Actually, it's not...Well, not the conspiracy you might have thought.
See the Conspiracy theory goes “those wretched Rothschilds! They're at it again with the Federal Reserve they 100% own! We have to fight back, tell everyone about the conspiracy”...A conspiracy disproven quite easily:
“...However, subscriptions, by member banks were adequate and there was no necessity or authority for the allocation of any stock to the United States...” -- http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/3/VI/284.
Which is incomplete without the code where the government takes the profits of the Federal Reserve and puts them into the United States Treasury, http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/title12/chap3/subchapvi/sec289/.
For some this proves the conspiracy of wealthy people against the rest of us, the government data mined “1%,” a part of our Progressive education to guarantee we learn we are oppressed by the wealthy, http://web.archive.org/web/20090423190627/http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm.
However, I am of the mind of another, broader, larger, and more likely “conspiracy,” since everything changed in our society from the time of our Founders is listed as a particular religion's goals. These folks don't hide their perverse use of government's coercive power, but we're so unaware of their presence that we have no idea a religion is being established by the government – the religion of Humanism, http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I & http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II.
Who thinks that the things these people find important and have effectively changed in America is based on money? Or by order of the Rothschilds? See the World Community section under Manifesto II, especially paragraph “FOURTEENTH” and “FIFTEENTH.” I'd suggest looking at “FOURTEENTH” in Manifesto I for the worldwide Socialist Order.
And often it seems Humanists are in government, claiming and imposing authority over some aspect of our daily Individual lives. I wonder if the FBI agent who shot Lavoy Finicum was a Humanist in light of his shooting an unarmed man in cold blood, (start about 9:00 minutes in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ&feature=youtu.be.
I say this because the Humanist idea of the Individual (as described in Manifesto I at FOURTEENTH) is predicated on “a shared life in a shared world,” the shortest section in Manifesto II, comprised of paragraphs “FIFTH” and “SIXTH,” is about the Individual, claiming that all individuality should be increased, but of course within the framework of a centralized socialist collective society that, according to Humanist rules by some formal agreement, a collective solidarity, with them, we shall all think alike, and that is our “social responsibility.” Note the “reject, religious, ideological and moral codes” in FIFTH, while claiming in SIXTH, “Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity”... Whose morality? From what will this morality be derived? It surely isn't a morality derived from what is rejected except, perhaps, in the nature of rejection, to be entirely polar opposite of all that preceded.
America and our Constitution limiting government to protect the Individual (though it may appear to be ineffective at this time) carries out this function by limiting the government from impeding, from infringing, my Rights as my own Personal Property, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.96. The People are the assumed Sovereign, the lawgiver and crown wearer in America, originally per the House having the sole voice of the People, representation based on populations in each state across the nation, and per Our Founders in proclaiming to the World the era of Individual Liberty and self governance had begun, a New World Order of governance, by the Declaration of Independence and our written Constitution, http://web.archive.org/web/20131112025133/.
We look at Lavoy Finicum, comparing this standing of an American in America, according to our Founding Fathers, with the acts of an FBI who admits they have no Constitutional Authority (and haven't moved to Amend the Constitution to remedy this), http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-history. In this, we see how easily those with a badge and a gun can and will act with impunity against the People, government agents knowing the government is loaded with similar ideological minds, especially in their superiors, and that these fellow government employees, maybe all the way to the top, will protect them.
Government's sole Constitutional authorization to collect, let alone keep, information on every man, woman and child in the United States is for a Census to determine the districting of proper representative government in the House (An authorization due to the limited taxing power under Article I, Section 2 being, for some unknown reason, stricken when applying the 14th Amendment, that had nothing to do with taxation, to the Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html, a strike that removed the further limitation on taxation imposed by the Constitution under Article I, Section 9, ibid.). Government has no other Constitutional authority, nor any other right, to private Individual information for anything else, be it Social Security, Internal Revenue, Obamacare, etc.
Thus, one must ask how far fetched is it to comprehend a government who ignores one’s privacy asserted by silence and the fact our private Individual information is our Personal Property, a government that has no trouble gunning down a man and taking his unalienable Right to Life according to government's moral standard, to then assume making you pay to save money, again your private Personal Property, in a private bank?
Do you see the Progressive Humanist War on the Individual? Do you see it's not for some temporal wealth of bankers or other power tripping wealthy that the Progressive Humanists act and that they always finger these so labeled “1%” as stealing your fair share? The usual Progressive gimmick to repeat a lie against numerous people in sequence until we accept the allegation as true and the numbers of people accused as demonstrating a consistent pattern of guilt to which we take up the cause against them, declaring war on Individual Liberty and the right to ones own property.
Yes, I've intertwined a group of issues, a group of things happening today because the Principle of these things is such:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
And I continue...
“Such has been the patient sufferance of the American People since the Civil War and 14th Amendment whose lofty goals appear to have led to a National Government assuming a persistence of such egregious assertion of national power over the States, resulting in an oppression situation for the Individual and in violation of the Constitution which was constructed from the failure of the Articles of Confederation and is based upon the Principles of the Declaration of Independence as the Individual reigns Supreme; such is now the necessity which constrains the American People to carry out any means necessary to remind government America is our nation and it is our right to alter such an oppressive System of Government so it no longer oppresses without just cause and re-establish a Government well certain of its role as our servant and not our Master. The history of the present collective King in Washington, DC, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and the Individual.”
While many will have you think who is elected President is important upon the idea of electing a “Leader,” I submit to you it is in electing a follower, a follower of the Constitution, THE Ratified (consent of the governed) written Will of the People, and our terms and conditions upon which government authority is established and government's actions to be compared to, that who is President of the United States is only the beginning of reining in government, of forcing government to carry out its job in compliance with the Constitution; And that only from this point would Amendment of the Constitution be right and feasible, as bureaucracies and their immense public union coffers would be ejected from influence, as well as every other private lobby because they no longer have an oppressive government they're trying to influence not to oppress them. Freedom is only had by the American People being the sole interest, the sole concern, and sole lobby upon the Congress, the amounts we pay in taxation and to which government is entrusted to manage in a fiduciary manner is value enough of our absolute Sovereign authority.
Hopefully, yet not soon enough, we'll rightfully repeal the 17th Amendment to re-instate the influence of the States upon the National Government while ending the division of what is the Voice of the People to where Congress (House and Senate) is divided, negotiating exchanges of power between them to get a bill to the President's desk, while the very guardian and original bulwark against National Government encroachment, the State Governments, has to sit by and react to the outcome of a contest never intended by Our Founders. Yes, we must end this pompous government ritual of government bodies trading our rights for the fiction of their power in order to begin a fundamental return to a resolute nation for Freedom and Individual Liberty with an Honorable servant government that knows its place.
As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,
P.S. If the emphasis eluded you: It's not a conspiracy, it's government since the time of Socrates and before. This is what Our Founders intended to end, is their legacy entrusted to us as their Posterity a noble or ignoble cause because it's too much trouble for us to care, even when what we do, how we decide, what action we take, is for our Posterity?
There aren't masses of soldiers along some border, or oppressing a nation's people by some physical abuse or intimidating numbers, Humanists aren't that overt.
No, instead the U.N. is claiming a time of negotiations regarding Syria (some nation that is backing a faction has influence in the U.N., go figure), irrespective of Syria's still having an existing and present President and government, not that I am for or against him (though he did desperately try to protect the Christians in Syria), but that we probably shouldn't overlook what's happening here as far as the U.N. and their assumptions of power.
Syria is a sovereign nation. I am not aware of Syria being a Constitutional Republic like America, or a Social Democracy like most of the rest of the civilized world, but instead, essentially a Democratic Kingdom where the “majority” is who has the majority of the wealth, the actual example of what Progressives erroneously claim about wealthy Free Market Americans and American corporations. The difference being that the wealth in Syria has direct use of force (a government power) whereas wealth in America has to lobby for favor of government, because the government gutted Individual Liberty with the 14th Amendment and Free Enterprise in the 1890's by passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in every effort to make both subservient existences, and government hasn't looked back (to being Constitutional) since.
But, setting the Progressive lack of appreciation of Individual Liberty and education on American History aside, Syria is a sovereign nation like any other, and it defies all reason why the U.N. can dictate when factions must negotiate, what factions can or can't be present, and whatever else will set a Humanist Religious-blessed terms of a peace agreement, such as the draft currently also containing a provision that “elections will [mandatory] be held in 18 months.” Doesn't this place the sword of Damocles over the head of every nation? And why should a nation, like America, where the People are the Sovereign authority (See Justice James Wilson, http://web.archive.org/web/20131112025133/http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/) have to ever be concerned with the U.N.? Apparently, because anyone belonging to the U.N. agrees to be a subject nation to a Master Humanist World Order. Notice I didn't say “New World Order” because America was the last of the “New World” and we are the New World Order, an order of Declarations of Independence Proclaiming the supremacy of Individual Liberty and breaking all ties to the Feudal Political system and proclaim all rightful rule is solely by consent of the governed; An order of a Constitution painstakingly written to limit government and achieve consent of the governed by ratification of the States and the People themselves; a Constitution that, for the first time in history made the People their own Lawgiver. (See the entire Federalist Papers, citing one volume would be a disservice to this Sovereign power of Constitutional Republican, means representative, government.)
But, as the U.N. seems to assert this assumed power every time that it can inject a “Humanitarian Aid” and “violations of Human Rights” by every faction, which is the natural result of civil wars almost always funded by foreigners and foreign interests backing each faction, it is a Humanist imposition taking place to undermine the opportunity of the people themselves to rise in their own Right of Self-Government based on their people and their beliefs without a Master Humanist World Order's boot on their neck.
Islam is not something I agree with, nor do I even see it as a faith (see http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.279.5), but I will never deny another the right to believe as they want to believe! A nation has a right to be governed as its people will tolerate. That Americans had nowhere to run, not that they wanted to as the option didn't exist so it wouldn't matter, we fought against all odds and won to establish the first and only Constitutional Republic, with an economic system of equal opportunity for all who would pursue their self-interest: survival of themselves and their family, for as many generations as they can foresee. Every nation deserves the opportunity, as many as possible, for their People to rise on their own in Individual Liberty and claim their Jeffersonian Majority of 1.
Syrians may wish this themselves, and may have for a long time, but never finding a means of successfully asserting their will over a government that oppresses them, likely due to Humanist interventions such as this U.N. imposition that thwart them before they gain their own Will. Taken in context of how a people rise to Freedom, it's clear the U.N. doesn't get to decide. Wouldn't we be first to assert the U.N. has no authority, uniting on that principle, if similar to what happened in Syria happened in America?
Important to ask: What nations came and attacked us during the Civil War to take land from our nation? What countries met to then dictate to Lincoln how things will be? Anyone arriving at, “but the U.N. didn't exist then,” oh how right you are, so then who did exist? Why didn't they create a U.N. then? I do sort of ask in a lawyerly way (though I am no lawyer), knowing the answer to the question before I ask it (keep reading). I ask in pointing you to look outside concern for what existed then as compared to now instead of assuming some conclusion by some recognition of what exists today, the vein of some great pronouncement in counter-argument. The facts of the historical record is more important than noting what exists today as though its non-existence was due to some lack of evolution of man – it isn't.
The whole modern day, the U.N. is a con-job.
I'll illustrate through Humanist H.G. Wells. Though he wrote of Christianity in relation to Socialism, Wells was a student of Darwinism, https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/eugenics/hg-wells-darwins-disciple-and-eugenicist-extraordinaire/. In reading that you'll find he had worked with 2 “Huxleys,” one an educator described as “Darwin's chief disciple” and the other a collaborator, well-known Humanist Sir Julian Huxley – likely related to the other Huxley but not mentioned in article.
Why is this important? How does this show the Humanist Religious Order has no respect for Individual Liberty and places their beliefs and concepts of Humanity above all? In short (and to only mention the opening paragraph of above link goes right into eugenics), the U.N. derived from the League of Nations. Guess who began the process of forming the League of Nations? A: H.G. Wells, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1919/01/the-idea-of-a-league-of-nations/306270/, part 2, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/19feb/leag219.htm.
To solidify understanding the con I'll use a paragraph from one of the above cited article links:
“Wells soon became a writer and, in his long career, authored over 100 books, including such classic best-selling science fiction (a genre he largely invented) as The Time Machine (1895), The Invisible Man (1897), The War of the Worlds (1898) and The First Man on the Moon (1901). He also published much general fiction, and later branched out into other areas, including history and science. His best-selling (and still in print) Outline of History (1920), and the four-volume The Science of Life (1931), in which he and his eldest son, George Phillip Wells, collaborated with Sir Julian Huxley, sold very well. The Outline of History alone has sold over two million copies.[fn. omitted] Both The Outline and Science of Life went into great detail to defend the Darwinist worldview.[fn. omitted]” - https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/eugenics/hg-wells-darwins-disciple-and-eugenicist-extraordinaire/.
Can you say “self-fulfilling prophesy?” If you're a fiction writer and gain a level of acclaim and influence, isn't it immortality to be responsible for forming a Master Humanist World Order over all the World's People that pursues the designs of the future you authored since you were part and parcel to a World Government's formation?
Thus, by the simple self-interest of a science-fiction writer, without lobbying or some extensive expense as is often claimed of so-called greedy capitalists, our lives, the lives of everyone in the world, our nations and the governments we put in place to run them, whether entirely voluntary or not, are mere stages of a Master Humanist World Government fiction story written by H.G. Wells, a real story of self-destruction of our Freedom, a hyper-real simulation of slavery that is so real it's governing our lives. Just ask a sole survivor of a Syrian Christian family that lived in the same town for 2,000 years and just wants to go home, but whose home is destroyed along with his whole town, their relatives and children beheaded. What's real and what's fiction in this Humanist world?
Tell me how this isn't exactly the western intrusion into the private affairs of a nation's people in the eyes of people who practice islam who, I believe as well as I, do not appreciate the Humanist Religion's intrusion into our dictating our own lives.
Religious Freedom is where islam has common ground with any other religion, if and when they appreciate that, though other religions aren't paying attention to the Humanist Religion's use of government force to establish their Religious order, no religion other than Humanism is overtly trying to stamp out all other religions, Faith, and beliefs to believe and follow only their Humanist Religion, http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I.
Humanism, a hold over of the Pagan orders of Rome, that even was trying to lobby Ferdinand and Isabella for a return to the Roman Hispania (joining of north and south Spain divided by Rome in the first place) is responsible for the deaths of everyone in every other religion for at least the last 400 years. Humanism is a cabal of a few well placed people quietly pulling puppet strings on both sides of the variety of dividing aisles of people, dividing and destroying the politics of nation after nation. It's high time the people of the world were at least aware of Humanism, and past Humanist shenanigans to have some idea how long Humanists have been destroying all who don’t believe as they do.
For more, I strongly recommend looking up Tim Lahaye whose work, The Battle for the Mind: A Subtle Warfare, has been eye-opening for me, http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Mind-Subtle-Warfare/.
As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,
As the medium is the message, where today numbness is the norm as the overwhelming amount of information from overwhelming forms of media overwhelms the senses and results in delegation to “Siri,” or some other digital assistant (communicating that the age of those without the means of affording assistance now have one), the base problem with sharia and islam is being, for lack of a better term, “overlooked” (see this video to understand “radical” is a political correctness term of no import whatsoever, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGE2eBUdlQ&feature=youtu.be).
Verbose man (yours truly) just made every effort to overwhelm your senses, knowing likely you just went to scanning this article, likely deciding from the first paragraph to send, read, or discard and ignore it (unless you're one of those Evelyn Wood speed reader types).
Yet this all takes us to why all these oppressive systems, oppressive economic systems like Socialism and Communism, some in England wanting to return to Royal government, and such an easy acceptance of having some “expert” tell us that we are responsible for changes in Earth's environment by what car we drive -- while America's government funded military experiments through the 1990's HAARP project whose effort was to punch a hole through the Ionosphere and see how long it takes to heal without blinking an eye -- “Politicians,” a generally affectionate term for those who seek authority over others, see every bit of our relinquishing self-responsibility and, using many forms of the ultimate power of government, force, to legislate and swallow our Freedom up like a blackhole of Progressive oppression sucking up every scintilla of power we hand them by any form of grant.
For brevity (Surprise!) I'll use the idea of contracts and how one can give actual consent by signing off on something, yet knowing most are well aware of the variety of forms of implied consent. This simple understanding that we all apply to a variety of situations every day in dealing with other people is a good starting point to understand how those politicians, those political parties and their agendas, have built Progressive Oppression on the backs of what we believe, subversively using our delusion to lie to us with a straight face knowing we'll blame ourselves, and not them, later.
To illustrate (which shouldn't be required after the IRS showed a willingness to suppress Freedom of Speech and Political Expression so easily by mere bureaucratic delays, same tactic used for Keystone, same tactic used by George Soros to keep Rosia Montana Romania from working their gold mine), let's look at the FBI's site regarding their historical origins:
“The FBI originated from a force of special agents created in 1908 by Attorney General Charles Bonaparte during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The two men first met when they both spoke at a meeting of the Baltimore Civil Service Reform Association. Roosevelt, then Civil Service commissioner, boasted of his reforms in federal law enforcement. It was 1892, a time when law enforcement was often political rather than professional. Roosevelt spoke with pride of his insistence that Border Patrol applicants pass marksmanship tests, with the most accurate getting the jobs. Following Roosevelt on the program, Bonaparte countered, tongue in cheek [sic], that target shooting was not the way to get the best men. "Roosevelt should have had the men shoot at each other and given the jobs to the survivors."
“Roosevelt and Bonaparte both were "Progressives." They shared the conviction that efficiency and expertise, not political connections, should determine who could best serve in government. Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States in 1901; four years later, he appointed Bonaparte to be attorney general. In 1908, Bonaparte applied that Progressive philosophy to the Department of Justice by creating a corps of special agents. It had neither a name nor an officially designated leader other than the attorney general. Yet, these former detectives and Secret Service men were the forerunners of the FBI.
“Today, most Americans take for granted that our country needs a federal investigative service, but in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on "federalism:" a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states. Through the 1800s, Americans usually looked to cities, counties, and states to fulfill most government responsibilities. However, by the 20th century, easier transportation and communications had created a climate of opinion favorable to the federal government establishing a strong investigative tradition.” -- Emphasis mine, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-history
Now, I am sure even those of the “Progressive” philosophy, especially those well versed in the Chicago Way patronage system, can see the above FBI definition of Progressive is, at best, political spin. There'd be no bundlers of funds, no Bill Clinton Clinton Foundation Speeches receiving $500,000 etc., and one cannot claim efficiency and professionalism are the dominant qualities of the excessive cost of government and its Progressive programs... But, just like Obamacare being a tax not passed by Constitutional process (see Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services info, http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Sissel-3-1374, and detailed explanation at the time by yours truly, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.121), the FBI here admits without fear or hesitation it exists without any constitutional authority. Please note last paragraph of FBI history above as most important to this article as well.
With the truth of the lack of a constitutional authority for the FBI as admitted by their website, please see this gem of the audacity of power corrupted absolutely:
“They could be dismissed as a nuisance, a loose network of individuals living in the United States who call themselves “sovereign citizens” and believe that federal, state, and local governments operate illegally. Some of their actions, although quirky, are not crimes. The offenses they do commit seem minor, including regularly false license plates, driver’s licenses, and even currency.” -- Emphasis mine, https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/september/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-law-enforcement.
In relation to the FBI's admitted lack of any constitutional authority under Federalism for them to exist, is it wise for the FBI to claim Sovereign Citizens “believe that federal... governments operate illegally?” And to what degree does the FBI's continued operation and existence without any constitutional authority subtract weight from trusting ANY government agency?...from trusting politicians? From trusting government? Isn't the FBI vehicle with “government plates” using false license plates? Isn't their Drivers License identification that’s used in a Law Enforcement computer falsely identifying them as a Federal Government Employee? Isn't FBI officer pay and their Federal Officer's Union Pension Fund a direct stealing from the United States Treasury when their agency has no constitutional authority to exist?
Now I've known these Sovereignty folks, the Sovereign Citizen Movement, in fact, this movement started in Progressive/Liberal California. At the time it was called the State Citizenship movement. I researched much of what they claimed and found a large portion of it true. However, they were also steeped in conspiracy theory, claiming, “it's the banks and the Rothschilds... The income tax is to pay interest on the debt we owe to them... The Federal Reserve is just a Rothschild bank lending every single dollar to the U.S. Government” which is entirely false Progressive Leftist anti-Capitalist Looneyism (I must note they wanted to not pay income taxes, sometimes even as employees of the Local and State government, while demanding help getting their disability/social security, and/or welfare checks). I am making these ideological affiliation points to begin closing out this article with a Progressive media example of effort to politicize the Sovereign Citizen movement as “Right Wing Extremists” at this link, http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/index.html.
The idea of limited government is objective application of Freedom to every American and isn't a Left/Right anything and is instead a Constitutional fact, that the limits imposed on government are the self-executing point of the Constitution to assure greater freedom for every Individual American, limitations executed upon the office holder the moment they take their Oath of Office as the limits they agree to act pursuant to and not in excess of, limits also noted in full by the FBI in the paragraphs pasted from their brief history page above on this December 4, 2015 where the FBI is explaining Federalism. This means that ideology is merely a method of agitation, a wedge, to assure Americans, as the beginning of this article explained, will relinquish more and more of their Freedom for Politicians to steal or claim by “legislation” the tool of alphabet agency “regulatory interpretation” in making every effort to justify their existence, which is most dramatically done by asserting government's ultimate power: the use of force. Consider that the budget is legislation passed by Congress, yet the FBI who exists without (and thereby in excess of) any constitutional authority is included in those budgets, appropriated money to carry on what are essentially unconstitutional and illegal activities, that is all paid from our tax dollars and anyone can see how the Sovereignty Movement has a point in questioning the legitimacy of government no matter how looney the Sovereignty Movement's assertion of conspiratorial purposes and claims for it.
But, to punctuate the sheer abuse of power by government, a reminder:
“Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -- Emphasis mine, 10th Amendment language directly from the Bill of Rights (where it was the 12th article) as Amended to the Constitution, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.
And to be clear these amendments are limiting clauses:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- Emphasis mine, Preamble to the Bill of Rights, Ibid.
Thus the entirety of the first 10 Amendments are to be read in this context of declaratory and restrictive (together, a declared restriction, a limitation). These Amendments are not a declaration of the rights of Americans under a nationalized State, and, if you pay close attention to the context of this Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you'll notice they aren't creating something new but are making an effort to further knowledge and certainty of the already declaratory and restrictive (limiting) enumerated powers over certain and specific objects delegated to the National Government.
Supreme Court Justice James Wilson probably explains the farce of claiming the threat of a Sovereignty Movement best:
“Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem expedient.[”] James Wilson, Founding Father, Lectures on Law: Volume 1 Chapter 1 page 17, http://deila.dickinson.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ownwords/id/14067.
The mere idea of “Sovereignty” asserted by an American is an absolute and certain political expression (why American Citizenship is so precious), to which government is barred from any encroachment, including any notion of criminality, and for government to do so is government in violation of the First Amendment – And now for the round robin – Thus, having an agency, like the FBI, without any constitutional authority, claim such a movement to be a threat (not a crime) only further proves the point of the Sovereignty Movement.
And all of this is because, as said earlier, Politicians and their parties want to take from you whatever you'll relinquish of self-responsibility, as that is relinquishing... Pardon me... Abdicating, your Sovereign Authority – Your freedom, at least according to Justice James Wilson, one of few who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I applaud every Sheriff, of any political affiliation, who has asked that their armed Citizens carry their guns and be ready to use them should they be in the presence of a terrorist attack. These Shire-reefs recognize who they serve, who their Oath of Office is to, and, when overwhelmed, know to turn to and appreciate the Sovereignty of the American Citizens they serve. Might explain why the 2nd Amendment doesn't open with limiting one branch of government, as the 1st does, to instead proscribe any and all government interference with the Right to Bear Arms. It is a travesty that there is an effort to make a gun not a weapon by legal manipulation of what a bullet is, as though not part of the weapon when absolutely necessary and integral by design for a gun to be a gun, a device invented to use bullets, not invented to throw at attackers, nor to be used for pistol whipping but as a last resort when out of bullets, that, of course, assumes you survive and aren't killed by the attacker, and the gun which isn't designed to be used this way easily kicked from your hand. But hey, I've bored you all enough with my verbosity and shall take my leave....
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Should I not happen to produce another article before then.)
May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,
P.S. Terrorism is bad, but the remedy for the nation isn't to have the government attack and divide the People on the issue of the Sovereignty of the American Citizen.
Liberalism/Progressivism is a world of unicorns, fairies, and the religion of humanism, all wrapped in a ball of fantasy and unreality, so it is in that vein I write this, though with hope and therefore a conservative and pro-American approach to the Syrian Refugee Crisis.
Here’s an idea for GITMO, the President's big thorn of agitation he plays with over the course of his Presidency, using it to make the public restless and pressurize political oppositions... What if we made GITMO the new Ellis Island for Syrian Refugees (By my plan the “GITMO Multi-cultural Humanitarian Refugee Crisis Relief Center”)? Now if you're thinking I want them detained and held in cells, if they are muslim/islamic terrorists, jihadists, then of course I do, but let's face the way this can work otherwise.
This is how it would go: Airline lands in GITMO loaded with Syrian Refugees. These mostly muslim men disembark the plane and are given clothing, a cot and a tent, with directions to the facilities (showering, restrooms, etc.) and where not to go, along with knowing there is an imam on the premises to discuss whatever they wish to discuss with them. The women are given the same for themselves and each of their children. Medical and dental exams are performed to assure the safety of all of the Syrian Refugees.
Of course there are more overt methods that will be available, but by merely taking these people to GITMO there will be subtle, nuanced methods taking place in merely providing food, clothing, and shelter, with medical exams that establish for certain those with explosives on their person (or not), and providing the opportunity throughout the vetting process for the refugee(s) to show their allegiances (whether actually a refugee seeking asylum, or an islamic terrorist seeking to act for whatever group they are a part of in Syria, or elsewhere, for that matter) and all without ever setting foot in the United States. Congress must establish set targets of numbers of people to be vetted at GITMO, for each of them will provide information that will be forwarded to everyone who would be involved in vetting a person applying for a visa because that's what will be the end result, a grant of asylum by giving them a six-month visa to stay in America.
Mind you, this entire vetting process could take years, and though that's an expense, I believe it's far less expensive than losing another life, another drop of blood to islamic terror. Of course, during this process we regularly speak to nations in the area of the Syrian Refugee's origin, those more culturally inclined to accept them and see if the refugee would rather go there than stay in GITMO, again at American expense, to assure our safety, the number one priority and purpose in having the National Government in Washington, D.C.
As for the Governors, there is little Constitutional Authority to reject Syrian Refugees and that is because you weak and no backbone States have accepted the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution for the United States of America as dictated by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and not as intended by Our Founders. This situation results from national government using administrative processes to bypass Constitutional limits imposed on every branch of the National Government, administrative-governed national government and quasi-government agency interpretations of the Constitution and laws of the United States – And this is why the States have little if any influence, let alone authority, to say “H*ll No!” to the National Government, the States have allowed themselves to be superseded by administrative law.
To remedy this situation, Governors and State Legislators need to do for public safety what California did for the “enjoyment of religion,” as a guarantee to their citizens:
“Amendment ## to the Constitution for the State of __[Fill in the blank]__, known as the State Guarantee of Public Safety Amendment, to wit:
“The State of __[Fill in the blank]__ guarantees to defend the Right of every Citizen of this State to safely live their lives, to pursue and enjoy their Life, Liberty and Happiness, without fear of terrorism, and hereby Amends the State Constitution to include this guarantee.”
Sure the language probably needs some cleaning up but an Amendment carrying forward the Spirit of Freedom in relation to public safety, the tenor of a government caring about its State's Citizens, and without any other Amendments or riders for political and party agendas is where the power and authority to reject Syrian Refugees, or any other threat to the public safety of their State, lies.
Now it's been a while since I was at the law library Shepardizing cases, and I mention this because the published cases represent 20% of the cases actually heard and dealt with by the courts, and though these are assumed for citation to claim case precedent, this low margin of the overall cases would appear not to do justice to the presumption that the published citable cases are the be-all-end-all of the meaning of America’s laws and Constitution. I bring up this to help educate on the significance of case precedent, but also as a bit of a caveat to my not having used the more centralized (and controlled) case law data systems developed since the time I was sitting with a Shepard's book Shepardizing what I am about to share from the California Constitution and what was mentioned briefly earlier:
“SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
When I Shepardized this California Constitution Section I found 2 cases whose certiorari (writ of review) was rejected by the SCOTUS with explanation of why, which stood out to me that I'll try to state as accurately as I can recall:
“The Constitution of the State of California provides a guarantee of 'enjoyment' of religion. This guarantee exceeds the protections provided by the United States Constitution and therefore denies this court jurisdiction to grant writ of certiorari to review this case as presented to the Court.”
Again, there were 2 cases that the SCOTUS stated this as their reason for rejecting taking up their case on appeal. You can see why this would be remembered, and, as I continued my studies of history and the law I learned it was entirely valid and why, which is covered more thoroughly in other articles at http://changingwind.org and I won't get into here.
So States (State governments) who do not want and will reject Syrian Refugees (even if only to keep your political seats of power) I urge you to take up an Amendment to secure your right and authority to do so, one that stands for the right purposes and reasons for government: To protect their Citizens from harm.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
I know the money supply, or size of our economy is limited solely to our imagination, as it is our invention and production of those inventions, be it a product, a service, or mixture of these that are how those things that generate work, jobs, and new inventions exist in a perfect Capitalist cycle.
However, to Humanist religion practitioners, in perfect “catch 22” fashion, who are the driving force of the “Secular Progressive Left” (i.e. Man is God in the absence of God), they act upon an assumed limit to the amount of money possible. They brand any who have more than someone else as “the wealthy” in comparison to those with less -- a term of art to disparage those who achieve greater sums of money than others by applying their talents to invention, and producing that invention by the most base mechanism of Capitalism known as “bargaining,” legally referred to as a contract.
Of course this takes us to “Collective Bargaining,” which often includes more than just wages, but also discusses safety issues, vacation pay, and other “benefits,” of which the most significant is the “Retiree's Pension Trust Fund Plan.”
While the unions make every effort to organize workers in non-unionized sectors to push for a “living wage” (another term of art, engendering the fallacy of guaranteed income by redistribution, which is an affirmation in the belief of, and method to assure, an overall limited amount of money), the unions also invest their pension funds throughout the financial sector via banking (credit union), to stocks and bonds, hedge funds, and in commodities.
Understand Union Pension Managers are very good at making money from other people's money in a Pension Trust Fund. Here's a link to CalPERS, California's public sector union's Pension Trust Fund, http://www.calpers.ca.gov/, with market value for market close of May 21, 2015 of $308 Billion, or 1/3 of the current national government deficit. I highlight this because the erroneously blamed crux of the problem explained by some union spokepeople or Progressives espousing a higher national minimum wage is, “these corporations make billions in profits and can easily afford to double their employee's wages.” Now for a screen shot of CalPERS at $182 Billion from December of 2008, visit this site: https://web.archive.org/web/20081228041044/http://www.calpers.ca.gov/. Please note this isn't CalPERS’ lowest value for 2008-2009 so clearly around 120 Billion dollars has been made in 7 years by this one Public Sector Union Pension fund, or $17 Billion per year! Isn't it interesting that the union spokespeople and Progressives, often funded in some manner by hedge fund manager Progressive George Soros, all ignore this massive growth in pension fund net worth? And what makes it so much more irritating is that this is a Public Sector Union meaning: The Pension Trust Fund value is the total amount of wages withheld by government from Public Sector Employees, servants of the People -- withheld and managed by the same government paying these unionized government workers from your tax dollars. It appears the whole thing is a government & union working together scam to bilk we the people, notice the “.gov” website link? If it were a corporation we'd be hearing “fascists” from all quarters, but since it's only a Labor Union acting identically to a corporation we're giving it a pass.
I applaud the Huffington Post for picking up on this AP Investigation of CalPERS fund manager's bonuses, though I figure it's to highlight the last line stating what then Governor Schwarzenegger said, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/. It's worth noting that the Senior Fund Manager, Ted Eliopoulos who netted $400K when the fund had lost almost $60 Billion dollars, became the “Chief Investment Officer” for CalPERS, and he then moves to get the fund out of investing in hedge funds, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/.
Interesting isn't it how the screams for McDonald's, and before they caved, Walmart, to “pay a living wage” by raising their hourly rate, and Obama's push for a higher minimum wage, all ignore that the profiteering greed mongering face of the “Wall Street Investment Mogul” is Public Sector Union institutional investors exploiting their tax-exempt pension wealth, where those making the investments make money on union employees’ money that originated from taxpayers?!
And to add insult to injury, let's look at Netflix, first via NASDAQ itself, http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nflx/ownership-summary. Notice the Institutional Investor ownership is almost 90%! And in the details, according to Stockzoa, the largest holder is a public sector union out of Ohio, http://stockzoa.com/ticker/nflx/, and as you follow the links you end up at the SEC.gov site (use your browser's “search on page” and type in “Netflix”) where Netflix is right in the filings of the State Teacher's Retirement Board of Ohio (i.e. “OTR” apparently soon to be their acronym).
I want to post more but this would end up 50 pages long and not even scratch the surface. What must be said: unions are institutional investors, and they are investing in corporations and commodities to the tune of $5,000,000,000,000 yes that's Trillion illustrated. How is this different than corporate raiders and other investors? It isn't, in fact Credit Unions even “merge,” http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.
The difference is that this originates from union money, and this is far down in the list, but see 26 USC 401 (i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401. Go figure, every pension is a “Pension Trust Fund,” http://thelawdictionary.org/pension-trust-fund/ and http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pension-trust-fund/. And that's on top of Credit Unions, who also make these same institutional investments and are explicitly tax exempt https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.501, an exemption they want to fight to keep, http://www.nafcu.org/cutaxexemptionissue/. While Oblahma blah blah blah's about “fundamental fairness,” the unfair advantage of tax exemption for both Pension Trust Funds and their Credit Union counterpart, is sucking up the profitability of a level free-market playing field for individual & small business investors to larger corporations, profits that would prompt increases in spending in offset, including higher wages for their employees. Please make specific note of this fundamental unfairness of the carve-outs for unions, the abuse of it by their 1% salaried Pension Trust Fund managers, and their Credit Unions, the next time you want to get mad at a corporation for lobbying for their own carve-outs. We can no longer ignore how special treatment of unions in both the public and private sector provides them with tax free use and exploitation of large pools of money that has large scale, market-affecting, financial influence that suppress profits and wages in all other sectors of the economy.
I'll leave you with Michael Masters’ testimony regarding institutional investors, and how it was the unions’ first time venture into crude oil futures speculation that led to the price increase to almost $150/barrel that was a catalyst, if not cause, for the 2007-2008 financial collapse, http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
P.S. Note that it was President Clinton who, it appears, acted upon Eric Holder's advice, pardoned Marc Rich “who invented Oil Trading,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/.
Name calling? Me? Nah, just the facts and only the facts.
And it is in that interest I submit to you how duped we've been, how absolutely duped by visions of candy canes, unicorns, and fairies, that we've foolishly viewed under the banners “World Peace,” “multi-culturalism,” and “environmentalism.”
Make sure you see the dots I am connecting here because it's metareality, the top layer of reality, of man's Progressive humanistic stupidity that I am writing this to address.
Ice cream, and particularly how we scoop it, is the subject of today's “history lesson” on #ProgressiveStupidity.
If we go back in time to, obviously, after we discovered using dry ice, ammonia (still used in commercial refrigeration), and of course freon to assure freezing temperatures we find smooth, creamy, cooling on a hot day with ice cream.
And here's the scoop:
Notice the long handle? Leverage! The actual mated gearing of gear teeth, and yes we'd use wood for a handle.
Now, the big deal here about this ice cream scoop: What part of it isn't “biodegradable?” Answer: The whole thing is biodegradable. If it were buried in the ground, this ice cream scoop would break down into its original elements and dust. If buried in moist ground, it would break down much faster due to the rusting of the metal components and water's natural solvent attribute with many elements, including the wood handle.
Of course, it might take longer if portions of this ice cream scoop are brass or made of some precious metal, but the fact is, what you're looking at is 50+ years old and still works, still scoops ice cream, and will do so until it breaks, and only if irreparable will this scoop find its way to a landfill somewhere.
So now let's look at a retro of the above ice cream scoop, a “vintage” one of “Progressive Design:”
See that it has a plastic chemical non-biodegradable handle? Notice the lever mechanism is by a group of holes, easier to manufacture and using less metal than the geared lever in the first image. And of course to further save on metal cost the ice cream scoop must be shorter, which means the person using it will not have as much leverage in scooping out ice cream. Will those drilled holes, last anywhere near as long as that antique ice cream scoop with actual gearing on the lever that is matched up to the gear teeth surface to surface? Doubtful.
Yet, in the name of environmentalism, less metal is used to make the second one, and more plastic, and usually these wear out at the outer edge of the scoop, where that pin goes in for the scoop release, as it is not fitted to the hole in the scoop either, or, due to the cheaper metal used, it just rusts at that “wear point,” and that's assuming the handle doesn't crack in 10 years or less. The reason for which is the pressure point of leverage and how it takes on more torque pressure due to being so much shorter than that old wood handle on the older ice cream scoop.
So in 100 years, the old scoop still works and has no reason to be replaced, while that new scoop, 10 of them or more have found their way into the landfills, into the dumps across the world.
Now you're saying, “Littman, this is stupid, you're gonna say that the making of more disposable ice cream scoops proves Progressive Stupidity?” And I reply, “Yes. Better amplified and understood when you replace “ice cream scoop” with antique automobile versus modern day cars; with iPhone, iPad, Galaxy, etc, versus copper land line telephone that you don't upgrade every 6 months to 2 years with a new plan that comes with a new iPhone, iPad, etc., and almost always causes you to discard your old devices as they are slower, have less memory, and networks stop working with them, as well; with desktop computers often holding information that, when compiled, documents your life, your work, your photos, but, which needs to be replaced every few years with a new computer because the operating system upgrades fix security breaches as discovered (and usually doubles the operating system size beyond your current computer's capacity) versus a paper file cabinet with backups of your most important information and items in a safe or bank safety deposit box; with digital books or record systems such as Lexis-Nexis for lawyers where your selection is limited to what's been digitized versus a library with volumes on the shelves, where you can find whatever information you want without a “protected area rope” barring you from reaching for a book even in a Federal Repository – your feet your only limit to the information you receive. And make special note with all these electronics that this isn't including the cost of the bandwidth, servers, and personnel to manage these digital records, all of which, even if entirely wind, solar, etc., is still using more energy than that book sitting there on a shelf, usually in the dark in a cold library, and that this list of #ProgressiveStupidity isn't exhaustive.
Sure, the speed of access is diminished. Sure the ability to look up trivial information is hindered by volumes of significant and important information. So the question is: Are these things, when combined and 90% of the use of technology today, speed and trivial information, really worth the cost of 10 ice cream scoops?; going on 2 decades of digital devices from phones to computers in landfills, some of which are being combed by thieves looking for a way into taking over and stealing others’ property?; losing your lawsuit or being incarcerated because some “standards” of a centralized source of information denied digitizing law or cases that would help you prevail or be found “not guilty?” And this is aside from the idea of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and how we waive that by using, and acknowledging by some click of an “I accept” that one is usually presented with the first time they use the Internet, to something to the effect of “...by using the Internet you understand and agree that there is no guarantee the information transmitted or received will not be viewed by third parties,” a backhanded license to government or anyone else to get whatever they can and leave you with no legal recourse!
I submit to you that the #ProgressiveStupidity in Democratization of American Government, the Progressive “movement,” by Unions, and business people, such as Kevin O'Leary's statement on a recent episode of SharkTank, “I'd sell crap if it makes money,” indicating an absolute embrace of Marx view of Capitalism without even the slightest idea of its difference in comparison to subject servitude under a Crowned head, and how that fact is the difference that would stop any scrupulous and good business person from doing exactly what he just said he'd do, the fact that Capitalism is not about making money but is about having a product or service to sell in a free market of free people, people who want and or need that product or service to make their lives better is the whole and entire reason Capitalism works (something the #ProgressiveStupidity of modern day planned obsolescence “environmentally conscious” ice cream scoop designs with a short in leverage handle yet long in biodegradability, 5,000 yrs, clearly fails to do).
And, that this #ProgressiveStupidity has been able to accomplish selling incompetent design because the People of this nation are so busy paying for the services in relation to these items, be it access to the Internet, the device upgrades, the software to run on them, etc. That it is a flurry, an induced #ProgressiveStupidity fog of “Gruber voter/consumer war” that we must pause and take a step back from (maybe a leap or 2) for a more objective view before we are lost in an overarching reality with a mind of its own, to which we, Individual People, are the disposable minority.
God Bless you and thank you for sharing and reading this,
P.S. Note: Any copyrights on the above photos weren't mentioned on the search engine I used, so I can't name those to whom credit should be given, but do recognize and well understand that if such copyrights exist they belong to those respective holders, whether I know their names or not.
With the rhetoric of today's colleges and universities; with the rhetoric of even those who have billions, such a Buffett, Soros, Winfrey, & Gates (might as well be named as a feigned philanthropic billionaire's club); and with the persistent rhetoric of the Progressives, most of which are Liberal Democrats, telling the rest of us all that's wrong with Capitalism, on the basis of some fictional “public” or “social interest” or even “justice,” it is necessary to look at the principle, to look at Capitalism as the Political, Economic, and Social system of Freedom that it is.
You see, in a nutshell, without Capitalism you own nothing... Nothing! Understand that precious retirement and/or pension is included in this nothing. Our first look at the investments made by the unions who generally are managing, as institutional investors, stocks, bonds (and even Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich's original oil speculation) will be using just one union website that explains their stock holdings, CalPers, http://www.calpers.ca.gov/. Please note the $300 billionish in holdings of just this California State employees union, which, just a month ago was $290 billion, in 2007 dropped to a mere $170 billion. Again, this is just one public employees union's holdings for one State.
And for union Oil Speculation, to which many unions have been involved, I refer you to the statement of Michael W. Masters to the Senate in 2008, explaining:
“You have asked the question “Are Institutional Investors contributing to food and energy price inflation?” And my unequivocal answer is “YES.” In this testimony I will explain that Institutional Investors are one of, if not the primary, factors affecting commodities prices today. Clearly, there are many factors that contribute to price determination in the commodities markets; I am here to expose a fast-growing yet virtually unnoticed factor, and one that presents a problem that can be expediently corrected through legislative policy action.
“Commodities prices have increased more in the aggregate over the last five years than at any other time in U.S. history. We have seen commodity price spikes occur in the past as a result of supply crises, such as during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. But today, unlike previous episodes, supply is ample: there are no lines at the gas pump and there is plenty of food on the shelves.
“If supply is adequate - as has been shown by others who have testified before this committee - and prices are still rising, then demand must be increasing. But how do you explain a continuing increase in demand when commodity prices have doubled or tripled in the last 5 years?
“What we are experiencing is a demand shock coming from a new category of participant in the commodities futures markets: Institutional Investors. Specifically, these are Corporate and Government Pension Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, University Endowments and other Institutional Investors. Collectively, these investors now account on average for a larger share of outstanding commodities futures contracts than any other market participant.” – Emphasis mine. Numbers are footnote references, see http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/052008Masters.pdf?attempt=2 to read these footnotes.
Understand, what I am sharing here is that “Corporate and Government Pension Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, University Endowments and other Institutional Investors” make such large scale investment in exploitation of Capitalism, even if it means their investment causes rapid increases in prices based on the speculation alone, which was a major contributing factor to the 2007 Recession.
So how does this relate to “Capitalism is caring?” As I said, “in exploitation of Capitalism,” which is to say, these pension funds and endowments, “Institutional Investors,” produce nothing, invent nothing. They are money pools for a group of union members, such as college professors or the 5 on the roadside (4 standing holding shovels) while the one guy is digging the hole for a “Your highway funds at work” road construction project, a money pool that is invested as indicated above by Mr. Masters. Amazing, isn't it, that the taxpayer-paid employee pension plan, while exploiting those who produce via the capital and commodities market, exploits those who do produce by the taxes on the citizenry, working at the local restaurant, retail store, big box store, etc., who have to pay more for gasoline or any other commodity, the silent tax of inflation by the tax-payer funded Union Pensions' Profits just makes my blood boil!
You could easily conclude the Unions and their pension fund management are no different than the hedge fund managers, the point of each the same: to always make a profit, their legal fiduciary obligation. It's a great cover isn't it? Unions paying people to chant in the streets for $10 and hour, then $15 per hour if the $10 is reached, knowing full well the dues money and percentage investment from those eventual union members will increase the total pension pool – The Institutional Investment money that was invested in oil speculation and drove the price up to $150 per barrel in 2007. And please recognize that when minimum wage goes up, the public employees now have grounds to demand States and National government give them a raise, or expedite some previously arranged wage increase, no matter if the State can afford it or not. Funny how they use the same hedge fund management approach to wages contract increases isn't it? Almost like they are running unions for a profit, meaning: running a non-profit as a profit enterprise (as Unions are required to be registered as exempt from taxation according to the IRS). Yes, there are no taxes whatsoever paid on these trillions in pension and retirement plans.
I heard a rare and endangered species cricket rub its legs... Oh wait that's the Progressives trying to say something... They are screaming, “Warren Buffett shouldn't pay less taxes than his Secretary!” So you say, yet, you have no trouble with a public sector union whose employees are paid by taxing citizens from being completely tax-exempt while holding 5 trillion dollars of stocks, bonds, and commodities speculation paper? Seems a complete and anti-Capitalist selective hypocrisy and persecution of the “wealthy” for you to arrive at no objection to a collective of elitists who make money as Trustees for public sector union pension plans while private individuals, who you argued in Hobby Lobby are the those real “persons,” and that the government is limited from taking private property from by the 5th Amendment, who you agree have innate 1st Amendment protections, aren't allowed to make the same risk and enjoy the same capital gains benefits as Union Institutional Investors? You'd actually deny a 1st time investor who is investing their post-tax income the right to make tax-free money by risk? I guess so, considering you want the dead to be taxed for leaving their hard-earned money to whoever they wish, even they can't be without government taking some portion... Apparently you've applied the abortion principle of no rights to the murdered fetus Individual to an Individual who leaves property to another when they die, perfect parallel, but surprised you'd make it so blatantly.
And what's so insane, so very insane oh Progressives, is that your Union Pension “investment banking” is entirely based on the success of Capitalism to afford its demise. That you know these businesses, by delivering their products or services, have met their entire requirement to show they care, know that in meeting the contractual obligation with a person who paid, be it to sell gasoline, movie tickets, an item from Amazon, or a gun show, etc., that the caring of the two parties is met upon delivery. Anything beyond that, anything else, is to propagandize and attack the company for sake of attacking Capitalism solely because it is the most moral system in the world. I can say that because we negotiate and exchange our property, our work and labor, which is the Individual determining their value and acting on it by their own standards. The morality of this system is only interrupted by Government which has proven to be the most corrupt and immoral institution on Earth. Government's abuse of its right of force (and when no such right exists just using force) be it by the tax code, or local governments via their enforcement of building and fire codes, or local taxes, such as the tax on “sales” of local retailers, is the only money taken out of the economy and used to pay public servants whose Union Institutional Investor does as Mr. Masters explained above.
So while you Progressives bring up your complaints about Capitalism and spout some “unfairness” talking points, know that you are only talking against Freedom and Individual Liberty, for the sake of the newly named corporate organizational structure: Unions, whose wealth, rivals, and in many cases exceed, the largest corporations and banks in the world, is destabilizing economies and without caring at all about the cost to the individuals in nation after nation, evidenced by you remembering what you were paying at the pump, when talk of $5 a gallon was being assumed “the new normal gas price?” Take a Progressive bow and thank your Institutional Investor Union Pensions for personally redistributing your wealth, since you're so “rich” and so “wealthy.”
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
I am certain this is a significantly covered topic. The trouble with what's out there is a lack of objectivity. You be the judge. I'll do my best to deliver the facts. Separating it out like this makes it much easier for me, and for you, not to confuse the observer and the observed, nor to invert and be subjective from either view.
What does the Declaration of Independence establish? It tells you in most certain terms:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Emphasis done for those who may find it useful.
For instance “certain unalienable rights” will engender the idea of “specific” (limited) rights today, when, at the time, it meant “absolute,” contrary to the United States Supreme Court's rulings, suggesting, “no right is absolute,” where the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” phrase originates, though, often by omission. The phrase is “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” making the idea of protected Freedom of Speech not being absolute, subject to the criteria that the speech is untrue, inaccurate, deceptive, and intended to mislead, cause panic etc., 249 US 47, at page 52, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/case.html.
This was just one illustration of how Free Speech is used to destroy Free Speech, and is backed up by this paragraph from the Hartford Courant, regarding gun control in Connecticut, a few months after the Sandy Hook incident of a mentally deranged person's actions:
“....[T]those using the Second Amendment to justify their right to have high-powered guns with high-capacity gun magazines might be accommodated under an interpretation of the Constitution that would have been applied by our Founders, even as Connecticut considers stricter gun rules.” -- http://articles.courant.com/2013-02-01
Now, the import to this is that the author, Saul Cornell, who explains they fully understand the “interpretation of the constitution that would have been applied by our Founders,” is advocating for gun control by that article, placed in the commentary section, of course, but he makes sure his credentials are noted too:
“Saul Cornell of Redding is a Second Amendment expert and constitutional historian and the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University.” -- Ibid.
So, the take away is this: That, using the Constitution as intended, pursuant to how it was written, we discover absolute rights and absolute limitation imposed on government would be our Founders' interpretation.
Now, I know some of you are saying, “Littman's lost it, he's citing the 2nd Amendment as part of the Declaration of Independence!” Actually, no, I am saying that the Constitution that limits government, and is ratified by the People, is an act and historical factual event in execution of the Declaration of Independence as Our Written Will, that the Constitution constitutes “the consent of the governed,” and that the 2nd Amendment's language, pursuant to the preamble of the Bill of Rights, is intended:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
So ends the idea the “Bill of Rights” is expressing the Rights of Individuals under a national government's absolute power, treated as an instrument establishing the “privileges of US Government subjects.”
The above is merely an aid.
The fundamental principle of all politics throughout history is a Master and servant relationship. Socrates even discusses slavery, without any abhorrent denouncement but as an accepted institution of Greece in Plato's Republic. Tribal Chieftains to the Blueblood Crowned heads of Europe, the politics, even after the existence of America, still the same, understood by these 2 simple inherent questions: Who is the Master? Who is the servant?
These questions, until the existence of the United States of America with a written Constitution, that even ends the institution of slavery by 1808 (see Article I, Sec 9, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html, Federalist 38, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_38.html, and Federalist 42, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html), was answered by a Feudal hierarchy, guild system and noble classes, as well as a parliamentary institution of the “House of Commons” and “House of Lords” never yielding the government to be anything but levels of Masters all under a final Master, a Crowned head.
So now we must play at parsing for clarity, no other reason. “Servitude” and “slavery” are easily identical terms, based on conditions of “employment” which is merely the using of something to achieve an end. If the employment features an ownership clause over you, and treats you as property, it is slavery. However, when done by a Sovereign Crowned head, or a parliament, who makes the law, and adjudges for themselves by whimsical political standards, without a written Constitution, which would mean the entire of Europe, “subject” is included as slavery.
Servitude is employment, and the 13th Amendment, while abolishing slavery, separated out “involuntary servitude” as abolished as well, which is saying in reverse it is not abolishing voluntary servitude.
Do you see the Master and servant relationship that in the modern day is considered “labor law” or “employee employer” law? I mention the modern day to help understand by parallel, not as the standard.
In a nutshell, because it's easy to get “out in the weeds,” so to speak, on this, the Constitution's directive language, its use of “shall,” and “enumerated” powers, instead of “general powers,” without one scintilla’s presence of the word “grant,” or the phrase “grants the people,” explains it is a document establishing a collective public servant to carry out the needs of each Individual's Will. Representatives are intended to hear all constituents, as a matter of their job in public service, the job they volunteered for, by election or even accepting a bureaucratic appointment, and because the constituents constituted the government these public servants volunteer to work for the constituent who is their Master.
The American Constitution, for the first time in known, recorded, history of mankind, in a most clever move of absolute genius, created a government in servitude to carry out the Will of the People as their employer and Master in complete reversal of the role of the private “House of Lords” noble class, the peasant subject doing the bidding of those who demand homage or subject that peasant to imprisonment, the rack, or other public spectacle to intimidate the remainder to obey the “noble” and heed the will of the Guild (modern day union, see “Screen Actors Guild,” the Hollywood Union, http://www.sagaftra.org/about-us/mission-statement).
Yes, the Screen Actors Guild uses remnant terms of the Feudal Era of Oppression (while screaming their actions, even if lies, are protected free speech). As well, the Dark Ages before the Age of Enlightenment and where the Sentience of each Individual is recognized sacred, shattered by bold America, who by Constitution is Individual Liberty living a free way of life in self government, all secured and assured by a government of public servants serving each one of us as their Master. Said one more way, people living their life by our public servant government's execution of the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, though carrying out their job according to the particulars of the Constitution.
This is the Fundamental American Politics that those who cannot handle the responsibility that comes with Freedom want to destroy. They do not care if they eradicate the choice of Freedom from the face of the Earth, as, to them, if that can happen it was meant to happen, and if they did it, it is meant for them to abscond with whatever they can get from the end of Freedom and Individual Liberty.
At least now you know, subject, why you are taught your “constitutional rights.”
God Bless you, thank you for reading and sharing this,
I don't care who you are as an American, just that you are an American.
What I mean is every single one of us is in an oppression situation.
- The poor can't get jobs, can't get the crime to stop, because the Government won't support businesses in their area...
- The wealthy have to pay to play, pay for permits, licensing, taxes, and leap every other regulatory hurdle, as well as risk their money to being lost to open a business, no matter where, and government wants them to open them in areas the government believes will generate more tax revenue...
- The white person who can't get in a college because they have enough white people and are required to make room for other ethnicities or the government will cut their funding...
- The black person who can't get a job because they didn't qualify for the student loan or a grant, and doesn't have the education they wanted, and do need…
- The young student who did qualify for the loan or grant, but didn't know that most of these “grants” have to be paid back, and can't pay back their loan...
- The senior citizen whose fixed income, said to have a “cost of living” increase, buys less and less every day, and as their deductible on their bronze health insurance plan is $5,000, they're exhausting what they have on their $400/pill subscriptions (this one also applies to the poor)...
- Those in the middle find that if they go upward, they'll jump too high, the government's imposed tax tier will absorb whatever increase in income they have and more...
- Veterans can't get healthcare, can't get the money they need, can't get anything they put their lives on the line and often lost a limb for in serving their country, and yet are demanded to be “patient” in the most insensitive use of terms that only pours salt in their wounds...
- The child who is looking for some sort of baseline to understand right and wrong, to understand the value of life, theirs and others, is without any aid from any of the above because they have their own problems...
And all but the child's problem, directly issues from the government, a government by party, not the People. A government that is dividing us along every difference we'll accept to claim a narcissistic special circumstance, a special interest that applies to us and that we expect the government to cater to, without realizing this is the hook, our crutch, our weakness, and all because the political parties want us divided and conquered (commanded) by government when their party is the majority.
Yet, even this writing will be scrutinized for my angle as being opposed to someone else's. It doesn't matter if I said nothing but that they are my fellow Americans matters. That I, a Christian, speak up for gay lives and want to know why they weren't a priority to our President in dealing with Iran; That I, a Christian, do not want women to be persecuted by Sharia law; That I, being a Christian will count against me even though I am an American; and that I am a Constitutional Conservative Christian, will be all that matters to those who have accepted the division as America instead of wanting to stand united as a People so we can question government wisely from all quarters as Free, Individual, Americans.
I want our ills cured in all quarters, and the method is important, for, it cannot exacerbate the oppression we're suffering by a government who wishes us to act like children, to be rivaling interests like rivaling tribes, and to fail to ever hold, together as a People, the very government we constituted and put in place, accountable for the oppression they are causing overall. Freedom is our cry as Americans, because it is our Right and our Property, not by government, but intrinsic to us by whatever Creator we wish, that even in the most platonic sense places the origin of our Rights above man and groups of men, no matter their party or denomination. Objective government, with representatives of all their constituents, not just those who elected them, is how we bring an end to government's oppression by division, government catering to special interests from Civil Rights this or that, to Corporations, as well as other Nation States, and “religious” orders.
We alone are the ones to tell government we'll no longer hate in the name of party, no longer let a party use the power of government to have its way, because we know government power was granted to it by all the people, not just one party, and in no instance was this power granted to oppress those who disagree with the controlling party's views. We want objective government that assures our Individual Liberty and Freedom, not using us against each other to achieve what a party in control of government wants.
It is time Americans stand for Freedom, and stand deliberately, with one voice, so loud that we shake the very solar system we're in!
God Bless you, be Free, thank you for reading and sharing this,
While numerous articles have been floating through my mind, and compulsion to write them fought for reasons I can't explain, I come before you with the following summaries for sake of their point not being lost:
Lufthansa, the Epitome of Altruism & why it is wrong
Many say airlines just don't care about their passengers, passing this off as the cause of the crash. Who can blame them? Socialists constantly saying every advancement of mankind is done by people who don't care about mankind, be it the farming equipment that replaced slavery, to the pesticides that kill an endangered bug as collateral damage for saving crops for food, or to be artificially raising commodity prices to use for making ethanol and pursue other alternative energy ideas. Of course it is that evil corporation that owns the plane, it is their fault...Not! The reality is that as our society has moved away from appreciation of Freedom, ambition, and the curiosity that leads to invention, producing something new that makes the old obsolete (i.e. like farm equipment made the slave obsolete). We've decided to blame anyone with more than us, that we perceive to have some privilege gained by their success – earned or inherited, “they're wrong because they have more than I do”...Perfect Communists!
This is what Lufthansa, and every other business is fighting, and led to the birth of AI...er (sorry Matrix Morpheus moment)...PR (Public Relations). Why was a 28-year old man, who the airline knew had “a previous episode of severe depression” ever allowed into the flight training program? Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot who died crashing the plane into the French Alps, would have been a PR nightmare if rejected, and was going to be a great PR success if he had become a pilot. You see, the company is trying to separate itself from the rest of the airlines, as the rest of the airlines are too, and Lufthansa's approach is to take anyone who wants to be a pilot and teach them to be one, to show their willingness to sacrifice standards for sake of community, in hopes fewer people will say, “Lufthansa doesn't care.”
Well the result is 150 people were sacrificed, on the Altar of Altruism, to the great unicorn of public opinion.
Deny it: Airline is paid, takes your ticket, gets you on a plane, you arrive = Airline caring. You can't. This is their business, and to say that the airline doesn't care, without 50% or more of their planes falling out of the sky, and their passengers not making it to their destination, is to say the airline is supposed to do something else, something in addition to being an airline. Flight A320 shows that this is a dangerous proposition that cost the lives of 146 innocent people. Altruistic Anti-Capitalist Terrorism is to blame for the deaths of these people. Andreas Lubitz never should have been in that cockpit, even as a co-pilot. Anyone who thinks otherwise had better make sure the corporate charter for the airline and its tax ID number accurately depicts the variety of social consciousness programs the airline is taking on, and that they also are willing to admit that these extraneous concerns, can and will affect the airline's performance of its duty, to fly you from point A to point B without incident.
For me, Lufthansa represents the death of Altruism. But, I am sure another extremist who believes in sacrifice will prove me wrong, be it ISIS, Al Qaida, or Iran with a nuke.
Hillary Clinton's Paperless Office
Having been a small business owner at the beginning of the computer revolution, when Supercalc and Visicalc were coming out, precursors to Lotus 1-2-3 and Microsoft Office, the vision of the paperless office was being discussed amongst the coding and developer community. The great possibilities and potentials were, of course, recognized, and as they sunk in and lost their newness shimmer, the fears and real potentials were considered: “They can erase history. They can set-up an archive and then just change it to say something else.” Thus and so, Hillary Clinton has carried herself, electronically. She has erased history to meet her liking, she has decided that she is the most objective reviewer of her information as to what pertains to government activity and what doesn't. All the while receiving billions of dollars in a tax-exempt foundation, a not so amazing “rags to riches” in trust story. Her control over her server, a specious means to control the information and assume the information belongs to her as well... I believe it's time we used this with Microsoft, to explain why we're exempt from their End User License Agreement, don't you?
We volunteer to buy the product, yet are stuck with the End User License Agreement explaining we own nothing, that we are being licensed the product and Microsoft can prosecute us for wrongdoing in the use of their software.
Compare: Hillary Clinton accepted (thereby volunteering) to be in an office of trust as Secretary of State and was fully apprised that all information obtained in that capacity is subject to the law governing government property and disclosure, and that the government can prosecute her for wrongdoing in disclosure, omission, and erasure of information in her possession or control as Secretary of State.
Compare further: I am a small business owner. I agree with the Tea Party and volunteer to set up a non-profit organization to receive donations so I can help those who are like-minded win the next election. At signing my IRS application it explains I am subject to the penalties (civil and criminal) of perjury if I made any misstatements. I make no misstatements, am not prosecuted, but the IRS wants records from me, audits my unrelated personal business, wants lists of members of my Tea Party group, and after years of providing this information, continues to stonewall and fail to issue or reject my application to be a political non-profit organization.
Note in this last example, that if I deleted any records, claiming, “those are personal,” I'd be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, and, if what was deleted had anything to do with money, tax evasion.
Yes, special rules apply for the Clintons, rules that admit that Progressivism is about subjective tyrannical fairness for and by those who will tow the Progressive Party line. Any other American, when asked by the government to “produce your books and records” would be, at minimum, fined per record for each record deleted, and could be jailed by an IRS agent who wants to make an example out of them. But no one wants to make an example of Hillary Clinton, of what happens when corruption is treated properly. Make no mistake, denial of access to records that belong to the office, as we paid her salary in that office, is corruption.
Obama's snubbing of the Gay Community
While President Obama said things like, “the election is over, I won” in answer to his previous opponent, a sitting Senator, who was asking him a question in that capacity, let us remember the gay community votes Democrat and Liberal. So I ask, where are you now gay community, are you ecstatic that Barack Obama, who you voted for for 2 terms, negotiated a treaty with Iran, which didn't in any way whatsoever address that Iran hangs gays by the neck just for being gay? Please, let it sink in if that was too heavy, that you, gay community, voted in a President who only wanted your vote but didn't actually care enough about you to do anything about gays being killed in Iran as part of a treaty deal, not even a mention!
As a Christian I don't agree with your lifestyle, but it is your choice, not mine to make. I wouldn't want you stoned and killed for your choice, for that's another imposing force upon you that is not their right. And I just as well do not want you trying to force me, through law or otherwise, to do something I can't do in good conscience. I'd think this is a mutually respectable and able to be appreciated position. Explain, oh gay community, how Barack Obama and the Democrats celebrating a treaty with Iran that didn't even make the slightest effort to end the hanging of gays for being gay is showing you even a modicum of respect.
“You’re attacking Obama because he's black!”
I'll make this quick: Anyone who says that about you when criticizing Obama's policies, is admitting in the reverse, “I am defending Obama because he's black” and thereby, they, not you, they are the racist! If race is the reason to defend, it is just as racist as it would be if it were a reason to attack, and for anyone to jump to that conclusion about criticisms of Barack Obama is to jump to a conclusion of convenience for the over-hyped weight of the racist charge. A black man whose middle name is “Hussein” was elected President of the United States twice. Bury your notions of racism, especially any institutional or educated idea of it, for they do not exist EXCEPT in the reverse. And that will only keep racism alive, to never end. If you want racism to end, be objective in reply, don't accuse me or anyone else criticizing Obama of attacking him for his skin color, to also admit that's the only reason you're defending him, and instead address the policy criticism raised.
That's how we end racism, through objectivity, through reason and not maligning people by innuendo and baseless claims for sake of repeating them enough so a group will believe it. Winning elections, as has been proven by all that's fallen apart around the world in the last 6 years, is not the point to electing our representatives in government, but, instead, to achieve the maximum Freedom and Individual Liberty possible so all can prosper.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,