Monday, June 27, 2011

Hows Your Constitution?

After 9/11 there was much talk by the U.S. government about having to give up freedom for security.  This struck me at the time as not quite right.  I had bought into the notion  that we were vulnerable and needed to DO something, so absent having a thoughtful conception of the right course of action, what is one to do?  So, with the galvanized public behind the government, a sweeping panoply of laws were enacted.  These laws continue to be added though (Patriot Act 1 and Patriot Act 2 as well as some others added for good measure), though, and suggests very strongly to me that this is not about keeping us safe.  Or free.

As a result of having an open society, we really cannot stop anyone from doing something bad if they so desire it.  Just like if someone uses their right to own a gun and shoots someone or does something illegal with that gun, then that person is brought to justice which means due process. The police, and a judicial system tries them with the "process" that each of us is granted. What our government is suggesting is that we abridge freedom instead of simply trying someone in our courts.  Instead, everyone is punished, in essence, for the wrongs of a small percentage of the population. By doing this, government usurps power and then exercises control.  This is how it has always been.

Here in the United States the laws that were quickly passed, the Patriot Act for the most part as well as other pieces of legislation that have served up more power to the President in order to prosecute those people who would be our enemies.  I will remind you, in case you have forgotten, that while Congress was considering this bill, there were a series of deliveries of anthrax-laden powder sent to key leaders in Congress who were the most questioning of whether this Act should go forward.  Additionally, everyone in Bush's cabinet all received vaccinations in time for the anthrax delivery.  The thing that you should realize, also, is that a vaccine for anthrax does not provide you with instant immunity.  It takes, according to the site Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program it states:

6) How long does it take after the first shot before 

protection begins?
Antibodies begin to develop within a week or two after the first 

dose of vaccine. Protection levels increase as shots in the series 
are given, like walking up a set of stairs. The entire sixshot 
series is needed for full protection as licensed by the Food & 
Drug Administration.

The entire series had been taken just days before the first anthrax letters were sent. If, as some have suggested, that this happened because there was intelligence that led the cabinet to be vaccinated, then using this same logic, if their intel was that good, why couldn't they also know WHO was sending the anthrax?  Think about it;  our government has the N.S.A. which monitors every single aspect of communication in this country.  If they had intelligence pointing to this as a threat, they surely had some communication that they could track down, right?  Every communication device has a means of being tracked, including your cell phone, your computer (each computer has a special individual code that gets logged during communications through IP's that can identify you), and the sophisticated software they have today, even faxes can be scanned and analyzed using nothing but computers instead of people.  In the same way voice is analyzed using sophisticated algorithms that enters the data into a data base and sifts it based on key words.  How is it then that our top leaders knew about this yet chose not to tell Congress?

Thus the Patriot Act was rammed through Congress.  It is the first step in a larger effort to reduce liberty and freedom.  Much is unconstitutional since the system as it is can work if we so choose. the problem is that our government has not wanted to use the system because its very likely that they are not interested in using our judicial system. if we do not have proof of someone breaking a law, we have to let them go, right?  I understand that we have laws about foreign combatants, but never should a law be passed that abridges others' freedoms.  Living in a free society means responsibility.  In other countries gun violence is not a problem where everyone has a gun, is taught how to shoot it, and care for it.  The truth is its a fairly small percentage of the population that will commit crimes, but those people are put through the legal system and punished for breaking the law.  The entire populace is not punished for this.  Never do I see anyone seeking to educate people about proper gun use as a solution to gun problems.  The issue, some say, are people who are off-kilter to begin with.  How do we solve that problem? How do we stop someone from committing a violent crime?  The answer is you don't.  You prosecute when a law is broken. But what if we taught people responsibility in regards to the Constitution?  What if we were to start at the grass root level and move upwards?

For all of his rhetoric, Alex Jones most often does not say anything that he himself has not seen evidence for.  For years Alex has been marginalized.  He has also chosen to remain marginalized because all of the offers for him to come into the mainstream press, they have all come with strings that required him to dilute and distort the news he has been uncovering for years.  Very recently Glen Beck has done an about face and began to copy the position of Alex Jones.  The Conspiracy Nut has finally gone mainstream.....partly because people have finally realized that the elites are coming out and saying clearly that yes, they exist, and yes, they are working for a One World Order, something that Bush Sr. talked about in an address to the American people

The following video has some background music and some text that rides over the footage, but I think that this speech made by Obama prior to his even being elected to President is a little troubling for the "lack of choice" he is espousing....

So while those who were talking about this and being branded kooks, we see this coming to the fore.  Many saw it years ago, but it wasn't in the mainstream media.  Now that it has gone mainstream, you have to ask yourself what this could mean for America.  Do we care about what the Constitution embodies?  Is it the document that made us the "shining city on a hill" that no one seems to be calling us anymore?  Could it be that being this city served a purpose and now it does not?  Could it be that having served its purpose to launch countless elites into a new stratosphere of power and monetary dominance and influence, they are now leaving this place for an even larger pie: the world.  The problem is, these people are not wishing to be constrained by anything.  They want to see a new world order that they get to craft.  Many of the old nut jobs have seen that the words of these elites suggest quite clearly a return to a caste system on this planet.  These may not be the gentle, generous egalitarian people that will help usher in a new age of promise. This age of promise will be for themselves and no one else.  These are the capitalists who want to win, to gain power and then never be happy with that level of control.  They will want more. They are governed by an insatiable hunger that rules them and will never let them go.  In a larger sense, they are unable to deal with those issues that they attracted into their karmic realm that has lead to this insatiability. Having a truly new world means letting go of the karma, and that could mean letting go of those untold billions.....

Right now, with all of the assaults on our freedom, its good to see someone actually doing something about the erosion of liberty and freedom in this country.  One very good way is by having our police clear on what the Constitution is all about.  When our own local police are clear on this, we are in a better place because they are tasked with keeping order.  Before 9/11 and the weakening of Possee Comitatus  Possee Comitatus is essentially a law that states that the military is to be under the control of the local police.  the government cannot come in and use the military on the people as it did in the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War.  This was to protect us from abuses that could occur from a military whose members may come from communities far enough away that the people comprising the force might not be called to task for abusing power.  Local police, however, can be.  The interesting thing about what Bush said is that we will see the U.N. in our country when an American military refuses to arrest or detain ordinary Americans who are standing up for their rights and Constitution.  Here in the United States there are a number of national parks that are called "biospheres" and these biospheres are governed by treaty law signed in during the Nixon Administration in the early 70's that allows the U.N. sovereignty over these biospheres.  The treaty allows them to bring arms into the country. It also sets up zones in the national parks that mimic demilitarized zones. It also allows the U.N. to take property surrounding the biosphere.  These biospheres are large tracts of land that make up our national parks.  There are over 40 such biospheres in the United States. If the purpose of these biospheres are for the study of wildlife, then why would the U.N. be granted the right to bring in arms?  To guard the spotted owl? Do you think?

This video is a discussion with the leader of Oath Keepers, an effort to educate police about the Constitution.
For people who are concerned about the state of things, I think that this way of creating a preventative layer of awareness can be very helpful especially when there is another "crisis" that faces us in some form or another.  It was Henry Kissinger who said that all we need is a bad enough "emergency" in the U.S. in order for people to accept a One World Order.  These people really want this control, but really, its up to the masses.  Do we love freedom?  There is something you can do.  Support the Constitution, learn what the laws are, learn the what laws seek to soften the Constitutional, but more importantly, think for yourself! Just because someone from on high says you must submit to loss of your rights does not change the fact that the Constitution is still the law of the land and each of us very much still have a right to it. Freedom is never won by more control. The founding fathers had it right and now its time to get educated, to perhaps be less than a follower and more a leader by being able to think for yourself.  Also, govt. in our Constitution is limited.....because of humans' desire for unchecked power.  Use your discernment and find where your own voice comes into all of this.  What can you do? 

No comments: