Rocker and Sage

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Mandate of Heaven

As a passionate student, and teacher of the history of the world, I have studied the lives of many of both the famous, and infamous characters that have shaped it. Thus I have always been an admirer of Genghis Khan. On the surface he would appear to be nothing more than a minor player who stepped on the stage from the outback of Mongolia for a few brief moments. A barbarian from a backward time and a strange land whose major accomplishment was to cut a swath of blood, and terror across Central Asia for a short time in the 12th/13th centuries, and then disappear forever into the dusty history of the Silk Road. But upon a closer examination, he emerges as one of the most remarkable leaders in history. And it is in this respect, he differs from most of the others that the closer you get to him, the more admirable he becomes.

To begin to understand him is to look at the experiences of his youth. He had been born in obscurity on an ocean of grass, a veritable louse on a hill. He was a quick study, and soon learned that the key to survival was to be found in the thing that he most lacked: power. Power to fight to win ,to command,to rule, to reform, and rebuild what had been lost, and then to continue to create further security that could be passed on to his posterity, and not be threatened by anything of this world.

And while I realize that all of this sounds like the babbling of a historian trying to work up a resume piece to find his niche in some think tank, or other house of historical psychology,one that would in effect, attempt to make his case(Genghis) as that which arose out of some "deprived childhood", I would doubt that the spirit of Temujin, were it here to be questioned, would ever concur. To do so would be to deny the force that, in his view, lay outside himself. For his personality was infused with the undenialable certainty of being divinely ordained for the world leadership that he was to have placed upon him. Yes, help was given to him through "mysterious" means-the reading of a sheep's fire-cracked shoulder bone,and prayer on the sacred mountain in which he received special insight,yet the pre-ordained end was clear: he was to achieve an unprecedented power on Earth to the end of an unprecedented justice in Heaven. And power was the key.

Therefore, to win power, to hold power, to increase power, and to keep power was his lifelong purpose. He was not the first,nor would he be the last to come to this realization. But his greatness is to be found, I think, in the fact that he was imbued with the largesse of soul to innately know that in order to achieve this he would need the divine combination of charisma, and faith to inspire others in that same certainty that the "mandate of heaven" was to be one with his own.

What became extraordinary about his life was the maintenance over the period of fifty years of a balance between evolving personality, changing conditions, and increasing power-holding these three variables in constant tension against the ever present ends of falling into corruption, and paranoia thus allowing events to dictate an agenda. This was something new, and unique in the annals of human history. I call it governing under the "Mandate of Heaven". As I thought on the meaning that a life lived such as his was lived could have on us in the present, as any good historian would attempt to do, I have arrived at the conclusion that there is a deep strand of truth that needs to be understood by us about the kind of leadership that we should be demanding from the various candidates who seek to govern us. The following is provided for a quick guide for both the elected, and the electorate.

1. Reward Loyalty
In his dealings with people, Genghis never forgot an act of generousity. Once, after he had ascended to power, he met a man who had helped him escape captivity in his youth: "In my dreams in the dark of night, and in my breast in the bright day I have always remembered the good will that you showed me". As part of his revolution, he honored the brave, and loyal whatever their origin, or status in life. The bonds of loyalty were not easily tied, and often had to be maintained by every means possible. But once convinced of a man's devotion to him, he delegated brilliantly. An instance of this was when he left his viceroy Mukhali to the all important task of conquering, and maintaining the northern territories of China. Under Mukhali's leadership taxes were raised to support poverty-stricken followers. Please understand that this was not done under the pretense of any foreshadowing of socialist, or democratic impulses, or even humanitarianism, but rather should be seen as an embodiment of a supreme traditionalism in which the basic duties of the successful tribal leader were carried out to their ultimate end. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

2.Be Austere
Genghis remained the tough nomad that he was despising the life of luxury, and honoring simplicity for himself, and thus became the example for his followers. It was well known that he would give the clothes off his back for another Mongol in need. He was a physically hard man for all of his life, fit for the hunt, or the fight until well into his sixties, keeping his roots in the mountains, and grasslands of his youth. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

3. Exercise Self-control
One of the extraordinary characheristics that he displayed was the ability to control his anger, and allow others their say in matters. When an uncle defected to a rival tribe, according to protocall, he immediately ordered his death. but upon his being reminded by two brothers in arms Boorchu, and Mukhali that to kill your uncle would be to in effect, "extinguish your own fire" (because of the relationship to his deceased father), Genghis sobbed "let it be", and fell into silence. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

4.Recognize talent, and use it
Under the rule of Genghis, herdsmen became generals, and enemies became trusted officials. To the plethora of non-Mongols who served him he was as fair, and generous as he was to his own kind. He admired, and rewarded talent without prejudice, given only that it was practiced with loyalty. In his service were Chinese, Muslim merchants, Nestorians, and Buddhists. Ye lu Chut-sai, the Chinaman, who was his closest advisor, was a primary example of this. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

5.Kill your enemies without mercy
To those who had not bound themselves to him and his cause, or who opposed him Genghis was merciless. Once he became convinced of disloyalty in either friend, or foe he was a ruthless executioner. If he never forgot a favor, he likewise never forgave an insult. He considered such an insult not only to be against him, but also against Heaven as well.The Merkits abducted his wife Borte, and held her captive for a brief period not long after they were first married. His response was "to divide them until they were no more". The Taychiuts, who captured him, and held him against his will, were made "to blow like ashes in the wind". Of the Tatars, who were responsible for the death of his father, he made war with them, and killed them to the last man wherever he found them. To him, vengeance was a Heaven sent duty. There was no quarter shown by him that other military leaders showed in their dealings with the opposition in the hope of future alliances. To Genghis, an enemy that would not defer to him at once was not worthy of any tratment short of all out destruction. This determination was without a doubt the salient point in history's identification of him as nothing more than a bloodthirsty barbarian. Once, when on the hunt with his General Boorchu, he is reputed to have asked what he (Boorchu) considered to be a man's greatest happiness. After some thought, Boorchu replied that it lay in falconry. What could be better than a sturdy gelding beneath you, and a swift bird on your wrist? Genghis's reply was: "You are wrong. A man's greatest good fortune is to be found in the destruction of his enemies, and the seizing of all of his possessions, and the leaving of his women weeping, and wailing." In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

6.Oppose cruelty
While the last point could certainly be seen to suggest otherwise, the record shows that he did not sadistically enjoy the suffering of those he had conquered. There are no accounts of him employing torture to his victims, and on more than one occasion there is record of him specifically ordering restraint on the part of his men on a defeated foe. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

7.Adapt to changing circumstances
This, I think, is his most remarkable virtue as a commander. In this, Genghis displayed more sublety to him than any mere barbarity might suggest. If a leader is to be judged by the men who serve him, and the decisions that he makes, then Genghis Khan deserves to be credited for recognizing the benefits of education, and bureaucracy by his commanding the briefing of his scribes for the sake of posterity, and administration. This is quite remarkable for an illiterate herdsmen/warrior of the 13th century. And he matured as he went. With each leap to the next level of power; from clan chief to tribal leader, to national statesman, and finally to emperor, he grew in status. This is all the more astonishing when you consider that he was the first of his people to make this leap, and that his only mentors were his enemies. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

8.Know that you have divine support
At each level, he never doubted that he had Heaven's support. His ideology was simple, and straightforward. It was set forth by the belief that all tribes, and nations were to be subject to Mongol rule by the will of Heaven even before their conquest. If all foreign kings would acknowledge this basic truth, all would be well. This belief reminds me of the simple faith required by the Hebrews in achieving their biblical conquest of the land of Canaan. The fact of it was already written in Heaven, all they had to do was accept it. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

9.Make your friends, and enemies believe it too
Yeh-lu Chutsai joined Genghis because he believed that the Khan possessed the Mandate of Heaven. His success had proved it, and history had demonstrated it. How could any man defeat his enemies in so many instances without the power of Heaven behind him? It simply could not be done. When Genghis made war against a people, it was as if Eternal Heaven had already slain, and marked them for annihilation because they opposed the great Khan, and thus were in opposition to his Heaven.In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven as a true leader of his people.

10. Respect the power of mystery
Why Genghis had been chosen for this role was a mystery to him, as was the nature of the godhead that chose him. With no clear understanding of Heaven, and its will, respect was due by him to all who sought to understand it, and might help him to travel a little farther down the path. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven as a true leader of his people.

From Alexander the Great to Adolph Hitler, the best, and vilest of leaders have all had some of these traits. Select a few of them and consider for yourselves. Jesus's kingdom was not of this world. Napolean was perhaps a more brilliant military general/politician, but he made no claims to divine backing; and he ended in defeat without empire. Mohammed balanced religion with military genius, but the briefly unified empire of Islam that he founded was less his creation than that of his heirs.
Alexander came the closest to Genghis I think, though he was no match for ruthlessness to the Khan. He might have been constrained by his tutor Aristotle with lectures on ethics, or possibly he never got the proper chance having died at half the age of Genghis.

When I look to American leaders, I see none that are his equal beyond George Washington,and to a somewhat lesser degree Abraham Lincoln. Jefferson, and John Adams were world class statesmen but lacked divine support, and were thus unable to inspire their people to claim the goals, and ideals that they themselves were aspiring to. The American people have had real leadership only in form without function since the Civil War as the moneyed class has usurped the reins of governmental leadership parading an assortment of acceptable puppets across the stage in what has been perhaps the greatest political hoax of the ages,the ideal of a sustaining constitutional republic. There has been little, or nothing of "the mandate" in the lot of them. Most have been scoundrels, and the cronies of the men whose wealth has bought for them the offices that they have sought. And "WE THE PEOPLE" have heartily endorsed the lot of them as representative of the world as we believe it to be.

The point being here is that those who we elect to public office are a direct reflection of the people that have elected them. Thus we have the kind of government that we deserve. When we deserve better, we will get better. But,if WE THE PEOPLE will allow history to teach us something, the life of a so-called "barbarian" from the 13th century has much to tell us about the kind of leadership that can lead a great people to great achievements,even in this modern era. I hope that we will all consider that any leadership without "The Mandate of Heaven" is not leadership at all, and that those whose feet walk this path will be put to its fire! So let it be written, so let it be done!

The Revolution will not be televised.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Thou Shalt Laugh

This post would be downright hilarious if it weren't the best example I have seen recently of just why our country is in deep trouble. Read it and... well, laugh! Sometimes you just gotta do it!

This post is a DC airport ticket agent's version of "why" this country is on the "rocks".

1. New Hampshire congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter asked for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window... on an airplane!

2. Kansas Congressman Moore wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length of the flight , and the passport information, and then he interrupted me with, "I am not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts. I replied by saying, "I am not trying to make you look stupid either sir, but Cape Cod is in Massachusetts, Capetown is in South Africa."

3. Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders called, furious about a Florida package that he had booked with us to Orlando. When I asked him what was wrong, he said that he was expecting a room with an ocean view. I tried to explain to him that's not possible as Orlando is in the center of the state. He responded, "don't lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state".

4. A Congressman's wife, Landra Reid called and asked, "is it possible to see England from Canada during our vacation?" I said,"no". She responded, "but they look so close on the map".

5. Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky called to ask how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 A.M., and arrived in Chicago at 8:33 A.M. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Chicago due to the change in time zones, but she couldn't grasp that concept. Finally I told her that she was flying in a very fast plane, and she bought that.

6. John Kerry called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all of the cost information he asked, "would it be cheaper to fly to California, and then take the train to Hawaii"?

7. Congressman Bobby Bright (D) from Alabama called to ask how he would know which plane to get on. I asked him what he meant, to which he replied, "I was told my flight number is 823, but none of the planes have numbers on them".

8. Senator Diane Feinstein (D) called and said,"I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?" I asked if she meant to fly to Pensacola, Florida on a commuter plane. She said, "Yeah, whatever, don't try to get smart with me!"

9. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu called and had a question about the documents she would need to fly to China. After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. She responded, "no, I don't... I've been to China before, and never had to have one of those". I double checked, and sure enough her stay required a visa. When I told her this she said, "I've been to China four times, and they have always accepted my American Express!"

10. New Jersey Congressman John Adler called to make reservations, " I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, NY." I was at a loss for words having never heard of it. finally I said, "Are you sure that is the name of it?" He said, "yes." After some searching, I came back with, "I'm sorry sir, I've looked up every airport code in the state, and can't find a "Rhino" anywhere". The man retorted hotly, "What the hell is the matter with you! everyone knows where it is, check your map again." So, I scoured the map again and finally offered "you don't mean Buffalo, do you?" His reply was, " whatever, I knew it was some big animal."

Can there be any further wonder as to why the government is in the shape that it's in?

The revolution must be televised-ASAP!

Friday, November 20, 2009

Declaration of Interdependence?

In 1976, long before I began my journey toward learning the truth about the power that is behind the government of this country, a letter was drafted by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, quietly inviting members of Congress to participate in the ceremonial signing of a "Declaration of Interdependence" on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. It was requested that a number of prestigious House members be present to lend "credibility" to this document, and its theme. It should be noted that one "Marjorie S. Holt", a representative from Maryland at that time, stated that "for the record", she was opposed to this declaration because "it calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations, it declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities, and it proposes that we enter a "new world order" that would re-distribute the wealth created by the American people." She continued by stating that,"this is an obscenity that defiles our Declaration of Independence signed two hundred years ago in this very city! We fought, and won a great Revolution for independence, and individual liberty, but now it is proposed that we join in, and participate in a world socialist order".

Although this incident was conveniently "ignored" by the mainstream media of that time, and was left to go quietly to rest in the midst of the "hoopla" of the bi-centennial celebration, its core message begs a question of dire current relevance to us here, today: Are we still a proud, free, unconquered people, or are we a carcass to be picked by the jackals of the world who wish to consume us, and would destroy us? In the high flying rhetoric of this "declaration" one will find the answers to these questions, for in it is stated that: "The economy of all nations is a seamless web in that no one nation can any longer maintain its processes of production, and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities." The declaration goes on to urge the strengthening of the United Nations, the broadening of the jurisdiction of the World Court, "that these may preside over a reign of law that will end all wars, and the mindless violence that terrorizes our society even in times of peace." Lately, we have witnessed the United Nations organization in full cry against America, and her allies of the free world( a shrinking group). We have watched the UN become an instrument of the increasing hate groups and their shabby, despotic leaders allied against America. We can never allow ourselves to be subject to any decisions made by such an assembly, unless we long for national suicide. The Declaration of Independence that is the foundation of our republic, and is still the law of our land forbids it, as does almighty God!

Avowed Marxist Bill Clinton recently spoke to the NH State Assembly of the Democratic Party in Manchester, NH reminding the faithful to "stay the course" in supporting the current "comrade" in the White House as he continues to dismantle the sovereignty of our nation in the name of "interdependence" with other nations. Then there is Alvin Toffler, who has said, "We need to either completely re-structure the Constitution, or eliminate it entirely." The vile, and despicable Faux news commentator Newt Gingrich wrote the forward to Toffler's book. Newt is his "boy", and if you want to know the REAL Newt, read the book. He is what we call the "controlled opposition", as is Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck et al. These lackeys do the bidding of their boss, porn king Rupert Murdoch for boo-koo millions. Murdoch's agenda for this country is to use its wealth, and influence to increase the power of an "elite" group of internationals at the expense, and ultimately the destruction of American middle class. When Gingrich was an elected official, he never lifted a finger, or said a peep to get us out of the UN, abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve(illegal) that prints our "fiat" currency(worthless), or get rid of the IRS(also illegal). He "rode the fence" to get NAFTA passed; cheered on by windbag Rush Limbaugh, which thus furthered the agenda of the"elites" by sending American jobs out of the country to points distant overseas. His cohorts in this criminal activity, to name a few, were "comrades" Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Dodd, Ted(now dead)Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Joe Biden, "Juan" McCain, Bob Dole, and Mitch McConnell. Take special note of the fact that they represent former, and present members of BOTH the Republican, and Democratic parties. We now have upwards of 15 million Americans unemployed, but these so-called "leaders" have been well rewarded for their treachery in selling out the American worker. No wonder that Michelle Obama can speak of "rejoicing" in this Christmas season in the comfort provided by the lavish "redistribution" of the wealth of the American middle class!

"The monster has been on the loose" for too long, "he has our heads into the noose, and he is just sitting there watching". In 1947, newspapers(New York Times) were writing about a secret "new" constitution that was to eventually replace the existing one(see "Constitution for the New States of America"). Americans weren't paying attention then. The war had just ended, and our parents, and grand-parents were trying to get our country back to its normal pursuit of "happiness", and the American dream. There was no internet then to provide information that was anything contrary to the hash that was being delivered by the mainstream media.

In 1972, Richard Nixon met suddenly, and without merit with Chinese butcher Chou En-Lai in Shanghai to plant the seeds of a "new world order". Avowed Red Communist Chairman Mao was on the way out, and the Chinese economy was in shambles. I remember being appalled at this turn of events, and shocked that an American president that had just been re-elected as "the candidate of principle" would crawl into bed with these commie crooks. The very same communists who were holding our POW/MIAs from the Korean, and Vietnamese "wars". The Butchers of Beijing had them at the same time that Nixon was over there kissing Chou's ass, and toasting his accomplishments with champagne!

As increasing awareness of their plan began to circulate throughout America during the 70s, and 80s, the "new world order"(elites) wasted no time in implementing plans to force a police state on us, and cover their tracks with "good government programs to help the people". Under the direction of Ronald Reagan, a little known Major named Oliver North, the darling of the "right", and a disgrace to the uniform that he wore, drew up plans for FEMA, a fledgling agency, that would become a "major" player in the in the "elites" big plan. North directly helped to draft a plan in 1984 to impose martial law in the United States in the event of an "emergency". All of this was perfectly legal under the "emergency presidential powers" that were granted first to FDR in March of 1933, and which have not been rescinded under any president to this time of this writing, which name the people of the United States as "enemies of the state". This plan, kept secret, would suspend the US Constitution, and turn over control of the government to that "little known agency" of the time: FEMA. The implementation of this plan would appoint military commanders to run state, and local governments in the event of "widespread internal dissent, disagreement with government policies, or national opposition to any use of US military force deemed necessary abroad". Essentially, this amounts to a complete, and total suspension of the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

Now I know that thi kind of information is very upsetting to most people because betrayal is a very painful emotion. Unless you take the time to do the research, and I don't mean just taking someones opinion that you have heard on the nightly news, I mean documented names, dates, and places along with the agendas presented, it is very easy to blow all of this off as the blabbering of some right-wing conspiracy wing nut. But to do so will be fatal to our republic. Once you are able to see the big picture, then it will be obvious why all of these monstrous pieces of legislation-cap&trade, health care, water heist, gun control are so important to those who want to control our lives. Their agenda is now in hyper-drive because the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak, and the American people are on the move to put a stop to it all.

Many americans truly believe that Barack Obama is just a nice, charismatic, black american who has worked his way up from his humble roots to become the leader of the free world. They have swallowed the big lie sold to them by the big liars for hire at CNN, and "Faux" news. Many are now becoming aware that they have bought a defective product. Comrade Obama was groomed by his masters to be right where the ruling cabal wanted him to be to do their bidding. He is impossible to attack; as to do so will immediately draw the charge of "racist", and the dismissing of any legitimate argument that might have been had. Every single step he has taken has been carefully meted, and measured by the ruling cabal for its maximum effect on their global designs.

So, who are these people, these so-called "elites", this "ruling cabal" who are operating behind the scenes controlling the Congress, the White House, and the mainstream media? "They" are the Bilderberg Group, The Council on Foreign Relations, and the Tri-Lateral Commission. The CFR, and the Tri-laterals are the "operatives" for the upper crust bankers, and global elites known as the Bilderbergers. This is the group that was poo-pooed by Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck over at "Faux" news, which should come as no surprise when you consider that their substancial paychecks are signed by Rupert Murdoch, a Bilderberger. This is also why I refer to them as the "controlled opposition". They exist to provide a place of rant, and vent for the growing group of "opposition" that the elites have expected that they will encounter as they continue the plunder of what remains of the USA. In spite of what these "useful idiots" have to say, the elite's agenda IS to destroy this republic, and bring the last bastion of human freedom under global world domination. And while the flunkies of the media, and academia have made the claim that these groups are nothing more than "think tanks", I have done the hard "digging" that is necessary to know better. These people play governments around the world like pieces on a big chess board. They have been the ones responsible for the destruction of the American republic that we have been seeing slowly take place for the last one hundred years. If you are interested in a good read that connects all of the dots read: "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" by Daniel Estulin.

Patrick Henry once said: "It is natural for a man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren til she transforms us into beasts... for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it".

This is the motto that I live by, and the prayer that I pray each day to God Almighty. I hope it will be yours as well to the resurrection of our republic.

The revolution will be televised

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

April Fools Day

April Fools Day. Today is April first. As I pondered the origins of this normally harmless day of foolishness, I got to thinking about another day that will soon be on the horizon, April 15th!
As the great day-of-pay approaches, I have been asking the people that I know why we have federal income tax? Almost without exception they have answered: "to pay the expenses of government". Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Income tax has nothing to do with paying the expenses of the government.

If I were to ask you when the country was created, most of you would give me a date somewhere around the fourth of July in 1776, so let's use that date for our point of reference. When the country began in 1776 there was no income tax. In fact, there was no machinery for collecting any such tax; even after the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88 there was still no provision for any tax on the people's income. Except for the "temporary" income tax illegally administered during Lincoln's War to destroy the Union, there was no income tax in this country until 1913, when the Supreme Court upheld its validity in Brushaber, 240 US 1, and the passage of the 16th Amendment in "the dark of the night". And even then, it did not affect more than a few people. Until 1942, only 3% of the people paid income tax. Up to then, most people had heard of it, but they didn't pay it, and had never seen the form. The reason for this was that it did not apply to them. For the record, in 1941 the Federal government collected more money from alcohol, and tobacco than it did in income taxes. Remember the "moonshine", and "infernal revenooers" of the old comic "Snuffy Smith"?

The income tax as we know it today did not find its way into the pocketbooks of the people until 1942, and then only because we were in the middle of the war that FDR "arranged" to end the Depression. Even then, the money grabbers could only get away with it by calling it the "Victory Tax" which was to be repealed at the end of the war.

Question for you: Name for me one year between 1776 and 1942 when the nation could not function without income tax?; can't find one?; Neither could I, amazing isn't it? In all of those years, through all of the wars that we fought, and won, including WWII which we won by American might, and willpower more than any "Victory Tax", we were able to accomplish all of this without an income tax.

So, if we didn't have an income tax for all of this time, where did the federal government get the money to pay for itself? Why alcohol, and tobacco taxes, of course! These taxes, along with the tariffs that used to be in place that made foreigners pay for the privilege of selling their products here, were enough to pay for the few powers that the Constitution grants to the Federal government. As a matter of fact, there was so much money pouring into the Treasury that Congress didn't know what to do with it.

So, if we don't need an income tax to pay for the federal government, why do we have one? In 1942, a man named Meyer Jacobstein, of the Brookings Institute, testified to a Senate subcomittee of the "need to mop up the excess purchasing power of the nation" because of its effect on the price situation in the country. In other words, the people are producing too much wealth, which, with the lack of a metal-based currency equates to hyper-inflation, and the destruction of the dollar, so we have to remove this "excess" in order to preserve the economy. When there was "real" money(gold&silver) behind our currency, the government had to deposit the appropriate amount of "metal" in the Treasury to support the paper whenever any of it was printed in the same way you put money into your account before you write a check. This is the reason that you find the words "pay to the bearer on demand one silver dollar" on the old silver certificate money that used to be in circulation. Even the early Federal Reserve notes said that.The bank would pay to the bearer on demand the amount of the bill in "silver" if requested. The only difference between a personal check, and government currency is that the check names the person to be paid, and the currency does not.

So, this being the case, why doesn't the government just print the money that it needs, bigger numbers, on bigger pieces of paper? The answer brings us back to Meyer Jacobstein's testimony to the subcomitee which is "that doing so would bring on hyper-inflation" send the prices of goods to the moon, and destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. That is what happened to the Weimar Republic in post-WWI Germany, and is now happening in the African nation of Zimbabwe. It is also happening right here in the good ole USA, only it has taken so long for it to manifest because of the "shadow government" running the unbacked printing through the un-Federal Reserve System, which is , of course, un-Constitutional. This system, which has been brilliantly conveived to confuse, and conceal its intention, is being implemented by the "New World Order"(Novus Ordo Seclorum) to achieve its envisioned world government.

So, basically what we have here is the redistribution of the wealth of the people which has been ongoing since 1942. This is the "change" that Comrade Obama is talking about. It is also communism on a world level. So too is the subsidizing, and penalizing of various industries by the government which is to be seen most lately in the alleged take over of Ford Motors, which would have old Henry rolling over in his grave. The real issue here is controlling the purchasing power of the dollar. If the people have too much of it, the prices will rise. Simply put, the dollars taken by government cannot be spent by the people, and thereby cannot be used to acquire the things that are for sale. This is what Meyer Jacobstein meant by "mopping up purchasing power".

Thus, the true purpose of the income tax is to inhibit the inflationary effect of out of control government spending. The income tax allows our elitist rulers to "live off the fat of the land" by transferring the power of purchase from the people to the government, which has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the cost of government.

So, now that I got that off my chest and into your reservoirs of knowledge, maybe its time to re-think just which day of April is really "April Fools Day". The Revolution must be televised.

Friday, January 16, 2009

"Real" Change we can believe in!"

A militarized police state is coming to our neighborhoods with us as its target- unless we start, right now to enforce the Constitution as is our right, and duty as American citizens.

Recently, I have been thinking long and hard about what our options really are with respect to the posture that the Federal government has taken on human rights, most especially the rights of "we the people". It seems to me that they are lacking in respect for the people they have sworn to serve. The will of the people has been voiced time and time again, on everything from immigration to gun control, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in most instances we are told that all we need is "change". Usually, when one examines just what that "change" entails, we are told that we will have to give up some more of our freedom to attain some questionable level of relief or comfort from whatever perplexes or annoys us.

As I pondered these thoughts one dismal evening, I came to the conclusion that only a policy of "blood and iron" will ever seriously get the attention of the sycophants in the Disgrace of Columbia; and the only viable option for actually achieving this is via the revival of the militia of the individual states. So with that thought in mind, I will digress from my series on the Constitution which I have been working on for these past months to say my piece on this subject, for I believe that if "we the people" are to succeed in keeping the republic, it will be only this way, and in the nick of time, as the enemy has us surrounded and pinned down!

In addition to the Feds' longstanding strategy of para-militarizing state and local police under the government umbrella of "homeland security", the tyrants in D.C. have two additional schemes openly in the works: 1. the overtly military, which will depend upon the deployment of the armed forces as domestic police, which is technically illegal under "Posse Comitatus"(not that they really care); and 2. the covertly military, which depends upon the creation of a proposed twenty-thousand man so-called "national security force".

The question is, and must be, "What should patriotic Americans do about this situation"?

As I have been describing in my recent posts on the Constitution: the government of the United States is a type of political machinery. When you are unsure as to how any piece of machinery should be used to the greatest effect, the wise operator will consult the manufacturer's set of instructions- in this instant, the Constitution. The Constitution clearly establishes four, and only four "homeland security" provisions:

1. "the militia of the several states"(Article 1 Sec. 8)

2. "the army"

3. "the navy"

4. "troops, and ships of war that the states may keep in times of peace with the consent of Congress (Article 1 Sec. 10)

Of these, ONLY the militia is described as "necessary for security": " a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed"(Amendment #2). Not just for security in some general sense, but specifically for "the security of a free state". And, contrary to what constitutes a popular argument these days as to what the militia was meant to be; it is patently NOT the National Guard, which is really a branch of the army!

The second amendment, through the militia, guarantees an actual "state" with independence, and its own sovereignty- not just some impotent subdivision of a regional, or global conglomerate in which each nation surrenders its identity, and authority for self-governance. It also guarantees "a free state"- one in which the people actually(not theoretically)govern themselves, because that is the only form of political organization entitled to the adjective "free"

Thus, the 2nd amendment, through the militia, preserves America's entire political system, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the constitutions of the all of the states.

Beside being "necessary, the militia are also the only form of permanent "homeland security" establishment that the Constitution absolutely mandates. Congress is not required to maintain, or provide an army, or navy, or to allow the states to keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace, if any, or all of those forces are not deemed "necessary, and proper" under Article 1 Sec. 8. But neither Congress nor the states may dispense with "the militia of the several states, which the Constitution recognizes as "necessary" indefinitely in its existence, and continuance.

Thus, the militia are to be permanent because they are to be composed of "we the people" themselves! Constitutions, and governments may come, and go; but the people remain. The militia are hence, the only Constitutional claim to the title "democratic"(in the best sense of that over-rated adjective).

People govern themselves to the degree that they alone exercise supreme political power. Mao Tse-tung had it right when he said; "political power emanates from the barrel of a gun".

The militia are composed of "we the people" in their entirety- armed, organized, disciplined, and trained to wield the power of the sword. It is my belief that popular self-government is impossible without the militia fully active, and in force in "the several states".

Not too surprisingly, the Constitution expressely delegates to the militia the authority, and responsibility "to execute the laws of the union, supress insurrections, and repel invasions(Article 1 Sec.8 #15). As self-governors,"we the people' must exercise the ultimate power to execute the laws, because directly, or indirectly we make all of the laws! Thus, "we the people" are the law- subject only to"the laws of nature, and nature's God!!!

The President has the constitutional responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed"(Article2 Sec.3) and thus appoints him as "commander in chief of the militia of the several states"when called into the actual service of the United States(Article 2 Sec. 2#1)

The key word here is "actual service" because the militia's subordination to the President can only occur when they are called into the "actual" service of the United States government as a whole. Otherwise, the militia are subject to the command of only their own officers, because the Constitution reserves to the states respectively" the appointment of the officers"(Article 1 Sec. 8#16). The requirement that the militia come under the command of the President solely in the "actual" service of the United States provides a safeguard against any rogue President's usurpation, and tyranny. Thus, by this act, the militia are authorized on Constitutional grounds to ascertain for themselves whether any command from a President are at that time genuine to the interests of the states, or pretended by some act of tyranny on the part of the President.

In other words, is the "service" in the national interest of "we the people", or is it in the interest of something else? If it is not in the interest of "we the people" as we understand it, than we have the right, the duty, Constitutionally, to follow it, or not.

Therefore, the requirement of "actual service" reinforces the 2nd Amendment's definition of the militia's purpose: "the security of a free state", a state in which the people really and genuinely govern themselves, particularly as it relates to the decision to employ their own armed force in the "service" of their own " common defence".

The incorporation of the Militia into the Constitution is not just a matter of Constitutional Theory, but also because the Founders were quite familiar with the Militia's practical uses in the area of "homeland security". This would seem to indicate that the Militia would be just the thing that is needed in the present state of terrorist alert that we have been living in since 9/11. The opportunity to demonstrate their usefulness would be perhaps, more evident than ever before. For example, a fully realized Militia will provide literally millions of citizen soldiers to patrol streets, malls, public parks, and buildings thus maximizing deterrence against terrorists, and potential criminals. Because the Militia are composed of every adult in the community, their existence will ferret out every illegal alien who make his presence known to anyone in the community. A revitalized Militia will emphasize local readyness, and self-reliance in all its forms from securing food supplies, fuel, medicines, and other critical materials necessary in the event of emergency from manipulations by any outside speculators who might attempt to control them for their own purposes, to putting into practice an alternate constitution, and solvent monetary system that will protect the community from the inevitable collapse of the Federal Reserve System, and its "shadow" government.

With the revitalized Militia monitoring polling places, and verifying the counting of paper ballots, the present day scourge of voting fraud will be terminated. Because all elected public officials will be members of the Militia, and will thereby be subject to investigation by the Militia for whatever infractions of the law they might commit, political corruption, police brutality, and the arrogance of power so wide spread, and uncontrolled today will receive swift, and just exposure, and punishment. When young adults, and mature teens, through Militia discipline, and training recognize that they are being prepared to genuinely direct, and defend their country's future under their own authority, and in their own interest with an understanding of the personal as well as the public purpose, and benefits of, and from patriotism, then the level of aimlessness, drug use, and mindless violence so prevalent among the young people of today will shrink into insignificance. This aspect alone should make the revitalization of the Militia a paramount concern for our nation's leaders as they assume the reigns of responsibility for the future direction of the country.

Sadly, this picture of real social progress, "real change we can believe in", because common Americans would themselves be responsible for it, is at present a dream to be visited behind closed doors at night in our beds. It is as if we have arrived at the point finally where the only fear we have to fear is the fear of our own possibility of success.

Although the Constitution requires that all able-bodied adult Americans(excepting conscientous objectors) be organized in some manner in "the Militia of the several states"; Congress, and State legislatures have consigned Americans to the illegal "unorganized militia" that operates outside of the system in the side alleys in a fearful, pathetic attempt to defend itself from the present darkness that is descending upon us. And although the Constitution requires that all members of the Militia possess firearms equivalent in firepower to those carried by light infantry units in the Armed forces, Congress has busyied itself enacting statutes(that the states have not opposed) that make it nearly impossible for the average American to acquire this necessary equipment even while pretending to uphold "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The Constitution sets forth in plain English that the Militia is absolutely necessary in the preparation of a free people according to the principles of self-reliance, self-suffiency, and especially self-governance, to deal with "homeland security" in the most effective, and legal fashion in their home states, and local towns. And although it is illegal for these programs to not be in operation, there are no plans at present for the implementation, or even the contemplation of beginning to establish them.

This situation is intolerable, and flies in the face of Congress's absolute duty to organize, arm, discipline, and train the Militia according to Article 1 Sec.8 clause 16. The 2nd Amendment declares that "a well organized Militia is necessary to the security of a free state", and that a "well regulated militia" are those organized according to the pattern common in the colonies, and independent states prior to the ratification of the Constitution, and as such, Congress must exercise its power by enacting such appropriate legislation to empower it. If Congress fails, or refuses to do so, the states must themselves enact it by their own statutes as "the Militia of the several States"

In July of 2008, Barack Obama was reported to have said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that have been established. We must establish a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, strong, and well funded."
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's White house Controller has followed these statements by saying:"We are planning to have universal civil defense training. Somewhere between the ages of 18 to 25 you will do three months training which will give young people a sense of what it means to be American."

My son would be terminally deficient in patriotism if he needed the likes of Barack Obama, or anyone else at the pyramid of power in the Disgrace of Columbia, to give him a "sense of what it means to be American". This is especially true when one considers how much more deficient is Obama with respect to his familiarity with elementary constitutional principles.

We, who are by nature suspicious of politicians, may rightly speculate as to what are the true purposes Obama and his ilk may be planning for in the establishment of any new "civilian nationl security force" that would indoctrinate a generation of young Americans in the Party line, teaching them how to be "good" citizens of the world, then turning them loose to terrorize the remaining patriotic Americans into acquiesing to the totalitarian ideal that would become a modern Hitler Youth militarizing, and fanaticizing young Americans into becoming cannon fodder in foreign wars designed by their imperial masters to advance the cause of global fascism. Such suspicions are not needed for us to know that the proposed "civilian national security force" is, to say the least, undesirable, and also quite unecessary, for unless that force solely, and faithfully serves Constitutional purposes, it will serve non-American, un-American, and probably anti-American special interests.

There is a "civilian security force" already provided for by the American Constitution for the purpose of "homeland security" that if enacted, will take the form of the revitalized "Militia of the several States". Anything else will be unnecessary, and unconstitutional.

So, now what? What must the patriots of America demand of Obama if he refuses to do his duty in upholding the Constitution? Simply put, "if it is to be, it is up to me" "we the people" must enforce the Constitution by the revitalization of the Militia. Now that would be real "change we could believe in"! And in the nick of time too.

The Revolution will be televised.

"What have ye wrought?"

The Constitution was the settlement of a revolution, and on which class the political center of power would come to rest. The human race is ultimately divided into two political groups; those who desire to be controlled, and those who do not.

It was opened on May 25, 1787 to suggest some mere revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The proposed constitution was approved on September 17, and the closed doors of secrecy were finally opened to the world. It was on this date that a local woman inquired of Benjamin Franklin the now famous question, "What have ye wrought?" Will it be a republic, or a monarchy? Franklin's answer,"A Republic, if you can keep it.", was an outright half-truth as he knew that there was no way that the convention had created a "keepable" republic. When analyzed in contrast to the history that has followed since 1787, it very clearly shows that the Constitution was purposely weighted with with several components that were designed to guarantee the gradual expansion of the Federal Government.

Under the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, Congress depended on the good will of the states (how awful!). Had the states not waged pointless trade wars with each other, and been more responsible with their use of currencies, most of the opposition to their continuance could have been avoided. Congress did not have the power to raise taxes, to regulate commerce, or to prohibit the states from coining money. Since Congress assembled could not act without unanimous agreement, the states often ignored them. Congress "got no respect".

For those who desired an "energetic" central government, this was intolerable. Washington said, "experience has taught us that men will not carry into execution such measures that are the best for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power". Of course "the best for their own good" was to be determined by their imperial majesties, the "nationals", as they always know what is best for the people (sound familiar?). To get to the point: the Articles of Confederation created a Congress which had to go begging to the states, and the control freaks were chomping at the bit! This sort of thing infuriated the nationals. Jay wrote to Washington,"Rage for private property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become the object of greater attention. Virtue can only be exerted by a strong , central government that will put down the crisis at hand".

Great effort behind the scenes was done to foment a panic over the overstated "crisis at hand". A "weak government" cannot muster a viable defending army to protect the nation from powerful nations without, and from the Indians within, so we need to strengthen Congress. Translate: create the "problem"; create opposition to the"problem", offer your solution to the "problem"(sound familiar?). This is the classic Hegelian philosophy so well used by the Socialists/Communists of today. Most men in the know were having none of it, and vigorously challenged any notion of the existence of a "crisis". A year later in his June of 1788 warning against the adoption of the Constitution, Patrick Henry would say: "I ask you; where is that danger? I see none. Why then tell us of supposed dangers to terrify us into the adoption of this new government? Sirs, it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves".

In retrospect, although some might disagree, the Articles of Confederation have been unfairly criticized by historians I think, perhaps due to the many weighted books, and opinions that have been used in arguments against them. But it should be remembered that the Articles successfully brought a war to conclusion, and negotiated the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which gave the USA world status as a nation, and gave the new nation a lesson in the need for interstate cooperation in the handling of national problems which led to the further refinement in the practical application of such measures.

In the Autumn of 1786, the nationalists had their "crisis" - self created of course - with Shay's Rebellion. After the revolution, most states raised taxes to pay their war debts, and kept them as paper currency issues for the most part in various degrees. Massachusetts debtors that could not pay in currency had their cattle and lands seized and were thrown in jail. All petitions for relief were ignored, and a flashfire rebellion ensued. Armed farmers (another good reason to keep and bear arms) prevented courts from opening, and stopped the seizures. Led by Daniel Shays, eleven hundred angry men attacked the Springfield courthouse and federal arsenal. Although they were easily defeated, and dispersed by a superior force, the politicians panicked and created a hysteria that spread through the states like a wildfire. They made it seem that this was the beginning of the end!

While the rebellion was a failure militarily speaking, it made for a rout in the spring of 1787 elections. John Hancock easily defeated the inflexible Governor James Bowdoin, as well as three-fourths of the House members. Relief laws were immediately enacted, the seizures stopped, and the imprisoned debtors were freed rendering further rebellions as being unneccessary. The nationals, however, had their "crisis". Shay's rebellion was the proverbial "drop that overflowed the vase", and set the wheels in motion for the call for the convention of 1787 to be held in Philadelphia. Madison himself admitted years later that the "unjustified sense of alarm which threatened the economic status quo contributed to the uneasiness which produced the Constitution more than any inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation."

In other words, it wasn't the "principles". It was the "money" and the consequent loss of power by the "moneyed" class that constituted a "crisis" in the land. By alarming the people with fears of a looming, hollow "crisis", delegates were sent to Philadelphia for the purpose of "revising the Articles of Confederation"- not scrapping them entirely for a replacement. But the nationalists knew that this was their moment. Madison had already sent his replacement plans to Washington, and Hamilton for their review in April prior to the convention. The evidence is that the nationalists hidden agenda, unbeknownst to the other delegates and the people at large, was to scrap the Articles in favor of replacing them with their own form of "energetic" central government.

As always, the people did not understand the sweeping nature of the scheme. "The American war is over, but the American revolution has just begun," said conventioneer Benjamin Rush. Little wonder why the convention operated under such extraordinary secrecy. The delegates were sworn to the strictest silence, sentries were posted at all doors, and the windows were shut tight. Fifty-three years would pass before Madison's thoroughly edited notes were publically released. Great measures of propaganda were used to conceal the true levels of dissent that were present. Electing the widely respected George Washington as convention president was responsible for much of the "public confidence" that was associated with these meetings. According to Maryland delegate James McHenry, at least "21 of the 55 delegates favored some sort of monarchy", and although generally of high caliber, most delegates were of the "moneyed" class, and as such were anxious for a national government that would make them the rightful inheritors of power.

The American countryside of "middle class yeoman" that were so much championed by Jefferson were hardly represented at the convention. The "Virginia Plan" supporters, Hamilton and company, pretty much wanted to abolish the state governments. Madison proposed that they be "reduced to corporations", and Hamilton imagined that they" might gradually dwindle in power to nothing", which is in fact exactly what has happened in both instances. It should be noted that the famous revolutionaries were not delegates, either by choice or by circumstance. Jefferson, and Adams were on assignment in Europe. Patrick Henry had outright refused to participate in such vility, while Thomas Paine and, Samuel Adams were not among the chosen (I wonder why). So the stage was set, and the plan was ready for enactment. Madison's plan, which he envisioned as "strengthening the confederacy", in fact did not and was hotly contested by the defenders of state sovereignty. William Paterson offered a fair compromise called the "New Jersey Plan". It provided that any laws that were to be applied to all states would be "the supreme laws", and would be reserved to Congress with the executive having the power to enforce the law if necessary. Each state would have an equal voice in Congress, and would retain most of the attributes of sovereignty. This is, in a nutshell, the Swiss system.

Fearing that the convention might slip out of the nationalists' control and (Horrors!) return to the the original idea of revision, the brilliant attorney from New York, Alexander Hamilton, spoke on June 18 for five hours praising the British Constitution as the world's best, opining for a Senate and Presidency elected for life, and declaring that state government should be appointed by Congress (wow). Little wonder that John Adams referred to him as an "Anglophile" from that point on. However, his long-winded afternoon harangue cleverly made Madison's Virginia Plan seem like a viable compromise and quite moderate by comparison. Hamilton later molded his "energetic" central government from the willing clay of this plan.

It is an interesting side note that the other two delegates from New York refused to be cowed into siging on to the fraudulent illegality, leaving Hamilton to generously sign for New York by himself. This is why his name is the only one that appears on the document in behalf of one of the wealthiest, and most populous states of that time. A bit of math is illumininating here. The states chose 74 delegates, 19 of whom refused to attend. Of the 55 who did, 14 left early, leaving 41. Of those 41, 3 refused to sign. So, only 39 of 74 delegates actually signed on to the hallowed document, or 53%.

Asked why he boycotted the convention, Patrick Henry replied, "Because I smelt a rat."

In retrospect, the convention was a well-run "dog and pony show", and the debates were an excellent piece of deliberation by a singularly august body of 18th century cosmopolitan Americans. That aside, what did it achieve? In any proposed governmental ideal, trying to discern at the outset the probable ultimate beneficiary of that action will be difficult. It is like a game of chess. The winner can only be recognized by a series of board moves to the completion of the game, or "checkmate". Patrick Henry and George Mason feared that the inherent weaknesses that were written into the Constitution would produce a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy, and after 222 years, that is what has happened!

It appears that the real genius of the Constitution has been to utterly transform political reality without the subject people knowing it. It has destroyed the power of the states without sound or smoke, and like a Houdini trick, by the time the people realized what had happened, it was too late. Read between the lines of Washington's transmittal letter of the Constitution to Congress: "Individuals entering into any society must give up a share of their liberty to preserve the rest". Does that sound like a blank check or what? The words of the avowed Socialist Hillary Clinton are very nicely encapsulated in this letter ("to stop terrorism and organized crime, the American people must give up some of their personal freedom, and privacy."). Wow!

The Constitution's obvious tendency towards an expansionist government was clearly understood by the anti-federalists of 1787-88. Would they be able to sound the warning in time to defeat ratification? Sadly, no, but they sure came close...

The revolution will not be televised.

Original post date 10/23/2008. Date changed to bring it to the top due to extended edit time. - RWR

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

NJ Citizenship Case Goes to the SCOTUS

This case was held up by a clerk, but is now going before the US Supreme Court (and the clerk is being charged with misconduct). With the Berg case also going there, this issue doesn't look like it's going away. Our President-elect could be in some trouble here.

Also being challenged is the legitimacy of the candidacy of John McCain, who was born in Panama while his father was serving in the military. However, despite my not being a McCain supporter, I do believe a good case could be made that McCain, being born to two American parents in US-controlled territory while serving in the military, could easily pass the legitimacy test, especially if he were born in a US military hospital or other similar facility.

Obama, on the other hand, was allegedly born in Kenya to parents who were of different nationalities (an American mother and a Kenyan father) and not serving in the US military or other similar mission. There is also documentation from Barack's Indonesian school that suggests he may have been recorded as a citizen of that country at some point as well. IN addition, Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate has been called into question due to technicalities that exist within that state's laws.

The only way to stop all this would be for Obama to allow his original birth certificate to be released to the public. While this would be ridiculously simple and easy to do, he has steadfastly refused to do so, despite court orders ordering him to do just that.

I recently renewed my driver's license. I was required to show multiple forms of identification. Any time you start a new job, you are required to show certain forms of identification, largely to prove that you are eligible for the job. Why then, should our new President not also be required to show documentation proving that he is eligible for his job?

Mind this as well: If Barack Obama satisfies the order to show his original vault birth certificate and it turns out to be legitimate (to my satisfaction - which will be easy), then as far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed and I will deal with his successes and failures as they come. I am not bringing this to the fore for any reason other than to participate in the enforcement of the law set forth in the Constitution. Once the constitutional requirement is satisfied, so then should the law be satisfied. If it turns out that Obama was born on foreign soil, then he should be ashamed of himself for defying the Constitution in that manner, and so should his party. I would even support criminal charges being filed against him and the DNC for knowingly nominating an ineligible candidate for President of the United States. Should the SCOTUS drop the ball and not apply an appropriate ruling, then they also should face the wrath of the people.

If we cannot expect the US government to take the Constitution seriously in this matter, then that goes a long way in bringing its prior usurpations to the fore. Based on this and those prior usurpations, why would anyone be so stupid as to assume our elected officials will EVER take the Constitution seriously?


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.