamaal Khashoggi, in which he publicly doubted the conclusion of the intelligence community that the Saudi crown prince had ordered his killing. 

Qatar follows Saudi Arabia's spending, with $465,744 spent at Trump World Tower. Nearly all of the remaining payments, from countries including Kuwait, India, Malaysia, Afghanistan, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates, occurred at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

The fight over emoluments

Trump's business dealings as president were the subject of three major court cases while he was in office, the first of which was filed in 2017. The cases, brought by Democratic lawmakers, several states and an oversight group, were the first legal battles over the Emoluments Clause, but failed to resolve questions about the definition of an "emolument" or the scope of constitutional provision. The Supreme Court dismissed two of them once Trump left office and declined to review the third.

The Trump campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the new report. Trump dismissed the "phony Emoluments Clause" and concerns about his business dealings in 2019.

The Trump Organization has said it voluntarily donated proceeds from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury every year from 2018 to 2021. In 2017, the Trump Organization said it would rely on foreign representatives to self-report if they were paying a Trump company for something in their official capacity. 

The company said it donated $191,538 in foreign payments in 2019, $105,465 in 2020 and $10,577 in 2021.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE MESSIAH CHRONICLES: BREAKING DOWN THE MUELLER REPORT: FOR ANSWERS, LOOK IN THE RIGHT PLACES.

            SMITHSONIANMAG.COM                                                       CBSNEWS.COM

PICTURES FROM THE JAN, 6, 2021 ATTACK ON THE WHITE HOUSE. HERE IS A SAMPLE

OF THE "AMERICANS" THAT TRUMP AND THE RUSS-PUBLICAN PARTY COUNT ON TO 

KEEP THEM IN POWER.

BLAST FROM THE PAST.

HERE IS PART OF THE STORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION,

THE YEAR THE U.S. PLACED AN INCOMPETENT DEMAGOGUE

IN THE WHITE HOUSE. IT IS ALSO THE STORY OF A RIGGED ELECTION

THAT WAS ALLOWED TO STAND, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS DIRECT

EVIDENCE OF BOGUS RETURNS IN A NUMBER OF STATES.

Any words that are colored RED represent portions
of the Transcript that were BLACKED-OUT, 
AND COULD NOT BE READ. WORDS LIKE
"INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE" ARE NOT
MY CREATION, BUT WERE PLACED OVER
BLACKED-OUT AREAS)

As you go through the MUELLER REPORT, there is one very important detail that must be acknowledged: IT IS THE STORY OF TWO INVESTIGATIONS. Why do I say this? BECAUSE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN WERE NOT ARRIVED AT BY THE SAME PROCESS,WITH JUST ONE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING EACH EVENT, AND THE VALUE OF THE CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE.

WHAT DO I MEAN? CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS, TAKEN 
DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT. (IN ITALICS)

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. 

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations.

First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 

RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN. 
(HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE BODY OF THE TEXT.)

Internet Research Agency (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified by the investigation. A social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States.

- The IRA was based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and received funding from Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin and companies he controlled. Pri ozhin is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. HARM TO ONGOING MATTER.

- The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. 

- The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed "information warfare." 

 The IRA' s operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. 
-


Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released the stolen documents. 

RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATIONS. 
(HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE BODY OF THE TEXT.)

At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus ·on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations. In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign. 


In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees....the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks. 

The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks' s releases of documents and welcomed their Potential to damage candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, HARM TO ONGOING MATTER forecast to senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton. WikiLeaks' s first release came in July 2016. 



Now, the Investigation into the above 2 categories provided enough evidence to the committee that
made them confident in drawing definite conclusions, and in some cases, filing Criminal Charges. I will cover these in more depth at a later time, but there is one more category to cover. What you read below may seem to be a part of the RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATION...

...BUT THERE IS ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


EXCERPTS FROM THE BODY OF THE TEXT.

In addition to targeting individuals involved in the Clinton Campaign, GRU officers also targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections. Victims included U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. 186 The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.187 The GRU continued to target these victims through the elections in November 2016. While the investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the Office did not investigate further. The Office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity. 

By at least the summer of 2016, GRU officers sought access to state and local computer networks by exploiting known software vulnerabilities on websites of state and local governmental entities. GRU officers, for example, targeted state and local databases of registered voters using a technique known as "SQL injection," by which malicious code was sent to the state or local website in order to run commands (such as exfiltrating the database contents). 188 In one instance in approximately June 2016, the GRU compromised the computer network of the Illinois State Board of Elections by exploiting a vulnerability in the SBOE's website. The GRU then gained access to a database containing information on millions of registered Illinois voters, 189 and extracted data related to thousands of U.S. voters before the malicious activity was identified.

GRU officers INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE scanned state and local websites for vunerabilities. For example, over a two day period in july 2016, GRU OFFICERS INVESTIGATVE TECHNIQUE
for vulnerabilities on websites of two dozen states. INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE.

Unit 74455 also sent spearphishing emails to public officials involved in election
administration and personnel at companies involved in voting technology. In August 2016, GRU officers targeted employees of **** ,a voting technology company that developed software used by numerous U.S. counties to manage voter rolls, and installed malware on the company network. Similarly, in November 2016, the GRU sent spearphishing emails to over 120 email accounts used by Florida county officials responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. election. 191 The spearphishing emails contained an attached Word document coded with malicious software (commonly referred to as a Trojan) that permitted the GRU to access the infected computer.192 The FBI was separately responsible for this investigation. We understand the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government. The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so.



The Hacking operations that included the following:

- Individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections.

- U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well 
as individuals who worked for those entities.

- Private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such 
as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.

- Employees of **** ,a voting technology company that developed software used by numerous U.S. counties to manage voter rolls, and installed malware on the company network. 

- Florida county officials responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. election...


WERE NOT EVALUATED, IN TERMS OF THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE, BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL.


FROM THE TEXT:
While the investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the Office did not investigate further. The Office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity. 


The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WHILE THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE THAT THE GRU"TARGETED THESE INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES", NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION WAS DONE.

WHY?

"The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity."

"The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so."

Well this answers the question: "Who is exonerated by the Mueller Report?"
ANSWER: NO ONE. The Evaluation of the
most important information regarding fraud in 
the 2016 election was not part of their 
responsibility. They couldn't exonerate anyone
even if they wanted to. 

TO BE CONTINUED...