Don Mashak

Leave a comment Posted on April 10, 2022April 10, 2022 Politics

INVITE: RESTORE OUR AMERICAN REPUBLIC MEETING 10APR2022 1pm & INVITAR: RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA AMERICANA REUNIÓN 10APR2022 1pm & 通知和邀请：2022 年 4 月 10 日下午 1 点恢复我们的美国共和国会议

* PLAIN TEXT APPEARS AFTER THE MEMES <> SPANISH APPEARS BELOW THE ENGLISH <> CHINESE BELOW THE SPANISH
* APARECE TEXTO SENCILLO DESPUÉS DE LOS MEMES <> EL ESPAÑOL APARECE DEBAJO DEL INGLÉS
*备忘录后显示纯文本 <> 西班牙语之下的中文
* TEXT VERSION MAY BE LONGER THAN MEME VERSION <>
LA VERSIÓN DE TEXTO PUEDE SER MÁS LARGA QUE LA VERSIÓN MEME
文本版本可能比MEME版本更长

INVITE: RESTORE OUR AMERICAN REPUBLIC MEETING 10APR2022 1pm

INVITE: RESTORE OUR AMERICAN REPUBLIC MEETING 10APR2022 1pm

RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC will meet 10APR2022 at 1pm at the same location in the NW Twin Cities Metro area. RSVP MNCOC@ProtonMail.com for more details. We encourage all to attend. We will buy lunch for the first 5 persons to arrive for our meeting who are either 18-30, immigrants or minorities.

Let’s get together and talk about all the issues your political parties wouldn’t let you discuss at your Minnesota Caucuses… Election 2020, COVID-19 Lockdowns, Censorship, Propaganda, Open Borders, Sedition, Treason, etc. If you are tired of both major political parties deliberately destroying our country and our unalienable Natural Rights, you will be there to ESTABLISH TRUTH & formulate a plan of action.

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON OUR WAY TO RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC

In trying to reestablish a common perspective of reality among among those who identify themselves as conservative, 1 of our members asked their local “Basic Political Organization Unit” (BPOU) a simple question: Do our BPOU Officers, Convention District Officers and State Political Party officers take the same oath of office that elected government officials and others required to take: “to support and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

The answer was, “No”. The even more surprising attitude was, “we don’t have to, we are a private organization, seperate from the State and National Political Party”. Our Member turned to the crowd, and said, “Did you all just hear that?”

You would think that an American Political Organization seemingly alligned with one of the 2 major political parties in our country, would require their officers to take said oath. At a minimum, if this oath was inadvertantly left out of bylaws, etc., one of them would have immediately have recognized their error. Is it too much to have expected one of these BPOU board members, to immediately move to adopt requiring its officers to take the Oath of Office that 5 U.S. Code § 3331 requires of government officials?

We ask you to consider that this is the same BPOU Board that is hiding and taking actions against this same member’s BPOU Delegate Convention Resolution regarding eliminating the Seditionous and Treasonous 4th Branch of Government, Administrative State. You can view that resolution here: http://rebrand.ly/ProgsLaugh

The Behavior and actions of the BPOU Board became even more outrageous, but more research is necessary before further responding.

If such oppression by American Political Organizations that represent they are loyal Americans angers you and you are tired of not being able to speak your mind, with your fellow citizens, we encourage you to attend our next meeting 10APR2022. Hope to see you there!

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak,

The Cynical Patriot
Wright County MN GOP Delegate 173

Next RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC meeting 10APR2022
RSVP MNCOC@ProtonMail.com for details
MN Committee of Correspondence (COC)

INVITAR: RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA AMERICANA REUNIÓN 10APR2022

INVITAR: RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA AMERICANA REUNIÓN 10APR2022

RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA se reunirá el 10 de abril de 2022 a la 1 p. m. en el mismo lugar en el área metropolitana del noroeste de Twin Cities. RSVP MNCOC@ProtonMail.com para más detalles. Animamos a todos a asistir. Compraremos el almuerzo para las primeras 5 personas que lleguen a nuestra reunión que tengan entre 18 y 30 años, inmigrantes o minorías.

Reunámonos y hablemos sobre todos los temas que sus partidos políticos no le permitirían discutir en sus caucus de Minnesota… Elección 2020, cierres por COVID-19, censura, propaganda, fronteras abiertas, sedición, traición, etc. Si está cansado de ambos los principales partidos políticos que destruyen deliberadamente nuestro país y nuestros derechos naturales inalienables, usted estará allí para ESTABLECER LA VERDAD y formular un plan de acción.

ALGO DIVERTIDO SUCEDIÓ EN NUESTRO CAMINO A RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA

Al tratar de restablecer una perspectiva común de la realidad entre aquellos que se identifican como conservadores, 1 de nuestros miembros hizo una pregunta simple a su ‘Unidad de Organización Política Básica’ (BPOU) local: ¿Nuestros funcionarios de BPOU, funcionarios de distrito de convenciones y partidos políticos estatales los oficiales toman el mismo juramento que los oficiales electos del gobierno y otros deben tomar: ‘apoyar y defender nuestra Constitución de todos los enemigos, extranjeros y domésticos’.

La respuesta fue, ‘No’. La actitud aún más sorprendente fue, ‘no tenemos que hacerlo, somos una organización privada, separada del Estado y del Partido Político Nacional’. Nuestro miembro se volvió hacia la multitud y dijo: ‘¿Acabaron de escuchar eso?’

Usted pensaría que una Organización Política Estadounidense aparentemente alineada con uno de los 2 principales partidos políticos en nuestro país, requeriría que sus oficiales presten dicho juramento. Como mínimo, si este juramento se hubiera omitido inadvertidamente en los estatutos, etc., uno de ellos habría reconocido inmediatamente su error. ¿Es demasiado haber esperado que uno de estos miembros de la junta de BPOU, inmediatamente adopte el requisito de que sus funcionarios presten el juramento de cargo que el Código de EE. UU. 5 § 3331 exige a los funcionarios gubernamentales?

Le pedimos que tenga en cuenta que se trata de la misma Junta de BPOU que se esconde y toma medidas contra la Resolución de la Convención de Delegados de BPOU de este mismo miembro con respecto a la eliminación de la 4ª Rama de Gobierno Sedicioso y Traidor, Estado Administrativo. Puede ver esa resolución aquí: http://rebrand.ly/ProgsLaugh

El comportamiento y las acciones de la Junta de BPOU se volvieron aún más escandalosos, pero se necesita más investigación antes de seguir respondiendo.

Si tal opresión por parte de las organizaciones políticas estadounidenses que representan que son estadounidenses leales lo enoja y está cansado de no poder decir lo que piensa, con sus conciudadanos, lo alentamos a que asista a nuestra próxima reunión el 10 de abril de 2022. ¡Espero verte allí!

Esos eran mis pensamientos.

Gracias por tu tiempo.

en libertad,

Don Mashak,

El patriota cínico
Delegado republicano del condado de Wright, MN

Próxima reunión RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA 10ABR2022
RSVP MNCOC@ProtonMail.com para más detalles
Comité de Correspondencia de MN (MNCOC)

通知和邀请：2022 年 4 月 10 日下午 1 点恢复我们的美国共和国会议

通知和邀请：2022 年 4 月 10 日下午 1 点恢复我们的美国共和国会议

恢复我们的共和国将于 2022 年 4 月 10 日下午 1 点在西北双城都会区的同一地点会面。回复 MNCOC@ProtonMail.com 了解更多详情。我们鼓励所有人参加。我们将为 18-30 岁、移民或少数族裔的前 5 人购买午餐。

让我们聚在一起，谈谈您的政党不允许您在明尼苏达州预选会议上讨论的所有问题……2020 年选举、COVID-19 封锁、审查制度、宣传、开放边界、煽动叛乱、叛国罪等。如果您厌倦了两者主要政党故意破坏我们的国家和我们不可剥夺的自然权利，您将在那里建立真相并制定行动计划。

在我们恢复共和国的路上发生了一件有趣的事情

为了在自称保守的人中重新建立对现实的共同看法，我们的一位成员向当地的“基本政治组织单位”（BPOU）提出了一个简单的问题：我们的 BPOU 官员、大会区官员和州政党官员们宣誓就职时，民选政府官员和其他人要求宣誓：“支持和捍卫我们的宪法免受国内外所有敌人的侵害”。

答案是“不”。更令人惊讶的态度是，“我们不必，我们是私人组织，独立于国家和国家政党”。我们的成员转向人群说：“你们都听到了吗？”

你会认为，一个看似与我国两大政党之一结盟的美国政治组织会要求其官员宣誓。至少，如果这个誓言无意中被排除在章程等之外，他们中的一个人会立即认识到他们的错误。期望这些 BPOU 董事会成员之一立即采取行动，要求其官员按照 5 U.S. Code § 3331 对政府官员的要求宣誓就职是不是太过分了？

我们要求您考虑到，这是同一 BPOU 委员会，它正在隐藏并针对同一成员的 BPOU 代表大会决议采取行动，该决议是关于消除行政州煽动和叛国的政府第四部门的决议。您可以在此处查看该决议：http://rebrand.ly/ProgsLaugh

BPOU 董事会的行为和行动变得更加离谱，但在进一步回应之前还需要进行更多研究。

如果代表他们是忠诚的美国人的美国政治组织的这种压迫激怒了您，并且您厌倦了无法与您的同胞畅所欲言，我们鼓励您参加我们的下一次会议 10APR2022。希望在那里见到你！

那是我的想法。

感谢您的时间。

在自由，

唐·马沙克

愤世嫉俗的爱国者
莱特县明尼苏达州共和党代表

Next RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC 会议 2022 年 4 月 10 日
回复 MNCOC@ProtonMail.com 了解详情
明尼苏达州通信委员会 (MNCOC)

1 Comment Posted on June 27, 2014July 25, 2014 Uncategorized

Plausible Deniability Standard of Morality defined by Don Mashak

Plausible deniability originally was a legal concept. It referred to lack of evidence proving a allegation of a legal nature. Standards of of Proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is “more likely so than not” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” If your opponent/accuser lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true. Plausible meaning believable.Because many lawyers are in politics, they brought this higher standard proof with them diminishing the morality, ethics and integrity of government.This has evolved into the current government Standard of Morality. It has evolved to include a denial of blame as well as a denial of guilt.

Most of us in America are taught and instilled with a Moral Standard of Absolute Right and Wrong. That is to say, that as we go through life we have a per-conceived notion as to whether anything we do or say is “right” or “wrong”. (Think fable of George Washington’s “I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the Cherry Tree”)And, for the most part, the majority of us go through life with an inner compass of knowing right and wrong, and presume that most other persons, especially those we trust, have the same or very similar Moral compass.

However, Elected Officials, Government Officials and Lawyers adopted a different, more flexible, Moral Standard. Almost all of these aforementioned persons approach everything with a “what can I plausibly deny” Moral Standard. That is to say, these folks do a “reward vs likelihood of being caught” calculation/assessment in assessing virtually everything they do. Further, these people then take steps to minimize the likelihood of them being caught before, during the actual act. And the destruction of evidence is an attempt to create plausible deniablity after the act has been discovered or alleged. (e.g. Missing IRS emails 2014)

This is why they rarely put anything controversial in writing. This is why if they are forced to put something in writing, it is usually in the form of a form letter. This is also why they most often have you talk to an underling or an agency bureaucrat so they can plausibly deny knowledge of the conversation or be able to say the underling or bureaucrat mis-stated their position. In the Courts of the State of Minnesota and many other states, members of the audience are prohibited from recording (video or audio) while court is in session. (Yes, you can ask permission but then 1) it is usually denied 2)The Court is put on notice that it must be more vigilant in what it says and does) In this way, only the court reporters transcript evidences the record and such documents can and are often altered to remove evidence that otherwise could not plausibly be denied.

Elected officials and high ranking government bureaucrats also build plausibility right into the hierarchy of their office. Senators and Representatives have a chief of staff (who doews not have to face election) that handles most of the activities that must be “plausibly denied”. Another example is the US Department of Justice Attorney General taking the political heat for decisions not to pursue certain criminals(like banksters and IRS officials who discriminated against conservative groups) Sheriff’s Departments often utilize a Deputy Sheriff for such persons. In this way, the elected official can deny knowledge and/or culpability for their underlings. And, in the worst case scenario, the unelected second in command, can take the fall with the understanding that they will “be taken care of” as understood quid pro quo.

Yet there is an dire consequence to America that results from this Morality of Plausible Deniability. Each of us who have been indoctrinated with a moral standard of absolute right and wrong are handicapped when dealing with a person who practices a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability. Folks that practice a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability do not wear signs disclosing such. Therefore, until our presumption that another person adheres to a same or similar moral standard as our own is proven wrong, we presume that their Moral Standard is the same as our own.

And, as a result of the nature of our interactions with Politicians and Government Officials, awareness of their betrayals may take a long time to realize. Whereas the Moral Standard of a person that cheats you on a car or some other personal interaction is quick and apparent, betrayals of trust by Politicians and Government Officials are more usually not that speedily apparent. In fact, an American Citizen that only interacts with a politician socially or one or two times more personally will likely never ponder, let alone deduce, whether said politician has betrayed their trust or not.

This has been hard to define than I anticipated. I would appreciate any feed back to refine this definition.

Example:

President Bill Clinton practiced a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability as demonstrated in his responses about Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. For example, before the blue, semen stained dress was found, Bill Clinton believed he could plausibly deny having sex with “that woman” and, therefore, denied the allegations. Bill Clinton also tried to plausibly deny he had sex with Ms. Lewinsky by trying to assert that “oral sex was not sex”, and therefore he did not lie under oath. In another act meant to create plausible deniability, then President Clinton had his “bagman” Al Gore go to the Tibetan “Vow of Poverty” Temple to pick up a brief case containing $100,000.00 in illegal campaign contributions eventually traced to Red China. It is alleged that the $100,000.oo was the pay off for President Clinton orchestrating access to the Red Chinese to our GPS and Rocket Stabilizer Gyro technology. Technology which now allows Red China to successfully target mainland USA with which was previously its wobbly, crash and burn long range rockets.

President Richard Nixon practiced the Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability when he stated “I am not a crook” when confronted with the Watergate Scandal. President Nixon then resigned and by act of his appointed successor President Gerald Ford never had to testify under oath and therefore could continue to plausibly allegations about his role in the Watergate break in.

Don Mashak's Political Dissent Definitions

Don Mashak's Political Dissent Definitions

These are Don Mashak's Definitions of various terms catalyzing, communicating and/or used by voices of American Political Dissent

Don Mashak

INVITE: RESTORE OUR AMERICAN REPUBLIC MEETING 10APR2022 1pm & INVITAR: RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA AMERICANA REUNIÓN 10APR2022 1pm & 通知和邀请：2022 年 4 月 10 日下午 1 点恢复我们的美国共和国会议

INVITE: RESTORE OUR AMERICAN REPUBLIC MEETING 10APR2022 1pm

INVITE: RESTORE OUR AMERICAN REPUBLIC MEETING 10APR2022 1pm

INVITAR: RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA AMERICANA REUNIÓN 10APR2022

INVITAR: RESTAURAR NUESTRA REPÚBLICA AMERICANA REUNIÓN 10APR2022

通知和邀请：2022 年 4 月 10 日下午 1 点恢复我们的美国共和国会议

通知和邀请：2022 年 4 月 10 日下午 1 点恢复我们的美国共和国会议

Plausible Deniability Standard of Morality defined by Don Mashak