Ambiguity: The Root of Legal Perversions
I had a problem in High School when it came to taking tests. It wasn’t a matter of what I hadn’t learned, because I had always learned just about everything. It was a matter of what one odd question on the test actually meant.
Too often I would read a question and see a glaring ambiguity which made it impossible for me to answer it since I couldn’t know which of two possibilities were intended as its meaning. Then I would have to get up from my desk, stand-out from everyone else by walking up to the teacher to ask just what the heck the question really meant.
It was dumb enough to be asked to answer an ambiguous question, but what excuse did everyone else have for not even recognizing it? Not even one other student, even one time, ever. Most times the teacher did not even bother to alert the other students to the problem, assuming that none of them would see the ambiguity and would simply read the question the way he intended it, which made no sense to me since it was so unanswerable without knowing what was intended.
Well, after hearing my problem with the question, the teacher only then would recognize the ambiguity he had written into it, and then explain to me what he had intended to ask.
Such situations were solvable situations until it came to standardized tests in High School, which the teacher had not written, and whose ambiguous nature he could not explain, especially when, in college, the ass had gotten up and left the room he was supposed to be supervising to prevent cheating. (why would someone do that unless they were sympathetic, incompetent, dishonest, former cheaters themselves?)
So… ambiguity is something I’ve been spotting, when concentrating, all of my academic life. Now I see it at the root of a whole lot of American stupidity.
Two possibilities are presented by some legal wording but the wrong possibility is embraced by all, and like my fellow students, without anyone even recognizing that they were failing to even grasp that an ambiguity even existed (as they assume that the common consensus understanding of what something means is the one and only meaning).
Ambiguity, Example #1. “Why do you rob banks?” Willy Horton’s reply: “‘cause that’s where the money is.” Neither party recognized the ambiguity of the question. People hear that and laugh at how stupid Willy was, but fail to grasp how ambiguous the question actually was, and the fact that they would have asked it with exactly the same words, instead of asking the real unambiguous question, which is: Why do you rob?
What does the difference show you? It shows you that the word “banks” was superfluous, and yet its presence was the source of the ambiguity because Willy assumed it was added for a deliberate and intelligent reason, but it wasn’t since it did not make the question more clear, but made it less clear. So who was really stupid? Neither? Or both? Do they both not represent the two sides of several major national conundrums of an ambiguous nature?
I’ve penned well over a couple hundred thousand words to untangle and disambiguate those ambiguities that keep the American people and their leaders in the fog of ignorance about subjects at the heart of some of the most important issues in American political life.
I’ve been engaged in a prolonged unrelenting war against mighty entrenched disingenuous, dishonest, and deceived (or self-deceived) foes who embrace and proclaim only one possibility where two exist, (conceivably) although logic kicks one to the curb since it can be shown to be false.
But they embrace the falsity because it favors their view which protects their preferred consensus-view status quo. It doesn’t question the correctness nor intelligence of the established order nor rock the boat. Truth is not essential to their thinking and is only relied on when it supports their dogma. In those cases, it needs to be placed in quotes (“truth”) because it is a false truth squeezed out of an ambiguity and then proclaimed as the God’s honest truth, when in fact it is either a deliberate lie, or an institutionalized multi-generational error.
“Most of you are probably aware that the right brain and the left brain process information differently and perform different functions. The left brain is a computer. The right brain is an emotional chemical factory. As a mostly accurate broad stereotype, liberals and women are right brain dominant, men and conservatives are left brain dominant.
"Right brain dominant people are feelers and look for the big picture. Left brain dominant people are thinkers and look for the details.” –Rev. Sam Sewell ~Psychological Explanation for the Appeal of Obama [with me, neither sides is dominant]
Example #2. The Pennsylvania Line Mutiny
“During the winter of 1780–1781, the Continental Army was dispersed into smaller components to ease the strain of supply. The Pennsylvania Line, was comprised of about 2,400 men. Conditions for the army were deplorable. (In previous years, both Washington and Wayne had cited corruption and a lack of concern on the part of state governments and the Continental Congress in fostering the poor conditions.)
Pennsylvania was one of the stingiest states in paying its soldiers – many of the Pennsylvania Line had served for three years in exchange for only their initial $20 bounty. Other states’ troops were receiving enlistment bounties valued in hundreds of dollars (New Jersey recruits received a $1,000 bounty), and even new Pennsylvania recruits received large bounties while serving soldiers neither received regular pay nor reenlistment money.
By January 1, 1781, the soldiers’ dissatisfaction reached a boiling point. Many "three year men” reckoned that their enlistment terms, “for three years or the duration of the war”, had ended with the coming of the new year.“
They packed up and left their camp, going AWOL. What did "or the duration of the war” actually mean? Did it mean those words literally? Or were those words actually meant to convey that their service would be ended if the war ended before the three years had passed, as was expected? Everyone who enlisted had only one understanding and it was that they were required to serve for a maximum term of three years, but less if the war ended earlier. No one signed up for a war without end. Fortunately, a wise mediator was able to resolve the situation for them semi-fairly. But the ambiguity of the language could have resulted in a tragedy if taken literally.
If you’ve ever read the “terms of service” for software and website use, or a contract or trust document, you’ve seen the extent to which language must go in order to eliminate all ambiguity. “I am a non-lawyer paid spokesperson”. Only a lawyer would have written such a stupid thing as the final words of a law firm’s commercial pitch to get you to utilize them for a tort claim against some company that might have caused you “harm”. The reasons for that probably stink like rotten fish, and involve assumptions due to presumptuous ambiguous thinking on the part of some in the public who have sued law firms for “misleading” ads.
How much crap in life is due to unclear language, and how much of it is due to lawyers who failed to recognize ambiguity before putting final words to paper? How much error is perpetuated by consensus thinking that fails to recognize the ambiguity and passes its misinterpretation to subsequent generations?
Autobiography of Mark Twain: “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
The earliest ambiguity still plaguing us goes back to 1608 and the Calvin case in England. It involved English land inheritance rights which were not allowed for foreigners. But in an odd twist of fate, the King of Scotland became the King of England (no heir) so the two separate kingdoms had the same king. In order to circumvent the law, the supreme court of the land ruled that “Calvin” was not a foreign Scotsman but was a “natural born subject” – not of England but of the English King and thus eligible to inherit English land from a relative as if he were an Englishman himself.
Clearly, inventing a term to get around the unambiguous law had to involve utilizing a pretense that a “natural born subject” of the King was what the law actually referred to instead of a natural member of the English nation, which didn’t include any Scotsman regardless of both nations having the same king.
Thus the base was laid, the base by which the new term “natural born subject” could be bastardized by ambiguity since it then included in its definition not only natural subjects of England but also non-natural subjects from other nations who happened to have been born on English soil since their fathers were subject to the supreme lord of the land, the king, as were the Scotsmen.
Thus any son born to a foreigner within the king’s dominion would no longer have to be recognized as only a subject of its father’s foreign king but could be claimed as a subject of the king of England as well even though that would divide the unity of the family and the supremacy of the father’s nationality in determining that of his issue. Oh well… one more subject added to the king’s kingdom, by hook or by crook.
The down-side of that turn in national policy was the bastardization of the word “natural” or “natural born”. Ambiguity was injected into the meaning by the position that they applied to alien-born subjects who were not natural subjects but were equal to, and thus must be treated as, natural subjects, i.e., children of Englishmen.
Of course such alien-born children were only a small fraction of the births in England so the majority were still correctly labeled as natural born subjects. Only the alien-born were inaccurately labeled with the same label, with that being justified via the usage of a “term of art” meaning in regard to them.
The words still meant exactly what they meant in regard to actual natural English children, but meant something different regarding the alien-born, -defined by the “term of artifice” “legal meaning” in a purely “legal” sense. Thus a secondary meaning was grafted onto the literal meaning of the words, producing ambiguity, like the deliberate creation of Siamese twins. That ambiguity is what all legal-minded defenders of the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama Soetoro turn to to legitimize his election. They assert that since the English words were stretched by an unnatural “term of art” to include all alien-fathered native-born children, therefore America is bound by chains to that bastardized ambiguous definition in understanding the meaning of what the founders required for presidential eligibility, which is that one be a natural born CITIZEN (not a native-born citizen).
They argue that since the British recognized all native-born children as “natural born subjects” (which 97% +/- of them were, so why not?) therefore we must adhere to their word game in understanding what was in the thinking of our founders when they wrote that the President must be a natural born citizen. They claim that the meaning that we today must apply is the one that includes the bastardization of the English language as justified by the English legal system due to that one court ruling in 1608! Talk about a stretch!
They cleverly manipulate people’s thinking by referring to the fact that the lawyers of the day (which some of the founders were) were schooled solely in English law and common law, and avoid the fact that people’s natural thoughts are not bound in the cage of legalistic thinking that is home for a few years of law school, before returning to the real world.
In the real world, words are only imbued with their common meaning, and not a “term of art” meaning. But if one labels any term or phrase as “a term of art” then they can alter its meaning by resorting to an alternate possibility pulled out of an ambiguity. And that is exactly what Obama’s eligibility defenders have done, following the example of supreme courts almost from the very beginning, ascribing the meaning they preferred instead of the meaning that the authors and framers of the Constitution clearly meant.
Thus courts have tyrannically set themselves above the authority of the Constitution, grabbing power without limit as long as they base it on any old illegitimate logic relying on some ambiguity. But sometimes they go even further, basing their “ruling” on nothing. Just their subjective choice. Like gods. Like deciders of life or death, which they are, so why not decide other matters as well?
After all, if you are empowered to end life or spare life, why should you not be empowered (by your own authority) to decide anything and everything else in life that comes before you, -and not have to be limited by some old document written in an age so unrelated to our present day?
The traitors on the court feel that they shouldn’t be limited by anything, and so they aren’t, and they are uninhibited and unafraid because their appointment is for life. Or is that view due to an ambiguity? “The judges… shall hold their offices during good behaviour,” Does ignoring, trampling, over-riding, and nullifying the Constitution of the United States sound like “good behavior” to you?
See, again, the meaning is in the mind of the beholder. It can mean this or it can mean that. What does “good” mean? Who gets to decide? The Supreme Court? Does it get to judge its own members or is that left to the representatives of the People? ~Ambiguity.
That’s the same sort of conundrum that faces the nation with regard to what a few crucial terms mean, including: “natural” as in “natural born citizen”, or “natural” as in “natural born subject”, or “jurisdiction” as in “subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States)” (14th Amendment);
or “commerce” as in international commerce (which the stupid court reinterpreted to include human beings so that the federal government could usurp the constitutional State authority over immigration);
or “income” as in the earnings of one’s investments or property but not one’s exchange of time & labor for appropriate compensation as an equal barter exchange;
or “inter-state commerce” as in commerce between the states and not as in growing food on one’s own property for one’s own use (banned by government in Wichard v Filburn 1942),
or “penalty” as in a punishment for undesired behavior or lack of required behavior, not as in “taxation” for not purchasing a life-long insurance contract for health care;
or “pollutant” as in toxic chemicals and particles harmful to life, not as in natural atmospheric and respiration gas which all aerobic life depends on (CO2).
There’s no problem finding ambiguity because it’s everywhere, along with reliance on it as an instrument to justify change that is unjustifiable by legitimate language usage and rational thinking.
It is resorted to as a shield and sword to defend against truth and reason and to even attack them. Some do it dogmatically, as true believers in the deception that grips them and which they grip tightly in return, while others do it as a deliberate knowing deception to overthrow that which they cannot overthrow by legitimate means because Reason alone would prevent it.
But Reason is an ignored step-child in the House of Law once an illegitimate precedent is set. All must walk in lock-step to its mandate, no matter how irrational, or opposite of the truth it might be.
When language becomes corrupted, then thinking follows, and that is the explanation for the ignorance of almost everyone in Washington, the District of Corruption. If an error, lie, or deception is presented as fact by any authoritative source, it will be embraced by less insightful minds as the God’s honest truth. After all, who is in the habit of questioning the wisdom, knowledge, correctness, and infallibility of their mentors and superiors? Almost no one.
And that is exactly why we are waist deep in the dung of deception and dishonest law, opinions, and policy. Who can assure you that the muck we are in up to our waists is not a bog without a bottom that our feet will ever touch until we are far below its surface? Who can assure you that the deception spewed by “leaders” and media pundits and “reporters” will ever be cut through, lessened, or eliminated? How can a nation turn toward the light of truth when a charlatan with the flashlight-of-falsehood continually shines it in the eyes of the media and the masses who bow down to him?
How can a leader who is the biggest, boldest, most unconscionable liar in American national history be viewed as a purveyor of truth when he lives a life of deceit, deception, dishonesty and secrecy?
He relies on misconception on top of misconception in order to appear to be constitutionally legitimate. He was strongly backed to attempt the greatest con in the history of the world, to make like the emperor with no cloths and march out before the adoring masses (including 95% of African Americans and 100% of all Democrats) and pretend that he was undoubtedly eligible to be President, with none of the opposition willing to call him on his scam, including his opponent, the pathetically compromised “Republican” John McLame nor any of the traitorous cowards sitting as supreme court judges.
As a result, he has been able to float on a wave of unquestioned, unvetted acceptance throughout his life by, on one hand, boldly pretending to be a native-born American national while on the other pretending to be solely an Indonesian national. He’s had it both ways, factually, politically, socially, and sexually. [google Larry Sinclair, or don’t.]
No one has ever pulled off a fraud of such magnitude that it went unchallenged all of the way into the oval office where he was handed the nuclear “football” with which he could end human life as we know it. It’s the greatest scam of all time. Someday, perhaps, that fact will be recognized publicly, but not while the current state of the nation stands. Perhaps only dire calamity will open people’s eyes to the falsehoods they go about their lives blind to.
Falsehood #1. All native-born persons, except ambassador’s children, are citizens.
Falsehood #2. All native-born “citizens” are eligible to be President.
Falsehood #3. Barry Obama was native-born.
Falsehood #4. Barry Obama was born a citizen of the United States.
Falsehood #5. Barry Obama has an archived Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth
Falsehood #6. Barry Obama’s parents lived together as a married couple.
Falsehood #7. Barry Obama’s official ID was not his Indonesian passport alone.
Falsehood #8. Barry Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii during all of her pregnancy.
Falsehood #9. Barry Obama’s mother was not living in Seattle when he was born.
Falsehood #10. Barry Obama’s mother didn’t seek adoption in Hawaii, Seattle, nor Vancouver, B.C.
Falsehood #11. Barry Obama Soetoro possessed an American passport.
Falsehood #12. Barry Obama Soetoro registered with the Selective Service System.
Falsehood #13. Barry Obama Soetoro registered for college as a U.S. citizen.
Falsehood #14 Barry Obama is proven to have fulfilled all requirements for graduation.
Falsehood #15. Barry Obama is proven to have personally taken and passed the Illinois Bar Exam.
Falsehood #16 Barry Obama can be assumed to have authored all of the text of his 1st book.
Falsehood #17. Barry Obama never passed himself off as having been born in Kenya.
Falsehood #18. Barry Obama’s claim that you can keep your health insurance and your doctor.