On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, a postal service mail carrier Douglas Mark Hughes piloted a gyrocopter onto the White House Lawn who intended the flight as a protest to highlight the need for campaign-finance reform.
The following images were 'abducted' from the Daily News.com site. The woman is his wife Alena.
Hughes hoped to raise awareness about the influence of big money in politics by deliberately breaking the law to deliver 535 letters, one for each member of Congress. Instead, the overwhelming focus of news coverage has been about the gaps he exposed in national security. He told The Associated Press: 'We've got bigger problems in this country than worrying about whether the security around DC is iron-clad. We need to be worried about the piles of money that are going into Congress.'
The message was two pages long to Congress that they are going to have to face the issue, OK, of campaign-finance reform and honesty and government so that they work for the people.
If necessary, the position of Mr. Hughes' violation(s) of law needs to be taken to the Supreme Court because the government forced him to break the law, under-the-influence of what appears to be an obvious sensitivity, sensibility and patriotic sentimentality expressed not only on behalf of himself but for many in the public. If I was the judge I would throw the case out of court. If I were president, he and others like him would be given an automatic amnesty... as well as accepting blame for the government's own insensitivity, insensibility and "insentimentality" for not only perpetrating, but perpetuating and prosecuting because of. It is an unconscionable deed being fostered against the public. If there existed a viable means by which he and the rest of the public could actually influence the government through an honest formula of redressing public grievances... without the need of bartering or bribing (barter-bribing) with money or some other resource to benefit one or another Legislator, some agency, department or agent thereof; Mr. Hughes and others would not reach a point of needless frustration vented towards those in a government that is supposed to be working for the people and not themselves. The greater crime is that being effected by the government against the public in its blatant disrespect and denial of providing an effective means by which public grievances can be offered, discussed, and voted on (with the entire body of citizens involved) in order for a resolution to be reached and not set aside because it does not provide a means by which someone in government can take advantage of for their personal agenda.
In effect, the entire public is being denied a sorely needed due process of Constitutional law, indicated by the slip shod form of petition-the-government process set in place... and is outlined in the Declaration of Independence as a reason, acting as a precedent, to engage in a Revolt... a Revolution. Mr. Hughes did what he did because he is lacking in adequate Representation... just like the rest of us are. The government is not representing the people... its resources are being used by one or another in government authority to assist in acting out personal agendas which often are at odds with the larger and more important interests of the public well aware of its place and position in the global community. Our Representatives are "politely and courteously" inattentive and unresponsive; and thus are responsible for those of us in the public who are forced to break laws which will enable us to have better laws to suit the needs of the people. It is a stupid way of life we are being subjected to by an inept form of social governance. Mr. Hughes and all the others who have engaged in such creative Freedom -of- Speech protests are not guilty— the government is. They need to be set free. The various levels of government need to be (metaphorically speaking), thrown into the very dungeon they force, in many instances, the people to endure.
The public is being forced into the position of utilizing their Freedom Of Speech in creative ways in an effort to get the message across to the government (and in many instances, the media) that the people are not happy with the presently practiced formula of government. The present brand of so-called Democracy is a joke. But such a statement is not meant to condone acts of illegality, it is used to highlight the extremes caring, conscientious and deeply concerned people are being forced to take because they believe they have no other choice, or can not see any viable alternative, and neither is the government providing the public with information of what alternative measures the public can take.
For example, it is ludicrous to think that writing one's Congressional Representative will have any impact, or that using the stupid "Petition The Government" approach is any more than an exercize in futility. Instead, the government wants to keep silent about there being no alternative which exists, and it wants to use the lack of an alternative course as a means of being able to excuse itself for using strong-arm (fine and/or imprisonment) methods against anyone.... to show the world how tough it is and that no one can mess with it... or they suffer the consequences of having to deal with a government that does not have the wisdom in dealing with the public in a more honest, thoughtful and genuinely sincere way to redress grievances. It would rather take advantage of an elderly man like Mr. Hughes who appears to obviously be— not a criminal mastermind nor "Enemy of the State"... or he would have been sent off to work in some government sponsored tortuous-to-the-public asylum like the I.R.S. (Internal Revenue Service)... though the government would nonetheless confiscate his gyrocopter in order to use it as another entitlement or auction off in order to pay for some other benefit that the public must pay for but itself do without.
The people are being backed up against a wall with no one to turn to and only themselves to look for protection against a voracious predatory monster that has been an imperialist and colonialist in its activities against both citizens and others in the world. Whereas the public could once confide in the news media, it no longer has much confidence in journalists... since many in the public are better informed, more knowledgable and can write a straighter line of truth. When no one in government appears to be listening with sincerity and commitment to honor the code of Representing the people first and foremost, people are forced into doing rash things such as committing suicide outside the Capitol or climbing over the White House fence... and the public is seldom made privy to the "message" the person was trying to make. Instead, the person or person's committing such acts are automatically defined by the government and media as being in one or another way "troubled", assigned with a made-up history of some previous incongruous thought processing which brought them to such a state of insanity... because they don't share in the same type of lunacy that the government and some media interests.
Yet, even Legislators are angry that their own messages are not getting through to their peers or the public. Some of them try to get their message across by either trying to legislate or vote for stupid ideas to be enacted as laws... just so they can have a voice of some measure being recorded for history. But the fact remains that neither the public nor those in government are making large gains in their struggle to reform government activity. No body is seeing a larger picture because they are standing toe-to-heel in a queue of tradition and presumed self-importance that creates blinders. (An image of the arrogance of Italy's fascist dictator Benito Mussolini comes to mind.) Some people, both in and out of government want to deliberately instigate chaos because they have aligned themselves in a position to take advantage of such a situation. Indeed, there are those who intentionally undermine sincere attempts to make useful changes on behalf of the public because they are otherwise bored and are not intelligent enough to provide a greater purpose for their energies.
Though Mr. Hughes referred to himself as a Mailman, the old movie entitled "The Postman" starring Kevin Costner came to mind. In the movie, he plays a nameless drifter who dons a postman's uniform and bag of mail as he begins a quest to inspire hope to the survivors living in a post-apocalyptic America.
It also brought to mind a comment by a co-worker who has said that I reminded her of the Postman, though I had no idea what she was talking about since I had not seen the movie. And even after viewing the movie, I did not readily make any comparison between my day -to- day activities as being related to those of the Postman... though she may have been describing an unspoken feeling about her own job duties in terms of being subjected to a routine resembling an Apocalyptic effort of survival... a point made more viable a consideration after discovering she had some artsy-craftsy creative talent, and that to one of her commercial efforts, I had contributed the word "log-lantern" to a project she was working on. Yet, I should mention that I did have to open volumes of mail in my job of contacting customers for one or another bits of information to be updated with their financial account... and then when the job was transferred to the Corporate office in another State (Texas), I was offered a thought-to-be temporary position opening more mail for distributing to different departments, though I did not work in the mail room. However, the word "Cenocracy" was coined at this time and I had placed it as a looping computer screen Marquee on my computer... so that anytime I went on a break it would flash across the screen. Thus, if the word "Postman" or "Mailman" is to be interpreted along the lines of eccentricity, I will agree... though this is not to say that everyone who works for a Postoffice is eccentric, even if at one time many of them went "Postal" and shot fellow employees over one or another dispute.
Then again, many of us "Revolutionists" want to inspire hope that there is a better way than that to which we are being subjected to by the present government. While some are awaiting for their version of a Noah to lead us out of the current wasteland, and others are awaiting some tell-tale sign of a Calvary, a few others have decided to climb down out of the primitive trees of romanticized Communism, Democracy and Socialism, by beginning our own adventure onto the Savannah and bid others to follow. (Like primates progressing towards a hominid-ism because they have a developing new type of consciousness.) We can't wait for a presumed Saviour to arrive and continue to endure needless sufferings, we have got to move upward, forward and outward/onward on our own.
Astonishingly, the only response to Mr. Hughes' and others efforts to practice their Freedom of Speech as they interpreted it, is to contrive some sort of greater deterrent of those who want to assert themselves against those who clearly do not appear to be listening to the majority of us because we lack the financial means to influence them. Again, sending letters to Congressional Representatives is a joke. The White House petition process is a joke... and the Congress nor the Judicial Branch has a petition process. No less, if and when a petition process is constructed, it is constructed to abide by the perspective of those in authority and not the people. The public is relegated into a useless marginalization akin to a black-holed disenfranchisement.
Shortly after Mr. Hughes' escapade, another person was said to have jumped over the White House fence with a "mysterious package". Afterwards, there was an announcement that spikes were going to be placed on the fence as a "temporary" measure. Who is government authority trying to kid? For all the public knows, the person might well have been a member of the Secret Service, C.I.A., U.S. Marshals, F.B.I., or some other agency that was paid to do what they did in order that the government could provide a reason (excuse) for doing what somebody has wanted to do for a long time. If the person is not directly attached to an agency, they might well be someone who was encouraged or persuaded by some deal that took place. In other words, the government is unbelievable (that is, not believable). This is not conspiracy, but fact. And many of them don't see themselves as anything but a public servant, yet their service contributes to the maintenance of a larger government mess and the people are not permitted to clean it up... yet are often blamed for it and always required to make reparations in the form of taxes or sleight-of-hand policy dealing.
With respect to the spikes that were suggested as a means to keep people from climbing the White House fence, in other words... the government wants to make a pointed remark about barring out the public. Instead of the bars, what should be done is provide greater public access to making a positive contribution towards reforming the government as suggested by a Cenocratic reform via a Cenocracy (New Government). Instead, time and again the public is faced with some negative approach in order to protect government officials in their efforts to maintain their self-defined entitlements. The public is treated as if it were a nuisance, some pesky bug getting in the way and needs to be swatted so that those in authority can get down to the business of furthering their careers of fulfilling their desires for gains in wealth, prestige and political power... whether or not it is of any value to the people.
Instead of listening to the public the government wants to create yet another obstacle... and by so doing, create more of the same disingenuous atmosphere already filling the air with duplicitous stench. Because the government, via one or another agency has their own agenda and will use any means whatsoever to provide proof for taking some extraordinary measure (typically involving weapons or money), the act of killing someone or ruining their life is a standard operating procedure.
If every attempt by the people to get those in authority to heed our views is met with increased methods and measures of security so that the government can continue doing what it is doing without regard for what the people (without some monetary means of influence) say, what then are the people left with when there are no channels of legal and lawful method to follow? Must we resort not only to attacking government officials en masse, but those who are financing them? Must those who are buying their way into influencing government policy need to be attacked at their homes, places of work, during some family outing, or on the way to some business meeting? This is a very serious situation being realized by many sincere and law abiding people. We The People don't know what to do except carry out a revolt. We don't want to engage in some form of government and business sponsored escapism so that those in authority can more easily manipulate the public to do its bidding for enhancing its greed. Must those who are buying their way into manipulating government policy be threatened by the public or will such threats merely be reacted to as the government is doing? Will those with money simply resort to the usage of bodyguards, state-of-the-art security systems, or some counter-attack commercial profiteering approach? Will all those who are sighted as participating in the "government influence" game of giving and accepting, have to be attacked simultaneously in order to clean the slate for the people to create a better form of governance? What must be done when no one is listening?
And those whose money is being used to try to influence positive changes on behalf of the public... how are we to distinguish them during what could well turn out to be a frenzied attack against those who are using various methods to conspire against the public to manipulate them out of their money... an attack that may in part come by way of their own co-workers who do or will take the side of the public should such a revolt take place? A scene during the French Revolutions "Reign of Terror" comes to mind when every citizen had to watch out for their neighbors who might want to claim them as an enemy of the people... and thus claim ownership to their property after they were executed... an act not unlike that who were deliberately accused of being a witch so that the accuser could take their property.
Again, with respect to Mr. Hughes, he needs to be set free and found innocent of all charges based on corroborating evidence which cites an egregious level of extenuating circumstances produced and promoted by the government itself as a major anti-public conspirator that creates disharmony, disillusionment and disenfranchisement... and is a con-artist that will try to convolute circumstances to make itself appear as an innocent victim without means, motive or malfeasance. How in the world did we get in such a mess, leaving us with very little options to get out of it other than resorting to a Revolution? What is it arrogance of those in the past to think they had created a system with such a flexibility that it would not require the usage of force by the public to make changes against the dictates of an established authority which would migrate a return to some former monarchial or aristocratic expression of self-defined entitlements that the majority would have to foot the bill for?
Take a look at the following outline regarding the first French Revolution (of 1798), and see if you can spot any parallels with that which is occurring today:
These are those who frequently attempt to influence government policy (or opinionated interpretations) through various forms of bribery (called "campaign contribution") such as money, weapons, gifts, tax free tariffs to a friend's business, post-government employment, etc... though money frequently is the primary model of bartering exchange.
Some laws are created by those who honestly don't know what else to do, claiming that the situation is so complex, they can only provide a meager bandaid effort on a deeper wound that is difficult to identify. When such laws create other problems, instead of retracting the law and beginning anew, it is kept and yet another stupid law is put in place to deal with its produced side effects. The government does not know how to say it is sorry or be humble. Instead of an expressed humility, it prefers trying to cover up mistakes by distracting the public with some larger event like a natural disaster, deliberately induced economic crisis, defined attack on some innocent inside or outside national borders, disease, war etc... Neither does a government like to say it is wrong and the people are right. It is an arrogance and obstinance bred during an era of a practiced monarchy and aristocracy that many in the upper class identified with; just as did those in colonial America who saw themselves as part of the English social gentry, though this view was not shared by those in England. Elitist attitudes promote self-engendered views of entitlement, like an Aristocracy who once thought that tomatoes were a delicacy not to be shared with the commoner... like those of today thinking that the people should be excluded from having their own Peoples Legislative Branch and its accompanying provisions of legislative prowess.