Rocker and Sage

The Quintessential Optimist and the Quintessential Cynic - Working Together to Build a Better America.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

"Does any gentleman believe this?"

"It is freedom gentlemen; and not a choice of the forms of servitude for which we contend. We entertain no jealousy of the present Congress, but who knows whether in some corrupt future time there may be a Congress that will form a design against the liberties of the people"- John Adams.
The new government cloaked purposely insurmountable advantages to themselves in very subtle ways. It is a credit to the "anti-federalists" intelligence, and foresight that most of these crafty advantages were spotted. Having seen the seeds of federal tyranny, they correctly envisioned the future trees of oppression under which we now find ourselves. Any talk of these so-called "trees" back in 1787, however, was subject to the open scorn of the smooth talking federalists.



Such a tyrannical future time when property rights would be ignored, where a standing army(police) would reign unchallenged, where Congressmen would virtually hold office for life, where ruinous treaties, and alliances would be commonplace, where the Executive would openly abbrogate Constitutional law with an impunity, and arrogance that would make Nero jealous, where gold and silver would disappear from circulation to be replaced by worthless pieces of paper(fiat currency) from a private banking cartel, where the states would be reduced to administrative departments of the federal government, and where the grip of taxation would actually reach into the common laborer's pocketbook, all of this was too fantastic to be even theoretically debated during the ratification processes of that time.





An example would be John Marshall's reply to Patrick Henry's concerns at the NY ratification convention in 1788: Henry had made the comment that "the officers of the proposed federal government will be protected from merited punishment by the federal judiciary." To this Marshall replied " The Federal sheriff, says he; (Henry) will go into a man's house and beat him, or abuse him, and the federal courts will protect him. Does any gentleman believe this?


Is it necessary that the officers will commit a trespass on the property, and person of those with whom they wish to "transact business"?(Note: The 21st century embodiment of this glittering generality is the Internal Revenue service). Will such great assaults on the people be allowable? Were such a law ever made to authorize them, it would be made null and void."(Theoretically, yes, but not in fact unless the Supreme Court says so). As you can see, the federalists quite easily dismissed the urgent warnings of true patriots as grotesque delusions. Sounds familiar doesn't it?





Does any gentleman believe this? Ask the few Branch Davidians who survived about the federal sheriffs as in 1993 they poured machine gun fire through the roof of a homestead church on dozens of women and children. The 17 children that lived through that assault were again made subject to their federal masters 51 days later by tanks firing gas cannon shells when the feds knew damn well that the children had no gas masks for protection, and the type of gas used was lethal to the kids. The Clinton Administration launched an attack on American citizens in Waco, Texas, because those people were "religious nuts with guns". Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns! Who did Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock? Peace Corp Volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse? But if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno teargas Michael Jackson?



The attack on individual rights has reached a point where a citizen has no right to use his own land if a government official finds a wet area on it, no right to the money in his own bank account if an IRS Agent thinks he might have dodged paying the illegal extortion that is committed every April 15 by the feds. A man's house is his castle, unless a politician covets the land in the name of "making it more productive"(for whom, pray tell?), or if his house is more than fifty years old, or if he has too many relatives living with him(does not pertain to illegals), or if he has old cars parked in his yard, or wants to add a porch, or deck. "Does any gentleman believe this?"



We have federal sheriffs beyond imagination. There are 46 civilian agencies of the Federal Government whose officers carry guns, and can make arrests. Those "great assaults" on the people have been allowed because there is nothing we can do about them short of armed rebellion. And by the way, no laws authorizing federal tyranny have ever been struck down by any sitting Supreme Court, and in the wake of 9/11, are not likely to in the near future. As Patrick Henry so wisely observed, "Will the oppressor ever let go the oppressed? Was there ever such an instance?"



The Congressional Hearings on Waco, and Ruby Ridge were a farce. None of the federal sheriffs have been brought to justice, and never will. Following the federal massacre at Waco Janet Reno told a group of the same sheriffs that "they are a part of the government that has given its people more freedom than any other government in the history of the world" (Wow!) So much for the notion that freedom, and "certain inalienable rights" of men come from God!



Patrick Henry did'nt have to wait until the 21st century to be proven right. He was vindicated in just six years when the venerable first president of the United States George Washington descended on the farmers of western Pennsylvania with an army of 13,000 men-nearly as large as which he had when he faced Cornwallis at Yorktown to suppress none other than a revolt that was caused by the farmer's refusal to pay a tax that was illegally imposed on them by the same government that was supposed to be constrained by the so-called "checks and balances" of constitutional government. The seeds of tyranny were transported from London to Washington; and were already growing!



Folks, there are no real "checks and balances" amongst the three branches of government because no branch has any real motive to restrain the other! The appetite of government is only for more; it is never satisfied! Can anything be more obvious than this?

The Founders well knew that their beloved federalism could only be achieved covertly and gradually over time through a political sleight of hand (Houdini), so they created a dog and pony show(elections) to misdirect the people from seeing the "trees" of tyranny that were growing along the sides. And so for the last two hundred years, while the seemingly fruitless gyrations went on, the shoulder dislocated, and helped the hand to wriggle free.

Since the shoulder(Supreme Court) was the key, it was deliberately underplayed in its importance in the Constitution. Article III concerning the federal judiciary is merely a few paragraphs compared to the voluminous pages of details of Articles I&II for Congress, and the President. For years the work of the Supreme Court went unnoticed by the people in the cramped, cold basement of the Capitol. Unnoticed, and uncontrolled, and that was precisely the idea. Any alleged control of the Supreme Court by the people is so insignificant it is worthless. The people elect state legislators, who appoint electoral college delegates, who choose the President, who then appoints the Justices. The link is so obscurant as to be barely more than theoretical- a veritable four ball combo shot in a game of pool!

If there is a true hope for freedom in the present application of the Constitution, then I will cheerfully wear the repute of being a sworn cynic forever! I would love nothing better than to be wrong about all of this, but the evidence is that: federal expansion is subject to no real, practical, and enforceable constitutional limits, and that both circumstancial, and historical evidence clearly supports the Constitution as being conceived, planned, and executed with the goal of relentless and unstoppable federal expansion of power at the expense of the freedoms of the people in general.

Some have attempted to refute this premise by responding that "the Constitution was inspired by God". Those who believe this will be quite surprised to learn that the Federal Convention was not even opened with prayer in May of 1787. It was proposed by Ben Franklin, but opposed by Alexander Hamilton on the grounds that the convention was not in need of "foreign aid". No action was taken on Franklin's proposal. As a result, the convention was never led in daily prayer

Others have said that"the founders were free-market guys weren't they?" No, they were not. As wealthy lawyers, and businessmen they had little commitment to any notions of an unregulated free market. The economy supported by them was a mixed economy that gave clear leverage to the merchant, and financial classes to directly benefit those classes. It is fair to say that this was considered to be pragmatic in the world of the 1780's.

Our "parchment worship" has blinded us to the provable history of the Constitution being a lukewarm servant of both freedom, and tyranny. Our oppressors have understood this for a long time; we're just now beginning to wrinkle our brows a little bit. So while there are many sincere clarion calls to "go back to the Constitution", even by men as honorable as Ron Paul, WE ARE ALREADY THERE! Don't blame the "liberal" justices, don't blame the lazy Congress, don't blame an imperial Presidency. They are all acting perfectly legally within the allowable limits imposed by the Constitution. Ignore the "Federalist Papers" ad copy and look instead at what they did, not what they said. When you focus your eyes on the rules of the game, and not on the board pieces, it is easy to see just what has happened to our country.

Let no one ever say that "John doesn't believe in America anymore". I do believe as much as ever in the "natural rights of men" as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and as they were SUPPOSED to be defended by the Constitution. And when the day comes that that government is firmly in place I will be its most ardent supporter. However, we're in big trouble. We have no rights, only privileges, and responsibilities that are given by those that rule over us. We are one crisis(created) away from the end of liberty. We are "in check", and soon to be "checkmate" from the powers that be. Obama's "change" will not save us from the this demon, and neither would have McCain's. Both are "owned" by the present darkness of tyranny that besets us, and are ready to do its bidding. One need only look at the "Constitution for the Newstates of America" to see where we are going.

My hope is that we will wake from our slumber and realize that" the glory of Rome rests on the life of one righteous man"(Claudius). Let us finally understand the name of the game being played, take the hand we have been dealt, and play it better, and with more honor than our opponents while there is still time. The Revolution must be televised.

2 Comments:

  • At 11:35 PM , Blogger RightWingRocker said...

    Must be televised, indeed.

    While this post is absolutely dead-on, I do figure that the Founders may not have had the ability in their time, to see clearly enough this far into the future. Intentional? No. The Founders considered the Second Amendment the enforcement. Perhaps they could not see that the American people could be so hoodwinked. Again, perhaps they could. Perhaps they even did. We really won't ever know for sure.

    The key words to hang on to in this post deal with the natural rights of Man as they were "SUPPOSED to be guaranteed" by the Constitution. We must stand firm on the idea that, despite some things that may have been done in acts of self-preservation, that the intentions of the Founding Fathers, however flawed, were honorable.

    All that's really required is a commitment to adding an amendment or more that will protect us from those who would violate those natural rights that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.

    Clarification and intensification of the Second Amendment would be a good start. Wouldn't you agree, Sage?

    RWR

     
  • At 9:56 AM , Blogger theoldsage said...

    The document is already quite clear as stated. The problem is that the "guarantee"(checks and balances) is a "broken staff", and the founders were either fools, or liars for all of their "good intentions".

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home