TIPPs For Life

Preserving the political legacy of Mr Michael Gorbachev, is the same as preserving world peace, human life and meaningful evolution on planet earth.

AT MY USIDHR GRADUATION SPEECH:

Diplomacy and International Respect

Authored and read by Mayasonette Lambkiss

1/20/2024

Episode #11 of the show SPACESUIT MADE OF FLESH

An Academic Voicecast Publication of

The Institute of Universal Human Rights - Hawaii

What is diplomacy? Diplomats are authorized and highly trained communication mediators in sensitive international and domestic affairs between individuals, organizations and government. Literally, anyone involved in public life in a state level, federal, or international arena will need to be skilled at strategic communication styles. Diplomats are professional relationship specialists using skills as advisors of political decision makers, writers and strategy creators of treaties, negotiators, and alliance builders. In a nutshell they face interhuman diversities and they are in the frontlines to negotiate and mediate potential misunderstandings, troubleshoot, remedy unfavorable conditions.

Diplomacy is firmly required to respect a diverse set of values and often categorically different from what the diplomat holds true for themselves. As the public face of international relationships, a prominent level of self-examination and self-control are vital qualities. Ethics and etiquettes of diplomatic protocols are taught and need learning to help bridge communication between radically diverse cultures and produce mutually beneficial results between nations, and on all levels of government. These high-level communication skills need time and relevant long-term exposure to acquire them, nobody is born with them.

The attitude of open mindedness and actualized diplomatic skills are not enough to combine collectivist and individualist cultures. The truth is that one without the other is catastrophically dysfunctional. In a healthy society everyone is using both philosophies, placing themselves on a scale between the extremes in a healthy zone. The more individualist you want to be the more you need to seek unusual opportunities but there is no need to do that at the expense of communitarianism. How can you stand out if there is no one around you who doesn't? How can you lead if none is following? Pay your taxes, don't commit a crime, and everyone will leave you alone. And if you can afford to be alone, you don't even have to work and compromise your uniqueness. My best friend always emphasizes how unique, eccentric, and unusual he is. It frightens him to realize everyone is just as unique, true to their own self, and an extraordinary person as he is, because it would make him the same as everyone else: special. We all need community, we depend on each other, and our shared natural resources, infrastructure, education, and greater variety of food than the pots can grow in the window. We need each other, but it should not interfere with our uniqueness, our hearts' concerns. Martin Luther King was courageous in fighting for his own individual equal rights, only we all do that in our own ways. But he was unique for doing that for the masses, he led his aching community. It is the tiny freedoms of his youthful formation as an individual that raised him as a leader. but without the community, he would have influenced nobody's life. Martin Luther King is an excellent example of how individualism enriches, even makes communal life fundamentally better. Without his soar as an individual, an entire community would have missed a revolution.

The Foundation for Economic Education published on July 2nd 2022, in their article: Individualism, a Deeply American Philosophy:

"It would take many decades before the laws recognized that women and blacks were just as equal as anyone else. However, with the overthrow of caste systems like slavery, Jim Crow, and the legal subjugation of women, America has come much closer to living up to its individualistic founding principles. And hopefully, this progress can serve as an inspiration for further steps toward the protection of individual rights in the future."

When you enter a college, or any kind of school, training, you are joining a community of students and applying etiquette to fit in. But you are learning in your own way, with your own individual goals in mind, and your unique interpretations form you into the individual that you will be on your graduation day. When you enter your dorm, you will be sharing facilities with your floor-mates, but you don't have to sell your aunt's house you inherited to join the college commune. It is called boundaries. Sects are extremes, something neither healthy citizens nor public life diplomats will be supportive of.

History and Government Expert Robert Longley wrote on June 29, 2020 in his article on Communitarianism in the Thought CO. online academic magazine:

"Developed in 1990 by Amitai Etzioni, responsive communitarianism seeks to strike a more carefully-crafted balance between individual rights and social responsibilities to the common good of the society than authoritarian communitarianism. In this manner, responsive communitarianism stresses that individual freedoms come with individual responsibilities and that neither should be neglected to accommodate the other.

The modern responsive communitarian doctrine holds that individual liberties can be preserved only through the protection of a civil society in which individuals respect and protect their rights as well as the rights of others. In general, responsive communitarians stress the need for individuals to develop and practice the skills of self-government while remaining willing to serve the common good of the society when needed."

In a healthy society individuals learn the basic norms of collective living and use boundaries as means to achieve comfort for everyone involved. On an international level it gets way more complicated. While all European countries living in an international community called the European Union have laws to regulate their economy, armed forces, police activities, businesses, academic institutional learning, sports, and tv-channels, the boundaries between the nations remain to stand and are essential for governmental control. Such control is there to protect and represent the locals' lifestyle, economy, safe living. But even though they separate nations for the sake of better control, and therefore better-quality interactions between nations, they are also determined to connect them by elements of basic human nature. Nations cannot exist in isolation either, or any that has ever tried woke up to a very dire realization of failing hard. Survival and business will still always be the major motivator for networking, but there is also curiosity, intrigue, a desire to be heard and seen, sharing cultural achievements.

By explaining the difference between liberals and conservatives, Jonathan Haidt in his TED-Ed, talk in 2013 compares the individualist liberals with the conservative communitarians on a scale of openness:

"It really is a fact, that liberals are much higher than conservatives on a major personality trait called 'openness to experience'. People who are higher on openness to experience just crave novelty, variety, diversity, new ideas, travel; people who are lower just like things that are familiar, safe and dependable."

In politics interactions are either to limit someone from overstepping, or to draw them in for increased economic benefits. The American society is incredible, because it sort of follows the rule of agreeing to disagree, or more aptly put, it has been established to build communities of individualists. Diplomats are authorized negotiators to mitigate international disagreements and avoid conflict, therefore they build a commune of individualists on an international level. Negotiations between members of society is an ongoing cultural activity, for there is a customized need for community and a customized need for individualism to make it all work together. Communities are not produced in cookie factory assembly lines. Communities are custom made, and that is their superpower.

Aloha

Thank you for listening to the SPACESUIT MADE OF FLESH human rights promoting voicecast from Hawaii, authored and read by Mayasonette Lambkiss

What is the Role of Government in Amercian Society?

Written and read by Mayasonette Lambkiss

for the podcast show of

The Institute of Universal Human Rights - Hawaii

SPACESUIT MADE OF FLESH

1/18/2024

The role of government in American society is a matter of balance between what the members of society expect the government to do, and what they do not want the government to have the right to do.

First, we need to distinguish between federal, state, and local governments.

As citizens we established, we have rights and responsibilities towards our society. We all have the unalienable right to life, but we have the responsibility to register our identity with the DMV. We all have the same legal human rights, but different individuals will understand, interpret, and consent differently. Degrees of compliance will result in different behaviors, and often interfere with other people's rights, may even violate them as such. It is the government's job to regulate the different individual's behavior and distinguish acceptable from not acceptable behavior. It is also the government's job to balance individual freedom with the common good and public welfare and take this exact same context to the level of organizations, business entities, communities. It is the government's job to face and manage challenges that stand in the way of safe and healthy living of people, like environmental, economic, national safety challenges.

While a capitalist free market economy and the society created by it does not leave a ceiling on wealth creation and revenue access to preserve freedom, redistribution of wealth and revenue must be regulated to protect the exact same freedom. It is the job of the government to balance the scales of redistribution with equal access. By equal access we mean to find ways to create opportunities like education for the disadvantaged individuals to elevate their predisposition, benefits like welfare to see them through tough times, and resources like taking a hike in your favorite national park, use of libraries and facilities, microloans for business startups. But it is not the Government's job to decide if someone is too rich, take their wealth and redistribute money to the poor people.

It is the government's job to educate its citizens about their rights and responsibilities, the functions of democracy and republic and how they work together and protect their rights and democratic voice within that society. It is also the responsibility of the government to keep its citizens informed of formal democratic process participation opportunities like voting dates. It is the government's purpose to apply the democratic, administrative, and legal decisions the collective has made to daily life. Therefore, the government is a secondary decision maker and manager of the running of life of society. The government is created to regulate society and not to interfere in the life of the individual if the citizen has not violated any laws. The same principle applies to organizational and business entities as incorporated members of society.

Having all that said, the "If the right to live and be free is natural, then the government are doing wrong when they are protecting your rights, and doing wrong when they violate your rights. As much possible then, the government should create rights that are compatible with and don't contradict your natural rights." (Prof. Aeon Skolbe, Bridgewater University, Libertarianism Explained: What Are Rights? Learn Liberty, YouTube, 2011 (3:46). Consequently, reasoning can lead us to understand the above statement, that the government can only do right by controlling as little as possible.

Civic rights and responsibilities are two arms of the same scale and in a healthy society they are on an equal level. If a citizen's rights are disregarded, unrecognized, or violated, his ability to contribute his responsibilities will suffer, simply will be disabled from offering his best to others. Therefore, I consider recognizing and respecting everyone's rights is the very foundation for expectations. Having unalienable rights, contractual rights, civic rights, moral rights are just a form of enabling each other for full participation in communal life. Pain and suffering of others is unconscionable discomfort, but it is also economically imprudent. It is also unwise to redistribute wealth without transforming monetary access into transformational resources, opportunities, benefits. Handing out money makes for very temporary band aids. By assessing and understanding the wider context of pain and suffering, especially if it is a collective phenomenon, it can lead us to insights into how solutions can help address problems. "It is easy to romanticize poverty, to see poor people as inherently lacking agency and will. It is easy to strip them of human dignity, to reduce them to objects of pity. This has never been clearer than in the view of Africa from the American media, in which we are shown poverty and conflicts without any context." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, said it in her TED talk titled “The danger of a single story” in 2009. Who was also quoted by the Global Citizen after gaining her chieftaincy in Nigeria as a writer. Chimamanda here talks about the objectification of poverty as the result of contextual ignorance. It means relatability to what we observe increases by exploring the context. When we realize the solution is always as simple as the restoration of human dignity, we realize it is a cycle that can be remedied by contextual compassion. The basis for the emotion of compassion is relatability, and here we learn that relatability increases by more intimate knowledge of the context. Sociologists in any society therefore have a key role in solving the problems of redistribution by analysis the disadvantageous context for poverty and using that information to create access to the most useful benefits, resources, opportunities.

It is the government's job to then define the rights and responsibilities of citizens and systemize the coordination of both. Civic rights will be defined by the government based on universal human rights and decide the limitations of contructual rights. It is the government's job to collect on its citizen's responsibilities, whether it is monetary, service, or information, or democratic participation. The government is a power system that if functions and navigated correctly empowers its citizens, after all as in a healthy democracy, the power belongs to the People.

Aloha

Mayasonette

The Significance of Democratic Participation

Written and Read by Mayasonette Lambkiss

as Episode 8 of SPACESUIT MADE OF FLESH

on 1/13/2024

Radio On Demand of The Institute of Universal Human Rights - Hawaii

For today's topic of democratic participation an old saying comes to mind recorded somewhere in the universe: 'Those who live together, eat together, and those who work together, sing together'. I chose this very popular hula song 'Over the Rainbow' to introduce my show today followed by Polynesian rhythms because hula are cultural community events where most local civic involvement takes place. Just as music is a natural expression of every culture, the same way the characteristics of their community participation, leadership style, sense of democracy will be different, yet remarkably just as beautiful in every culture. Just as every voice has a harmonious part to sing, every instrument knows when to join into the play, and each dancer naturally moves in harmony, so is a healthy community, a healthy democratic participation in public life. Not effortless is performing arts, and it is live, so won't be flawless, but it exudes love and beauty into the life of those participating or witnessing. When will our shared lives on local and international level be as harmonious as our artistic expressions?

The local civic participation in Hawaii where I live is controversial with varying intensity from decade to decade. The Big Island Sovereign movement never ceased, but slows down from time to time, but every so subtly and powerfully present. The Anthem of Hawaii an almost all national songs are rather unwelcoming of the foreigners even today, promoting loyalty to the chief who protects its people with spears. Will not enter this topic any further today than describing the local Hawaiian attitude for community participation. There is much to observe here. Local Hawaiians have distinctly different social norms from island to island that can still be very strongly felt when isolation is significantly less now than was in historical times. The most generous care for the broken, destitute, hungry is shown daily by the locals. They take visible pride in giving generously, food, smile, entertainment, sharing their culture with foreigners and local equally. None-the-less, when it comes to the affluent, wealthy, capable foreigners should watch their back. Nature provides just enough for the dwellers of the land, so surplus cannot be trusted. Hawaii is not only an expensive luxury tourist state for the visitor, but just as expensive for the locals, who do not have equal resources than tourists. Even if the business thrives, envy remains. So, how do they engage in civic activities? Decades old resentment still fuels a subtle but powerful resistance called sovereignty movement, passing down traditional culture to the new generations, and fostering the solidarity of the older ones.

“the American states with the highest levels of social capital are precisely the states most characterized by economic and civic equality.” (Putnam: Bowling Alone) 

Can social capital increase economic and civic equality in Hawaii today? What is the reason for the local discrepancies in equality?

According to Putnam’s theory civic inequality increases when civic engagement decreases. But if civic engagement in the democratic process increases, the social capital of the community increases precisely in the same communities. The more citizens involve themselves as part of the democratic process, the more networking and social engagement in public affairs creates value both for their individual lives, and the society at large.  

Please, read more in this fascinating study on the American Government and Involved Democracy: 

1.3 Engagement in a Democracy - American Government 3e | OpenStax 

My volunteer project is to create a non-profit charitable organization for applied universal human rights. To engage in human rights, you first need to know what those are, therefore education to the individual about the basic respect society promises to provide for their lives is essentially the first step. My choice of media for education besides the traditional methods of classroom teaching is podcast shows. I have been podcasting for nearly a decade on various topics, always with much substance, and observe that my job to recruit interview partners has never been easier. Once the topic of human rights, civic engagement, participatory democracy, unalienable rights, or what it means to live in a good society is opened for a conversation topic, people want to talk, want to be heard, have an opinion and more likely to give permission for broadcasting too (any level of discretion is controlled by them and can be enhanced by editing.) My list of interview guests is growing way faster than my calendar can accommodate.  

Education for human rights is the first step though. To apply the knowledge would be the second step if individuals can be passionate about their involvement. Passion is incredibly important for without it there is no action or very poor quality. This field is applicable to any realm of our society, even by engaging in the most basic dead-end jobs, because respect for the individual will be essential wherever people are. But how do you know what you are passionate about? During these classes, or listening to a podcast episode, the goal is relatability to the listeners’ experience, and provoking emotions. These emotions can be observed by others and bring insight into the inner experience of individuals. This insight is maybe the revelation of victimization, or recognition of a perpetrator. But such encounters can also reveal if someone’s interest is heightened over a perceived injustice, and that is an information I can work with as a coach. I can even more directly provoke such revelations for self-discovery by asking a very simple question: WHAT PISSES YOU OFF? Almost without delay most people know exactly how to answer that question. I use that answer as a lead to help them realize the hidden treasure in that answer. ‘So, now you know what you are passionate about changing, what turns you on as a problem solver: If it pisses you off, find a solution to that problem and share it with others.’ Getting involved in other’s life in a positive manner, finding solutions to their painful and unresolved experiences of life is community engagement. And the more engagement in community, the more social capital you accumulate, followed by more influence on others, and before you know it more personal investment in civic matters. Democracy created the platform, the field, but only if it is ploughed by its citizens will it yield a harvest. Democracy is not only about one day voting every 4 years, but a working democracy is an everyday project. A community project all members are the creators of.  

I created my Civic Engagement Project for applied universal human rights, because suffering caused by the lack of respect for the individual pisses me off the most. There are very few concepts in this world that are viewed as diverse as the word ‘respect’. The most time I need to invest in when I teach is defining and redefining this word and all its aspects possible before we begin with a discussion of rights. Respect is a form of admiration for another person, an acknowledgement of their dignity regardless of the circumstances.  

If anyone asked how I became an expert on this subject, the answer is personal, simple, and impactful: I kept an open eye silently and never lost my sense of dignity while my rights were violated repeatedly. I may have protested, defended myself, and lacked articulation, but never forgot what I deserve. But I only could do so, because I knew what I deserved. Many children, vulnerable victims of any age, have no idea what they deserve. “Those who violate our human rights challenge our very humanity.” (Ban Ki-moon, 2016) One is always the most effective about engaging with the community what they are the most passionate about, hence the most vital problems will always have plenty of volunteers eager to step up. (At least here in America. And that is the true mark of freedom and democracy of a people, because in Russia the most urgent problems produce the most cowardly silence.) Whenever it comes to elections and demonstrations, passionate volunteers show up to express their opinions on the highway, and we can easily guess with certainty what exactly pisses them off.  

“…. [T]he empirical evidence on recent trends is unambiguous …. Community and equality are mutually reinforcing, not mutually incompatible.” (Putnam 2000)(Rice and Sumberg 1997) 

In places like Russia, China, but to some extent also in Hungary, people feel ineffective, discouraged, and intimidated at the least, sometimes even fearful or terrorized to step out of their comfort zone and offer any form of service to their society. Those cultures are maybe constitutionally a republic, but even dictators can be elected democratically. If citizens are afraid to exercise their democratic rights, those rights will have no power to influence. Your maize can only save your life if you carry it around in your pocket. Keeping it well hidden at home will not protect you on the street.  

Teaching children how to recognize danger and how safely avoid victimization can be a useful skill to equip them with, but the first and most important lesson to pass down is, that society is only going to be safe if we protect each other’s rights as much as our own. Because many say to turn the other cheek is the good Christian way to handle abuse, but that is a lie because it is taken out of context. Turning the other cheek is more like turning the other way, and a failure to help someone to stay safe is only an opportunity for the offenders to continue their abuse and allow danger to spread in society. Whenever you unite forces to stand up to a bully, statistically 68% of them will give up the violent act and walk away. Now, isn’t that worth the risk? And by protecting each other, we ensure a safer tomorrow for everyone.  

REFERENCES 

Ban Ki-moon, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations1. He made this statement in 2016, during a speech at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, 

Robert D. Putnam: Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital (2000)  

Rice and Sumberg (1997) 

SPACESUIT MADE OF FLESH

Podcast Show authored and read by MAYASONETTE LAMBKISS

on January 6th, 2024, Hawaii

on behalf of the Institute of Universal Human Rights - HAWAII

Episode 8: VALUES FORMING THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN LIFE

Values are deeply held beliefs guiding attitudes, behavior, decisions. We already discussed the nine highest rated American values of the US citizens in an earlier episode. Today we are going to look into the most significant legal documents forming this country that influence public opinion on values about the rights of a human being in society, and how we perceive the value of a human life.

It would be a mistake to compare the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Universal Human Rights without a deeper study of their author's mind and chosen leadership path for comparison first. Second, we will compare the two documents for form and structure as legal documents, qualitative content of their fundamental messages, and lastly, the influence they have on our historical and current political atmosphere.

Thomas Jefferson's objective creating the D.I. was to fight for and protect the freedom of a new birthing country against tyranny, which is the greed and selfish power of one individual, while Eleanor Roosevelt was on the path to protect the fundamental freedom of the individual human against the greed and selfish acts of society in large. Jefferson's vision was to form a country based on new world values of the individual, and each and every grievance against the king was a collective right of this new country to be protected even by the threat of a gruesome war, while Eleanor Roosevelt's vision was to form a coalition of countries to protect the rights of the suffering individual in gruesome war against crime.

Both documents are legal documents, therefore formalize and define legal rights, guaranteed by law, and reinforceable by law, they are written for such reason, and filed at court. To declare something, it means to make a statement of truth in writing, just as if someone made that same statement at court. It legally binds someone to make a true statement to authority, then to the government, and then make it public, and if it is found untrue, the writer legally perjured himself.

The writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence appointed themselves, they made the formation of the coalition of 13 states official and legally enforceable, all relevant parties have been officially informed of their actions, and the content has been made public to the people. If they had lost the war the same document would have become a false statement, and its writers be guilty in the King's court of perjury and other things. The same thing is true for the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which is an international legal document, a coalition between originally 48 countries, but today of 193 countries, and their enemies are organized crime, international crime, war crimes, and any form of crimes against humanity. While the war for Independence lasted through a few years of chaos, it created order and invented a new form of society. But the war for the respect and freedom of the individual never seems to end, it is continuously current, and every offense only challenges our very humanity. Is it true, that the writers of the D.U.H.R. perjure themselves every time we lose the fight against a human trafficking brothel, whenever an illegal organ-hunter gets away from justice, or a sweatshop continues to operate for decades with forced labor in a hostile environment? Why? Why are they not guilty of perjury declaring the fundamental right of every human to life if they guarantee to millions their right to life, yet the fight is lost on millions of fronts per day? What is the nature of a universal citizenship and what needs to happen in the world to be fundamentally reinvented and governed as one universal coalition of states, the truly United Nations?

The preamble of the U.H.R. is the declaration of the purpose for the 30 articles are agreed upon by the United Nations, and it states the very goal it is attempting to achieve, answering the question what needs to happen in the world to be reinvent a world of justice:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," (Universal Human Rights, Preamble)

What happens if we compare the Universal Human Rights document with the Constitution and its amendments? We have established in an earlier episode that the constitution means the law of the land. While the grievances not listed as articles of the declaration, they are spoken of in the preamble, then confirmed with the following resolution:

"Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms," (Universal Human Rights, Preamble), serving as an introduction to the 30 articles as the constitutional articles of the law of the land. These articles are written based on experience of the offenses inflicted on undeserving, innocent, defenseless human beings, millions of human beings as unconscionable acts of crimes. The war against crime is the most gruesome and endless war humanity has ever conducted. It is an immensely monitored, highly controlled process to prosecute such criminals in the court of justice, or international court, and the most necessary function for ending unjustified suffering in the world for further generations.

The D.U.H.R. is written by Eleanor Roosevelt, and significantly influenced by the American example, but by signing it every nation agreed to abide by it and incorporate it into their own country's constitution. How did the United States update its system of laws under the influence of D.U.H.R.? What differences had to be accommodated?

Significant changes that I can consider influenced by the Universal Human Rights Articles in the United States Constitution after 1948 could possibly be limited to the following points:

1. The instatement of the Miranda rights in 1966, which is an addition to the Fifth Amendment
2. Most evolution I can identify as the application of the amendments and articles, bill of rights, rather than definite changes to the original document. For example, in individual cases when the court ruled according to a higher standard than the constitution: regarding the ongoing debate about the moral and constitutional nature of capital punishment and prison conditions, and how much evolving common decency is constitutional exactly? Certain states outlawed capital punishment and set higher standards for the humane keeping of inmates, are they violating the constitution? Or is capital punishment unconstitutional? Also, in 1969 the Supreme Court incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states, and 2019 it declined changing the clause.
3. There is also the topic of contraceptive use within a marriage as a violation of marital rights, and its discussion in court as an infringement on marital privacy. And other heated topic for debate by prolife political activism against abortion, and assistance in an abortion, and it has been an ongoing debate for the second half of the twentieth century, could also be much influenced on both side of the argument by the Laws of Universal Human Rights. In 1992 the Pennsylvania court required spousal awareness before abortion in the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. The rights of the mother, father, and unborn child are emerging as equally important rights on the legal-ethical platform. In the Universal Human Rights Document Article 3 is more direct in the matter of right for life, except that it still leaves the right for life of a fetus entirely unmentioned, and as subject to continued debate: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person." But it does not say when that life begins. Neither defines what pursuit of happiness means either.

I have only been able to identify these 3 major qualitative changes in the application of the laws discussed, which could be the influence the Universal Human Rights on an evolving public opinion regarding the original law of the land articles. There could be more, but I am not a law student, and would need to conduct deeper research to come to a conclusive list.

Article #4 of the UHR corresponds to the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, but the exact wording of 'Trafficking in Persons' is unmentioned in either, which is the growing concern for disregard for the value of human life. "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." and in the US Constitution amendment 13: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." and "Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." For TIP, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and consecutive repeated statues. Trafficking in Persons' (TIP) is defined by law and involves the following illegal activities: Use of "Coercion, Commercial Sex Act, Child Soldiering, Fraud, Force, Human Smuggling, Labor Trafficking, Involuntary Servitude, Peonage/Debt Bondage, Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons, Sex Trafficking". The most effective method of fighting against these gruesome crimes is prevention by education. Listen in for future podcast shows to learn more on this topic, because the ultimate purpose of these fundamental studies in historical legal documents is to prepare you for receiving material intending to educate how to recognize dangerous situation, and how to act in dangerous situation on your own and other vulnerable individual's behalf safely.

I personally consider every one of the 30 articles human rights extremely crucial for world peace, but these articles nowhere mention crimes against humanity, massive, organized crimes, war crimes, etc. which problems are significantly threatening civilization on earth. Seems that is a material we will need to discuss in a future episode.

Thank you for listening and I hope your chosen PONO path remains PONO. In ancient Hawaiian it means that may your chosen righteous path remain righteous.

Aloha

You have been listening to the SpaceSuit Made of Flesh podcast by Mayasonette Lambkiss from Hawaii.

REFERENCES:

Declaration of Universal Human Rights - United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt as Resolution 217 during its third session.

U. S. Declaration of Independence (1776)

U. S. Constitution 13th Amendment

TIP, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000

The Nature of an Amendment

Authored and Read by Mayasonette Lambkiss

on 12/29/2023

as a voicecast presentation of

The Institute of Universal Human Rights - HAWAII

In agriculture originally, especially in historical times, adding an amendment to soil meant to improve drainage, texture, and fertility. The Constitution of the United States is the ultimate law of the land, and since 1791 it has been amended 27 times. In a metaphorical frenzy we may even say that the land's soil needed its drainage, texture and fertility improving 27 times in 232 years, and it was done by adding amendments to do the job. The agricultural reference is also obvious in a quote from Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Benjamin Franklin was asked right after the signing ceremony of the D. I. outside, before leaving the building, whether they got us a democracy or a republic. His iconic answer has especially used and quoted repeatedly in 2022 for obvious reasons since the events that appalled the nation regarding the integrity of the presidential elections for the past decade: "A republic, if you can keep it"- was Franklin's answer. In the United States Constitution every amendment was birthed and inspired by grievances the people needed internally and nationally regulated, just as the articles of the Declaration of the Independence was inspired by the grievances against the King's injustice. Therefore, it is a document that established Brittain as a foreign country, while the Amendments were necessary to address the offences suffered domestically. The most significant difference between articles and amendments is that the seven articles of the constitution are the original body of the constitution's text dealing with establishing an independent government, while the twenty-seven amendments are a document of later years regulating internal disputes and grievances need to be settled for good on a federal and indisputable manner, made legal for the sake of future peace and the protection of each and every citizen of the country.

As the constitution itself defines itself and therefore its articles purpose, let me quote the first paragraph of it: "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." Therefore, the constitution and its articles define the foundational working together of the elements of the government, but the amendment, also called the Bill of Rights, has a completely different purpose. It takes its own place to protect the independence of the individual states within the workings of the federal government, and the freedom of the individual citizens within those states. While the Constitution has never been subject to change and modifications, the amendments provide the place for potential expansion and additions as they become necessary throughout history. As it is clarified on the 'Support' blog pages of 'ConstitutionUS.com' in an article written by its editor Edward Savey: "In short, while we see the Bill of Rights as part of the United States Constitution due to its housing, it is its own document with a crucial place in American history. Its adoption in 1791 guaranteed many fundamental rights of the people not clarified by the Constitution itself."

But the explanation of amendments shouldn't be limited to the Constitution of the United States only, since it is a universally used terminology meaning it is making changes and adjustments to a fundamentally significant legal document. The United States as a nation was formed without any history, but if an old country writes their Constitution, they will have a long history, and a long list of grievances. Which is why Hungary's Constitution is more than 30 pages long, every article addressing a historically documented, and an experience based, potentially harmful vice that could cause to the people of Hungary suffering and fear for their much sacrificed for democracy and sovereignty. Since it was authored only in 2011 not many amendments have been added yet. It is a much-debated document for its legitimacy, but legally affective, nation-forming and republic regulating document.

So, if I were to add an amendment to the Hungarian Constitution it would most certainly be one limiting the power of the Prime minister, who is appointed by the Parliament, as supposed to the President of Hungary, who right now takes very significantly a second seat in decision making, even though she is elected by the people for the highest office of the country. The Hungarian Prime minister can be appointed unlimited number of times, and therefore can continue their agenda into every presidency of their lifetime. This system is flawed, because it is potentially subject to corruption by not observing the checks and balances of the three branches of government. Would like to change the part of constitution that leaves the country vulnerable to the rise of unauthorized dictatorship and unchecked ultimate power imbalances far from a legal democratic mechanism. Would like to include in the Hungarian constitution the lines of the United States Constitution giving authorized power to the legally elected president in Article II, section 1. : "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term". Hungary is really suffering the consequences of this missing article today. Also, vitally important to establish the checks and balances terms of the government for further accountability of the three branches leadership.

What the United States needs today as their 28th amendment by my perception is more consistency between profit and politics. I would love to see an amendment that makes it clear for the US regarding all international business relations, that any financial, stock market or direct marketing agreements, including all travel and tourism related businesses banned, between countries endangering international safety. By this I mean even if not an armed conflict, but the threat of such, and an economic embargo towards certain countries economy must include a travel embargo too. My most recent example of it is the superfluous economic embargo Russia was supposed suffer from until they withdraw from all military action in the Ukraine, Eastern Block region, and all threats of a nuclear war. I would even carry it to the extent of complete disarmament and surrendering their nuclear weapons. Why? Because while innocent citizens of Ukraine were carried off to mass graves, Russian tourism in Hawaii increased laughingly. The very loyal American citizens' compassion didn't express their disgust against the revolting view of happy, rich, and outspokenly proud Russian tourists, they were supportive of coming to take an "understandable break" from a weird Presidents' frantic leadership and enjoy themselves. Loyal, but also greedy, because they would lose business during inflation. What a serious breach of integrity. Because what is the point of sending economic support packages to a war field, if we do not prevent their enemies from doing luxury business in our country? Really? You call that an economic embargo? Do you know how top percent rich you need to be to be able to come to Hawaii for a vacation if you live in authentic Russia today? Cutting off the Hungarian business activities would have been wise as well since their political leadership sabotaged the commonsense embargo against an extremely aggressive and universally dangerous country. Victor Orban would have had to stand his ground both towards his own citizens and not just negating any solutions Europe and the Western world are working on. Because Mr. Orban, you only keep saying 'NO' to every solution against the Putin-problem, but you do not initiate any yourself. Being uncooperative and a saboteur of the solution efforts to a problem only makes you part of the problem. Create a universally true solution to the Putin problem, and your constant resistance to European solutions you find inappropriate will have a more correct footing.

Hopefully the United Nations' Constitution will eventually be expanded to war-crisis situations, since their job is to coordinate international peace and protect the individual's life from extreme political mismanagement. Will that action and expansion utilize the legal tool of amendment writing to the original Global Charter, is entirely up to the leaders and decision makers of the United Nation's International Counsil. The Universal Human Rights is a Bill of Rights for the Nations, but is anyone aware, that the Global Charter, the Constitution of the United Nations was authored by the absolutely most enlightened former USSR president, Mikhail Gorbachev to ensure no any country or nation will ever gain power overriding the rights of another sovereign nations rights for existence and independence? Did you guys know that Mickail Gorbachev was impeached by the men of power-crazy Putin after the dissolution of the USSR and its nuclear superpower? Gorbachev is the best President Russia ever had, and they exiled him.

Well, thank you very much for remaining with me for this big picture ride, it is probably not easy to hear of these international legal and political necessities for the first time, but in our world, there is very little helpful education and much mismanagement of information lurking in conspiracy theories that first need put right in people's head before we can participate correctly in our communities to represent the best interest of future generations on this beautiful planet.

I hope you sign up for my weekly show if you haven't yet, participate in the ongoing chat box with your questions and comments, and look forward to the next episode of Spacesuit Made of Flesh, in order to hear about more in detail how the United States Constitution and the Universal Human Rights Constitution of the United Nations influence each other, differ, and work together.

Aloha, and let's extend our Ho'o'pono'pono attitude of righteous forgiveness to our confused political leaders this week. But I would make an exception towards the mass-criminals, because the victims need our unforgiving justified stance.

You have been listening to Mayasonette Lambkiss on behalf of the Institute of Universal Human Rights in Hawaii. Aloha.

How has the United States Constitution influenced

American values?

VoiceCast Authored and Read by

Mayasonette Lambkiss

12/26/2023

as a public content of the Institute of Universal Human Rights - Hawaii

"The American Revolution ushered in an age of democratic revolutions. Some of those revolutions resulted in functioning democracies, but as noted, not all such revolutions were peaceful. Some ended in extensive violence and dictatorship. America’s revolutionary war and its Declaration of Independence did not lead to chaos, rather it culminated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the peaceful transfer of political power between parties in 1801."

(AMERICAN VISION AND VALUES, Bellevue University Nebraska.)

It matters a great deal how we classify or define the structure of our government, because those words either resonate with the heart of people or will thwart their thinking. Democracy resonates with the heart of every American citizen, but it is such an ideal that would cause the collapse of this country to eliminate any form of empowered structure to manage that democracy, as if such democracy were the enemy of itself. It is important for the governed to understand how the government is set up, how and why the government is empowered to govern the people, in order to preserve the power of the governed people. It is the design that is genius. How to fill it with the correct officers is a whole other question.

But why is citizenship education important for the governed as much as for the government? The answer can be as simple as the answer Andrew Oldenquist's reasoning published in Educational Leadership, 1980, titled The Nature of Citizenship: "Citizenship education should foster group loyalty and values", even if he also flavored it with critical specifics such as 'white middle-class values in black and white poor neighborhoods'. Today we are just hoping all citizens will learn about the academic interpretation of the government systems.

The United States is not an autocracy, because it is not governed by a supreme monarch. The United States is Governed by democratically elected representatives; therefore, it is a democracy, meaning the will of the people is heard first, and made effective by the appointment of the representation. The assembly or House of Representatives than is entitled again, as the result of a secondary democratic election to conduct any national decision making, even the creation of an electoral college to appoint a President. The United States is currently a confederation of 50 self-governed states. To manage the bureaucratic duties of such vast territory effectively, legally, and transparently, additional structures are necessary to implement. The 50 self-governed states empower one or two representatives via democratic elections to conduct state interests on a federal level. It is highly commendable that they hear out the Mass of People's opinion on the matter first by a general Presidential election before voting themselves. It is not only power preserved for the people, but respect given to the people by those in whose hands the decision ultimately stands. Why elect representatives, if you are only going to strip them from power by debating their office to be unconstitutional or as a violation of the rights of the people. You either elect representatives and give them due respect and power, or you don't and end up with a chaotic, unmanageable democratic bureaucracy. But you can't elect representatives to just sit and be your puppets. Have respect for the office that is there to represent you, and the excellent process to get the right people into those offices.

Therefore, the United States operates and realizes the vision of its constitution by inventing a system never used before, and best described as "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, or a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC". (America Is A Democracy, Counter Arguments, YouTube, 2019)

Where democracy is a cultural attitude giving power and freedom to the people, but not a governmental structure of government, because that power goes to the democratically elected representatives to protect the will of the people.

It is crucial for everyday citizens to understand how we classify or define the structure of our government, so they would know how much respect their voice is entitled to and wouldn't incorrectly grudge against authority by not understanding the nuances of their government. Much harm is done by 'denialists' and conspiration theorists causing unfunded, gossip-like rebellion against a beautifully designed system. If you don't like the minority of rich and entitled representatives making the decisions on the federal level, start democratically electing poor, insignificant representatives on the state level, and see what happens. It is up to your citizens living in your state. But just remember before you do that, how can you expect someone running and managing a country's books and economy, who cannot manage their own. One frightening example of how commendable democratic structure can misfire, is by the Russian democratic elections resulting ongoingly in the appointment of a mentally ill mass-murderer psychopath, like Putin. He is a democratically elected dictator, using a legitimate democratic process to elect a tyrant autocrat. Are the Russian people really so weak just can't get rid of him, or do they really like how Putin is undermining all human dignity and decency to achieve his selfish objectives? Let's see how they vote in May 2024 now, after his totalitarian march into invading another (8th) unprovoked war against Ukraine?

ACCOUNTABILITY builds trust and support between the governed and its elected government. While a chain of command is necessary for efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency, consistent integrity, that means doing the right thing every single day in office, healthy political and administrative relationship building and advancements towards governmental mission by a servant leader attitude. Accountability ensures follow through, time efficiency, and respectable, even graceful motivational force. Accountability is also the result of insightful education of the governed to participate in the endorsement or critique of the government. Therefore, it is the government's best interest to clarify misconceptions by correct education.

Also, you could try googling various other foreign countries' constitution, and least read up on a few Wikipedia entrees to enlighten yourself by the comparison. Do you still desire any changes to what America created? Is it really the system that must change, or just the education of the elected for office? Do not confuse the constitutional system with the character of people elected to office? You can craft the most incredible vessel, but are you going to fill it with the best wine, or the worst? Choose your content to elevate the morale of this country, instead of tearing down a piece of genius and elegant political art constructed for an ideal power distribution that represents the voice of the people. Please, treasure, respect, and love your Representative Democracy, because it is the greatest invention in the history of humankind.

The most legitimate question to ask here would be:

WHY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BECAME SO DEPENDENT ON CAMPAIGNS, WHICH DEPEND ON INSANE FUNDRAISING, AND THEREFORE DEPENDS ON BILLIONAIRES WITH THEIR OWN INTERESTS IN THE FOREFRONT INSTEAD OF THE INTERESTS AND WILL OF THE PEOPLE? IDEALLY, ELECTIONS SHOULD COST NOTHING, because it should be about the best argument (public debate) and not about whose face was in the news most. Increasing public education while making presidential campaigning unconstitutional would be a more enlightened way to hear the will of the people.

Therefore, to answer the question 'How has the United States Constitution Influenced American Values?' is that the most revolutionary significant act was to base the formation of a new country on shared values of its citizens. By clicking on the link at the end of my show notes, which is the printed transcript of this voicecast. So, please, scroll down to the end of this transcript and find the attached pdf Titled: Answering Difficult Questions Abroad: American Values, originally published at the web address: PDF (www.state.gov)

Thank you for listening, and as always, I immensely enjoyed sharing my research with you. Please, do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or reflections to share.

Love you America, and to my listeners,

Aloha

Mayasonette Lambkiss

THE 9 VALUES AMERICANS HOLD THE HIGHEST REGARD:

extension://elhekieabhbkpmcefcoobjddigjcaadp/https://www.state.gov/courses/answeringdifficultquestions/assets/m/resources/DifficultQuestions-AmericanValues.pdf

REFERENCES:

AMERICAN VISION AND VALUES, Bellevue University Nebraska

Andrew Oldenquist', Educational Leadership, 1980, The Nature of Citizenship

America Is A Democracy, Counter Arguments, YouTube, 2019

WHO INVENTED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Authored and Read by Mayasonette Lambkiss

on 12/16/2023 in Hawaii

I find the most remarkable value the Declaration of Independence humbly reveals and gently teaches to its admirers is in the power of wording. And thus, the first value I regard as the most powerful value is revealed here to only increase over time as the value the modern American people grade the highest: It is intentional and mindful wording in order to create. The Founding Fathers chose to sign a Declaration of Independence and not a Declaration of War against the English king, though those two were likely to be the same if the British doesn't back off. Thomas Jefferson had a great deal to do with the choices made in the content of this iconic document. Its every word is powerfully placed in the context and reveals authority produced by a systematic ascension of thoughts. Beautiful example of the most touching American value as a rockstar among the values: DIRECTNESS which we could define is respecting RESPECT. In the published article 'SO, YOU’RE AN AMERICAN?”: A GUIDE TO ANSWERING DIFFICULT QUESTIONS ABROAD' the CULTURE magazine writes timeless statements: "A direct communicator doesn’t intend to be rude, but rather desires clarity and speed. Conversely, Americans may consider indirect or subtler forms of communication to be incomplete, dishonest, or insincere." "Many Americans will not necessarily shy away from conflict if they feel it will help them reach their objectives, even if it creates disharmony".

"The Declaration of Independence is divided into five parts: the preamble, the statement of philosophy, the grievances, the operative words, and the statement of the signers." (By: Rob Natelson|Published on: Nov 27, 2021|Categories: Declaration of Independence, Founding Principles)

The Declaration is a legal document, and as such has the structure of a legal document. The preamble states who are writing it, by what authority, and makes a statement for the end-product as well: "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America," The Values it highlights are Universality, unanimity, united front. Though the document is written for the separation of England and the colonies, it speaks about a fundamental and universal truth that unites the 13 states, (and later perhaps the entire world as it has served profound inspiration for the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights document.) While it is ancient knowledge that our shared enemies unite us, the intense and expressive united front on the matter to expel the English is still remarkable. It is not easy task to get 13 sets of leaderships to agree on anything unanimously. Especially impressive how they address their petition to a supreme and objective judge and witness to be understood and appeal their cause. Today's politicians have a great example to live up to, and without doubt, often fail to achieve these values they most certainly strive for.

I see another incredibly important modern American value stepping in view at this point too: Generosity. It is not an overstatement at all to say that the American people are the most generous country anywhere in the world donating for causes, and even greater contributions outside their country than their own. American people still maintain, and even more so now than ever the global minded attitude that we are all in this together in the face of trials and tribulations. None, but Eleonor Roosevelt understood this better when initiated the formation of the United Nations and proposed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be its fundamental legal document. Compassion for all human beings is the leading emotion in this value, that leads to generosity, and a united front to face the problems together. Most certainly has not been achieved in history before at a level America holds the world accountable for where it is going and holds the torch while doing it.

The philosophical background of the opening text, still laying the moral foundation for the later detailed grievances, highlights the defining value of Prudence as a key factor in discerning a good and practical way to deal with the persistent problem of tyranny. It presents reasoning for the moral authority and the legal grounds for the coming up grievances. Prudence is a strong value here that prevents and counteracts Machiavellianism. Today we would call this same value as operational integrity, cautiousness, due diligence, or discretion. These qualities withstand the ever-appearing disregard for shared values at all levels of society, yet, as Thomas Jefferson so aptly said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", never has been truer than today. Are we diligent enough to guard the philosophical foundation of the Declaration, Prudence, or the one best way to manage national affairs? The 28 assaults against the free people, generally referred to as the grievances against the king, are examples of how the governed has been held as the oppressed by the oppressor for centuries and gives way to the necessary emergence of an executive value no king ever used towards their people before voluntarily: Respect. Quoting as the declaration comes to its focal point: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. "Every point of grievance is a cry out for respect towards the governed, and develops values never protected for them before. Therefore the 28 objections against the king are the inspiration for 28 values at their birth.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." - Declaires a verdict. The United States as a country was born out of the ruling of this verdict. The value Americans today still hold high, where every wrongdoing desire justice, and every just ruling leaves the world in a better place. In the Declaration document justice was not just appealed for, but justice was ruled, and justice was done. As Conan O'Brien worded it "The beauty is that through disappointment you can gain clarity, and with clarity comes conviction and true originality." Every value was invented out of necessity, yearning for the respect the governed deserves.

The closing phase of the document begins with legal operative words creating the effects of a soft declaration by drawing boundaries that were in obvious need for a very long time already: "Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here." Drawing the line is also a silent declaration of the willingness it takes to protect territory. A declaration of war if you again overstep these boundaries.

To be legal is to be formal and just, with a reasonable expectation that all parties concerned will find the rules moral, acceptable, and the objective truth. Democratic unanimity of the 13 states, their respect for each other assertively speaks for democracy, but for practical reasons an Assembly of Representatives are trusted with the delivery of just government. Their represented states trusted their representatives' personal integrity and the good standing of their character. This is a legal structure, reflecting the deeply thought through pros and cons of democratic and representative structures to work together the most effective manner. This is the INNOVATION part of the process, where the Founding Fathers invented a new country, new form of government, and a new power distribution system to operate it all upholding the values of the governed. The newly invented union sets forth its declaration of being 'Governed by the People'. The closing statement of the signers is the declaration of independence per say: "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 here we hear the unshakable voice of AUTHORITY, which is power earnt by character and positive attitude, and its argument is backed up with the evidences listed above for the one best way to move forward. The positive wording of 'Declaration of Independence' is a testimony to the positive approach of the Founding Fathers to try avoiding armed and violent conflict by wording it a declaration of war against tyranny. Claiming a power of independence goes beyond innovation, it is a fearsome intentional process using powerful words to create something new: freedom, even at the price of war if necessary. My favorite writer James Allen wrote in his work As Man Thinketh: “He who would accomplish little need sacrifice little; he who would achieve much must sacrifice much. He who would attain highly must sacrifice greatly.” he also writes: “The world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going”. Non-the-less, the world did not set aside for the colonies, and they had to prove the power behind the words by making the ultimate sacrifice for freedom in war. "He who would attain highly must sacrifice greatly." and after a relatively brief disharmony the entire world was changed by the newly invented country of the United States: "the United States has become a beacon of innovation and a model for change." (By: Rob Natelson|Published on: Nov 27, 2021|Categories: Declaration of Independence, Founding Principles)

With these closing words let me engage your citizenship with an outstanding question by asking you American brothers and sisters: in your opinion, who invented the United States of America? How does it stand the test of time? Will it need to change and how into the cyber-sonic age to continue to protect a good society for the governed? And as the United Nations followed already in its footsteps, what is in the future? Who will need making the next extraordinary sacrifice to protect the best future for the people of the world? Who will govern the governed? Who will guarantee the just laws Martin Luther King talks about for the children of the world, and what unjust laws will justly need breaking to achieve justice for the oppressed?

James Allen: "You will become as small as your controlling desire; as great as your dominant aspiration." (As Man Thinketh). Suggesting that the era of governing by control is outdated, and must be replace by a new paradigm, the paradigm of DOMINANT ASPIRATIONS. Will our leaders be able to tune into the people's dominant aspiration for creating a more just world? Or they will remain in a reactive mode and only keep desperately responding to assults on freedom like those in the various realms of the world where armed conflicts are the dominant force?

Aloha

Thank you for listening.

Mayasonette Lambkiss

Who Inspired Thomas Jefferson? 

Voicecast Authored and Read  

By Mayasonette Lambkiss,  

As an episode of the ‘Spacesuit in the Flesh’ officially published 

Podcast show for the Hawaii Institute of Universal Declaration of Human Rights  

Honolulu, 12/12/2023 

Who was Thomas Jefferson, the author of freedom, inspired by crafting the Declaration of Independence? John Locke, The Virginia Declaration of Rights, and his own drafts of the Virginia Constitution are just some of the contemporary documents he used during his two weeks of writing at his desk. But the material the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson’s used as discussion materials and insightful guides for the establishment of a just government is much broader: the Founding Fathers looked to the Greek democracy, Roman representative system, the Bible, the French Laissez-fair implemented first in Brittain, they looked to Captains of Christian ships and their courts, chain of command, and communication systems for crowd management insights they used, and to people like the famous Ulysses S. Grand, military officer of the Union army who allowed the Southerners to keep their horses to plough and one personal weapon for hunting for their families.  

All of these historical experiments to attempt to create an ideal and just government, and great historical figures, are present in the Declaration of Independence in Spirit. The 28 points at the end of the physical document of the Declaration of Independence demonstrating King George III’s dysfunctional governance is probably the most motivating list of sources inspiring change.  These inspirations rooted in painful and liberating experiences gave a reason to our founders wanting to see changes implemented that reflected their values. As Thomas Jefferson writes in 1776, “The Declaration of Independence is a proclamation. In it, the 13 American colonies declared that they would no longer view themselves as members of the British Empire.” But, over time many of its points have changed from a collective statement of the exclusive sovereignty to the United States, to a nation defined by its citizen’s shared value systems. It is majorly due to the evolving philosophical influences in the minds of the people, and how they interpret the words within changing historical-political context relevant to their times.  

The second paragraph of the Declaration says:  

1) “We hold these truths to be self-evident"  

This statement strongly reveals that the source of conviction to establish the values incorporated by the following words of the declaration indisputable truths, automatic, and need no explanation. Here is a paragraph I read for you from the Kirkpatrick Signature Series Document on the Declaration of Human Rights:  

“During Jefferson’s era, the European model of governance was monarchies. The authority for government by monarchy was known as, The Divine Right of Kings. In other words, the King’s authority was based upon an authority bestowed upon the monarch by the divine or due to God’s intervention. 

Since God had chosen the monarch to be the King, or Queen, they were better, or closer to God, and therefore acting with God-given authority to rule.  Simply, according to the Divine Right of Kings. The monarch had more powerful rights than the individual and you were certainly not their equal.”  

We need to realize, that while the Declaration of Independence was inspired by the Bible to overthrow monarchy, monarchy was inspired by the Bible too, in regard to the crowning of King David, after the unjustified crowning of King Saul’s rule. We need to be very careful about judging historical events out of their Biblical context and giving them absolute interpretations.  

Next the Declaration states that 

2) “that all men are created equal,”  

This concept originated in the European Enlightenment philosophy that emerged before the French Revolution of 1789, causing political and societal changes inspiring the entire then known world to rethink their national governance. Originally it meant that all races of mankind were equal, and not that every individual person is equal to another next to them. It was a rudimentary articulation of what later has become the 13th Amendment and Martin Luther King’s message. None the less, by the early 1800s the statement of “that all men are created equal” became the leading thought inspiring individual equality and the irrevocable right of the individual for life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness, where the so-called ‘irrelevant considerations’ don’t have the opportunity to cause injustice to the individual. Here, we need to give credit to Mortimer Adler for coiling the phrase: ‘irrelevant considerations’ in his work Six Great Ideas, The Domain of Justice, page 190, published in 1984. Today these ‘irrelevant considerations’ are detailed and incorporated in the words of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution against discrimination and can be read in full length on every job application as well.  

Let’s continue with the text of the Declaration:  

3) “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” 

Unalienable Rights mean that is inborn, given by God, and these thoughts were inspired by the Bible itself. It really is stating correctly quoted from the Bible, to “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1), meaning that nobody is above the law, or an exception to the law, not by rank, or race, or by any other distinction, those interpretations became two different statements too, over the years. By unalienable rights today we mostly rely on the United Nations interpretation in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights document, which refers to the rights of an individual person, given to them by the right that they were born human, and it is an example of the DHR is influencing the interpretation of the DIUS, because over time the understanding of the original words has changed.  

4) that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— 

These three points again clarified originally that the new country of the United States had the right to establish itself as a sovereign country, and with all its operational functions to free trade and independence, within its boundaries its citizens held the shared values of respect for the life of the individual, liberty or freedom to choose it’s political affiliations and citizenship activities, but also to pursue happiness in an authentic and innovative way unique to themselves only. Here we encounter the influences of the philosophical ideology of existentialism, in addition to the earlier mentioned philosophy of enlightenment from the French Revolution.   

Going on to the text:  

5) That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,  

This point strongly relies on the lessons of the historical past generated by the Greek democratic experiment, the Roman Republic experiment that taught us lessons on the representative system of a republic, but also on the lessons of the suppressive systems of ancient and feudalistic systems. Government had a new definition given during this period learning from humanity’s historical failures, establishing that the legislatures were too overcrowded by the many voices of representatives, and a system had to be established to control them with respect to each other. Today it functions as administration, bureaucracy, government organizations. It was designed to control the chaotic nature of democracy. Democracy and Republic are two different sides of the same coin, and not to be debated as competing systems. 

Same thoughts continue in the next phrase:  

6) “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”  

Governments are established to protect and secure the rights of the people, coordinate the voices of the multitude, and that anyone elected to an office is empowered by the governed to protect democracy. Governments are powerhouses of making democracy an organized mess, without democracy a government becomes dictatorship of any entity or even one person. But also, without a governmental organization democracy is dysfunctional.  

And the final phrase of the second chapter of the Declaration really brings this home in its statement:  

7) "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 affect their Safety and Happiness.” 

This statement speaks for itself, and its implementation may result in riots, political mayhem, civil chaos, but to overthrow its own government is the right of the governed people, its citizens.  

In conclusion, let me express the immense emotions the Declaration of the United States Independence evokes inside me, and I am an immigrant. I did choose the United States proudly to be my future country I approve of, and therefore one would consider my love for this document natural. But I sense that to be born and raised as an American Citizen, would include nuances of emotion I probably missed out on and will never experience. Non-the-less, I am inspired by and touched by Madam Elenor Roosevelt not much talked about initiative of using this iconic document as the major inspiration in the writing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 3 objectives of right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness became the 30 articles of fundamental universal human rights acknowledged by the United Nations. I highly recommend anyone listening to this podcast, to read those 30 articles to themselves, and raise relevant questions, contemplate it according to their own philosophical mindsets, and explain in their own words what it truly means to be a human being, and why we are all here today, and not just some of us.  

Aloha 

Mayasonette Lambkiss