As Western Civilization Lies Dying – Corporatism, Slavery and Death – Identifying Freedom’s Problems

Capitalism Defined: ‘As Western Civilization Lies Dying’

Wed, Oct 6, 2010

James P. Harvey, Political Philosophy

by James P. Harvey

In all fairness, let’s consider the thoughts of surreptitious writers on the effects of Capitalism as they define it.

As Western Civilization Lies Dying
by John Kozy
URL of this article:
Global Research, September 29, 2010

The Western commercial system exists to extract more from consumers than it supplies in products and services. Its goal is profit and has never been to improve the human condition but to exploit it. When governments institutionalize this system, they place their nations on suicidal paths, because as Jefferson recognized, “Merchants have no country.” It is not terrorism that threatens the security of the Western World, it is the Western World’s commercial system.

A man suffering from severe chest pains collapses. His wife calls 911. An ambulance arrives, the EMTs treat the patient, place him in the ambulance’s bed, and start off to the hospital. Along the way, the engine stalls. The ambulance’s staff begins arguing about how to get the motor restarted. One says more gasoline is needed, another says there’s water in the tank, a third says the fuel filter is clogged. While they argue, the patient lies dying.

This situation is analogous to what’s happening in America and parts of Europe. While economists and politicians argue, their nations are in the throes of death. These people are looking for the devil in the details, but he is not there. It’s the system itself that’s diabolical.

The Western commercial system is extractive. It exists to extract more from consumers than it supplies in products and services. Its goal is profit, and profit literally means to make more (pro-ficere). Its goal has never been to improve the human condition but to exploit it. It works like this:

Consider two water tanks, initially each partially full, one above the other. One gallon of water is dumped from the upper tank into the lower one for each two gallons extracted from the lower tank and pumped into the upper tank. Over time, the lower tank ends up empty and the upper tank ends up full. The circulation of water between the tanks ends.

Essentially, this scenario describes all commercial systems based on profit. It is why the top 20 percent of Americans has 93 percent of the nation’s financial wealth and the bottom 80 percent has a mere seven percent. It is why the bottom 40 percent of all income earners in the United States now collectively own less than one percent of the nation’s wealth. It is why the nation’s poverty rate is now14.3 percent, about 43.6 million people or one in seven. It is also why the Wall Street Journal has reported that 70 percent of people in North America live paycheck to paycheck. It is also why, despite numerous pledges over decades, no progress has been made in reducing world-wide poverty. The system is a thief.

The economy has collapsed not because of misfeasance, deregulation, or political bungling (although all may have been proximate causes), it has collapsed because the pockets of the vast majority of Americans have been picked. The housing bubble didn’t burst because home prices had risen, it burst because the pockets of consumers had been picked so clean they could no longer service their mortgages.

What the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans don’t realize is that some in this group will begin to target the others in order to keep the extractive process working. In fact, it’s already happening. “The brute force of the recession earlier this year turned back the clock on Americans’ personal wealth to 2004 and wiped out a staggering $1.3 trillion as home values shrank and investments withered.” Little of this loss from investments was suffered by the lower 80 percent of Americans. There is, after all, no goodwill within greed, and the market can be and often is manipulated.

The “system” has impoverished the people, the circulation between the two tanks has been reduced to a trickle, and our economists have convinced the government that the only way to get things flowing again is to pour more water into the upper tank, hoping that the spillover will settle in the lower tank. Better to pray for rain!

This impoverishment has numerous mathematically certain implications; two major ones follow.

First, the system can’t be fixed by tinkering with the details. At best, tinkering with the details can merely slow down the depletion of consumer wealth. As long as the system is based on profit, more must be taken than is given. The rate of depletion can be changed, but the depletion cannot be stopped. This conclusion is as mathematically certain as subtraction. Why the geniuses in the American economics community, all who whom taut economics for its use of mathematical models, cannot understand this is a conundrum. They can tinker as much as they like. Some tinkering will produce apparent benefits, some won’t. But one thing is certain-the system, unless it is fundamentally and essentially changed-will break down over and over again just as it has at fairly regularly intervals in the past. As long as maintaining the system is more important that the welfare of people, the people have no escape. They are eventually impoverished-both when the system works and when it doesn’t! Two thousand years of history has produced not a single counterexample to this conclusion. Prosperity never results from exploitation.

Another implication that few seem to recognize concerns the national debt.

We are told that the burden of paying off the debt will be borne by our progeny, our children, and their children. But unless the Western commercial system undergoes fundamental changes, the children and grand children of most Americans will never have to bear this burden. Why? Not even governments can pick empty pockets. So if the debt is to be paid by raising taxes, the children and grandchildren of that 20 percent of Americans who hold 93 percent of the nation’s financial wealth will have to pay them. Most, if not all, of these people are also investors. Given the acrimonious debate about letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, the chances of that ever happening are slim to none.

Will the debt then be paid by devaluing the dollar, by printing money? Many believe that the government will eventually take this alternative. Let’s say it does. Then all the dollars held by anyone anywhere will be devalued equally, including the dollars held by that same 20 percent of Americans. Again the wealthy 20 percent of Americans, having the most, lose the most. The devalued dollars they collect on their investments are merely added to their other devalued dollars, and the more the dollar must be devalued to repay the debt, the more the wealthy lose.

And finally, will the government default? Most seem to believe this to be unlikely. Perhaps, but isn’t it the best alternative? Investors will simply not be paid, but the rest of their money will retain its value unless other economic consequences reduce it. Even Morgan Stanley recognizes that “the sovereign debt crisis won’t end till deeply indebted rich country governments give holders of their bonds a good soaking.”

So relax, Americans, your children will never bear the burden of paying off the national debt. Just sit back and enjoy watching the wealthy squirm.

Some say that if the nation defaults, the government will be unable to borrow. But other governments have defaulted without losing their ability to borrow. Russia, Argentina, and Zimbabwe are but recent examples. Of course, there are severe economic consequences to defaulting, but there are severe consequences to each of these alternatives too. How much harder can life be for the 80 percent of Americans holding a mere seven percent of the nation’s wealth? There are, after all, no degrees of broke; no broke, broker, and brokest.

Will investors refuse to lend? Doubtful. A wealthy person can do four things with money: give it away, spend it, stuff it under the mattress, or invest it. Those are the only alternatives, and it is unlikely that much of it can be spent or that many will have the inclination to give it away or save it. So the wealthy really lack a great deal of choice.

Finally, a hidden principle underlies this extractive system-It is okay for some to enrich themselves by making others poor. Even though this is exactly what thieves do, no one, to my knowledge, has ever pointed out that this principle is immoral. It appears to be accepted universally as economically acceptable. But consider these two similar principles: (1) It is okay for some to improve their health by making others unhealthy, and (2) It okay for some to avoid the consequences of their criminal acts by making others bear them. No one would consider the last of these right, yet all three are logically and materially identical.

Some may claim that without profit, no commercial system can function effectively. If true, the implications for humanity are horrific. It implies that mankind was made in Satin’s image, that the Commandments, especially the tenth, are fraudulent, that all the philosophy and literature that defines Western Civilization are nugatory, that no essential distinction exists between so-called civilized and barbaric nations, that all governments are illegitimate, that words like justice and fairness are meaningless, that the law is lawless, that society disintegrates into nociety, and that nothing really matters. The economy is Bedlam, the Earth is the Universe’s Insane Asylum, and the craziest are in charge. What kind of human mind would ever attempt to defend this abomination?

This Western commercial system exists merely to enrich vendors by exploiting consumers. When governments institutionalize this system, they place their nations on suicidal paths. Astute observers of history have long recognized what Thomas Jefferson made explicit-”Merchants have no country.” Oh, yes! These merchants will object vehemently. Pay no attention. Just watch what they do.

They expect favorable treatment and services from governments but do everything possible to keep from paying for them in taxes and exhibit no concern whenever their native lands face bankruptcy. When their native lands face stress, as in times of war, the people are called upon to sacrifice while the merchants are allowed to profiteer. When John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country,” he was not speaking to corporate America. Does any reader of this piece really believe that the makers of Humvees, drones, and F16s would ever consider supplying them to our military at cost? Yet how great is the cost of the sacrifice parents are asked to make by sending their children off to fight hideous wars?

People, a merchant unwilling to sacrifice for his country has no country, he will support no country, defend no country, and if such people are given control of a nation, they will suck its blood dry and sell off the body parts to the highest bidder. Not even a recognizable corpse will remain. It is not terrorism that threatens the security of the Western World, it is the Western World’s commercial system.

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

The first thing we must do in evaluating Mr. Kozy’s article is determine if he is describing capitalism, or the results of something more diabolical, so let’s look at some classical definitions first.

Capitalism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Liberal market economy” redirects here. For the ideology behind this economic system, see Economic liberalism.

“Free Enterprise” redirects here. For the 1999 film, see Free Enterprise (film).

For other uses, see Capitalism (disambiguation).

Capitalism, also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy, is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution and industry are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the marketrather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses.

There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[2] There are a variety of historical cases to which the designation is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[3] Some define capitalism as where all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely where merely “most” are in private hands —while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy based toward capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system where production is carried out to generate profit, or exchange-value, regardless of legal ownership titles. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.[4]

Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[5][6] Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor andclass.[7] There is general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth[8] while further entrenching significant differences in income and wealth. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.[7]

Capitalism as a deliberate system of a mixed economy developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe,[9] although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[10][11][12] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[12] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[3]

Variants of capitalism include: anarcho-capitalismcorporate capitalismcrony capitalismfinance capitalismlaissez-faire capitalismlate capitalism,neo-capitalismpost-capitalismstate capitalismstate monopoly capitalism and technocapitalism.

As you can see, many people consider their self knowledgeable on this subject, BUT, everyone that writes and publishes their opinion has an objective, just as I do, and that is the reason so much research is needed to get a handle on any important subject. One does not need to have 12 years of collage to understand that greed for money and power has been humanities greatest problem since societies were first formed, and has exponentially multiplied with population and technological advancement, but one does need to study and be observant.

Today, we have hundreds of thousands of physical and emotional factors contributing to a societal disintegration, and an intentional scrambling of capitalisms definition is one of the key factors involved. What it means to the little guy is not what is practiced by the big boys. Need I repeat that, what people say, and what they do, is not usually the same thing, so let’s review some of the popular definitions and their results.


Don’t drop the soap if you shower with one of these guys, because history proves beyond denial these guys want it all. Beginning with a legal fiction called (Corporate Personhood) as a legal umbrella these guys are nothing short of monopolist monsters. If they are a manufacturing business, they want control of the raw materials, shipping, distributing, and financing, which draws them to banking like stink on a maggot. Competition is eliminated by any means possible. If you follow their trail throughout history, they either started as, or became bankers, and are currently in the process of eliminating each other, with global kingship as the grand prize.


This has historically been practiced as free enterprise, and even that is a misnomer, as elimination of competition on a local scale is most always attempted; but for lack of courage, financing, intelligence, and sheer numbers of entrepreneurs, it would be monopolistic on a local scale.


On the surface, this would seem to be the answer to attracting the best and brightest entrepreneurs, and keeping them honest, but for one thing: they buy and or coerce the government!


With a severe revamping of our legal system, a non invested committee of safety with contractual authority to overrule and keep a running financial audit could possibly be the answer to keeping capitalism under control. I do not present this as anything other than the germ of an idea, but it does deserve the attention of those who are aware of the benefits and danger of capitalism, and some experimentation.



I Am Fed Up With Constitution Worship!

Mon, Oct 4, 2010

Gary D. Barnett, Political Philosophy

by Gary D. Barnett
original post found here:

I must say that I didn’t always feel this way, but I am now truly sick of hearing every day about how we should uphold, defend, and worship the U.S. Constitution. Yes, I am aware that if it were followed to the letter that we would all be somewhat better off, but was that ever the real intent? I think not.

As I perused an article recently in the Christian Science Monitor titled “Why Do Americans Get the Constitution So Wrong” by Lion Calandra, I thought it was time to expose some of the misconceptions about our so-called reverent “founding” document. The first few words of that article set the stage for my rant.

The opening statement: “On this day, 223 years ago, the U.S. Constitution was born, giving Americans the freedoms that they hold dear, the freedoms that men and women have died to defend.”

Obviously, the author also got it wrong, because everything in the above sentence is patently false. Our freedoms did not come from any political class or due to any drafting of a political document. Our rights and freedoms are God-given and inherent. They are natural human rights, and cannot be bestowed by men! Our natural rights to life, liberty, and property encompass all others; this a fact barely acknowledged by most. Without the right to life and liberty, no other right can exist. With the right to life and liberty, all other rights are evident.


Also, the notion that men and women died to defend our freedoms can only be correct if one considers those very few who have died fighting against our own federal government’s encroachment against liberty. If the intent here is to laud those who died in warfare, then again, the author is completely wrong. Those who fight in wars are defending and serving the government, and therefore are harming freedom, not protecting it. This may seem a harsh statement to some, but it is this truth that escapes almost all Americans. If more understood this, we would all be much better off. War is the health of the state, and therefore is antithetical to freedom. U.S. wars are directly responsible for a more powerful government and less freedom; the opposite of what is taught in the government-run schools, and what political pundits constantly spew.

Why was the current U.S. constitution drafted and ratified in the first place? Was it because our founders believed that they were doing more to protect liberty? Did they think that this particular document would serve to expand and protect our freedoms? Were the Articles of Confederation, our constitution at the time, anti-freedom or inadequate? Did that constitution allow the federal government more or less power than the new one?

If one answers these questions honestly, many other questions will arise, and the answers to those questions may cause resentment to replace respect. In fact, our current constitution greatly expanded government power over the people, not the other way around, as most believe. Just consider one example: In the Articles of Confederation the federal government had no power to lay and collect (by force) taxes. Any money needed had to come voluntarily from the individual states. In Article 1, Section 8 of our current constitution, the federal government has virtually an unlimited power to tax. This fact alone should have been reason enough to not ratify the constitution 223 years ago. Of course, most of the rest of those powers given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 should have also caused great concern for anyone sympathetic to liberty.


The Anti-federalists had it right all along. The Articles of Confederation were certainly not perfect, but that constitution was a damn sight better than the one we have now. One single reading of Article 1, Section 8 of the current U.S. Constitution should literally scare the living daylights out of all who believe in freedom and liberty. In my opinion, Hamilton and his followers were able to fool and then co-opt enough of the political leaders of the time to bring about a massive change; a change that ushered in a much more powerful central governing system. This was entirely by design in my opinion, and was never intended to advance and protect the freedom of the individual. Had that been the case, slavery would never have been sanctioned by that same document. Why this system is so revered is beyond me. It can only be due to long-term indoctrination. I have been told since childhood of the greatness of the constitution by peers, by the school system, by politicians, by the media, and by virtually everyone else able to utter the spoken word. Considering this, it is no wonder that this mediocre document is worshiped by so many.

It should be obvious that I am not attempting to fully explain or outline the constitution, nor am I attempting to put forth any expert legal opinion concerning it. This has been done over and over again. I am simply pointing out that this supreme law of the United States is not what it seems. Things are always done for a reason, and in my opinion, the constitution was drafted so as to expand the powers of the national government, and weaken the powers held by the individual states and the people. This has certainly been the end result. I think it is important to remember that many of the founders of this country, while courageous in their fight to free themselves from English rule, were still politicians, and as such had their own agendas. These agendas did not always run parallel with individual freedom, especially considering the Hamiltonians. While this may be hard to swallow for some, it is nonetheless true.

What does all this mean? In my mind, it simply means that a piece of paper does not freedom make. None of us gained freedom due to other men bestowing it upon us. None of us gained our freedom due to men drafting constitutional documents. We gain our freedom naturally at birth, and from that point forward, it is up to each individual to protect it. Freedom can only exist and thrive when individuals understand its importance and defend it at all costs. Not against monsters from abroad as is the opinion of most, but against our own government. No constitution can accomplish this, and any constitution is worthless without the ideas of freedom and liberty living in the hearts and minds of individuals willing to force its compliance. There are some who have the freedom philosophy living in their hearts and minds, but there are very few who are willing to risk all to fight for it. This dynamic will have to change before we again become truly free of this now tyrannical government.


I think the time has come for all of us to reevaluate the meaning of freedom. Freedom comes from within and is natural to the human species. Men cannot give freedom but men can take it away. All government operates by force, and force is the absolute opposite of freedom. Government is never a friend to liberty, so government should be held back and controlled. If some set of rules such as a constitution is the desired vehicle to accomplish order, then those set of rules should not only be strict and limited, but enforced by the people themselves. Without this control, we end up in 2010 America.

The following excerpt from Human Action thoroughly illustrates the antagonism between freedom and government:

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

I will put my faith in God, not men. I will have faith in freedom, not constitutions. Our salvation and return to liberty lies not in faith in men residing in the halls of congress, but in our belief in us as free and sovereign individuals.

Identifying Freedom’s Problems, Part 1

Wed, Oct 13, 2010

Political Philosophy, Timothy Baldwin

by Attorney Timothy Baldwin

Those who would classify themselves as the enemies of tyranny and advocates of freedom have offered—and for quite some time—many reasons why the United States are in the condition they are in. These reasons need to be reduced to their principle and need to be studied in terms of both society and government phenomenon before real remedies can be applied to the problems caused by the reasons. The reasons can be summarized into three main statements. The problem with the United States:

(1) is not with the United States Constitution (“USC”) but with the people of America;
(2) is not with the USC but with government rulers; and
(3) is with the USC, regardless of the people or rulers.

It is admitted that the complexity of this subject cannot be fully dealt with in a short article as this, but perhaps the content herein will aspire more people to truly identify the real causes of our plight so that an enlightenment of the mind will produce freedom, happiness and peace in all of the societies in America. To that end, I will take the proposed reasons in order.

(1) The problem with the United States is not with the USC but with the people of America.

I find this position to be at best partially correct.

(a) Subjective Perspective of the ‘People’s Problem’

It is easily admitted and provable that a large number of Americans (increasingly) do not possess the characters and virtues required to self-government and limited government, from a subjective perspective. That is, individual Americans do not possess the required attributes of a responsible citizen towards fellow man and government, ranging from his lack of education,[1] his disingenuous attitude towards politics and his laziness to study and get involved in preserving freedom. However, laying the blame solely on the people is a serious mistake. While it is absolutely true that constitutions do not enforce themselves and thus “it must be the people’s fault,” it is equally true that for every cause there is an effect. Thus, where a constitution is created in such a way as to cause directly or indirectly certain effects, it is correct to place at least some blame on the cause, especially where the cause’s effects are foreseeable.

The USC has been in effect since 1787. Since then, thousands of federal politicians have been elected, federal court cases rendered and discussed and Congressional bills passed and executed throughout generations of American society. Since then, unrelenting constitutional debates have filled thousands of volumes and millions of pages to discuss the “true” extent of the federal government’s power by some of the most intelligent and studied men of history—including men who not only helped draft the USC but also contributed to declaring the colonies free and independent states in 1776. These political events have taken place in front of millions of virtuous, admirable and freedom-loving Americans of every generation. Still, the effect of the constitutional process blares before our eyes. Thus, it cannot be true that the problems in society and government are completely attributable to the people alone.

The result of this 200-plus year constitutional process has produced a federal government, operation, rule of law and system of what many are claiming suddenly to be anti-constitutional, as if the federal power and authority being asserted is somehow new in its origin and basis. Using the logic and ideology of founders like Alexander Hamilton, Charles Pinckney, Governor Morris and the like, the federal government is simply exercising its legitimate, supreme-law-of-the-land authority with plenary power to implement any and all laws it deems necessary and proper in pursuance of their powers to provide for the general welfare of the nation of one body-politic—the American people at large. It is this same logic that the U.S. Supreme Court has used since 1788 to confirm this same plenary power of the federal government to pass and execute laws, subject only to their review as the final arbiter and determiner of the USC.

This 200-plus year application of the USC has proven itself to be very detrimental to the rights, powers and sovereignty of the State bodies-politic, not the least offense of which was displayed from 1861-1865. But even before that time, all three branches of the federal government slowly but surely claimed powers in the authority of and in pursuance of the USC that were once held by the states, the U.S. Supreme Court justices upholding their laws time and time again. This is the nature of humans and government—especially big government:

“[W]e overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution.”[2]

If it took over 200 years to reach this point, how much longer would it take to restore freedom to its 1787 condition when nature works in favor of an expanding and encroaching government and not in favor of the rights of individuals and societies?—especially given the position that the problem with America is the people, not the USC. For as Thomas Jefferson observed, “[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”[3]

Even if the “original constitution” were proposed to preserve the sovereignty of the states, virtually any and all resistance displayed by state governments to protect their sovereignty has been struck down as being contrary to the national, one-American-body-politic principles of the USC by the federal government. In essence, state sovereignty is whatever the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed it to be. Unfortunately, the states have complied with and submitted to this constitutional interpretation and have largely done so (with few exceptions) throughout America’s history—and for the past century and more, mostly by accepting federal handouts each year. Their hands are extended, and while the money is put in one hand, the chains are shackled around the other.

For more than 100 years, the entire federal government, under both Republic and Democratic leadership, has declared to the American people and to the world that it has the power to regulate virtually any matter whatsoever through its tax and commerce power. During this time, America’s “greatest generation” (the World War II generation) existed and consented to such a constitutional proclamation, handing down to their posterity the consequences of such a constitutional application. It was this generation that consented to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” wherein the federal government’s role extended to regulate the smallest of private industry and consented to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, such as Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), upholding Congress’ power to regulate what and how much crops a private farmer could grow for his personal use. Matters have only gotten exponentially worse since then, creating more resentment, frustration and anger in the hearts and minds of the people who long for freedom yet never find it in the system created by the USC, or at least the people who have controlled it.

And if the USC has been supposedly raped (as opposed to being pursued) for as long as it has and the cause of the same is the people of America, why has there not been an effort to separate from the societies causing the generation-after-generation demise? After all, if this is true, “show respect to liberty and your power will increase daily,”[4] then the power which has increased daily since 1787 proves that the people and rulers do not respect liberty but rather respect statism and big government. Still, this statism and big government has come by way of the USC in its organic form.

“The worst of all abuses is to pay an apparent obedience to the laws, only in order to actually break them with security. For in this case the best laws soon become the most pernicious; and it would be a hundred times better that they should not exist.”[5]

Problems being perceived as “new” today are actually manifestations of principles which have been analyzed, accepted and applied for over two hundred years through constitutional process. While some may argue that the laws being passed today do not reflect what the “founders intended,” they would be competing against a philosophy developed for many generations and have to unravel a ball of yarn that has been not only tied into knots but also glued into place. Trying to argue what the “founders intended” would prove most ineffectual—especially on a national scale—considering the differing and opposing views held by the founders and ratifying States, not to mention societies’ views of the founding generation today.

What is clear to many is that freedom will not be restored by trying to go backwards, but by moving forward on principles found in God’s natural and revealed laws. Is this not what the founding generation did? Were the founding fathers abandoning their forefathers when they seceded from the British Constitution or were they pursuing and perpetuating their honorable sacrifice? In 1776, the conditions were ripe for revolution. In 2010, those conditions are no less ripe:

“[L]iberty may begin as an internal power, an internal power to reflect upon the past (to see what might have been different in it) and upon the future (to see alternative courses of possible action). And liberty may also depend upon an internal power to choose (both to repent of some things in the past and to select and choose a new course in the future). But to flourish and break into blossom, liberty needs the sunny warmth of culture and ideas and the nourishing rain of favorable institutions of politics and economics. The inner power to act freely and the hunger to exercise liberty may be universal, but the cultural and institutional ecology of liberty may for millennia be unfavorable to its exercise. These interior powers may therefore slumber in the patience of evolution, until conditions are right. The blossoming of liberty has in fact required many centuries to unfold. Only two centuries ago, the Americans of 1776 and 1789 were poignantly aware of their own uneasy originality. They rejoiced at casting their very first votes as a free people.”[6]

Federal courts have in very large part not relied upon what some call the “original intent” but rather have relied upon the construction of the words of the USC; for as was observed by John Jacques Rousseau, “The power of the laws depends still more on their own wisdom than on the severity of their administrators.”[7] Consequently, the federal government’s power has been and would be today considered by many constitutional scholars as being sound and legitimate given those factors of constitutional interpretation and application.

Given the hundreds of millions of Americans who have overseen the constitutional process in America since 1787; the 200-plus year political process within the three branches of the federal government which have put flesh on and put into practice the “experiment” of the USC proposed in 1787; the intense debate and involvement which America’s “greatest generation[s]” and even founding generation existing after 1787 concerning the federal government’s constitutional powers; and the thousands of repeated confirmation of constitutional federal plenary power, there could hardly be a legitimate argument made that the political and governmental problems in America today lie solely with the people and do not lie at all with the USC.

Otherwise, what effect does a constitution really have when it can be completely destroyed by the simple fact that the people are not capable of governing themselves? If a constitution is wholly inadequate for an immoral and irreligious people, then what good is binding yourself to a society and union that creates the unenforceability of the constitution you claim must protect your freedom? One would think that a better way to secure freedom would be first to do what Alexander Hamilton suggested in times of tyranny:

“The people should resolve to RECALL ALL THE POWERS they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to DIVIDE THEMSELVES INTO AS MANY STATES[8] AS THERE ARE COUNTIES, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”[9]

Secondly, all citizens of the state must endeavor to possess the qualities of self-government, -responsibility and morality, not just write some words on a piece of paper, call it a constitution and hope that it will govern people who cannot govern themselves.

“There can be no patriotism without liberty, no liberty without virtue, no virtue without citizens; create citizens, and you have everything you need; without them, you will have nothing but debased slaves, from the rulers of the State downwards. To form citizens is not the work of a day; and in order to have men it is necessary to educate them when they are children.”[10]

A constitution will only follow the philosophy of the people and will never have the effect of limiting government where the people do not possess self-governing characteristics. From the looks of it, the condition prevalent is not changing anytime soon, which is largely thus:

“The unequal distribution of inhabitants over the territory, when men are crowded together in one place, while other places are depopulated; the encouragement of the arts that minister to luxury and of purely industrial arts at the expense of useful and laborious crafts; the sacrifice of agriculture to commerce; the necessitation of the tax-farmer by the mal-administration of the funds of the State; and in short, venality pushed to such an extreme that even public esteem is reckoned at a cash value, and virtue rated at a market price: these are the most obvious causes of opulence and of poverty, of public interest, of mutual hatred among citizens, of indifference to the common cause, of the corruption of the people, and of the weakening of all the springs of government. Such are the evils, which are with difficulty cured.”[11]

At least, the answer lies in a spiritual and mental enlightenment of individuals who compose the several societies in America. It was only for the reason that the American people were capable of self-government that the USC-ratifying generation believed the experiment of the USC could possibly be successful. The gamble of the experiment was made on that presumption. However, those presumptive facts no longer exist. It is for this same reason that for freedom to be restored in American societies, much more will be needed than “voting the bums out” in Washington D.C.—a futile, ineffectual and fruitless exercise. Instead, individuals composing the several societies in America must apply the formulas of freedom in their own society.

[1] Education is used in the political and philosophical sense and application.

[2] Emer De Vatel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Sec. 30.

[3] Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 387.

[4] Jean Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on Political Economy, from Great Books of the Western World, Ed., Robert M. Hutchins, Trns. G.D. H. Cole, (Chicago, IL, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, originally published 1755), 375.

[5] Rousseau, A Discourse on Political Economy, 372.

[6] Michael Novak, The Universal Hunger For Liberty, Why the Clash of Civilizations Is Not Inevitable, (New York, NY, Basic Books, 2004), xv-xvi.

[7] Rousseau, A Discourse On Political Economy, 371.

[8] “State, in which all the individuals being well known to one another, neither the secret machinations of vice, nor the modesty of virtue should be able to escape the notice and judgment of the public; and in which the pleasant custom of seeing and knowing one another should make the love of country rather a love of the citizens than of its soil.” John Jacques Rousseau, A DISCOURSE ON A SUBJECT PROPOSED BY THE ACADEMY OF DIJON: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF INEQUALITY AMONG MEN, AND IS IT AUTHORISED BY NATURAL LAW?, from Great Books of the Western World, Ed., Robert M. Hutchins, Trns. G.D. H. Cole, (Chicago, IL, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, originally published 1755), 323.

[9] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 26 (emphasis added).

[10] Rousseau, A Discourse on Political Economy, 375.

[11] Rousseau, A Discourse on Political Economy, 375.

Identifying Freedom’s Problems, Part 2

Sat, Oct 23, 2010

Political Philosophy, Timothy Baldwin

by ATtorney Timothy Baldwin

Read Part 1 here.

Those who would classify themselves as the enemies of tyranny and advocates of freedom have offered—and for quite some time—many reasons why the United States are in the condition they are in. These reasons need to be reduced to their principle and need to be studied in terms of both society and government phenomenon before real remedies can be applied to the problems caused by the reasons. The reasons can be summarized into three main statements. The problem with the United States:

(1) is not with the United States Constitution (“USC”) but with the people of America;
(2) is not with the USC but with government rulers; and
(3) is with the USC, regardless of the people or rulers.

It is admitted that the complexity of this subject cannot be fully dealt with in a short article as this, but perhaps the content herein will aspire more people to truly identify the real causes of our plight so that an enlightenment of the mind will produce freedom, happiness and peace in all of the societies in America. To that end, I will take the proposed reasons in order.

(1) The problem with the United States is not with the USC but with the people of America.

Read 1(a) here. I find this position to be at best partially correct.

(b) Objective Perspective of the People’s Problem

If the statement, (1) above, were to mean that the problems in the United States are caused not by the USC but by the people of America from an objective or evolutionary perspective, the argument could be more readily accepted from the student of political and societal philosophy, allowing for a more meaningful and scientific redress. The statement of objectivity would be as follows:

“The USC as ratified in 1787 was sufficient to govern the people of American in 1787 as then situated, but as decades and centuries evolved, circumstances[1] changed to such a degree that the USC cannot adequately govern the people and states in the manner hoped for by the ratifying generation.”

This statement would admit what America’s founders understood in 1787 concerning the limited usefulness of a constitution,[2] as did their forefathers before them, and would conform more easily to political and social science. In such a case, the people of the States could honestly and objectively look at reforming a union of States in such a manner as to more adequately secure their life, liberty, property and happiness—those being the only ends of government:

“The great and chief end…of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property”;[3] “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”[4]

As was discussed by political philosophers of days gone by (who shaped the minds of America’s founders), States or governments are formed “to endure for ever in the SAME CONDITION…[and] need only to maintain itself: and it can easily be proved that any INCREASE DOES IT MORE HARM THAN GOOD.”[5] States are not formed to endure forever in altogether different conditions than were originally formed under preexisting circumstances and purposes. The U.S. is in anything but the same condition today as compared to the conditions of 1787, not to mention the nature and composition of the U.S. Constitution and union. The political truism that was abandoned in America a long time ago is the scientific requirement that a State attempt to maintain its size and stability, not continually engorge itself with the needs and thus demands of society and government. Political philosopher, John Rousseau, rightly observes,

“[A] body which is too big for its constitution gives way and falls crushed under its own weight…The State must assure itself a safe foundation, if it is to have stability…There are reasons for expansion and reasons for contraction; and it is no small part of the statesman’s skill to hit between them the mean that is most favourable to the preservation of the State…[T]he reason for expansion, being merely external and relative, ought to be subordinate to the reasons for contraction, which are internal and absolute…

“[T]here have been known States so constituted that the necessity of making conquests entered into their very constitution, and that, in order to maintain themselves, they were forced to expand ceaselessly. It may be that they congratulated themselves greatly on this fortunate necessity, which none the less indicated to them, along with the limits of their greatness, the inevitable moment of their fall.”[6]

Constitutions are enacted for and under certain circumstances, not for all times and all peoples, for John Locke rightly observed,  “whatever engagements or promises any one made for himself, he is under the obligation of them, but cannot by any compact whatsoever bind his children or posterity.”[7] In addition, John Rousseau observed the unnatural proposition that future generations are bound by the decisions of past generations, stating “it is absurd for the will to bind itself for the future, nor is it incumbent on any will to consent to anything that is not for the good of the being who wills.”[8] Arguing “once a union, always a union” is simply nonsensical and ignorant.

It is a truism that a people can become too large for a constitution, no matter how well the constitution was drafted. Did not U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, admit this:

“[T]he fabric [of the United States Constitution] may fall; for the work of man is perishable. Nay, it must fall, if there be not the vital spirit in the people, which can alone nourish, sustain, and direct, all its movements.”[9]

How can it be denied that when the nature and character of a society or societies fundamentally change, the purpose for which their government or union was formed becomes altogether frustrated and impossible to achieve? The story of Rome proves this, as do thousands of other world history stories. In truth, America’s history is proving the same thing. The bond holding the union together is not the love of each other, the unity of interest and purpose or choice, as the Federalist Paper writers suggested. Rather, the bond is force, proving that the beginning of the end of the USC started many years ago:

“For the fundamental conventions being broken, it is impossible to conceive of any right or interest that could retain the people in the social union; unless they were restrained by force, which alone causes the dissolution of the state of civil society.”[10]

To say that the USC is not the cause of the problems America faces today but rather that the nature and character of the union and its correlative societies in the States have caused a disconnection in principles[11] concerning self-government and self-determination seem evidently more realistic or at least more acceptable in practice than the subjective model stated in part 1(a) of this article. To be a statesman is to “hit between them the mean that is most favourable to the preservation of the State” and thus to study political principles that would adequately secure individual liberty and state sovereignty in a union of 50 states with hundreds of millions of people (and growing, especially considering the illegal immigrants who not only merge here but also breed here) with fundamentally opposing views of life and government’s purpose.

In all reality, it seems nearly to quite impossible that freedom based upon the principles of limited government, defined jurisdiction, statehood, self-government and individual liberty can be reinstituted in any union of hundreds of millions through one central authority with supreme sovereignty over matters of general welfare through the use of a tax and commerce power (along with many others) as has been proposed to belong to the federal government for many hundreds of years in America. To eliminate such a serious and inherent problem in America would require at the very least a constitutional amendment, but in reality, much more.

[1] i.e. size and composure of the union, differing interests of the union, the lack of unity of several hundred millions of people, etc. See, “The perfection of a state, and its aptitude to attain the ENDS OF SOCIETY, must then depend on its constitution: consequently the most important concern of a nation that forms a political society, and its first and most essential duty towards itself, is to CHOOSE THE BEST CONSTITUTION POSSIBLE, and that MOST SUITABLE TO ITS CIRCUMSTANCES. When it makes this choice, it lays the foundation of its own PRESERVATION, SAFETY, PERFECTION, AND HAPPINESS: — it cannot take too much care in placing these on a solid basis.” Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Ch. 3, Sec. 28 (emphasis added).

[2] “Will it be sufficient…to trust to these parchment [paper] barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?” James Madison, Federalist Paper 48.

[3] John Locke, An Essay Concerning the True Original Extend and End of Civil Government, from Great Books of the Western World, (Chicago, IL, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, originally published 1755), 53.

[4] John Locke, An Essay On Civil Government, 37.

[5] John Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse On Political Economy, from Great Books of the Western World, Ed., Robert M. Hutchins, Trns. G.D. H. Cole, (Chicago, IL, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, originally published 1755), 367 (emphasis added).

[6] Rousseau, The Social Contract, from Great Books of the Western World, Ed., Robert M. Hutchins, Trns. G.D. H. Cole, (Chicago, IL, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, originally published 1755), 403.

[7] John Locke, An Essay On Civil Government, 52.

[8] Rousseau, The Social Contract¸ 395.

[9] Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the United States Constitution, (New York, NY, Harper and Brother, 1868 reprinted), 100-101.

[10] Rousseau, 374.

[11] E.g., free republican governments require a small population of similar interests or unity; large populations require monarchy or aristocracy forms of government; democracies are impossible with large populations; sovereignty subject to another sovereignty is no sovereignty at all, etc.

Identifying Freedom’s Problems, Part 3

Wed, Nov 10, 2010

Political Action, Political Philosophy, Timothy Baldwin

by Attorney Timothy Baldwin

Those who would classify themselves as the enemies of tyranny and advocates of freedom have offered—and for quite some time—many reasons why the United States are in the condition they are in. These reasons need to be reduced to their principle and need to be studied in terms of both society and government phenomenon before real remedies can be applied to the problems caused by the reasons. The reasons can be summarized into three main statements. The problem with the United States:

(1) is not with the United States Constitution (“USC”) but with the people of America;
(2) is not with the USC or the people but with government rulers;[1] and
(3) is with the USC, regardless of the people or rulers.

It is admitted that the complexity of this subject cannot be fully dealt with in a short article as this, but perhaps the content herein will aspire more people to truly identify the real causes of our plight so that an enlightenment of the mind will produce freedom, happiness and peace in all of the societies in America. To that end, I will take the proposed reasons in order.

Read Parts 1 and 2.

(2) The problem with the United States is not with the USC or the people but with government rulers.

(a) Like the arguments expressed in parts 1 and 2 of this article series, regarding the “innocence” of the USC, I find this argument lacking in genuine and thorough analysis and conclusion. After all, the Anti-Federalists predicted largely the predicaments we find ourselves in today even before the USC was ratified. If the events we have seen for decades cannot be contributed to the opening of a sort of Pandora’s box—known as the “experiment” of the USC—then how could the Anti-Federalists have been so correct in their assessments of the natural consequences of ratifying the USC? The Anti-Federalists did not rely on just what the proponents of the USC “intended” or proposed but what human nature would allow and indeed require based upon this new federal power and construction of the federal constitution. History proves that the Anti-Federalists were more correct in their assessments than were the Federalists.

(b) The it’s-the rulers-fault argument falls short of the deeper reality and implication stemming from this statement, which would have an ignorant person think that the federal (and state) officials were not placed in office by the very people that the proponent of the statement claims are not the problem of the political plight. Were the proponent to admit that, yes, there are some who do not understand the USC and that those are the ones voting people like Obama into office and allowing socialists and communists to run the country, he would have to admit that at some point, it would be impossible for the entire Union to remain in a free condition because there is absolutely no way to control the minds and hearts (and votes) of hundreds of millions of people across a 3,537,441 square mile area and force them to see the light as to what the USC means. The USC constitution is composed of people as much as it is composed of words.

Since constitutions do not enforce themselves, one cannot rest his political positions entirely on what he wants the USC to do for him or his State individually. He has to acknowledge that at some point, it is impossible for certain parts of the union to cohabitate politically with other parts of the union, for “getting back to the USC” is as much a religious and philosophical decision as a political and legal one—a process which cannot be enforced in courts or even through constitutional amendments. He has to admit what the political philosophers of yesteryear observed: that a political structure can become too complex, diverse and large for its own good, which will eventually cause it to fall due to its imbalance, heavy weight and lack of foundation.

The truer observation derived from the its-the-rulers-fault argument should be stated as such:

The composition of the union under the United States Constitution as developed over 200 years of political and constitutional development does not render the federal government sufficiently controllable by the masses of people alone within the 50 states composing the union.

Truly, it is conceivable that the federal agents of the States’ people may and will misuse the power granted to them by election. But this can only be known by an educated people. Only an educated people can govern itself and select qualified representatives to secure freedom. Under that assumption, Alexander Hamilton proposed that “[t]he natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.”[2] But America’s history proves that a change of men has not cured ill-administration. It has only gotten worse—and under both media-advanced political parties.

Despite changing from one party official to another for generations, the political structure of the United States has developed to the point that the purported powers, controls and roles of federal and state jurisdiction have all but inverted, for as once was proposed, “powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit…the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence.”[3] This has taken place upon the elections of thousands of federal and state officials by the people. In essence, they have asked for what they have received. Thus, when Hamilton said, “[e]ither the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not,”[4] it is a truism that federal encroachment upon the States and the people respectively would possibly not be controlled by the people. Based upon this observation, one can easily see then how the federal government’s continuing and entrenching usurpations could be mistakenly construed as unilateral in nature, without the consent of the people.

This reason for this phenomenon is clearly perceived: it is virtually and essentially impossible to destroy the self-perpetuating and self-aggrandizing beast once it is born and reaches a certain size with a certain sized appetite. Any attempts of restraining it are feeble at best. So, what is to be said of the people where, for generations, federal encroachments have ever so surely been overlooked, ignored or even accepted by the people? Are they innocent in their role and duty as guardians of their own liberty? Or are masses of people naturally incapable of knowing when jurisdiction is usurped, when power is abused or when they are being lied to? If not, then the only reasons which can be attached to the problem of federal encroachment is that (1) the people have shirked their responsibility and/or (2) the composition of the political system itself does not adequately provide the people with sufficient control over the federal government (just as the Anti-Federalists predicted).

Ironically, what Hamilton showed as the second control over the federal government’s encroachments over the people is the control which the federal government has purported is contrary to the USC. Hamilton specifically shows that where the people do not sufficiently control the federal government, the State governments would and must. Hamilton says,

“Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.”[5]

Despite the most notable Federalist (Hamilton) saying (baiting?) that the State governments could control federal usurpation, we have been ordered through the US Supreme Court since the early 1800s that the States cannot control the federal government under the USC. (How does one reconcile what was proposed as being what the USC means to obtain ratification and what the USC has been rendered to mean after ratification?) Now, we see that the only external controls over the federal government—the people and the State governments—fall short of the federal controls proposed by Alexander Hamilton. Thus, if what we are being told concerning political power and redress is true (and perhaps the evidence proves as such), then there is NO control over the federal government and Alexander Hamilton’s definition of tyranny exists today: “‘[L]iberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments,”[6] seeing that the federal branches of government coalesce in the ever strengthening of federal power.

The problem then is not that the rulers alone are to blame but that the political system itself is to blame because the people and the States at large do not possess the characteristics to stop federal encroachment. After all, human nature and experience prove that the extent of government’s power is not the biggest danger of abuse but is rather the composition and structure of the political association:

“[A]ll observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, NOT to the nature or extent of its powers.”[7]

Perhaps the conclusion should be that since the people and the States are (at least purportedly) insufficient to control the federal government (i.e. the composition and structure of the union), the union as is should be altered or abolished and new forms of government instituted for the protection of God-given rights, for James Madison proposed this were the form of federal government destructive to these ends:

“[We] rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.”[8] *** “We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New?…[If] the Union itself [becomes] inconsistent with the public happiness…Abolish the Union.”[9]

No matter how one states the argument—whether the federal government is acting unilaterally against the will of the people and a change of men is not the natural cure for ill-administration or whether the composition of the people in their societal and political condition cannot sufficiently control the federal government—the evidence of over 200 years of the United States’ political existence proves that the proposed experimental federal form and system has not adequately protected freedom, sovereignty and liberty. It is time for statesmen to arise.

[1] Note: I added “or the people” to this statement, which was not contained in parts 1 and 2 of this article series.

[2] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 21.

[3] James Madison, Federalist Paper 40.

[4] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 46 (emphasis added).

[5] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 46.

[6] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78.

[7] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 31 (emphasis added).

[8] James Madison, Federalist Paper 39.

[9] James Madison, Federalist Paper 45 (emphasis added).

Corporatism, Slavery and Death

Thu, Oct 14, 2010

David McElroy, Political Action, Political Philosophy

by David A. McElroy

In the struggle for a state of freedom, we should remember corporatism is antithetical to our liberties, prosperity, peace, health and happiness. The corporatist is a pathological beast that comes in two collectivist flavors, left and right, theoretically, and is present in virtually every form of government. But in actual practice, all corporatists are fascist.

A man known to make trains run on time, Italian tyrant Mussolini, said “Corporatism is fascism.” Both “right wing” Nazi Hitler and “left wing” Stalin, the Communist, were fascist psychopaths. Where does that leave “middle of the road” types? In a Warsaw ghetto? The elite created left vs right politics (Hegelian dialectic) for power. Don’t be fooled by the two wings of the one big bald raptor!

In the USA, Republicans appeal to small business and middle class voters because they appear to be “conservative”, preserving the national interests and our national identity against globalists (despite Henry Kissinger). But they are national socialists akin to Nazis like Sen. Prescott Bush and his progeny. Democrats offer us “benefits”, and will speedily sell out American interests to the global cabal. Democrats are international socialists, or communists. Both mislead us to believe we live in freedom in a capitalist society, while they tax and spend, regulate and enforce us cradle to grave, demanding ever more. The truth is that those who command the capital rule via corporate empires. They must NOT be allowed to dictate government in a free state. They seek expanding socialist powers to encroach upon our lives, enslave us, profit from life and death! We are human capital!

On the world stage, the puppet show before us has the destructive Marxist terrorists like Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara and Pol Pot, versus the seemingly “beneficent” socialists like Clinton, the Bushes, Merkel, Blair or Sarkozy. NeoCon elements play the aggressor role to destroy targeted peoples, taxing us into bankruptcy to profit from foreign wars, largely depleting our resources. Commies play defense and keep their troops at home, they draw the West into being overextended. Both factions will blend and profit in communitarian reconstruction. Bill Clinton refers to it as the Third Way, using things like WTO, NAFTA and GATT. East and West are now engaged in the New World Order, and both profits and privileges are privatized corporately, losses and liabilities are socialized upon the public. See where we are being driven by the televised political theatre? Forget the concessions stand… get out while you can! It is a slasher flick, and you are the victim!

The hard-core Marxist phase of government is intended by the global elite to destroy freedom and competition, one nation at a time, exterminate opponents, lock down the working classes, and set the stage for “reform”. This is Obamanation. The reform is socialism for the poor, capitalism for the elite. What little is left of the middle class will be the ranking military officers, scientists, engineers, and such. Do you see how Red China and Russia have incorporated limited capitalism, fascist style? How the non-aligned Yugoslavia was balkanized? Socialist government power is legally employed to divide and conquer, establish monopolies for elitists. Hitler and Stalin’s genocides were legal in their regimes, if not moral. Lawyers and liberty are often in opposition.

Do you see these things happening here from sea to shining sea? Do you recognize how they are causing the “Red Menace” to usurp America as a superpower? Why our many industries have vacated our states and our infrastructure is crumbling? Ours is the last major nation to be demolished in the global “urban renewal” plan! We are not seeing real investments or lending in America because we are red-lined for the bulldozer. They have done this many times, perfecting the practice on smaller countries, before they would dare to take on the American public. We are now the last hope for real freedom in the whole world. Many are unaware, many too afraid to face the danger. We must secede to survive!

The differences between classical capitalism, laissez faire competition in a free market, and de facto capitalism, or corporatism aka fascism, practiced by the “Captains of Industry” was highlighted in my last article, “SECEDE FROM CORPORATISM!” What we have been taught in the “public fool system” is “classical capitalism“, by which our human progress is moved by free market competition rewarding the providers of better goods and services, improving society with efficiency and lower costs for higher living standards and higher education in the practice of arts and sciences. Arrogant, obscenely wealthy oligarchs known as “capitalists” regard the competitive efforts in the markets, the arts and sciences, merely to be research and development for their empires. They sit and study the results of our efforts. When the winning product, service, or technique has been determined, the robber barons use it to strengthen their monopolies to extract profit from us. Once they decide upon the most efficient and effective means to their ends, they end the competition. “Competition is a sin,” John D. Rockefeller said.

Socialism seduces us to destroy a nation’s culture and economy, progressively break it down leading to a brutal Marxist conversion to feudalism structured by the “Capitalists“, international socialists, who seek a world with 90% fewer people in a global totalitarian monopoly system. In the age of computers and automation, they don’t need billions of workers and soldiers. We are overhead to be written off in various population reduction schemes, or genocide! National socialists, NeoCons, oppose the international socialists simply because they want a better deal. They too will sell us out, but demand a higher price for their corporates. Billionaires globally are moving in concert to destroy public freedom and middle classes everywhere, to return to a feudal system where the robber barons rule corporate fiefdoms with high-tech tools and all us “little people” yet surviving are kept ignorant as slaves subsisting on meager rations. See North Korea.

“Give me control of a nations’ money and I care not who makes the laws” said that icon of banking, 18th century patriarch Mayer Amschel Rothschild. The “crowned heads of Europe” came to him with hat in hand. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”, stated that “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its’ issuance.” Lord Acton is famous for noting that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He also stated “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the bankers,” when asked about Rothschild. He died in 1902. One great man of liberty, Lysander Spooner, blasted the bankster. “The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are representatives and agents – men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest – stand ready at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.” Rothschild molded the corporatist fascist paradigm, and could shame Attila the Hun or Ghengis Khan as clumsy amateurs. Banksters revere him!

The “Old Money” types, like Rothschilds, Windsors, et al, know how “New Money”, like Bill Gates and Sam Walton, got started in the middle class, and both groups globally are closing ranks to shut down possibilities for any further competition. As a big group, the middle class is competitive with, and challenges, billionaire elitists. Corporatism reigns antithetical to our liberties, prosperity, peace, health and happiness. Huge transnational corporations, ruled by billionaires, Illuminati, and the royal houses, rule the nations of the world. We the people are nothing to them but labor and consumers, management issues, headaches and costly overhead to write off. We are just taxpayers, targets of manipulative propaganda and surveillance needing policed, imprisoned, or reduced to cannon fodder. Terrorism, even nuclear threats, keep the public at bay, distracted and fearful. The elite will use military forces against us in “police actions” and not war against each other. This is the United Nations’ “global peace plan“, our “prison planet”!

The elitists ignore our protests and blogs, a letter to “your” congressman will rate no more than a mark on a tally sheet. As Mark Twain said, “We have the best Congress money can buy.” The oligarchs don’t care how we complain as long as we obey their laws, pay taxes and bills, and keep working to turn the wheels of industry and commerce until we get that pink slip. And yes, the unemployed can get that national healthcare. Hitler offered rather similar “rationed” healthcare, and work camps also. Stalin did also.

US federal government is a corporation by the Act of 1871, noted in my previous article. It altered the title of the Constitution, to make states mere franchises of a forced collective  enforced with the 14th Amendment. Those opting to incorporate their activities under law are voluntary collective franchises of government. You are a corporatist, or a wage slave. This is the root of the tyranny feasting on our blood, sweat, and tears, stealing nest eggs.

Corporations are politically superior “citizens”, legally “fictitious persons” afforded most rights afforded humans, but protected as “community” assets. Us human beings suffer an inferior position unless we belong to Lucifer’s corporate club. (Lucifer actually has a chapel in the United Nations building in Manhattan.) This superior status arises because corporations command large facilities, assets, and cash flows while enjoying the rights of citizenship. They own most media. Many are deemed “too big to fail”. Government will gladly sacrifice a few million of us “little people” to bail out their billionaire masters. The corporations can fill a politician’s campaign chest, or the opponent’s. Obama’s campaign received over $1 billion dollars, largely from Wall Street firms like Goldman-Sachs. They have vast intelligence resources, can intimidate or blackmail anyone. They employ para-military security services, Wackenhut or Blackwater. Corporate espionage is common.

Even the states lost their Senate representation with the fraudulent 17th Amendment in 1913, the same year the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank was so slyly chartered. Devvy Kidd has done a lot of excellent research on this, personally visiting government archives to check state ratification documents. See

Late Christmas Eve, 1913, in nearly empty halls, banksters like J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Warburg, and Rothschild sold the Federal Reserve Bank to Congress with a long 99 year charter to “stabilize the currency”. The Fed’s largest shareholder is the Bank of England, and foreign banks own most shares. How well has the Fed “stabilized” our currency? At ’s Oct. 6, 2010 edition we find that what $20 would purchase in 1913, would cost $440.23 today. What $20 purchased in 1970 now cost $112.36. It also reported that in 2009, 61% of American households lived from payday to payday. Things are worse this year. Us “consumers” are broke and foreclosures are rampant. Did you notice big banks bagged a bazillion dollars in a taxpayer-funded bail-out because of mortgage payments not coming in? They could have saved mortgage holders, taxpayers all, and the money would have still ended up in the banks if Congress had granted people vouchers for mortgage payments. Homeowners are paying twice! We’ve been robbed!

Former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan, said in his 1966 essay entitled Gold And Economic Freedom, “This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirade against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth… one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.” We are now seeing staggering deficit spending by Obama’s regime. Our public debt carried at interest by the Federal Reserve (private with no reserves) is the highest in the history of the world. Estimates of total public debt run as high as $200 TRILLION! Ruinous! The ruin is engineered, not coincidentally cyclical as the banksters and politicos present it.

The Fed creates “money” by simply printing paper bills, debt instruments called Federal Reserve Notes which are actually IOU’s requiring interest. Money in circulation is always less than the notes plus interest, so some people MUST come up short and be bankrupted, because cash in circulation is insufficient. So borrowing ensues, and the debt is locked in a cycle often referred to as a DEATH SPIRAL! The more cash is printed, the higher public debts climbs and the value of the dollar falls. We must pull out of it and reject currency fraud wielded against us, establish independence, in a free state with free markets, peace and prosperity. Corporatism and freedom are antithetical. Stop being wage slaves!

This does not mean a person should not work for wages, but self-employment is better. I do say only living human beings should be deemed citizens, that corporate “fictiticious entities” should never be in our legal system. As in Promethean Capitalism, all of our commercial enterprises would only be owned privately and not corporately. A personal owner is very concerned with pride and personal reputation as well profit and loss, thus often more responsible not only to customers, but the community. Private firms do tend to stay smaller and more accountable to society, more ethical and quality oriented. Soulless amoral corporate conglomerates shield their major stockholders, protecting them from any personal liability. Many privately owned companies, you may recall, were established and operated with great reputations, only to “go public” later and mushroom into a mediocre vendor of lesser goods and services popping up in every community. The fungus of corporatism grows in darkness in rotting manure! Don’t buy it!

Benjamin Franklin, on the $100 bill, said “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.“ Socialism corrupts. Thomas Jefferson said “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” God warned us about usury. America has fallen to usury. Christ said “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s…” So accept nothing from Caesar! John 2:13-16 records the only known act of violence by Jesus Christ, against merchants and “moneychangers” who defiled His Father’s Temple with greed, and theft.

The elitists ignore our pleas and protests. A letter to “your” congress critter will rate only a checkmark. As Mark Twain said, “We have the best Congress money can buy.” The oligarchs only care that we continue to work, obey, and pay – until we get a pink slip. The wheels of industry and commerce must crank cash flowing into their hands. Unemployed workers can get socialist “healthcare”. Hitler offered similar “rationed healthcare”, and those “work camps” as a social remedy. So did Stalin. I don’t want to go there. Do you?

Patriots need to get ahead of the curve established corporately, not let the public enemy set the time and place of beating us down. Masses of people in peaceful protests filling streets, general strikes in critical industries, tax rebellion and debt repudiation, officials confronted face to face, civil disobedience, all have impact. Speak only the words you wish recorded or broadcast in exploiting media. Beware provocateurs initiating violence to invoke riotous storm troopers. Let authority figures shame themselves. Be prepared.

Why do rioters so often loot and destroy neighbors’ property, injure and kill, even burn their own neighborhoods? If we are forced to violent conflicts, we must carry the battle to the enemy’s turf. Our enemies meet in corporate boardrooms, not the local stores. The enemy lives in Manhattan penthouses, big walled estates and gated communities, not your neighborhood! We the people are pitted against banksters controlling a global system of interlocking corporates masking the real bloodsuckers! The District of Criminals exists to serve them, not us! Billionaires send hordes of lobbyists to Congress bearing cash, keys to beachfront villas, jets, and yachts. They only PRETEND to serve us.

Any free state, regardless of form of governance, can not permit corporatism. Corporate citizens do overwhelm and enslave free people. The banksters must not rule. We must not worship the stock exchanges and moneychangers! Stand and repudiate all your fraudulent debts! We must secede to survive! No king but Jesus! Revolt! Live free or die!

Are You Obsolete?

Mon, Sep 20, 2010

David McElroy, Political Action, Political Philosophy, Secession

by David McElroy

We are in great danger. Not just as patriotic Americans wanting to restore the republic or secede to establish a free state. Not just our goals of prosperity, health and happiness in a land of liberty. Our very existence is at stake, not just as individuals, but as a species. Humanity itself now hangs in the balance. Technology is at our throats, getting in our heads, leading us like ignorant lambs to the slaughter in what is a class warfare.

Evil’s end game is upon us, and the ruling houses of the Illuminati see us working class people as not only a troublesome management problem, but unnecessary and obsolete. In the age of computers and automation, quantum physics and biosciences, millions of laborers, soldiers, sailors, etc., are simply not needed. This is why population control is a thinly veiled threat of genocide! Google the “Georgia Guidestones“, which is a huge monument calling for allowing no more than 500,000 living people on Earth.

Thomas Horn, and his wife Nita, have a new book coming out, Forbidden Gates: How Genetics, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic Biology, Nanotechnology, & Human Enhancement Herald the Dawn of Techno-Dimensional Spiritual Warfare. Horn says “Astonishing technological developments have pushed the frontiers of humanity toward far-reaching morphological transformation that promises in the very near future to redefine what it means to be human.” He writes of human DNA mingled with that of animals, and efforts to conceive “super soldiers” in DARPA funded labs in an Aug. 7, 2010 item at This is known as Transhumanism, the planned replacement of humanity with genetically engineered people designed for various functions like ants, expendable servants in a “hive mind” controlled by the royalty.

The history of tyranny has progressed steadily at our expense, deceitfully leading us to think our taxes provide a better, safer, world for us. Our taxes pay for our enslavement and death. From ancient times, the forced collective strengths of people made to labor for the state has produced higher orders of technology ever more complex in expanding imperial quests. The Illuminati have an occult, or hidden, agenda for global government which considers us humans obsolete and a risk. This is why we are bombarded with propaganda warning of the need for reduced population, abortion, euthanasia, the fear of food shortages, unemployment, and skyrocketing costs of scarce resources, even water. Billions of us have labored long and hard to put advanced technology in the hands of the governing elite, and now that computerized automation makes us unwanted overhead, we are being conditioned to accept the idea it is time we see our deaths as appropriate for the good of the planet. I don’t buy it! Do you?

Modern sciences, born of the Enlightenment, with quantitative analysis, made micro-management possible. Elitists were enabled to whittle down our base environment economically, physically, and socially to sculpt the sort of subservient society profitable to them. The Machiavellians deployed the Hegelian Dialectic and cognitive dissonance successfully, with the “straw man”, false flag atrocities, fake evidence, outright lies, etc. Statistics define the state of affairs, and are often deceitfully skewed once the elite have reviewed the honest data. Some scientists have complained of deliberately corrupted and dishonest reports, and some dissident scientists are ostracized or even killed. Look at the “Global Warming” scandal foisted upon us.

Radio, cinema, and television brought subliminal influences that sowed the seeds of thought leading the nations together deceitfully to a New World Order. They, like newspapers, were purchased for just that purpose. Millions of us in the industrialized world live happily in gilded cages under the illusion we are a free people. Walter Cronkite was touted as “the most trusted man in America”. He gave voice to the pagan god Molech at Bohemian Grove, a fiend demanding the fiery sacrifice of babies, as Alex Jones reported.

Technology, however, is a two-edged sword. Which side are you on? Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all the time and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.” Many are no longer fooled. With the growth of the Internet, many people have lately been awakened to the matrix of deceits that have been practiced to their detriment for centuries. That body of information is now widely disseminated among the public, and moving thru ever larger circles of people who want truth, justice, and liberty for all. Pandora’s box has been opened and the demons released to public view. The elite are afraid of the awful knowledge flowing freely among the public worldwide. The natives are restless and they are making demands for justice and freedom, talking revolution.

What can the oligarchs do? Their vast array of surveillance assets tell them rebellion is afoot. They issue disinformation and censor blogs. You have probably heard of Pentagon efforts to exercise “full spectrum dominance” in cyberspace, Obama having power to simply shut down the internet or any computer network at his discretion. Look for it soon. But that is only part of a more sinister purge, as his propaganda fails.

Historical and contemporary observations show they want to shut down our brains, limit our perceptions and range of thought. First, they have long been fluoridating our water supplies, and fluoride is a known neurotoxin. German doctors first used it to make prisoners docile in the Nazi prison camps where people went meekly to their deaths. Alcohol and aspartame kill brain cells. Our foods are adulterated with all kinds of toxins. Many neurological diseases were largely unknown before the mass production of our highly processed foods, like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis, Neuropathy, etc. Then there are the feared mercury-laden vaccines, and chemtrails too. Obamacare will “ration” healthcare to the mostly older patients who are suffering terrible diseases where poor outcomes are expected. These are people who are no longer profitable wage slaves, yet paid many years for Medicare and Social Security programs to provide for their needs in old age. Government has no use for the elderly, and has spent those funds elsewhere, like Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, eliminating other people it finds undesirable. We are next!

At RAW-WISDOM.COM you will find 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Food documented. Our environment is polluted with heavy metals, poisoning us and causing brain damage. Rachel Carson’s work in Silent Spring warns of this, as does Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. The Vitamin D-3 additive used to “fortify” milk is calciferol used as RAT POISON! Just ask Robert Cohen at not , or Dr. Unruh.

Dr. Andrew Moulden warns us that “Vaccinations are causing impaired flow (Ischemia – Strokes), chronic illness, disease and death”, at or Vastly increased mortality rates is the goal, even as abortion reduces birth rates. Population reduction is an openly stated goal of the elitists who desire 75% to 90% fewer people on Earth in the next few years! The billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, David Rockefeller, Oprah Winfrey and others fund these vaccination programs globally with the intention of eradicating us like insects. They want us sterilized and dead!

If you think I exaggerate, consider Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who “advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus”. He won a “distinguished scientist award” for his Malthusian proposal presented at the March 2006 meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, before hundreds of other scientists who applauded his genocidal scheme. Of course, do you suppose these men of science would have included themselves in the 90% to die? Of course not, the intelligencia arrogates far greater value to their own lives. They are necessary to the elitists who fund their research. Joseph Watson’s article is found on the April 3, 2006 edition of and details Pianka’s proposal to exterminate us. But it appears they have chosen to use variants of the flu germ/vaccine ruse. Scientists, recall, are almost all employed by government directly or indirectly within corporate cultures commanded by billionaires like Rockefeller.

Death has a way of eliminating the threat of a contentious educated population, a way elitists employed so many times primarily against growing middle classes that arose in various cultures going far back in history. It is the middle class that is well educated, more traveled, experienced in trades, arts, sciences, mercantile business and developing assets that might be employed against or by the ruling caste. The middle class teaches, leads, the impoverished lower classes. Pol Pot is a recent example of a tyrant who murdered all the educated people, in Cambodia, in order to remake a society. Now Obama’s Marxist regime is approaching with stealth because Americans are not only better educated, but much more heavily armed, and equipped, than the Cambodian people slaughtered by Marxist Pol Pot. Just look at the new legislation and logistics being laid in place to trap us! Faster than we can track them, the hurtful details are raining hard upon us!

Surviving people are enslaved in one fashion or another. Today, we are faced with invasive brain scans and implants, injected micro-chips. The “cashless society” is openly discussed, and look for a complete collapse of the dollar to usher it in. Full body scanners routinely do a virtual strip search of airline passengers and others, affording them no dignity, no privacy. Secret technology is waiting in the wings beyond our wildest imaginations. We are now moving well beyond Orwell’s 1984, and his “Panopticon” surveillance is fast becoming obsolete. Research into genetic engineering is well underway to implement Transhumanism and replace us with their version of “enhanced” people. See articles on this at Many scientists envision a catalog of people designed for various functions, with test tube conception to crematory totalitarian control, wireless point-and-click interfaces. This is like the hideous “Borg” of Star Trek the Next Generation, a cyborg society with a computerized hive mind devoid of individual personalities. The New World Order socialist collective finds individuality a problem, and seeks to robotize the non-elite.

Col. Thomas Bearden, retired, was an army scientist employed in advanced weaponry of the type seen on Star Trek. He has given valuable information to the public in continuing his science as a civilian. For a primer on quantum physics for the layman, and applications, read Bearden’s Excalibur Briefing. Bearden noted “Russia, whose energetic scientists reached the capability of directly producing a living human mind (or any desired version of one) circa 1990. Since then, they have used certain very sly experiments to ascertain the knowledge of other nations regarding this area. They have indeed built and inserted additional “minds” into living humans (often high ranking governmental people) in various capitols and nations.” In this letter to “Martin” found at Bearden’s website, , he says “Simply left in the body with no other change, that added mind “sees” everything the that the resident mind sees, hears everything that it hears, and also has pass through it every thought in that mind. And all this can be “seen” or “portrayed” back in the distant Russian laboratory.” See Bearden’s book entitled Oblivion: America at the Brink . Remote behavioral control is also a function of these implanted “minds”.

Bearden, who heads up the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, is also an expert on the “zero point energy”, or “free energy” issue, and relates how student scientists and engineers are deliberately and wrongly taught to preclude developing over-unity devices. “There has been a very deliberate suppression of over unity systems (free energy) since 1892, when J.P. Morgan elicited Lorentz to modify (cripple) the Heavyside equations, which were to be used in setting up the model for what was to be a new subject and technology, electrical engineering, which was then to be taught in all the universities.” You can find this statement in his correspondence to “John” dated 02/11/09. Bearden assisted in developing a patented free energy “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator”, which has been proven but suppressed. Solutions to the energy problem exist, but the elitist insist on keeping the choke chains of metered services on our necks!

Television really is Tell A Vision, an entrancing electronic device that in effect, hypnotizes us. The new HDTV technology has made great strides extending this subliminal mind control. See a patent issued to a Hendricus Loos entitled Nervous System Manipulation by EM Fields from Monitors. The “HuLu” tv system has many subliminal influences embedded in the video programming, as Dr. A. True Ott attests. You might refer to his work, The Sound of Silence: The Antithesis of Freedom , which details the processes for you.

Deanna Spingola wrote an excellent comprehensive expose’ of the unvarnished vision the elite have for us, at on 03/25/07: DISCLOSURES FROM AN INSIDER.

It is great because Spingola cites an unpublished 1969 address given by Dr. Richard Day. Day’s lecture was on the New Order of Barbarians, what we call the New World Order. He outlined a long list of ways and means by which human society will be degraded and reconfigured to suit the elite. The malignancies he spoke of as goals in 1969 have obviously been implemented across the whole spectrum of our society.

If you doubt the evil befalling us, that we would never face death at the hands of our government, do read

A History Timeline of Population Control by Robert Howard. This history of atrocities committed is at: Germ warfare, experiments on unwilling people, war crimes, genocide, you name it, Howard lists the facts and figures, dates and such.

What is the urgent need to “reduce the population”? Science and technology has many wondrous things kept covert in “black budget” items and secretive complexes, labs and such. Things like free energy generators, anti-gravitics, a whole new level of medical science, things the elite do not want to empower us with! A whole new world is their goal, a society where a few thousand Illuminati rule a few hundred thousand scientists and technicians controlling a few hundred million “enhanced” microchipped humans

lacking the education or inclination to question or challenge their masters. This is why we must be eliminated: We have enough education to figure out the science and technology and a spirit to resist!

It is not merely the American Constitutional Republic at stake, not merely our liberties and prosperity, but literally the fate of humanity around the world! We humans are considered as troublesome domestic livestock or feral risks. In the age of computerized automation, millions of serfs and slaves are no longer needed. The elite only need a few servants, and masses of unhappy, unemployed peasants are a management problem. We are deemed obsolete and have been slated for replacement by arrogant tyrants who want people who function like robots! They deny the sanctity of life. Our deaths are scheduled as we are seen as overhead to be written off! Class warfare is ongoing against us, and we did not start it! You may remember Margaret Sanger, founder of “Planned Parenthood”, planned to eliminate the births of “inferior” people like black people and handicapped people. She was racist, and Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg even said recently she understood that precluding “undesirables” was the purpose of abortion. This is racist!

We patriots are now being baited with growing prospects for a Constitutional Convention, as the elite are running scared of a potential revolution. Merely restoring the Constitution will not do, it has failed. I would rather go back to the Articles of Confederation…or The Ten Commandments! We must secede to succeed in slaying the beast now set upon us, a scheming demon called “Uncle Sam”! That beast will laughingly take us to our graves like Stalin or Mao, and a ConCon will only be a con job, the old “bait and switch” we’ve seen over and over. Don’t fall for it!

Our nation increasingly fits the Bible’s description of the latter day Babylon resurrected on the old pagan mystery religions, a nation aspiring to great heights and fallen to confusion and beset with aliens pouring in to an increasingly immoral and obviously corrupt society. Hedonism, perversion of sex, pornography, confusion of languages, abundance of luxuries in the face of starvation and disease, deceitful and arrogant leaders, truth having become a crime in a fearful world lacking privacy. We have it all, don’t we? America resembles the Revelation‘s “Beast” ridden by the “Harlot” of Israel, reborn by grace and yet still unfaithful to God, a socialist hegemony finding pleasure and profit in the blood of untold millions killed.

Zionism is only a tool of International Socialism that has infiltrated the highest levels of our government with many dual citizens like Rahm Immanuel. This Israeli-American even has ties to the Mossad. Zionism is warfare that our killers always tell us is sinful, a class warfare the banksters wage against increasingly impoverished billions every where, screaming “anti-Semitism” at the slightest criticism of their activities. Israel is simply a foil to revile all discussion of their crimes. They always show Orthodox Jews praying at the Wailing Wall to distract us from their Marxist pograms and claim to be “God’s Chosen People” while they continue to violate their Torah Covenant with Him by upholding the blasphemous Talmud. They look to write us off as “useless eaters”, overhead on the budgets of Rothschild, Rockefeller, Windsor, et al. Ezekiel Immanuel, Rahm’s brother, is Obama’s health “czar” looking to “ration” our fascist healthcare. The elite have rigged stock markets and currencies like a casino. Zionist banksters own the “house” and we the “marks”, the “suckers”, have been cleaned out. The banksters own it all now, and they want us off their planet! But they need to use stealth and get us to kill each other in wars, riots, abortion, euthanasia, or suicide, even mass starvation, bio-weapons or genocide, “for the good of the Earth”. They fear us!

Yes, we are living in Babylon, and the Lord commanded us to “come out of her” in Revelation 18:4. Did you know Obamacare requires microchips implanted in us? Reject all implanted microchips! We will be doomed if we accept the “Mark of the Beast” in a cashless society foretold in Revelation 14:9-11. We must secede to succeed, even survive! Reject the Beast! Declare your independence! Live free or die!

Does A Constitution Make a People Free?

Sat, Sep 18, 2010

Political Philosophy, Secession, State Sovereignty, Timothy Baldwin

by Attorney Timothy Baldwin

A universal maxim has been admitted before: a “constitution may happen to be free, and the [citizen] not”.[1] America’s founding generation understood this well, and thus, the political systems in America were founded on the notion of the consent of the governed, knowing that a constitution itself does not sufficiently guard against tyranny. Consent of the governed is a principle that involves more than just being able to vote. It has far reaching implications and conclusions which some Americans—especially those in the federal government—may not likely concede or admit, including the right to “alter or abolish” government through the individual and unilateral will of a political and societal body-politic (i.e. State).

Unfortunately, the political systems operating in America today mostly reflect the concept of statism, nationalism and popularism—all of which rarely, if ever, comport to the fundamental maxim of consent of the governed. Despite a society having a written constitution, human experience and nature confirm that most societies—especially as they become diverse, large, complex and immoral—inevitably digress into a rule by the rich, elite and powerful, who convince the masses that they are free, are being governed by their consent and are duty bound to submit to their rule. Even more unfortunately, people can make really good slaves for these Nimrods.

One of the most difficult questions societies have ever faced—and still face—is this: how do we practically bind governments to the limits we establish for the benefit of our individual society and our posterity? Human experience provides this answer: a written constitution does not contain the magical formula to restrain government. Much more is needed. Ultimately, a natural right and element must exist to provide each society with a means of securing their freedom and happiness, for virtually all human ingredients mixed together create the impossibility that a constitution will adequately restrain government. America’s 1776 generation recognized this truth and expressed it repeatedly. James Madison puts the ineffectiveness of the constitution as a practical barrier to government usurpation this way:

“[P]ower is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it…What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved. Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?”[2]

America’s own history confirms Madison’s account of mere parchment barriers. What makes the parchment even more ineffectual is when over a period of more than two centuries the societal composition completely changes its dynamic, nature and element. Constitutions are made for society—not vice versa. Thus, constitutions require certain pre-existing societal conditions for the constitution to be effective and meaningful. When society changes over hundreds of years, the constitutions governing the original society simply do not have the same meaning, application or effect upon the new society. Once society’s nature changes, getting back to a constitution’s original state is simply impossible. Political genius, Emer De Vattel, admits this much in his famous volume, The Law of Nations (which was used as legal authority by founding fathers such as Patrick Henry). He says concerning the use of constitutions:

“The perfection of a state, and its aptitude to attain the ENDS OF SOCIETY, must then depend on its constitution: consequently the most important concern of a nation that forms a political society, and its first and most essential duty towards itself, is to CHOOSE THE BEST CONSTITUTION POSSIBLE, and that MOST SUITABLE TO ITS CIRCUMSTANCES. When it makes this choice, it lays the foundation of its own PRESERVATION, SAFETY, PERFECTION, AND HAPPINESS: — it cannot take too much care in placing these on a solid basis.”[3]

As noted by Vattel, there are a few key ingredients that must exist regarding the making or unmaking of a constitution: (1) the ends or purpose of society, (2) the choice (i.e. consent) of each generation;[4] (3) the circumstances of society, and (4) the natural laws of “preservation, safety, perfection and happiness”. When any one of these elements is missing, the constitution will have little bearing on government operation, and circumstances would require the various societies to form new constitutions, political associations and unions.

Despite the claims of some well-meaning Americans today, the United States Constitution was not intended and could never have been fathomed to be suitable for all people and all times. One of the founders said that the U.S. Constitution was founded for a “moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Of course by “moral and religious”, John Adams most definitely meant Christian morals and the Christian religion, for Adams said on another occasion:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I then believed, and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”[5]

That a constitution could be ratified hundreds of years ago for all people and all times clearly contradicts not only human nature, natural law and human experience, but also the understood political maxims of the 1770s and 1780s. It is for this reason that the United States cannot “spread democracy” across the world by military force. As Vattel says, constitutions are formed for particular societal circumstances, lest freedom should suffer and government gain too strong a hold on individuals and society. How can an objective student look at the circumstances of 1787 America compared to 2010 America and propose that the founding generation would have formed the union that exists today under the current constitution? Even the 1787 constitution in its theoretical, experimental, abuses-yet-discovered form barely mustered the approval of a small majority in the 1787 constitutional convention. Had some of the societal circumstances slightly changed, the U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified.

There was much and serious opposition to the U.S. Constitution even in 1787 and that was with only thirteen societies totaling only 3.5 million people whose beliefs, morals and philosophy were largely mirrored, considering their common ancestry, language and custom; their shared Christian religion; their shared opposition to Great Britain; the sparsely-populated States; and their mainly-agricultural way of life,[6] to name a few. Serious opposition to the U.S. Constitution existed even when the federal government was considered much weaker than the States; the federal government’s purposes were expressly limited; there was no technology which allowed the federal government to look at the freckles on your face from a satellite in space; war-drones could not fight for the federal government against the States from an unknown, private room half way across the world by remote control; the federal government could not through a machine pinpoint the location of a firearm being shot from 200 miles away, detecting the caliber and number of shots fired; each State possessed an active militia that outnumbered the federal government’s standing army and possessed comparable weaponry; the people felt that the States should retain to themselves the vast bulk of governmental responsibility; and so on. Do studious Americans honestly believe that the founding generation would have not heeded the warnings of statesmen such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams not to form one centralized government with the powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution had their society existed then as it does now?

Indeed the circumstances of America in 2010 require a reforming of the union (and perhaps even some of the States), just as Patrick Henry—among other statesmen—proposed in 1787. The purpose of a constitution, political unions and government formation is for the “preservation, safety, perfection, and happiness” of the people, as Vattel states, as well as the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The U.S. Constitution as applied today undermines the very purpose of society forming unions and government—especially the society of 1787. In similarity to the British Constitution of 1776 and how the colonies ultimately viewed it, the U.S. Constitution today only perpetuates the power and control of the federal government over the sovereignty of the States and the lives of hundreds of millions in America—even across the world. There would not be one knowledgeable person today who would deny that the union as formed in 1787 no more exists in 2010 and that America’s societies today in no way reflect the societies forming the U.S. Constitution. So how can we not see the serious error in positing that the people in 2010 are bound to remain in the union formed in 1787 by people who have been dead for over two hundred years when the circumstances in which the constitution was ratified have not existed for over one hundred and fifty years?

Revering a constitution over the natural freedoms, liberties and rights is simply wrong. Beholding the image of an idea at the exclusion of the substance of life distorts common sense. Focusing on what once was to the exclusion of what should be shirks our duty to fellow-man and posterity. Even the founding generation only held on to their British Constitution for approximately ten years after more serious conflict arose between Great Britain and the colonies. Was their plight direr than ours today? Many would say no. While they loved the rights and principles forming the British constitution (which took literally hundreds of years, the deaths of thousands and the arduous labor of millions), they also realized that the British Constitution did nothing more for them than keep them connected to a political system which they deemed harmful to those revered rights. Their view of a constitution reflects more of the description given by Vattel:

“This constitution is in fact NOTHING MORE THAN the establishment of the order in which a nation proposes to labour in common for OBTAINING THOSE ADVANTAGES with a view to which the political society was established.”[7]

Clearly, when the execution and application of a constitution distorts and twists the “establishment of the order” and no longer obtains the “advantages” for which the constitution was established, then the parchment of the constitution no longer serves its purpose. This ineffectuality reflects a bigger problem of society, which can never be resolved through the force of government nor through the perpetual union of the same societies attributing to the demoralization of the constitution’s ineffectiveness. Upon such a happening, the constitution “is in fact nothing more than the [continuation] of the order…for [forcing] those [dis]advantages” against society.

At some point, separation is required and is necessary to reform political society, unions and constitutions for the peace, happiness and safety of the people composing those political systems. This position has been recently confirmed by the United States federal government. Regarding the Federal Republic of Sudan, the U.S. federal government has taken the political position that Southern Sudan has the right to and should secede from the constitutional republic of Sudan and to become an independent State. The federal government has taken this position despite the fact that the Sudan Constitution claims to be united, establishes its own supremacy and expressly provides for a constitutional amendment process, among other similar U.S.-Constitution-provisions which some in America use to argue that no State in America has a right to secede from the constitution and thus union. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, expressed that the “United States must figure out how to convince political leaders in Khartoum that it’s ‘worth their while to peacefully accept an independent south [Sudan]’.”[8]

Interestingly, when it comes to the States’ seceding from the existing American union, all of a sudden, the federal government is ready and willing to kill the persons making such an attempt. So, who decides when a right of secession exists?—the federal government or one branch—the judiciary—of the federal government!? Why is it good for South Sudan to secede but not good for the States? Who decides when it is good?—the federal government or the people of the States?! Who draws the line of difference between (unlawful) sedition and (righteous) insurrection?—the U.S. Supreme Court?!

Despite the growing acknowledgement among Americans that the political system of the current United States union is irretrievably broken to restore it to its original form of 1787, some still refuse to recognize a re-forming of the union—via secession—to be a viable answer of our plight. These naysayers emotionally attach this reason for perpetual union: “America is the greatest nation in the world. Our constitution is the best in the world. Without the U.S. Constitution, we will no longer be free”, and so on. This simply reflects ignorance and shallow-thinking. It is not good enough and is flawed logic. Real reasoning and political science must be studied and analyzed for true freedom to flourish in the American States once again. Once a true understanding illuminates the minds of freedom-loving, self-governing, responsible Americans, the necessary and appropriate steps can be taken to restore freedom in societies.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2010

[1] Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press) 183.

[2] James Madison, Federalist Paper 48.

[3] Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Ch. 3, Sec. 28 (emphasis added).

[4] That each generation has a choice of what constitution to form, alter or abolish for itself is inherent in the meaning of “consent of the governed.”

[5] Charles Francis Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10. (Boston Little, Brown, 1856), 45-46.

[6] “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” John Jay, Federalist Paper 2 (emphasis added).

[7] Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Ch. 3, Sec. 27 (emphasis added).

[8] Author Unknown, U.S. Eyes Secession To Keep Peace In Sudan

Clinton: North, South Need To Yield, Washington Times, September 8, 2010, found at

I Can See Clearly Now

Wed, Sep 15, 2010

James P. Harvey

by James P. Harvey

Yes, I can see clearly now, and unless you readers have experienced the debilitating confusion from a life time of ideological contradictions that we have encountered; you will not understand a single sentence in this diatribe. It won’t matter if you have two or two billion brain cells to rub together, unless you feel, and know why you feel betrayed and confused; you just won’t get it. One cannot heal, unless they have been wounded.

As intellectually undeveloped children we didn’t even recognize they were contradictions. They were like food in the pantry that was intended to nourish our bodies at a later date, or poison us as the case may be. Few of us ever thought about what was in our intellectual pantry, because we trusted Mom and Dad to feed us good food, we felt the same way about our teachers in school, and even that mean old Preacher at church. Unaware, we were taught to trust nearly everyone, but as we matured and the poison we consumed in our food produced cancerous cells in our bodies, we lost the lust for life, and apathy overcame us. Miraculously, some of us survived and matured into socially rejected non-conformist. Thank God!

Unfortunately, we were not even aware of being a non-conformist until much later in life when we decided to throw away the heavy garbage we were dragging around, and start thinking on our own. We have been dragging some of that garbage all of our life and have become so attached to it we are afraid to throw it away, but we know everything must be carefully inspected and analyzed, lest we throw away something nutritious.

We cannot think without food for thought, and the fear of throwing away a familiar food that might nourish our mind only adds to our agony. So we learn right away that analyzing something requires learning something so an informed decision can be made. Surreptitious contradictions are hard to recognize when they were given to us by people we love and trust.

In case I’m boring you, consider how hard it is to reject the patriotic social commitment to love our country. That should alert you to the fact that this article is not about poor me, or poor you, it’s about analyzing all of our presuppositions’ as to their ability to assist us in making life and death decisions, and obtaining a life that is worth living.

Are you more interested now? You should be, because the decisions you are going to be forced to make in the near future will determine not only how you are going to live your life, but if you will live at all. Since I have never known a person who wants to die, I thought it might be prudent to consider some of the things that have prevented us from already having a life of liberty to pursue happiness, property, security, and Godliness.

First, we must learn how to selectively regurgitate just the ideological contradictions, and replenish the intellectual void with nutritious presuppositions’, which brings us back to loving America.

Who in their right mind would love a country that is governed by tyrants Who in their right mind would love a country whose government forces them to live among people whose world view is intellectually putrid to them? One that infiltrates their children’s minds with intellectual contradictions until they don’t know right from wrong, good from evil, truth from lies, or the absolutely stupid conclusion that there is no truth?

What kind of person loves a country that manipulates the economy so that only five percent of the population can afford to educate their children without sending them into an environment each day that’s not even suitable for pit bulls? Government controlled curriculums destroy everything good about humanity, and produce an intellectual vacuum in the minds of all but the most gifted children. I detest America for having brain washed us into accepting this tragic loss of potential. Nothing short of cowardice and stupidity made me a participant in this mind murder. I owe my daughters more than Bill Gates could afford to pay.

Who would love a country whose government is a front for a group of bankers who want to control the entire earth, by controlling the currency needed for commerce to exist, by controlling the intellectual development of each nations children, by controlling all information on earth, by controlling all of the food production, research, entertainment, medicine, religion, weather, life span, birth rate, death rate, leisure time, occupations, and every other facet of everyone life?

It’s time to wake up to the fact that a country is not a geographic location, a country is a set of principals that human beings understand from being educated, and intellectually developed from experience, and enforce on each other for the preservation of freedom. We the people are the country, and I don’t like us very much. I repent, and refuse to participate in the degradation of humanity anymore. I refuse to be a slave to any man, or government, and I most certainly refuse to remain ignorant of the things that could turn us into God fearing, productive, and loving human beings.

When we determine that we will no longer live near, worship with, obey, depend on, support, or in any other way associate with people whose ideological contradictions classify them as the scum of the earth, and demand our own geographical boundaries, form of government, and the ruling principals that our government and our society must adhere to, then I will return with great joy and participate in keeping us safe from harm.

The past actions of my Lord and my God have guaranteed me a future life of un-imaginable joy, why should I be so concerned with obedience to a despicable bunch of bankers? Those who love their life will lose it!


One thought on “As Western Civilization Lies Dying – Corporatism, Slavery and Death – Identifying Freedom’s Problems

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s