The Three-Ring Circus that Has Replaced the Three Branches of Government?

No matter what you think of imprisoned writer and activist, Mumia Abu Jamal, he hit the nail on the head when he told Chris Hedges,

“ What’s necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity … In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is ‘Housewives of Atlanta.’ We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people [or evil cops and Because you have that …. there is no critical thinking in America ...”

However, since Donald Trump took office, the "illusion of normality, of regularity" grows thinner everyday,  yet because the indoctrinated public is so unable or unwilling to revise their current belief in the truth of "officialdom", and in the United States as a beacon of light, they're easily swayed by appeals to authority, to emotion, to fear, etc., and can't see through the greatest show on earth designed to distract them from the reality that their government is not even pretending to be a constitutional republic, not even pretending to be a democracy.

From Trump's absurd presidency to hysterical Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, and everything in between, it's hard to differentiate between reality and satire; reality and parody; reality and entertainment. Watching Trump's entire presidency is like watching back to back episodes of "Saturday Night Live", fill-in-the-blank reality TV,  and/or  "As the World Turns".  Perhaps, that's because what we're told is reality is, in reality, the Greatest Show on Earth, that the only thing we can be sure of is that we're being duped and indoctrinated to replace the Truth/Reality with this alternate and virtual reality  

"Bread and circuses" anchored the domestic politics of ancient Rome: feed and put on a good show to placate the masses...keep them distracted, fat and happy. However today, thanks mostly to the exponential advancement of technology, the bread isn't as important as the three-ring circus that has replaced the three branches of government. In other words, the never ending, all encompassing circus is the mainstay of global politics and President Trump gladly plays the role of puppet ring-master. What we're seeing today is a manufactured reality, a matrix conjured up by parasitical globalist wizards in order to beguile the overtaxed, over-policed, overburdened, undernourished, poisoned, traumatized, dumbed-down, plundered, indoctrinated populace. Yes, it's more important than ever to keep the masses compliant, convinced, and captivated...keep them in their place so as the prison walls turn, they don't turn in on their masters.

Keep in mind that  cultural revolution precedes political revolution.  The three-ring circus that presents as reality today wouldn't work five or six decades ago, prior to the sexualization of American society including children, prior to the destruction of the Catholic Church in the northern hemisphere, prior to the destruction of the family, prior to the "anything goes" moral relativity that has eliminated God from the public square. Directly or indirectly--through entertainment,  pop culture,  public "education", foundations, secret societies, laws, technology, etc.--the culture had to be changed to roll out the circus.

So, yes the reality show that is pretending to be started long before President Trump.  It started inching it's way  out of the closet when President-elect Donald Trump met with “Apprentice” director Mark Burnett to discuss a reality-TV-style inauguration, complete with a grand entrance by helicopter.  According to the New York Times, he didn't get his wish, however, every day since President Trump took office proves otherwise.  Think about it.  President Trump spends most of his time tweeting, golfing, watching TV...when does he have time to preside?  And if he's not presiding, who is? 

Washington DC has become the ultimate reality show of reality shows that have been created to replace...wait for it, reality, and  Brett Kavanaugh's "confirmation hearing" is just the latest episode as they continue to inundate  us with theatrics, spectacle and tabloid static. "Due-process", "presumption of innocence," "evidence" mean nothing thanks to our trial by media society, where faulty generalizations, cherry picking, circular reasoning, red herrings, appeal to authority, appeals to emotion, ad infinitum, proceed unchallenged.

Today's three ring circus is dominated by money and profit, imagery and spin, hype and personality,  guarantees that nothing in the way of real truth reaches the populace.  It is so emotionally charged and entertaining that it make you forget that you live in a police state.

“In 2016, his Republican primary opponents didn’t recognize that we are living in an age of bread and circuses, an age Donald Trump didn’t create but into which he inserted his own circus. Curiosity seekers filled the tent and loved the show.”

The sophisticates in the media thought they could beat Donald Trump at this game by burying him under waves of negative publicity. But he feeds off of it, just as he turned the Philadelphia Eagles’ White House no-show into a display of patriotic music, with the maestro at the center.

Now, fantastically, some Democrats are complaining that they can’t get their message out (the tax cut didn’t work, Medicare for all) because Donald Trump has blotted out the media sun. Gee whiz, whose fault is that?

The eclipse won’t end. The media has turned the Trump presidency into a phenomenon of constant self-absorption—their self-absorption in this one person. Donald Trump has become the biggest balloon in a political Macy’s parade of modern media’s own creation. They could let go of the ropes. But they won’t. ─ Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal

The world is truly a stage now. Everything we see is, at the very least, partially choreographed, scripted, and 99% theatrical. That those who occupy the highest or celebrated positions in government, media, academia, etc., are, more or less, mind-controlled life-time actors who live out the roles they've been chosen to play based on their talents, personalities, background, intelligence, etc. No, they don't memorize lines and they don't rehearse, and they may not even know the circumstances they will face--many do not even know they're actors-- but, ultimately, through indoctrination, trauma-based mind control, blackmail, reward, etc., they will act and react as their character. In other words, they become their character just as the greatest method actors become the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of the person they've been chosen to play. The difference, of course, being, it's a lifetime role. They live it on and even off camera for as long as needed.

Meanwhile, the global dominance that has been progressing for centuries--now that Europe is consolidated under the EU; the North American union is consolidated under NAFTA, and other more powerful "free" trade agreements consolidating the planet; the entire media consolidated under five corporations, and banks and national corporations being run by fewer and fewer multinationals--is almost complete. The final steps that are firmly establishing totalitarian global order--as they divide, confuse and confound the masses with the three-ring circus led by Trump, are being taken.

In other words, as the three-ring circus rolls out act after act, behind the scenes,  the true powers that be are consolidating even more power than they already have; each "crisis" unifying the most powerful, entrenching authority even more deeply, while they concentrate the power in the hands of the same global elite that created and designed the never ending crisis, disasters and absurdities we see everyday.  Make no mistake, there is a very definite method to their madness, a very definite order to the "chaos".

The bottom line is that the unaccountable technocracy continue to tweak the Luciferian establishment system that protects and expands a perverse culture that repudiates the most sacred tenants of civilization as we know it, blurring all distinctions between not only national borders, but between man and woman, human and machine, God and man, etc. The biggest obstacle to this new order has been and is always God so the consolidation effort must be extended to the sphere of religion because global power understands the religious nature of human beings, hence our survival of the fittest "enlightenment" with the creation of  Darwinism, scientism, humanism, transhumanism, and other isms and 'ologies, reinforced by "pop culture", "celebrity culture," etc.,that pushes our Creator to the sidelines.  This--the attempt to replace/ transform/erase the Wisdom that's written and inscribed in our hearts by our Creator --is the hidden issue that is not only ignored but, with great effort, actively suppressed by the establishment because they know their totalitarian agenda is impossible when the foundation of our hope rests upon God's Wisdom; when the multitude is animated by a spirit of understanding and unselfishness by the principles and spirit of the Gospel.

And unto man he said to man: Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom: and to depart from evil, is understanding."  

Nevertheless, as long as we're breathing, it's never too late to take back our souls from this worldly agenda. The choice is ultimately ours: Do we become obedient servants of a Godless institutional despotism or the obedient servants of a Loving and Sovereign God who created the world and everything in it?

 For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? Mark 8:36

 

Links:
Trump Is the Symptom, Not the Disease

Read more...

Unwarranted Jurisdiction Over US? 16th Amendment and Constitutional Income.

Have We the People "elected" to leave the jurisdiction of the Constitution?  Into a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, such as a corporate reality?   If so, to be sure, we elected to do this without knowing what we were doing. 

The ratification of the 16th amendment was one of the biggest issues  in 1913 because the American people thought this federal income tax would tax the accumulated wealth of the country: basically what the Vanderbilt’s, Rockefellers, and the Morgan’s, etc--those few people who benefited from the Industrial Revolution and the monopolization of American industry-- owned,  the millions of dollars in bonds and investment on Wall Street that were generating enormous income. That and only that income  was supposed to be taxed and the American people were all for it.

In other words, the purpose of the 16th amendment was to bring tax relief to working class wage earners by taxing the top 2% (at the time, a single person making over $3,000 year or a married couple making $4,000 year.  Remember the average working family made $450 year).

So how did we go from the top 2% paying income tax to the bottom 95% paying the majority of income tax?   Well, the answer lies in who wrote the amendment, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich married to a Rockefeller, and how it was written, in vague language that could be manipulated later. And let's not forget the creation of the Federal Reserve system which, since that time has seen the value of the dollar fall by more than 98%.

Through  manipulation of the word income, and the tinkering of jurisdictional boundaries,  more and more of us were incorporated into the taxable bracket: bracket creep. However, the income tax is an indirect tax determined in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, which means that it only taxes income that is discretionary, whereas a direct tax taxes our labor, wages and salaries, our very existence.

“In briefs and argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, both Brushaber and the Government claimed that the 16th Amendment provided for a direct tax exempted from the Constitutional apportionment rule. The High Court called this claim an "erroneous assumption...wholly without foundation." Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any? by Phil Hart pp. 204-210.

The courts are not going to unravel this web of deceit because the supreme court refuses to take cases that would clarify jurisdiction and meanings related to our convoluted tax system.

Source:

In the thoroughly researched book (19,000 pages of statutes and regulations)  Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any? by Phil Hart you will read about the intent and the constitutional underpinnings of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Income Tax Amendment and how the American people are being taking advantage of by our government through making the average person pay taxes on money that is not legally taxable.

Clubb, John Scott. "The new man on the job" 1913.
From the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Online Catalog Collection:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b30704/

Read more...

Why is Government Trying to Cripple the Second Largest Employer in America?

I do a lot of shipping for my business, therefore, I must interact with the post office on a daily basis. Over the past year or so, many of the items I ship come back stamped, "return to sender" falsely claiming there is no such address, amongst other equally irritating reasons.  This had never happened before, so I asked one of the postal workers, "What's going on, here?"  He told me ever since they've had to lay off their top tier employees, errors abound.  So I decided to do some research and here's what I found.

Firstly, if you depend upon the  mainstream media for news about the post office, the second largest employer after Walmart, you're led to believe the post office is on its last legs.  Politicians claim it's in crisis and therefore USPS must layoff thousands of workers and reduce services, right down to taking the courtesy scotch tape off the counter. However, the truth of the matter is the self-supporting post office has been doing very well over the last couple of years despite email, due mostly to the booming e-commerce sector and the ever increasing number of people shopping online...all of those items must be shipped!

Second, since 1981--under the Reagan administration--the postal service has been required by law to be entirely self-sufficient.  In other words, the post office receives NO taxpayer funding, while having to adhere to caps on the rates they can charge.

Third,  if that wasn't enough, under the Bush administration, Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA)  forcing USPS  to “prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in an astonishing ten-year time span” — meaning that it had to put aside billions of dollars [$5.5 billion per year] to pay for the health benefits of employees it hasn’t even hired yet, something “that no other government or private corporation is required to do.”  As of now, they have set aside $50 billion to pay for future retiree health benefits.  How many corporations can claim the same?

Although, President Obama had nothing to do with this outrageous burden put upon the post office, he hasn't done anything to remedy the situation.  In fact, Obama pushed for the end of Saturday delivery in his budget proposal  even though the institution receives NO funding from the government. Meanwhile, another attempt is being made to put profit ahead of public interest:  H.R. 2748: Postal Reform Act of 2013 by Rep. Darrell Issa and S. 1486: Postal Reform Act of 2013 by Sen Thomas Carper.

Most of us take the Post Office for granted because it's always been there. However, aside from the great number of people it employs and the convenience it provides, when you consider that the cost of mailing a letter to any area in the country cost only .46 cents versus mailing that same letter to any area in the country through let's say, UPS or Fedex--which cost at the very least costs $9, it becomes clear just how important this institution is. In addition, few realize that the post office actually delivers packages for UPS and Fed Ex (25% of all packages) to places they refuses to go, for instance, rural and other non-profitable areas. The USPS has always been and will continue to be a VITAL connection for those who live in rural areas.

Also, keep in mind, the post office is the only government bureaucracy mentioned in the Constitution.

“In June 1788, the ninth state ratified the Constitution, which gave Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads” in Article I, Section 8. A year later, the Act of September 22, 1789 (1 Stat. 70), continued the Post Office and made the Postmaster General subject to the direction of the President. Four days later, President Washington appointed Samuel Osgood as the first Postmaster General under the Constitution. A population of almost four million was served by 75 Post Offices and about 2,400 miles of post roads.

The Post Office received two one-year extensions by the Acts of August 4, 1790 (1 Stat. 178), and March 3, 1791 (1 Stat. 218). The Act of February 20, 1792 (1 Stat. 232), continued the Post Office for another two years and formally admitted newspapers to the mails, gave Congress the power to establish post routes, and prohibited postal officials from opening letters. Later legislation enlarged the duties of the Post Office, strengthened and unified its organization, and provided rules for its development. The Act of May 8, 1794 (1 Stat. 354), continued the Post Office indefinitely.

The Post Office moved from Philadelphia in 1800 when Washington, D.C., became the seat of government. Two horse-drawn wagons carried all postal records, furniture, and supplies.

The last three decades have proved that the world’s most efficient mail system not only does quite well on its own, but even in the face of Machiavellian forces trying its absolute best to destroy the well-established fundamental part of our society.

Links:

Don't Shrink the US Post Office; Expand It!

Community and Postal Workers United

Delivering for America

Delivering the Truth: Postal Service Myths and Facts

Read more...

This is a Test of the National Elite Big Brother Association!

Terrorism is not defined by its intentions to kill a few people, or even more than a few people; it is to bring about mass terror...to paralyze a people in fear, and to dent the public purse of their target. The Boston Marathon was a relatively small event, in comparison to let's say a nuclear attack on one or more of our cities. Yet, despite this, our government launched full scale--extraordinarily expensive-- martial law, which, incited much more fear than the attack itself. House to house paramilitary searches of homes, making innocent American citizens blatantly submit to the state is about as un-American as it gets.

What happened to, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Meanwhile, those in authority treat the public as if they're in Kindergarten: "Stop asking questions," and "Wait for further instructions."

Not to say that there is a lot of subtle disinformation out there regarding the Boston Marathon bombing. You have to really pay attention to catch it, otherwise, it appears legitimate. However, there are more than enough signs that this event is much bigger than the two boys accused.

One, being the the questions that the authorities refuse to take seriously.

Two, the lack of tangible quality evidence--video, images, etc.-- presented to the public.

Three, the lack of due process afforded to the accused.

Fourth, the media frenzy that surrounded this event. Always a red flag!

Lastly, but perhaps, most importantly, the unbelievable and unprecedented scale and nature of the response from the American government to supposedly, catch a teenage "terrorist". Even if he was a terrorist, shutting down an entire city, and overrunning its streets with paramilitary-cops, in humvees with manned machine gun turrets on top, barking orders in residential neighborhoods, while snipers aim at innocent families, with orders that people come out of their homes, and then the invading and searching--without legal basis-- of those homes, is that the kind of nation we want to live in?

They claim it wasn't martial law, that it was a "Stay-In-Place" order, and that compliance was somehow, voluntary. Really? When dozens of cops dressed in SWAT gear--armed with fully automatic rifles--trained snipers positioned on neighboring rooftops, and tanks parked outside your house, what kind of choice is that? I don't care how many guns you own, you're outgunned. To protest would be suicide. I think the message is clear, "cooperate, or else". You and your family have no choice. Not to mention, it gives the police ample opportunity to plant evidence. However, there was a choice made to cheer the tyrannical oppressors after all was said and done. What's funny if there is anything funny in a situation like this, is that the seige everyone cheered for did not find the suspect.

So, what now?

Will cities, states, perhaps, even our entire nation go into "lock down" mode every time a serial killer's on the loose? Every time an "underwear bomber" gets loose? Every time a bomb goes off?

Read more...

Eric Holder Defends the Presidential Right to Declare and Kill Bad Americans.

While most Americans are swept up by the ongoing battle between the red and the blue, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at Northwestern University School of Law, defending the right of a President to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat without due process. The first to go was, I believe, American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed last September by a drone strike in northeastern Yemen.

While it's doubtful President Obama will use this decree to go on a mass killing spree anytime soon, it's not so clear what will happen with future administrations.

However, having said that, you have to be pretty naive to believe that prior administrations have not issued orders to kill citizens they believe to be enemies of the state. What's new is trying to justify it to the public.

Maybe this is what President-elect Obama meant by a more transparent government.

Read more...

Secret Congress. Secret. Wall Street Government.

Now, Congress has the constitutional authority to meet in secret - excluding press and public - whenever they deem necessary. According to Congressional Research Service, since 1830, the House has met in secret four times: 1979, 1980, 1983, and 2008. The report: Secret Sessions of the House and Senate: Authority, Confidentiality, and Frequency.

However, does the U.S. Constitution grant authority to Wall Street and top government officials to conceal pertinent information from Congress and the public?  Well, obviously it doesn't matter because that's what's happening.

The documents show how top US government officials willfully concealed from Congress and the public the true extent of the 2008-'09 bailouts that enriched the few and enhanced the interests of giant Wall Streets firms. Here’s what came out as the result of Bloomberg's investigation:

The secret Wall Street bailouts totaled $7.77 trillion, 10 times more than the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) officially passed by Congress in 2008.

Knowledge of the secret bailout funds was not shared with Congress even while it was drafting and debating legislation to break up the big banks.

The secret loans financed bank mergers so that the largest banks could grow even larger. The money also allowed banks to step up their lobbying efforts.

Read more...

First Six Amendments Assume Government is Corrupt.

Driving along today, I started fiddling around with the radio stations when I came across this guy explaining what his law professor (Professor Cloud, I think) had explained to him: that the first six amendments are a unified body of logic, based on the assumption that government is bad.

You must also assume that government is your enemy.  That's right, assume that the government will trample your rights, target certain political and religious minorities, and come after you without probable cause (especially when they employ Rape-a-scan to gate rape you and your 6-year old at airports).

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
by Thomas Jefferson

Thus, the first six amendments were created.  So, the First amendment  guarantees free speech, free assembly, free religious expression, and freedom to petition.

However, what's to stop governments from coming after people who partake in these freedoms?  Nothing.

Hence, the creation of the second amendment: the right to bear arms. Why? To protect you from officials who overstep their boundaries.

But what happens when the police force show up at your door? The army? And, rest assured, they will if you dare to pull a gun on a fed. So, that's where the third amendment comes in, as it guarantees that the government will not house troops in your home or private property without your consent.

Nevertheless, who remembers the third amendment, right? No one.

That's where the 4th amendment comes in. So, when the government forgets the third amendment, and sends out the troops to invade your house, the 4th says they cannot go through your stuff. Uhm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if they kick your door down, they will go through your stuff.

Hence, the creation of the 5th amendment. Anyone who watches the boob tube remembers this one, because of the often recited phrase: "I plead the 5th."  The 5th also guarantees Americans the right to trial by Grand Jury.

Nevertheless, even if that indictment is obtained, the 6th amendment guarantees you the right to a judgement by a fully informed petit jury. Not only does this jury judge the individual facts, but can also judge the law, itself.

The bottom line is that even legally obtained power can, and more than likely will (to some degree) abuse that power and show utter disregard for constituted law and order.

Links:

Freedom Law Self-help law clinic and law library.

Read more...

Voluminous Codes Eroding the Delicate Balance Between Liberty and Social Order

Liberty is defined as the freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. In other words, liberty does not imply the absence of rules and consequence of breaking those rules, only the absence of arbritrary and/or despotic rule. At the other end of the spectrum is social order, or the absence of anarchy, which one could say is of equal importance. The United States of America, it is said, is one of the first nations in history to create a form of government that, as much as possible, harmoniously balances liberty and social order.

As we emerge from the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rules preserving rights and liberties have increasingly been sacrificed in the name of "national security", primarily by lawmakers who have created an ambiguous, incoherent web of laws, leaving the average citizen in the dark.

Take the income tax, which can be traced back to 1862, when President Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. It was passed as an emergency and temporary war-time tax, and in 1894, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitional. That is until the 16th amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). And in 1913 the very first IRS 1040 form was created, and since that point, the IRS code has morphed into an exceedingly convoluted, complex and oppressive creature.

One might ask, “Why can’t the tax laws be more simple?” Well, not only because  of government’s insatiable desire for revenue, but also because Congress uses the tax laws for reasons other than that for which they were intended. The same is true for our legal system, in general.  Our constitutional rights, if we really ever had them to begin with, have essentially been eviscerated by code. What can we do about it? On an individual basis, not much.

The real world determination of legal or "lawful" arguments lie with the immune judges, and prosecutors. Not only can they enforce the law, they can do so with impunity.

In 1976, the Supreme Court decided, in a case called Imbler v. Pachtman, that prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil rights lawsuits for their work in the courtroom. The court acknowledged that its ruling “does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty,” but said the alternative was worse: leaving prosecutors to fear a lawsuit, or even bankruptcy, every time they lose a trial..

Insofar as income tax, code section 6011 and code section 6012 require citizens to file.  Constitutional? No, but go ahead and try to fight it.

The IRS can bring any action in the courts of the United States. There is an entire section of the Internal Revenue code that creates jurisdiction for the IRS to bring a lawsuit. For example, a section 7403 action, which allows the IRS to file a lawsuit against any delinquent taxpayer in a situation where the IRS wants to seize the property of that taxpayer. Although, the IRS is not allowed to seize the home of a taxpayer through the administrative process, the IRS can seek an order from a judge who allows the IRS to seize the property

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? -- James Madison

A Monument of Deficient Wisdom:

The IRS is an agency of the government of the United States; however, it has no respect for the constitution. The courts of the US have enforced the Internal Revenue code to the detriment of the constitution There is nothing morally or constitutionally correct about our current tax law. But, can they as a practical real life matter, enforce it? Yes, they can.

Read more...

Tax the Federal Reserve!

Bottom up horizontal connection will bury rule by secrecy, and bloggers will be the "intelligence minutemen of this century". Well, that is, according to a former CIA officer. He said the power of the Internet, and bloggers, who "let no evil thing go unnoticed" has brought, or will bring us to a turning point that will start an "historical shift in power that will restore the constitution".

Okay, I don't know about that, but I do like his idea about taxing the Federal Reserve...a lot!

Read more...

Sliding Further Down the Slippery Slope of Government Intrusion.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that we, the people are increasingly losing our right to be secure in our homes and in our persons.  In an ironic twist, just as we get the news that cops may be suspect in the Long Island serial killings (Of course, the NYPD denies this), the Indiana Supreme Court - in a decision that overturns centuries of common law - ruled, that residents have no right to resist the entry of police, without warrant.

This decision stems from a case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.  Dissenters, Justices Robert Rucker and  Brent Dickson said that they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." -- Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David

Another dissenting judge said,

“government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.”

What did the three justices that ruled that police can break down the door of any home, if the situation warrants  (left to the arbitrary discretion of the police official)?   Well, they said residents can later protest the entry through the court system.  Kind of hard to do if you're dead, injured for life; not to mention, it's not going to bring back any loved ones who happen to wander into the line of fire during the warrant-less intrusion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 8-1, that police can enter our personal residences, without a warrant, if they smell marijuana, and simultaneously, hear the toilet flush. Why? There is a possibility that the flusher was getting rid of evidence. Now, this ruling is more specific, as it applies only to marijuana, that "dangerous" plant that I'm sure, saves more lives than it takes.  Nevertheless, once again, citizens are left dangling on a hook, at the mercy of arbitrary officials, and their arbitrary decisions.  The one and only dissenting judge, Justice Ruth Ginsburg, wrote,

“Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant,”

and quoted in a New York Times article :

“How secure do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?”

The infringements to our freedoms are always cloaked under fear and national security; however, that cloak is getting more transparent every  day.  It's hard to deny the serial assaults on our Constitutional liberties and the ongoing attempt to erode the protections of  American citizens from wholly irrational government action, even if you buy into all of the propaganda.  The protection of the lives, health, and property of American citizens, and the preservation of good order and the public morals mean very little, if anything to those who reside at the top of our power structure.

Read more...

Big Brother Trains Local Law Enforcement to Target Law Abiding Citizens.

Within the last few years, more than  70 fusion centers - intelligence enterprise operations responsible for conducting surveillence on suspicious people - have sprung up across the United States.

According to Police Chief Magazine:

In November 2009, after a six-month review, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Homeland Security Committee said fusion centers should do the following:

•Act as principal intelligence enterprise nodes to connect state and local law enforcement, homeland security, and public safety entities to each other and the federal government

•Harness and apply the collective knowledge of their constituents to address issues related to threat and risk

•Assume the leading role in information-sharing initiatives related to law enforcement, homeland security, and public safety issues

The Police Chief article points out, "the concept [fusion centers] has changed considerably from the original vision." In, and of itself, that is not surprising, as many, if not all, organizations gradually evolve somewhat from the original vision.  However, it's especially concerning in this case, given the exponential growth in technology; the rise of Orwellian doublespeak (analogous to George Orwell's doublethink and Newspeak) by the establishment; the bailing out of banks instead of homeowners; the fact that our nation comprises 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population, and, overall,  the consolidation of power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands at the dawn of the 21st century.

One man, James Wesley, Rawles, in law enforcement for 18-years, compiled a list of things being taught on how to detect domestic terrorists based on the DHS training he has attended:

1. Expressions of libertarian philosophies, statements, and bumperstickers.
2. 2nd amendment oriented view: gunship club membership, holding CCW permit (concealed carry weapon)
3. Survivalist literature and fictional books such as "The Patriot" and "One Second After". 
4. Self sufficiency: stockpiling food, medical supplies, ammo, hand tools, etc.
5. Fear of economic collapse. Buying gold or bartering items,
6. Religious views regarding the Book of Revelation.
7. Involved in home schooling.
8. Express fears of Big Brother or big government.
9. Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
10. Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

Now, based on that list, former President George W. Bush, and over half the Republican party should be rounded up. As for myself, I'm only "guilty" of #4, #8 (Big Brother...who isn't?), #9, and possibly # 1; nevertheless, even if that list only identified people I detest, "W", I can see where this is leading. It's not so important as to who they are targeting - because that could change in an instant - but that they are targeting law-abiding American citizens at all.

Consider the following statement by this ordinary citizens, with a more or less, insiders view.  (There is no way to verify the veracity of the following statement; however, if manufactured out of thin air, he should work for "Big Brother", given his level of creativity).

I just attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Denver and took a class hosted by the FBI and Colorado State Patrol about Domestic Terrorism. The FBI's JTTF is urging local law enforcement to have their local fire departments and ambulance districts help to violate illegal search and seizure
The Director of the Joint Task Force was one of the speakers and urged that because we are not able as police officers to search every house due to the 4th amendment. He said that the fire and ambulance guys are in a unique position to enter houses without any criminal probable cause and we shoud urge them to check through houses that they enter for anything suspicious and report it back to local law enforcement or the FBI. The things sounded like they could include anything from guns to right or left wing books, posters, or speech.
This is one of the most disgusting violations of Constitutional rights I have ever witnessed. According to the CSP their are several Colorado agencies already on board and who knows how many more nationwide. This is direct from the mouth of the FBI and is not an internet rumor. Please share this with everyone.

Read more...

Unnecessary Suffering In Our Name.

In an interview with a researcher for CIVIC, a civilian victim of a drone strike in North Waziristan carried out during the Obama administration recounted how his home had been visited by Taliban troops asking for lunch. He said he had agreed out of fear of refusing them.

The very next day, he recalled, the house was destroyed by a missile from a drone, killing his only son.

The CIVIC researcher, Christopher Rogers, investigated nine of the 139 drone strikes carried out since the beginning of 2009 and found that a total of 30 civilians had been killed in those strikes, including 14 women and children.

If that average rate of 3.33 civilian casualties for each drone bombing is typical of all the strikes since the rules for the strikes were loosened in early 2008, it would suggest that roughly 460 civilians have been killed in the drone campaign during that period.

Distracted by our busy lives, sheltered by our mainstream media, and free from the brutality of war, it's so easy to forget that real "flesh and blood" innocence suffer everyday as a result of ongoing wars that our young men and women risk their own lives to fight, and, all in our name.   Moreover, indiscriminately, unmanned drone bombings kill more innocent civilians - men, women and children (3.3 for every bombing) - than leading officials in al Qaeda.

So,  are these wars, that are further bankrupting our country, even remotely necessary?

Well, no. In fact, according to national security experts, waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and creates increases in  terrorism.   Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley was quoted as saying, "government officials were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which Americans would give them more power".  And former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate, the war on terror is "mythical historical narrative."

But, don't take my word.  Research for yourself.

 "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so are brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes." - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf , 1925, Ch. 10

Read more...

The Treasonous Constitution that Transforms Us into Chattel Property.

It's true. Registered American citizens are transformed into "chattel property" (collateral) to float bonds for government loans that add to the national debt thanks to the corporate constitution created in 1871, where our rights were transformed into privileges.

Here's how it works: each birth is issued a certificate which acts as a stock on the futures market as well as creating a "corporate person" bond which is used as collateral toward the national debt.  In other words, the treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate and the bond is sold at a securities exchange and bought by the Federal Reserve Box Series, which then uses it as collateral to issue bank notes. This bond is held in trust for the Feds at the Depository Trust Corporation. We are the guarantee on said bonds. Our labor is then payable at some future date. So, we the chattel citizens, pay the interest on the national debt when we pay income taxes. Yep, that's right. Income tax pays interest on national debt... nothing else!

Well, once upon a time, in the United States of America, prior to the Civil War, this little transformation of the American people did not take place, because each individual was sovereign. That is, every human being was considered a unique soul, created by God, who was, therefore entitled to certain inalienable rights. This is supported by documents created throughout history, such as the Magna Carta,  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and various Constitutions, Bills of Rights, and Charters of rights and freedoms of different countries. And instead of a first and a last name typed out in block letters, you had a Christian and Family name.

After the Civil War, in 1868, the United States was in bad shape, financially. The Bank of England saw this as their opportunity to cash in. So, they formed the corporation: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (again block letters), with its own constitution that declared citizens as employees, and the government as the board of directors.

As I mentioned before, each and every child that is born in a country, which operates under a central bank, is registered and issued a birth certificate which automatically creates a "legal person (persona)" or corporation at the same time. This "legal person" is not you, however, you are led to believe that this "person" is, in fact, you. Why? Because we're all equal; hence, no one has the right to govern you without your consent, so they need evidence that you actually consented to be governed. Your social security # provides all the evidence they need to declare the right to act upon you as a government employee or federal citizen, as they like to call it.

Keep in mind that the term, "registration" comes from the Latin word, "regis", which means to turn over to an authority or to give up ownership for equitable title. Whenever you 'register' something, you hand legal title over to the government. So, essentially, it releases legal title to the government corporation and leaves you with the equitable title - the right to use, not own.  Moreover, for that "right to use", you will pay a 'use' tax.  The act of registration moves a thing from common law to marine law jurisdiction  and relinquishes ownership.   

Nevertheless, your fundamental rights and freedoms still exist under the original Constitution that was so conveniently shoved aside. You've been tricked into believing that you must follow the laws created for the corporate or legal person.  In essence you and your "person" are joined After 140 years, it's easy to see how this deception is buried so far beneath the radar of the average American, that it's undetectable.  We certainly didn't learn about it in school.  You can see why those in power fear the free Internet in the hands of the people. 

Original Constitution: The real thing. The Constitution For The United States of America that governs the geographical location under common law.

Treasonous or Corporate Constitution: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution.

"Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the lawmerchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call "Social Insurance."

Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America." -- "Colonel" Edward Mandell House, stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson

It's all about invisible contracts that you never knew you made, from the birth certificate onwards, that you were never supposed to find out about because  the ones who designed the "game" never told you the rules.

Remember, The Declaration of Independence states the "government is subject to the consent of the governed". Not the other way around.

Hijacking Humanity is a must see film by Paul Verge. Below is a little excerpt from the beginning.

Read more...

In Check or Checkmate?

While obviously, there are worse atrocities then the TSA's invasive molesting procedures, it sticks out as one of the more blatant abuses of constitutional liberty, as it stands in direct violation of the fourth amendment: protection against unreasonable searches and seizure!

So, where is the outrage? Since when is it okay to violate someone's privacy and dignity in such an egregious manner? Since when is it okay for complete strangers to place their hands on you or your child's most intimate parts?

And why does the TSA have so much authority? Consider the man who tried to leave the airport after refusing a screening and pat-down. You know, the guy, who stated, "Don't touch my junk".  They threatened him with a lawsuit if he didn't submit.  Why couldn't he leave the airport? He wasn't trying to board a plane.

When in doubt, follow the money.

And when you follow the money, start with the Republicans.  What are they doing, saying, suggesting?  Well, they're pushing privatization, as usual. We all know profits are much more important than safety.

It just may be that this TSA horror show is meant to, once again, show Americans just how bad government is, in order to get Americans to accept privatization. Or the TSA "horror show" might serve to get us to accept something new, that will seem benign in comparison.   Maybe, new technology that authenticates identity via iris recognition (bio-metric screening).  Either way, the motive is power and/or profit, and more than likely, both.  Rest assured it has nothing to do with protecting American citizens from the big bad terrorist.

Is the game over? Is the last piece in place...have we been checkmated? Or is still possible to capture the queen? Or, do we wipe them off the board completely, level it, and devise our own rules?

Read more...

Citizens United Completely Undermines Our Founders Efforts to Control Corruption.

Our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves, considering the power corporations wield today. I'm fairly certain that at the time of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, tremors must've been felt, wherever our Founders were laid to rest. Why? The Framers of the Constitution viewed curbing corruption at the highest level, as chief amongst reasons for creating the Constitution. Corruption, in their eyes, presented the greatest threat to democracy and they worried most about the unchecked power of accumulations of capital. Thus, they saw the role of corporations as completely subordinate to representative government.

After all, the American Revolution was fought, in part, to free American colonists from English corporations. So, severe limits were placed on the powers of corporations. Most importantly, they were prohibited from attempting to influence elections, and public policy. This lasted 100 years. ignores this history, undermining the Constitution's efforts to curb corruption at the highest level.

"...corruption was discussed more often in the constitutional convention than factions, violence, or instability. It was a topic of concern on almost a quarter of the days that the members convened. Madison recorded the specific term corruption fifty-four times, and the vast majority of the corruption discussions were spearheaded by influential delegates Madison, Moris, Mason, and Wilson. The attendees were concerned about the corrupting influence of wealth, greed, and ambition." -- Zephyr Rain Teachout, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 341, 2009

In 1790, lasting approximately 100 years,  the states imposed the following restrictions and limitations on corporations (Act of Incorporation):

• Specified their capitalization limitations.
• Limited their lifespan.
• Dictated the boundaries of their operations and functions to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Prohibited corporations from owning stock in other corporations or from owning property if not relevant to their chartered purpose.
• Immediately terminated corporate charters that broke the law, exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Specifically spelled out how shareholder elections were to be conducted to choose directors.
• Held corporate owners and executives fully accountable.
• Banned corporations from making any political and/or charitable contributions as well as banned spending money to influence legislation in any way.

In other words, it was clearly understood, that the state granted the corporation legal protections and immunities with the expectation that - in addition to producing a profit - the corporation would also serve a public good.

When general incorporation acts are eventually adopted by states in the early nineteenth century, the states' intent is to level the playing field and disentangle themselves from the political power — and burden — of choosing among rival groups of charter-seekers. The intent of these laws is therefore the opposite of what the Court asserted in Citizens United. Free incorporation was meant to limit the power of corporations by democratizing the corporate form through dilution. It was supposed to be a giant leap in distinguishing between public and private spheres of activity. -- Brian Murphy

Today, the legal nature and structure of the corporation exempts both the corporation and its executives from accountability for almost all of the costs of their activities. The Citizens United decision grants them unlimited influence and power at a time when economic globalization increasingly, shifts power away from governments, toward a few very large publicly traded corporations, and small group of economic and political elite.  Corporations have one goal: short-term financial gain, in which they capture all of the benefits of their success and pass the seen and unseen costs to we, the people.

Source:  What the Founding Fathers Really thought about Corporations

Read more...

Privatizing Life and Death Matters Commodifies Human Life.

Marcus Crassus, of the late Roman Republic, profited handsomely as a real estate developer and entrepreneur, only his tactics were a bit questionable. You see, Crassus' private fire brigade would rush to burning homes and places of business, however refuse to refused to douse the flames until the  the building's owner and threatened neighbors sold the property to him for less than one-fifth the market value.  It worked like a dream...that is, until several years later when Rome crashed and burned.

Fast forward 2,010 years and  firefighters watch a home burn to the ground in Tennessee over a $75 fee. Either not much has changed, or we've come full circle, and like Ancient Rome, we've lost the moral foundation upon which our society relies:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

So how is watching a house burn down over a $75 fee, or letting people suffer and/or die due to lack of health insurance, or allowing children (America's future) to go hungry or suffer the consequences of neglect and a system that puts their needs dead last, synchronize with the belief, that all men are endowed with "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that is interwoven throughout our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

The Republican agenda to privatize everything under the sun, including essential matters of life and death, while at the same time, supporting corporate welfare and the military industrial complex, contributes greatly to the greed and arrogance that corrupt  the atmosphere and culture of  today's society.  This "atmosphere" is eerily similar to the greedy and power hungry faction of wealthy capitalists and nobles that began to use the Roman mob to promote their own selfish interests and expand the Roman Republic for gain and the acquisition of even more power.

If we can't trust firefighters to put out fires, then the breakdown of all trust - essential to a capitalist society - is sure to follow, hence, the collapse of the American empire.

Read more...

ACORN Ruled Not a Bill of Attainder After it Was.

Okay, first of all, what is a Bill of Attainder?

According to Wikipedia, it means when legislature imposes punishment on a person or group of persons without benefit of a trial. The US Constitution forbids bills of attainder and in addition, the constitution of every State also expressly forbids bills of attainder.

Forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes:

1. Prohibit legislature from  performing judicial functions.
2. Embodies the concept of due process. 

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law (a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions committed prior to the enactment of the law) shall be passed".

Second, why isn't defunding ACORN considered a bill of attainder after it was already declared one in a previous federal court ruling? After all a congressional report found ACORN broke no laws.

A three-judge panel (two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee) on the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that " Congress acted within its authority when it blocked federal funding last year for community activist group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)."

Apparently, denying federal funding isn't a punishment even though it sounds the death knell for this organization. Death penalty, anyone?

Third, what did ACORN do to deserve this "non-punishing" no-trial,  "non-sanctioned" execution, anyway?

ACORN supposedly engaged in voter registration fraud.  They were also exposed  in an embezzlement scheme by a whistle-blower who forced them to disclose the embezzlement, which involved the brother of the ACORN's founder, Wade Rathke. ACORN did not notify law enforcement and instead signed a restitution agreement with the ACORN founder's brother in which his family agreed to repay the amount embezzled in exchange for confidentiality.

ACORN also fell victim to a sensational video sting after a few of their lower level employees responded very poorly to two undercover conservatives, O'Keefe and Giles, dressed as a pimp and a prostitute in order to elicit damaging responses from them to prove that ACORN is indeed, a criminal enterprise. Well, the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles Hynes cleared ACORN employees of criminal wrongdoing on March 1, 2010 after a five-month investigation.  But that didn't seem to matter either.

As of October 2009, ACORN had been subjected to at least 46 federal, state, and local investigations. And so it goes, the right-wing's war on the "weak" continues.

But ACORN CEO and Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis told me that the ruling didn't correct the injustice. "The judge declared it unconstitutional. Well, it didn't seem to make a difference--did not make one whit of a difference. The new Appropriations bill had defund ACORN language in it. The damage has been done. The omnibus bill was signed. So they completely ignored the judge's order, so now we have to go back in the court along with the Center for Constitutional Rights--thank God for them. And we will continue to fight this legally because we know we are right."

According to Lewis, damage to ACORN's work on the ground includes "10,000 people minimum" who will not obtain free tax preparation services from ACORN. In the past, ACORN has helped them file for the Earned Income Tax Credit and thereby "put billions of dollars back into low-income neighborhoods."

"We've had to suspend that. That's a direct affect on poor people, and you know we were commended by the IRS prior to the right-wing attacks," said Lewis.

Lewis also said ACORN must curtail its fight against foreclosures. "About 200,000 people that we won't be able to help directly," she said, noting that this comes at a moment when the Obama Administration has admitted its own anti-foreclosure plan has fallen short because bailed-out banks aren't cooperating.

Finally, Lewis said loss of funding has impacted ACORN's fight to address wage and hour disparities--workers who aren't paid the minimum wage, cheated out of overtime, unfairly dismissed or discriminated against--"people just totally taking advantage of low-wage workers in this economy."

"It's not so much the amount of government grants," said Lewis. "But what was so insidious is--once your name has been attached to a bill in Congress and you have been singled out as suspect, whether you get the federal funds or not, now you have driven away private foundation funding. That is the true harm because we have been singled out for infamy."

Indeed in these times, when a rabid right-wing has access to megaphones of hate, it's critical that there be a check against this kind of smear campaign--and part of that check is fact-checking.

Read more...

Tea Party Demonstrations and the States’ Rights Challenge. Why Now?

I listened to The States’ Rights Challenge on the NPR radio show, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, my favorite radio broadcaster and he invited guests, Neil Siegel, professor of law and political science at Duke University and Thomas E. Woods, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, with very different viewpoints on the states' rights issue with respect to the health care reform package, in particular. As Ashbrook said, he wanted to discern whether the reemergence of this issue, at this time, points to the "proof of a vigorous democracy or fraying of national unity and authority.

Before health care reform even passed, two states, Virginia and Idaho had already voted to challenge its authority. Now, attorneys general from 13 states are challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill and in total, 36 states are considering legislation to limit certain portions or reject the bill, outright.

The first major tea party march, April 15, 2009, in response to President Obama's federal stimulus bill, was the first time this issue of "states' rights" materialized to the point of national recognition, especially with Texas Gov. Rick Perry threatening to secede from the union, which although he may deny it now, was clearly his message at the time.

Republicans claim big government is the monster in the closet when they don't like what's being legislated, and it appears - since President Obama has taken office - to include who is doing the legislating. This becomes apparent when you compare the lack of response to the huge expansion of federal power under former President Bush (prescription drug legislation, no child left behind, Iraq and cost of a war based on lies, ect.) So, one has to ask, why, now that we have our first black president, is there a push for state’s rights... talk of invoking the 10th amendment, nullification and secession, when article 6 clearly states federal authority outranks state’s authority?

Neil Siegel said it's important to distinguish the difference between challenging federalism and "couching" opposition to legislation in terms of 10th amendment, nullification and secession.

It’s important to make a distinction between Federalism – appropriate balance of power between the federal government and the states and “state’s rights”, nullification and secession which either intentionally or unwittingly invokes very powerful historical and cultural memories. Memories of southern opposition of federal regulation of slavery before the civil war; memories opposition of Brown v. Board of Education in school desegregation during what legal scholars call the second reconstruction.

Why is talk about the limits of federal power and the appropriate ways in which states should be pushing back against federal power when state officials think it’s being used in ways which are misguided…why is that being couched in terms of 10th amendment, nullification and secession and why is it being couched in those terms now?

It’s entirely legitimate for people to oppose health care reform, but what’s more questionable is whether it’s appropriate to couch those concerns in language of state’s rights. Is your substantive political opposition to health care reform or is it principled commitment to decentralization? It seems there are not very many principled people out there when it comes to state’s rights. Favorable to robust federal power when it suits them but then couch their concerns against a particular exercise of federal power in the deceptive procedural address of federalism. What specific constitutional principles of federalism render this legislation unconstitutional, in particular because it seems that individual states find it almost impossible to tackle health care?

One of the biggest complaints is about the portion of health care reform that would mandate individuals to purchase health insurance. However, isn't it true that citizens are mandated to purchase auto insurance? How is this "mandate" any different? Siegal explained it this way:

In the summer of 1787, when the Constitutional convention meets in Philadelphia, the convention instructs the Mid Summer committee of detail which is charged with drafting Congress’ powers in article 1 section 8, that congress should have the power to legislate when the states are separately incompetent. When the states face problems they can’t adequately handle on their own. Health insurance and an individual mandate to possess health insurance is a textbook example in economics which is a problem states can’t handle on their own.

Imagine some states have it and other don’t. Then you have people who are sick and unhealthy going to the states who have it and all the premiums of people in that state increase, and all health people in those states go to other states. Insurers only want to do business with those that don’t have the mandate. The states on their own can’t handle this.

Does the state has power to nullify federal law?

The 10th amendment says, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people..."

13 states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington. Alaska and Oklahoma reviewing legislation might file law suit.

Issues that involve states' rights:
Gay rights
Medical marijuana
Health care
Guns
Environmental
Continuous call up of the National Guard

Read more...

Do We Need a Constitutional Convention to Drive Big Money Off Capital Hill?.

Let's face it, reform and change will not come through the current big-business-dominated electoral system which serves to stifles all voices but that of the ruling class. A list of poll findings [appended to the text of Paul Street's book, Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics] suggest American citizens, on the whole, do not share the imperialist views of what Paul Street calls the “political and policy-making class” or the “Narrow-Spectrum Two-Party Money-Media Single-Member-Plurality-System-Winner-Take-All-Strong-Executive-Imperial Plutocracy”.

“Twice as many Americans back more government services and spending (even if this means a tax increase) as the number who support fewer services and reduced spending.”

“69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health care to all US citizens.”

“59 percent of Americans in 2004 thought the US should remove its military presence from the Middle East if that’s what the majority of the people there want.”

“93 percent of Americans support minimum standards in international trade agreements for working conditions and 91 percent support minimum environmental protection.

Our two-party system has been reduced to what political scientist Sheldon Wolin calls "a one-and-a-half party system" where,

"the parties set out to mobilize the citizen-as-voter, to define political obligation as fulfilled by the casting of a vote. Afterwards, post-election politics of lobbying, repaying donors, and promoting corporate interests - the real players - takes over The effect is to demobilize the citizenry, to teach them not to be involved or to ponder matters that are either settled or beyond their efficacy....The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts,...points to the crucial fact that, for the poor, minorities, the working-class, anticorporatists, pro-environmentalists, and anti-imperialists, there is no opposition party working actively on their behalf." (Wolin, Democracy Incorporated, pp. 201, 205, 206).

Even the slightest, superficial distinctions that still exist between the one-and-a-half party system can mean the difference between life and death for the most vulnerable part of our population, living on, as Street says, “the wrong side of American hierarchy and policy”.

However, all is not lost. Pressure from a mobilized and organized populace has great potential to restore our democracy.

Read more...

Fulfilling the Dream?

In 1964, Martin Luther King had been asked to comment on a statement by Senator-Elect Robert F. Kennedy of New York to the effect that it might be possible to elect an African American president within 40 years. Martin Luther King responded, "I've seen levels of compliance with the civil rights bill and changes that have been most surprising. So, on the basis of this, I think we may be able to get a Negro president in less than 40 years." However, aside from being the first African American President, Martin Luther King would be disappointed in President Obama's seemingly infatuation with the establishment.

Not only does Obama continue his predecessor's escalation of the Military-industrial complex, his pro-business status quo bias - which favors incumbent firms over potential, big business over small, and corporate interests over consumer - is completely at odds with Dr. King's non-violent philosophy and commitment to ending poverty by championing the rights of the poor and marginalized in American society.

Consider the US military plans to more than triple its inventory of high-altitude, armed and unarmed drones capable of 24-hour patrols by 2020. President Obama has also made it clear that he concurs with President Bush's policy, that gives the President the right to assassinate American citizens - if suspected of terrorism - without a trial. (U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes).

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar] Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.

Martin Luther King, once said the United States is, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." Nothing has changed. The explosion of technology within the last decade has made it possible to engage in a very insidious form of violence with little to no accountability. Unmanned drones and adjunct private armed forces kill in such a way that leaves the U.S. accountable, liable, or answerable to no one.

On the other hand, in fairness to President Obama, one must keep in mind that never before has the state succeeded in maintaining unsustainable human practices without operating through violence, oppression, and the destruction of environment. Therefore, as long as we, the people insist on retaining the lifestyle to which we've become accustomed, President Obama does not have much choice.

Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular – but one must take it simply because it is right. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Read more...