On September 12, 2009 a very large crowd gathered from all parts of the country to manifest grassroots anger against the Washington politicians who are betraying the liberty of the American people. In my lifetime I have never known such a large manifestation of public feeling to pass with so little notice or discussion in the so-called "mainstream" media outlets. This absence of coverage obviously tells us very little about the event that took place. However, it tells us all we need to know about the people who control the so-called "mainstream" media. They believe the people of this country no longer matter.
The confusion over how many people attended what its organizers called the 9-12 March indicates that, at least since 1995, the supposed representatives of the people in Congress have shared this belief. That's when they allowed the National Park Service to forgo any effort objectively to estimate attendance at events along and around the Capitol Mall. If the people in Congress still respected the authority of the people, then when people around the country care enough to converge on Washington in large numbers, their representatives would care enough to assure accurate information about how many they are. Today's Washington pols obviously don't. It doesn't matter whether people are accurately counted, because the people don't count. (Counting them might also interfere with the elitist agenda these supposed representatives of the people now actually serve.)
This lack of interest in accurately counting people has disturbing implications. Anyone who really cared for the sovereignty of the American people would care deeply that their gatherings be accurately assessed.
After all, the Constitutional liberty of the American people depends on periodic elections. What are elections? They are gatherings at which people cast their votes. The vote itself resolves into gatherings of the people around this or that proposal or candidate for office. Though only the gatherings carefully organized to respect the requirements of the Constitution officially express the authority of the people, it was once the case that prudence obliged actual or aspiring political leaders to show some respect for unofficial gatherings as well. This was especially true when the gatherings were large, and represented heartfelt views. Whether the feelings were for or against the views and prospects of such leaders, they mattered because the actions of the people still mattered (and might actually affect those views and prospects.)
What has changed? What leads Washington politicos to shrug off gatherings of the people as effortlessly as they do their own camera smiles? In this regard the fate of the 9-12 march is revealing. Uncounted thousands made a determined effort to attend. Instead of going to the Little League game, visiting the mall or watching some sporting event on TV, they preferred to exercise their citizen rights. But to the self-worshipping political and media elites, they did not exist. Their heartfelt efforts were of no significance. Their choice to demonstrate concern for their liberty and their country was beneath contempt.
These elites count on the assertion that has become a mantra of their power: Perception is Reality. The so-called "mainstream" media governs perception. Since they ignored the event, it wasn't real. It didn't exist.
People who resent this arrogant dismissal of their actions and feelings need to face a hard reality. As things stand right now in this country, the dismissive, self-worshipping, haughty elites have every reason to conclude that their attitude is justified by the facts. Many of the people who attended the 9-12 March couldn't wait to get to a television set to see whether the so-called "mainstream" media covered the event. Many couldn't help feeling diminished and crestfallen when they looked in the media mirror and found no reflection of the reality they had experienced. Consciously or not, they doubted what their eyes had seen, what their ears heard, what their hearts felt. Even now they wonder. Even now they hesitate to give full credence to what they know from firsthand experience.
Too many people have fallen prey to the mental illness that presently impairs the public's consciousness of people and events. They neurotically refuse to believe an event is real until they see it on TV, even when they themselves have been involved in it. They feel discouraged and crestfallen when something that deeply affects and moves them isn't validated by the brightly lit images projected onto the walls of their electronic caves.
The effect this has on the confidence and morale of people suffering from it reminds me of the effect certain voodoo charms and rituals are said to have on those who expose their minds to its power. Will and physical energy can be influenced, for better or worse, simply because people assign the voodoo priests and priestesses an indispensable role in shaping their perception of reality.
Americans are addicted to the voodoo media personalities who inform their public consciousness, much as voodoo followers are addicted to the priests or priestesses who inform their private hopes and dreams. Contemporary power elites believe they can control people by manipulating the media witch doctors, much the way tyrants and rulers manipulated the oracles and soothsayers of the ancient world. One important effect of this manipulation is to discourage people from believing in the power of their own preferences and inclinations. People whose faith and convictions depart from the path that serves the power elites are made to feel isolated and alone. Even when they gather by the thousands or many tens of thousands, they look into a media mirror that says the crowd did not exist.
Though the power elites act as if they believe this is a godlike power, they are mistaken, for they cannot conjure something out of nothing. But they can make large gatherings of the people disappear. They did it on 9-12. They do it periodically on some key dates in November as well. No, I don't mean that they somehow physically change vote totals. They don't have to erase votes at the ballot box when they have already erased candidates from the mind and will of manipulated and demoralized people. ("I'd vote for people who really represent my beliefs, but they can't win," they say. And they blink.)
If people who believe in American liberty are ever to see it reclaimed, they will have to do something many will find far more difficult than coming to a march in Washington. They will have to break their addiction to the voodoo media cult that is sapping their will to act on what they know is right for their country. The first step: turn off the voodoo media. Go cold turkey. Give up the pathetic belief that you'll miss something if you don't tune into the self-confessed 'story-telling' they pass off as news and information.
Those who are loyal to liberty and the Constitution should pick a day, let's say November 11. It is already set aside for remembering the extraordinary deeds of everyday Americans who helped to defeat threats to freedom in the twentieth century. What better way to honor them, than to do something to defeat the most insidious threat to freedom in this first decade of the twenty-first. We should pledge not to watch the voodoo media priests and priestesses; not to think about them; not to care even for a moment what they say or do. We should forget that they exist. We should lay down our remotes, as the combatants of WWI laid down their arms.
Instead of being absorbed by the fabricated public reality they use to manipulate us, we should gather in our Churches, our schools, our playing fields and other public venues, and let our remembrance of the citizen-soldiers who served freedom in our military remind us of the public reality we can forge with our own hands, and with the faith that founded and preserved this nation free. And instead of looking with pathetic hope to see if the voodoo media has acknowledged our existence, we should look to our own hearts. We should there seek confirmation that what we do has pleased the Creator God, who first informed our nature with its unalienable rights, even as His power shaped and informed the rules for all the universe.
Think about it: a day without the media; a media free day. It could be the first day of solid hope for American freedom we've seen in a long time. Once we get the hang of it, who knows? It might just become a habit, along with thinking, and voting, for ourselves.
George Tiller spent his days systematically slaughtering helpless children in the womb. His murderous practice focused especially on those near birth, and included techniques that required literally tearing them limb from limb. Like Shakespeare's homicidal tyrant, Macbeth, he was unafraid of what he himself did make, "strange images of death."
On Sunday, May 31, 2009 an assailant killed Tiller as he took time off from his professional endeavors to attend church services.
Jim Pouillon spent his days sitting in a lawn chair holding up signs that contrasted images of living babies with the gut-wrenching images of dead babies, like the victims of Tiller's handiwork.
On Friday, September 11, 2009 an assailant murdered Pouillon as he practiced his vocation in front of Owosso High School in Michigan.
Tiller died while trying, through a false show of piety, to distract people from his perpetration of a crime the Bible tells us God hates (The taking of innocent life is an abomination.)
Pouillon died while trying, in true piety, to rouse the just heart of people around him to the ugliness of that crime, and their duty to respect the children whom God has told us He especially loves.
After Tiller's death, those who praise and protect his murderous profession blamed peaceful pro-life witnesses like Jim Pouillon for the killing, (with headlines like this one Why the Right Shoots Abortion Doctors not Child Traffickers from Huffingtonpost.com.) They demanded that pro-life leaders condemn the killing. Their footmen in the Obama faction rushed "US Marshalls to protect abortion clinic [sic] and doctors around the country."
In the wake of Jim Pouillon's murder, these footmen of the culture of death have little to say. They, and their servile so-called "mainstream media" claque try to hide or downplay the unrighteous hatred that was the motive for the murder. Their agents in power, far from offering protection to peaceful witnesses for life around the country, can barely conceal the encouragement they gave to such murders when they officially proclaimed the lie that law enforcement officers should regard pro-life witnesses as terrorists in waiting.
Some pro-life leaders have called on the cult of death's prominent acolytes to condemn Jim Pouillon's murder. I say that people of conscience should not care what these death cultists condemn. They are wily advocates of the specious 'right' to murder children in the womb. Their condemnation of murder is worth about as much as George Tiller's piety. It means nothing because their hands are full of blood.
They purposefully harden the human heart against the just claims of innocent human life, whether it sleeps in the womb or sits in a lawn chair, bearing prayerful witness that invokes God's authority in support of those claims. (The force of that authority is revealed in the discomfiting jolt of repugnance most people feel when they see images of babies like those that died at George Tiller's hands.) They deny the intrinsic worth of human life in its beginnings. Therefore, they devalue human beings whatever their stage of life. They purposefully open the way to bureaucratic abuse of the elderly and infirm through health care rationing. They purposefully blunt the righteous hatred of terrorist acts, such as those that claimed the lives of thousands on that other September 11 in 2001.
I care not for their silence, nor for that of all the world. I care only for the blood of Jim Pouillon. Like the blood of Abel it cries out from the ground. Though human ears are deaf; though human lips are silent; God hears. God speaks.
He speaks with the voice of millions, children crying out for joy, As the gates of heaven open, as the angels' songs deploy.
For a moment last night something unprecedented, unheard of, indeed almost unbelievable happened while Barack Obama was giving one of his televised, teleprompter specials: his audience actually heard the truth.
Of course they didn't hear it from Obama. "A republican House member shouted, "You lie" during [alleged] President Obama's health care speech to Congress on Wednesday." As we sadly would expect from the gutless gaggle of Obama lickspittles that dominates Congress at the moment, "members of both parties condemned the heckling." Thanks I'm sure to this pressure "After the speech, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson issued a statement apologizing for his outburst."
Poor Mr. Wilson! He dared to say what is on the hearts of a growing majority of Americans sick to death of the boldfaced prevarication now worshiped and glamorized as masterful oratory. He violated two of the unwritten rules of order that now govern the sick bipartisan dictatorship that presently masquerades as the U.S. Congress. He spoke the truth. He dared to represent the views and convictions of his constituents. I'm sure that millions of informed voters felt a lately unaccustomed surge of respect and gratitude for that singular voice speaking with laconic eloquence the very words they were repeatedly shouting at their television screens.
I will admit it. Such viewers are hardier souls than I. I know that actually listening to so many lies, spoken with the arrogant self-assurance of a master, is more degradation than my free citizen heart can bear. I know that, like Joe Wilson, I would "let my emotions get the best of me." But years of academic discipline have accustomed me to read all kinds of groundless stuff and nonsense on the printed page without prejudicial emotion. So I wait to read such speeches in print. (By the way, those who know me at all well know that, with the exception of the speeches like the one G.W. Bush gave in the wake of 9/11, I generally took the same precaution with every speech Bill Clinton or either of the Bushes gave when they were in office. God knows, I haven't risked listening to a speech by the sitting occupant of the White House since Ronald Reagan left office.)
So I admire the informed viewers who suffered through the faux decorum of last night's oppressive caricature of the solemn moments for which such joint sessions of Congress were once reserved. Obviously, Obama's speech didn't bring to mind FDR's stern request for a declaration of war against the Japanese empire. No, it was a painstakingly assembled repetition of the oft refuted lies and false promises Obama has relied upon to promote his faction's proposed government takeover of the health sector- a scheme that is itself an assault on truth, conscience and the survival of American liberty.
Though I understand the pressure that led Joe Wilson to repent of his clarion moment of truth, it disappointed me, as I'm sure it disappointed voters in his district who had just about decided to make him an exception to the "throw da bums out" tidal wave rising to sweep aside this forgettable Congress of socialist toadies and tut-tutting fellow travelers in 2010. Where are the sturdy tribunes of the people who had the courage to speak the truth and let the votes fall where they may? Where are the frontier spirits that would brave the lions of Washington corruption, relying on their faith in the decent voters who elected them to defy its pressures? I guess they've all moved to the DC suburbs and forgotten their way home.
Rather than accept the pretense that civility and politeness require that we patiently suffer the arrogant lies of would be tyrants bent on finalizing the destruction of our sovereignty, I think it's long past time for Americans who understand and love their liberty to remind them of the first rule of civility when addressing the sovereign body of the people- Don't throw proven lies in our face and expect us to grovel and applaud. You address the Congress of the United States, not the servile bipartisan Congress of some Communist People's Republic. Not yet, anyway. And not ever- not once we get the chance to trump your false promise of socialist utopia with this true promise we now make solemnly to ourselves and for our liberty- We promise to send a legion of Joe Wilsons to Congress in 2010, who will speak the truth and make you apologize for trying to enslave us with your lies.
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33)
Today another court hearing is being held with respect to the effort to get at the truth concerning Barack Obama's Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Obama faction representatives at the U.S. Justice Department are moving to quash the possibility of any serious investigation of the relevant facts. With respect to the hearing before Federal Judge David Carter, involving "attorney Orly Taitz and numerous plaintiffs", including me, an article at WND.com reports that "In a motion filed Friday in Santa Ana, Calif., attorneys for the government did not directly address the merits of Taitz's claims, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office."
It's ironic. Today Obama will address America's school children. Many parents have expressed their anger over what they regard as an effort to seduce their children into the Obama personality cult being assiduously promoted by the Obama faction's media claque. However, Newsmax.com reports that noted Republicans Newt Gingrich (Gingrich: Obama School Speech Good Idea) and Laura Bush (Laura Bush backs Obama on School Speech) have no problem with the speech. Gingrich says "It is going be a totally positive speech. If that is what it is, it is good to have the president of the United States saying to young people across America stay in school and do your homework. It's good for America." The former first Lady declares that it's "really important for everyone to respect the president of the United States."
Such 'business as usual' niceties beg a simple question, however. Why should the citizens of the United States have more respect for Barack Obama than he has for the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, by whose authority he claims to be President of the United States? Thanks to the Declaration of Independence, the United States is not Great Britain. Unquestioning deference to titles and the trappings of office has never been the basis for the respect Americans have for the President or any other official. In and of themselves such officials are no better than anyone else.
We respect the just form of government established by the Constitution. Those authorized by the Constitution to occupy and carry out the offices (duties) it establishes are the beneficiaries of this formal respect. Beyond that, we owe them no more or less respect than we accord to any other citizens, or for that matter expect to be accorded ourselves.
As they come to understand the facts of the situation, a growing number of Americans seriously doubt that Barack Obama is in fact authorized by the U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States. The Constitution requires that to be eligible for that office an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States. We would reasonably expect an individual sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States frankly and voluntarily to submit any and all information necessary to establish compliance with its terms. Instead when confronted by questions concerning the circumstances of his birth, Barack Obama has refused to take the simple step of releasing for proper scrutiny the document that should allay all concern. He has gone further. By every legal means at his disposal he has sought to prevent release and scrutiny of any and all evidence that might bear on the facts of his birth, or his claims of citizenship at various stages of his life.
But he has not been content to shirk his own sworn duty. Through his personal attorneys, and the U.S. Justice Department's lawyers he has relied on elitist arguments that subvert the long recognized right of the people "to appeal to the standard they have formed", i.e., the Constitution of the United States, and seek by reasonable and proper means to secure respect for its provisions. According to these arguments, Americans must be part of some special and privileged class in order by legal means to seek redress against individuals whose self-serving dereliction of duty assaults the integrity of the Constitution and thus damages the whole body politic. In order to protect himself from scrutiny, Obama seeks to cut off all peaceful and legal means to call him to account for his evident evasion of the Constitution's requirements. Apparently, he cares more for the peaceful enjoyment and security of his own ambition for power than he does for the Constitutional agreement on which the domestic peace and security of the nation depends. Indeed, he and those willing to defend or acquiesce in his dereliction have quietly relied upon the tacit threat that, if not sustained by legal maneuvering, his evasion of the Constitution's requirements will be enforced by means that transgress the boundaries of civil peace. "There will be riots in the streets."
Thankfully Orly Taitz and the people she represents have more respect for that Constitutional agreement than Obama does. Despite legal setbacks; despite vicious name calling and other attempts to dehumanize and degrade them; despite studied efforts to ruin their reputations and deprive them of their jobs and other means of support, they persevere in the effort, by peaceful and legal means, to secure a serious and respectful inquiry into the facts that must be evaluated in order to honor the Constitution's eligibility provision according to its terms.
It is more than just a sad day when the peaceful efforts of people seeking simply to preserve the basis for civil order and peace can be thwarted and repressed by others quietly willing to rely on tacit threats of civil disorder. There was a time when it was understood that one of the virtues required of judges and others sworn to uphold the Constitution was the courage to do so despite such mobocratic terrors. Of course, such courage has been wanting before in America's history, when racist lynch mobs went about their deadly efforts to discourage and repress the citizen rights of black Americans. Now is cowardice come again, only this time surrendering the rights and Constitutional sovereignty of the whole American people?
According to an AP article at NEWSMAX.com "The Supreme Court appears poised to wipe away limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions in time for next year's congressional elections in a case that began as a dispute over a movie about Hilary Rodham Clinton." Now, I have for years argued that the whole regime of campaign finance regulation is a patently unconstitutional elite assault on the sovereignty of the American people. It masquerades as a populist effort to control the electoral influence of money. In fact, it aims to give big money unchallenged sway over the choices effectively available to the electorate during general elections.
Given the direction of current events, it appears that many Americans are fully awakening to the elitists' strategy for manipulating the outcome of U.S. elections. The awakening began several years ago when concern over border security led many to speak out against the elite betrayal of American sovereignty. They realized that a coalition of elitists from both "major" political parties had quietly surrendered control of U.S. borders. It was (and still is) poised to pass legislation that will turn the resulting tide of illegal immigration into a force that achieves the demographic subversion of the American electorate. Now people who supposedly are its representatives are rudely dismissing the electorate's legitimate concerns over the Obama faction's proposed government takeover of the U.S. health system. Thanks to their arrogance, many voters are awakening to the realization that these elected officials no longer speak as representatives, but as rulers. They no longer see themselves working for the people who elected them.
Upset by this arrogance, a growing number of voters have realized that they must find some way to reassert their control, or else government of by and for the people will be lost for good. A "throw da bums out" mentality is beginning to take hold. Is it strong enough to defy the sophisticated structures of manipulation now in place? Will there be alternative candidates available in the 2010 elections really loyal to the American people? Will there be any who are sincerely dedicated to restoring Constitutional limits on government power, limits meant to recognize and secure the sovereignty of the people?
Such real alternatives would be more likely if laws that restrict the people's freedom of political speech and association were widely recognized for what they are- unconstitutional assaults against the public liberty, assaults that consolidate elitist control of the political process. Thanks to these unconstitutional measures individual citizens cannot freely express their views in the critical weeks preceding an election. They cannot use their associations and organizations to publicize those views by the most effective means. They cannot freely and to the extent they choose, associate their money with the candidates and causes that represent those views.
So liberty will benefit from a Supreme Court decision that frees corporations and unions from these restrictions, right? Wrong! The whole point of the phony campaign finance "reforms" was to assure that big corporations and big labor (which are now the counterpoints of the same big government political agenda) would control the alternatives available in an increasingly phony offering of political choices. All along the real aim of the phony "reforms" has been to hobble the potential effect of individual contributors.
Individuals who are not slaves to the colluding imperatives of big business, big labor and big government pose the greatest danger to the elitist subversion of self-government. If people of modest individual wealth can freely combine their capital to any degree they wish, they have at least a chance to push a candidate pass the threshold of viability in any given election. In this respect political potential may be like a chemical reaction. The more politically inert candidates favored by the elitists have a harder time generating a reaction among the voters. Their candidacies only succeed given a huge infusion of resources and a manipulative structure that inhibits more intrinsically appealing candidates from fair consideration. Given a fair opportunity to consider them, candidates more truly representative of the voters' heartfelt convictions more easily produce a positive reaction. The critical mass of money resources needed to make them viable is therefore proportionately smaller.
As we approach the 2010 elections it will be transparently ironic if a Supreme Court decision frees the big corporations and labor unions from spending limits and constraints, while leaving individuals to labor under unconstitutional political disabilities. The irony intensifies when we remember the original rationale for the Bill of Rights. The American people laid claim to sovereignty based on the principles of justice articulated in the Declaration of Independence. According to those principles, individuals are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The Bill of Rights was intended to secure the freedoms logically connected with those rights, most especially in the political realm.
Do big corporations and big unions have unalienable rights? They are legal persons, deriving their existence from human positive law and having no rights except those derived from it. Unalienable rights are, by contrast, facts of nature reflecting the will of the Creator God who fashioned it. The individuals enjoying those rights are not figments of human positive law but natural persons, whose rights derive from an authority that transcends humanity and is antecedent to all merely human positive law.
A Supreme Court decision that purports to recognize the rights of the legal figments while leaving under fatal assault the rights of the natural persons will truly stand American political justice on its head. It will be in the electoral realm the practical counterpart of the Court decisions that protect the fictional right to homosexual marriage while destroying the just prerogatives of the natural family. And it will come just in time to make sure that the elitist forces that dominate the existing so-called two-party system have free rein to gather and spend the huge resources they will surely need to thwart the sovereignty of the people one last time.
That's irony to be sure, but only a fool would believe it is just a coincidence.
Posts
