The Union is Sick!
Attorney at Law
February 1, 2006
Copyright Peter J. Mancus 2006
President George Bush II on January 31, 2006 delivered his "State of the Union" address to Congress and on national TV. The real "state of the Union," however, was not what Bush II said it was. Instead, the real "state of the Union" was what happened in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the United States, before Bush II, gave his speech and later.
Last night, in this nation's capitol, two peaceful adult females were denied their First Amendment right of "free speech" by Washington, D.C. police for wearing clothing with political statements inside "the peoples’ house," namely, the United States Congress, before Bush II gave his "State of the Union" speech. These two females were a U.S. Congressman's wife and war protestor Cindy Sheehan. The Congressman’s wife was forcibly removed from the public gallery solely because she wore clothing that said "Support U.S. troops." Sheehan was arrested, manhandled, charged with "unlawful conduct," and was incarcerated because she peacefully and silently wore a sweat shirt that said "2,245 How many more?"
What happened to these two ladies is tragic on multiple levels. Sheehan’s son volunteered for duty in Iraq, and he was killed in Iraq. Did her son go to Iraq to help liberate Iraqi’s only to have his own mother stripped of her First Amendment right to "free speech"?
Sheehan is not the only mother of a U.S. military service member who has been stripped of her rights. A lady in Denver, Colorado, who has a son in the U.S. Armed Forces, overseas, while riding a public bus that stopped in a "Federal District" in Denver, where she made no effort to get off, was arrested merely because she peacefully stood on her rights and refused to disclose official identification to a policeman who demanded same from her, even though, objectively, she functioned only as a peaceful, law-abiding, passenger on that bus, going from Point A to Point B. Thus, "Your papers, please.," has begun to become reality in these United States. Thus, how many "Check Point Charlies," as in, along the now torn down "Berlin Wall," will our Misleaders erect for us in the United States? As "our fighting men" are overseas, spilling their blood and consuming our tax tribute, to liberate foreigners, why do we tolerate Misleaders who abandon Freedom at Home for ourselves?
The Congressman’s wife is one. Cindy Sheehan is two. The lady on the bus in Denver is three. Who is next? How many more will their be before our descent into a political-legal hell is over?
Everyone is free to agree or to disagree with Sheehan’s views about the war in Iraq and Bush II’s culpability for that war and the death of her son. However, per a faithful compliance with the real Constitutional Rule of Law, no one is free to strip Sheehan, or the Congressman’s wife, of their First Amendment rights, or the lady on the bus in Denver of her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Some believe that the police who exercised their power over these ladies behaved lawfully, and it is constitutional to impose neutral time and place limits on what the Congressman’s wife and Sheehan could wear, near, or inside, the building were President Bush II delivered his State of the Union speech. I, however, believe that what the police did against these two ladies is unconstitutional.
My primary reasons for that belief are: 1) Their messages were written on their clothing and their clothing, but for their message(s,) was not objectionable; 2) Since their clothing, but for their message, was not objectionable, government’s agents, by doing what they did, manifested an impermissible viewpoint discrimination against both ladies, which is an indirect way of government deeming what shall be orthodox, telling people what is permissible to think, to communicate and to act, which violates government’s duty to maintain official neutrality among competing points of view; 3) Neither lady held anything that blocked someone's view; 4) Neither lady made an audible interruption that interfered with, delayed, or disrupted, the proceeding or anyone’s enjoyment of same; 5) Even if others might be offended by either or both messages worn on their clothing, it is unconstitutional to hold against either lady how others might react to their written, silent messages; 6) These messages did not contain any foul word or libel, and they did not constitute an audible or visual disruption or impairment of anyone’s ability to hear, to see, to communicate, or to enjoy the event; therefore, there was no compelling government need to strip Sheehan or the Congressman's wife of their First Amendment rights; 7) First Amendment rights are in the most "fundamental" category, and they are also in the "conservative of all other rights" category, which means two things–first, they are entitled to the highest form of legal protection and second, government has a high burden of proof to establish a compelling need to impose any neutral time and place regulation, which, in my judgment, the government cannot do, especially since neither lady created an audible and/or visual line of sight obstruction or commotion; 8) The person(s) who created the otherwise unnecessary disturbance were the police who manhandled these ladies in order to enforce government’s impermissible, unconstitutional, viewpoint discrimination against these ladies; 9) A local ordinance or even a federal statute that does not pass strict scrutiny standards does not trump anyone’s First Amendment rights; 10) No one should have been permitted to create an audible and/or line of sight obstruction but neither lady did that, and it is wrong to presume that either or both would have; 11) It is unconstitutional to arrest someone for fear of what they might do before they do it; 12) Silently wearing clothing with a few words and numbers on it, none of which are foul words or libel, does not present a threat of imminent danger or violence; 13) These messages are well within the established boundaries of classic protected First Amendment conduct; 14) Precisely because this event was a gathering of the federal government’s senior leadership, that was a splendid opportunity and an inexpensive way for both ladies to convey their messages to VIPs, and each had a right to do so as long as they remained audibly and visually non-disruptive beyond just showing up wearing their message on their clothing; 15) The police in the United States are not literally the fashion police, especially when there was no excessive exposure of sexual body parts on public display; 16) The First Amendment is not limited to going into the desert or onto a stranded island and declaring something when no one is around to receive the message or to declare one’s message to people who are politically insignificant.
Thus, since when has wearing clothing that states "Support U.S. troops" or "2,245 How many more?" become grounds for police intervention? Since when has the peaceful, silent exercise of a constitutional right to communicate, as part of the political process, to support, or to object, become a crime? When did the police in the United States acquire legitimate power to arrest anyone who peacefully and silently exercises "free speech"?
Is the exercise of a right enshrined in the United States Constitution a crime? Legally, by definition, "No!" Conceptually, a crime, and the peaceful exercise of a right, are mutually exclusive. However, currently, realistically, when the real law is enforced arbitrarily and unconstitutionally, the peaceful—and legally correct—exercise of a right enshrined in the United States Constitution is now too often treated as a crime.
Question: Is the United States "united"? Answer: No! She is extremely divided against herself, and she is extremely polarized, paranoid, and sick.
Question: Is the United States a nation suffering from arbitrary rule? Answer: Yes.
Question: What is Mankind's greatest achievement? Answer: The Bill of Rights—the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, which further declared additional restrictions on governments' powers and further clarified what are among the most basic rights secured to United States citizens.
Question: What is under sustained attack in the United States? Answer: Each right declared in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution.
Question: Who is attacking these rights? Answer: Too many government officials and other fellow Americans. Tragically, there exists compelling evidence that the United States has become a gaggle, is no longer a thriving, coherent, rational, sane, viable, internally consistent with its own laws and avowed ideals, nation. Increasingly, there is compelling evidence of a stark realization. The United States is at war with herself, is divided against herself, and her own people, and, even though she is the world's only current Super Power with impressive military prowess, she is also politically and legally sick and is perhaps terminally ill.
A grand lady with a torch held high for the world to see, who stands tall in New York harbor, is a magnificent symbol, but this symbol is no longer reliable proof that the United States is composed of citizens who harbor a serious commitment to Liberty or to the Constitutional Rule of Law.
On January 31, 2006, a Congressman's wife and Cindy Sheehan, in the nation's capitol, repeat—in the nation's capital—had their free speech rights snuffed out by sworn peace officers who took a solemn oath to enforce the law, evenhandedly, consistent with this nation's Supreme Law, the Constitution. That duty included the duty to honor everyone's "free speech" rights and to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional order or an unconstitutional federal statute or local rule against "free speech."
At its core, the highest form of "free speech," the part deserving of the highest legal protection against infringement or suppression, is the right to publicly criticize government officials and to question "authority." A corollary to this right is government's corresponding duty to honor this right and to refrain from officially declaring what shall be orthodox. Cindy Sheehan exercised that core right responsibly. Her right to exercise that right is not dependent on whether a majority or officials agree with her.
Is there a meaningful distinction between what the Washington, D.C. police did to these two ladies on January 31, 2006 in the nation's capitol as compared to what Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam did to their detractors? As to punishment inflicted, there is indeed a meaningful distinction, but, as to the act of suppression itself, there is no meaningful distinction. The act of suppression itself is undisputed fact. To make matters worse, this act of suppression—of censorship—occurred in the nation's capitol, in the bowels of the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress, and it was enforced by police paid for by tax tribute.
If there is no meaningful distinction, as discussed above, to what extent is the United States better than the tyrannical regimes we oppose?
When comparing the current United States to Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, or Saddam’s Iraq, I recall a TV interview of basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain was discussing the then current world heavy weight boxing champion, who had been accused of multiple rapes. Chamberlain said that he personally had slept with thousands of adoring fans [I think he said over 20,000!,] and he was never accused of rape–primarily because he always treated his partners gentlemanly, but the boxing champ had a crude interpersonal style that alienated women who enthusiastically were once willing to become his sexual toy. My definitive point here is this: Like the boxer who was accused of rape, the United States, in 2006, while still overtly nowhere near as bad as a blatantly open totalitarian regime, has become more overtly crude with its increasing, overly aggressive, overly zealous, oppression and its increasing violation of its own bedrock laws. At the current rate, the number of "rapes" under color of law, will proceed, unchecked, at an apparent accelerating pace.
Has there been an outpouring of official or public outrage over what happened to Cindy Sheehan on January 31, 2006, in the nation's capitol? To the extent the answer is "No," how viable is the alleged right to free speech? What is the nation's life expectancy–especially in a constitutional sense? Are we killing ourselves? Murdering ourselves?
When government moves to gag Cindy Sheehan, to strip her of her "free speech" rights, and when our elected officials remain mute, and when the U.S. citizenry remains mute, how viable is the right to "free speech"? To what extent do you have meaningful First Amendment rights when your attempt to peacefully and silently exercise same is dishonored–by the police? When the vast majority remain mute?
Is a First Amendment right vindicated in court months or years later a delayed right? Is a delayed right even a right? Are rights a matter of government’s grace, which government may arbitrarily withhold? Is a right vindicated in court months or years later a substantive right or a mere shadow of the real deal?
Those who remain mute, in effect, have cut the First Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, granting Governments' Agents the dangerous power to declare what shall be orthodox and who is a criminal.
What happened to Cindy Sheehan and this Congressman's wife are tell tale signs of a nation that is mislead, divided, paranoid, mean spirited, dysfunctional, sick, and possibly terminally ill.
Does the name "Elena Ruth Sassower" mean anything? How many know Elena's story? Does the name "Rick Stanley" mean anything? How many know Rick's story? What about Irwin Schiff? Joe Bannister?
Sassower, Stanley, Schiff, Bannister, many others, and now Sheehan, have been singled out for arbitrary, harsh, unconstitutional, treatment by governments in these so called United States, all condoned by judges. Thus, there is an established pattern of serious, devastating, unlawful conduct by governments’ agents under color of law. But none of these agents have been held accountable for their unlawful conduct.
To the extent you do not know the stories of these fellow citizens, and others similar to them, the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" is wasted on the Media. As a sweeping generalization, the Media, the alleged "watch dog of government, "the Fourth Branch of Government," has, for the most part, been lying down on the job, allowing too many government agents to usurp power, with immunity.
The First Amendment is not the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that is under serious, sustained attack by governments' agents. Many political whores, statist judges, actors, and media talking heads have built their careers undermining the individual right to arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Fourth Amendment has also been under extreme, sustained attack. The Patriot Act is a full press against the Fourth. Bush II's domestic spying is only the latest tell tale sign that many in government, including at the highest level, hold the United States Constitution in contempt and have slipped their constitutional collar. There is even a documented case of a prosecutor successfully arguing to a jury that it was "weird" for a person to refuse a consent search request, when they had nothing to hide, and the mere act of a peaceful refusal of a consent search request, automatically, allegedly, gave a police officer probable cause to detain, to seize, and to search. What is "weird" is that a licensed, trained, prosecutor, who took a sworn oath to support the United States Constitution and has a law-imposed ethical duty to do so, would even dare to make such an argument–in an American courtroom—to punish a person for peacefully daring to exercise a right, and, to make matters worse, an American trial court judge and a dozen state appellate judges all condoned what that prosecutor did.
When the peaceful exercise of a right becomes a legal liability, of what value is the right?
Are we in a free fall toward tyranny? Are we already in the early, shadowy stages, of a tyranny that is now beginning to be revealed to us?
For many police officers, prosecutors, and judges in this nation, ordinary citizens–us common folks, we, the piss ants—have rights, as long as we dare not to exercise them, and, the instant we dare to peacefully and correctly assert our rights,—guess what?, they disappear!
What quality of "freedom" is that? Of what value is a "Freedom" that disappears upon its mere peaceful assertion?
Would you be comfortable with this: Your bank savings account deposit slips show you have $100,000.00 on deposit at your bank, but, when you go down to your bank to make a withdrawal, the teller informs you that your deposits disappeared because you wanted to make a withdrawal. All analogies are imperfect, including this one, but, in a very real sense, this is exactly what more and more officials are telling us is the true nature of our rights–they disappear when we try to assert them.
Now, why does Al Quida hate us? Why does Al Quida want to destroy us? Because they hate our Freedom?
If Al Quida wants to destroy us because they hate our Freedom they should conserve their energy and sit back and watch us self-destruct.
To make matters, the Judiciary, and the U.S. Congress, have also gutted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when it comes to governments' efforts to collect tax revenue. Ponder what follows and try to reconcile it. Per the United States Supreme Court, if you were charged with multiple counts of the most serious non-tax felonies [e.g., treason or murder,] and if you asserted your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a case of treason or murder, you would never be required to justify your assertion of that right. Never, even in a case of treason. If, however, the government thinks you owe it income taxes and, if you, in an income tax case, dare to claim your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, you, under pain of punishment, would have to give a judge, under oath, in the presence of the prosecutor, on the official record, a factually detailed justification of your assertion of your Fifth Amendment rights, so much so that that public disclosure amounts to a virtual gutting of your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the prosecutor, with the judge’s blessings, would be free to use what you were forced to disclose against you! Now, how "free" do you feel?
But, the Fifth makes no exception to that vital right when government enforces its version of this nation's income tax laws.
The United States Supreme Court invented this alleged exception for income tax cases. Why? Because the government has an insatiable need for more tax tribute, it lacks the discipline to use the tax revenue it does collect prudently, too much of the Judiciary has a pro-Government bias [which they would never admit,] and, many judges probably do not want to be audited by the IRS, so, at some level in their reasoning-to-result, they give the IRS what it wants: U.S. citizen-taxpayers laid out on the table, naked and dissected, pinned.
Al Quida did not do that to the Fifth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court did. With the blessings of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The United States Supreme Court, by inventing this exception to the Fifth Amendment for income taxes, engaged in law-making from the bench, e.g., that court, in effect, amended the U.S. Constitution without complying with its provisions for how that document shall be properly amended.
Is not "law-making from the bench" something Bush II railed against in his State of the Union speech when he proudly assured us that Roberts and Alito will not do that?
Do you think Roberts and Alito will vote to overturn that precedent, to make it harder for the Federal Government to collect income taxes? To restore real viability to the Fifth Amendment?
The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights was: 1) to declare further meaningful legal limits on the power of government and 2) to further declare what are citizens' legal rights, to impose additional meaningful legal limits on governments' abuse of its powers. But, when you look at the Bill of Rights in 2006, there are big holes in it. First Amendment? Substantially gone! Second, substantially gone! Fourth, substantially, gone! Fifth, in income tax cases, gone! Ninth and Tenth Amendments, ignored and ridiculed.
When these rights are gone, and when U.S. citizens are disarmed [e.g., defanged,] what will stop further government usurpations of power? A Bill of Rights, a piece of paper, will lots of holes cut in it? An outstretched hand and the word "Stop!" The threat "I’ll sue."? A plea to return to common sense? To restore the Constitutional Rule of Law?
When citizens surrender their arms, the pragmatic means to hold our Perfumed Princes and Princesses to the Constitution’s commands, what "teeth" will we piss ants have to hold our governments’ agents accountable?
We are "sick" because governments in this nation now too often function as if they have virtually unlimited discretion to do whatever they want to do, unchecked, not stopped by conscience or good judgment, not stopped by the "checks and balances" of our three co-equal branch of government system, not stopped by the electorate, not stopped by the Judiciary, not stopped by constitutionally illiterate juries. To make matters worse, government, especially the Federal Government, has a proven track record of being eager to oppress us at home and of even committing murder under color of law, and of promoting and/or providing legal cover for its agents who commit murder under color of law.
And these agents function this way even when they know there are 70 million armed U.S. citizens.
70 million armed U.S. citizens! That is the world’s–history’s–largest, latent, potential guerrilla force in waiting.
One serious misstep by our Misleaders could galvanize a significant percentage of that 70 million to find their courage to restore constitutionalism.
Our own governments routinely violate our bedrock laws, including the Supreme Law. In the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave," our own governments now brazenly declare what shall be orthodox, demand blind obedience, and punish peaceful and principled dissenters, which is tantamount to our own governments being the gorilla, the bully, the brute. Our own governments are driving a meaningful liberty from the Land. Not Al Quida. Our own governments.
The Soviet Union is defunct. We are the world’s only Super Power. Our Armed Forces cannot be seriously challenged on a sustained basis. If we elected to use our long range nuclear arsenal, no nation on Earth can defeat the United States militarily. However, our Federal Government functions as if it were running scared from some all powerful bogey man. If that bogey man did not exist, the odds are high that our Federal Government would perceive a compelling need to invent a bogey man. Our Federal Government seems to need a bogey man to sustain itself, to try to justify keeping us all regimented, as if we are on a perpetual war time footing against wars with no boundaries, with no end, with no objective measure of success, of failure, of victory or defeat, or when it is safe to get off the war time footing. How convenient for our mighty Federal Government and our Misleaders. Bush II seems to need Osama. Bush II seems to use Osama like a sail needs the wind to push a ship. But, in our form of government, citizens retain power to be the rudder. Power delegated is not power surrendered.
Nevertheless, we are treated as if we are on probation, as if we are governments' property, as if we are serfs beholding to government, as if our primary purpose is to obey government and to serve its function, as if the entire United States is some grand maximum security prison outdoor security yard, where we must take off our shoes and raise our arms and open our bags and be wanded, sorted, stamped, and examined, upon demand of some damn official. It is the dreaded "general warrant" all over again.
If you do not know what is "a general warrant" or the significance of that concept to the birthing of this nation, find out!
Our Constitution and our sacred birth rights as U.S. citizens are treated as unwanted garbage that interferes with our Misleaders grand plans for our future . . . and their careers.
If the United States is "healthy," if the state of the Union is good, if the United States is still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, if there still exists a viable right to free speech, why was Cindy Sheehan arrested last night? Why was a Congressman's wife pulled from the gallery? How did the messages written on their clothing disrupt or delay Bush II’s State of the Union speech? Why did a peaceful lady on a bus in Denver get arrested because she refused to disclose her official identification upon demand to a cop?
The stark reality is this: U.S. citizens have been routinely electing, re-electing, appointing, and supporting officials who function unconstitutionally, and there has been no massive outcry against what happened to these two ladies last night–or about what happened to that lady in Denver. Governments’ Agents have, apparently, succeeded in inducing most of us to be unduly compliant and overly trusting of Government.
Is the United States, in 2006, where the peaceful exercise of a right enshrined in the United States Constitution, is now a crime, the United States envisioned by James Madison? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington? Patrick Henry? Nathan Hale? Was Nathan [the one who, just before he was hanged by the British, said, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.,"] a sucker?
Do the words "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW," which are engraved on the roof of the building that houses the United States Supreme Court, mean anything beneficial, realistically?
On January 31, 2006, did Bush II have free speech rights but Cindy Sheehan and the Congressman’s wife did not?
Exactly what now is the "law" referenced in that inscription on the United States Supreme Court building?
Of what value is case precedents when the law is enforced so uneven handedly that it is now increasingly too difficult for veteran attorneys to predict accurately how a judge will determine a case?
If we were truly a "united" nation, what difference would it make who a U.S. President nominated to the be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice?
After well over 200 years of national existence, why is it that "the law" depends so much on what just nine people who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court say "the law" is?
This inability to predict assuredly what judges will declare the law is has gotten to be so bad that Harvard Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, renowned author of arguably the best single authoritative treatise on American Constitutional Law, a multi-set volume of the same title, who is often considered to be a U.S. Supreme Court nominee, recently announced that he would no longer continue writing his Third Edition of that treatise because even he was finding it too difficult to discuss "American Constitutional Law" in a coherent, logical, principled, manner! Professor Tribe has distinguished himself with his masterful command of that subject matter but he has given up trying to make sense of the new developments! And, believe it or not, we still fancy ourselves to be the world’s shining and best example of "a nation of laws and not of men." What a farce. May the good Lord help those whom we liberate after we bring them "American style Justice and Democracy." The joke is on us.
We are the piñata. Do you believe we pay public serpents to whack at us?
Is the United States, in 2006, worthy of trillions of dollars in annual tax tribute—to pay for governments and their agents that have morphed the peaceful exercise of a right into a crime?
A crime is society’s way of manifesting a serious social stigma.
We have descended into a dark, bottomless, topsy turvy, spinning, sucking, whirlpool, where the governments in this nation are now so powerful they have succeeded in making the peaceful and correct exercise of a right, one enshrined in, and guaranteed, by, the United States Constitution, to be a crime. Think about that and the logical implications.
Could Al Quida, left to its own devices, in 10,000 years, do that– to us?
Have you seen a horse? More than one? Have you ever seen a five legged horse? Have you ever heard anyone claim that they have seen a five legged horse?
If I called a horse’s tail a "leg" and counted its tail as a "leg" to come up with a five legged horse, would there really be a five legged horse?
A tail is not a leg. Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail a leg.
But, that is what too many government agents are doing in this county–they are calling things what they are not. They are employing language as a war tool, a tool of aggression, to wage war, non-violently, against us and our Constitution.
It is the same basic situation that existed pre-Magna Carta back in 1215 and in 1776, before and after the signing of the July 4th Declaration.
Too many officials are functioning like an unscrupulous insurance adjuster or card shark: they cheat.
Wearing clothing with a message was not and is not a crime. I do not give a damn how many officials call a tail a leg, there is no such thing as a five legged horse, and Cindy Sheehan did not manifest "unlawful conduct."
This nation is plagued with the following types of U.S. citizens: 1) Sheeple—those who are unduly compliant, who routinely lay down on their rights [which makes it harder for anyone who stands up for their rights,] who are constitutionally illiterate, who do not give a damn about civic affairs, who have lost the Love of Liberty, who are too gutless to stand up for their rights, who want the benefits of Liberty without its burdens; 2) Statist Judges—those who manifest a strained apology for virtually any government usurpation of power(s); 3) Useful Idiots for Tyrant Wannabees—those along the entire political spectrum, from Right to Left and back, who support anything that is unconstitutional; 4) American Talibans—the United States is infested with its own version of home grown Talibans. Talibanism is the self-serving exploitation of any extreme distortion of an otherwise valid, good, meritorious concept in an illegal, oppressive manner, to advance a private agenda in the guise of promoting a greater good; 5) Political Whores—the title is sufficiently descriptive; 6) MFFU types—those with a "Me First, F You!" orientation; 7) Self-Appointed Elitists who fancy themselves to place their butt on a saddle on your back and ride you into submission, per their arbitrary whim; and 8) Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution—everyone who functions unconstitutionally.
The real battle is not between Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Bush II vs. Osama. Instead, it is between Constitutionalists versus everyone else.
The United States Constitution is not self-executing, and it is not self-enforcing. It is only text on paper—a parchment barrier to public and private shenanigans. Text on paper never stopped a government agent's usurpation of power or, by itself, guaranteed a nation's future or its citizens Freedom.
The Constitution needs defenders. The Constitution needs to be enforced first. After all, it is the nation's Supreme Law. It says so in Article VI, Section 2.
The rallying cry that everyone should unite behind should be "ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION FIRST" and "I WILL SUPPORT THE BADGE WHEN THE BADGE SUPPORTS THE CONSTITUTION FIRST." Such a mind set would be an invisible glue that would hold the nation together and keep it from functioning as a gaggle.
Cindy Sheehan, whether you agree with her or not, is a supporter and defender of the Constitutional Rule of Law, and she was well within her rights when she did what she did to offer the Constitution a saving hand. For that, she was handcuffed.
How civilized are we?
How "equal before the law" are we?
Too many in this nation are constitutionally illiterate, harbor an extreme anti-rights mind set or a selective, elitist approach to rights enforcement. Too many have lost a deep Love of Liberty, are too afraid to offer the Constitutional Rule of Law a saving hand, or, in the alternative, are too eager to slap a handcuff on anyone who does offer the Constitutional Rule of Law a saving hand.
When too many lose their Love of Liberty, when too many cannot find courage behind their breastbone or between their ears, to stand up for the Constitutional Rule of Law–for Cindy Sheehan, for the Congressman’s wife, for Elena Sassower, for Rick Stanley, for Irwin Schiff, for Joe Bannister, for the lady on the bus in Denver, etc., reliance on a written constitution to keep this nation free, under a Constitutional Rule of Law, is misplaced.
When too many in this nation are constitutionally illiterate, are unduly compliant, and usurp power, the United States Armed Forces will never be able to protect the United States from, guess what?—from ourselves. We are murdering ourselves with our, guess what?—our myopic, political fecal matter. Entire forests, oil fields, electrons, and cellulose have given their lives to communicate BS—myopic, stupid, counter-productive, unconstitutional trade-offs in the guise of being a solution.
Most people do not appreciate that a trade-off is not a solution. The Democrats and the Republicans offer us, at best, trade-offs, not solutions, and almost every trade-off offered to us, or, dictated to us, amounts to us being stripped of our rights.
Most people do not realize that government typically does not solve problems. Instead, government, typically, rearranges problems and makes them worse.
Regarding what happened to Cindy Sheehan last night, have you learned of any public protest or objection by Senator Joseph Biden? Senator Barbara Boxer? Senator Robert Byrd? Senator Hilary Clinton? Senator Dianne Feinstein? Senator William Frist? Senator Lindsey Graham? Senator Orrin Hatch? Senator Edward Kennedy? Senator John Kerry? Senator Patrick Leahy? Senator Joseph Liberman? Senator Trent Lott? Senator Richard Lugar? Senator John McCain? Senator Harry Reid? Senator John Rockefeller? Senator Charles Schumer? Senator Alen Specter? Senator John Warner? Bush II? Any surviving ex-President? Any Bush II cabinet member? Any journalist with a national reputation? Any academician? Any CEO from a major corporation?
We have 100 U.S. Senators and 435 U.S. Congressmen. Odds are high that all, or almost all, of these 535 official lawmakers were at that building last night when two fellow citizens were stripped of their most fundamental First Amendment rights, right under their noses. Many of these Perfumed Public Princes and Princesses, who routinely preen themselves in public, showing off their command of the King’s English, their debating skills, etc., while sucking up a salary and fringe benefits paid for with tax tribute, love to pontificate about the importance of the Rule of Law, etc. There is, however, an enormous gap between the Rule of Law [any Rule of Law] and the Constitutional Rule of Law. Every tyrant has his version of the Rule of Law and his enforcers and boot lickers.
What happened last night at the United States Congress reminds me of an experience I had with my father at Hickam Air Force Base on the island of Oahu, in Hawaii. My dad, recently deceased, was a retired U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant. I went there to visit him. By coincidence, I was there when the officials at Hickam Air Force Base had an official open house to celebrate the U.S. Air Force’s 50th anniversary as a separate branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. There was a public musical concert on the base, a rather pleasant outdoor gala with some talented U.S. military personnel as singers and musicians. There was also the largest, dense pack concentration of Admirals and Generals from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, Air National Guard, Reserves, etc., and public dignitaries, that I had ever experienced in real life. Most of these Admirals and Generals wore multiple stars. One explosion there would have punched a big hole in the U.S. military’s senior leadership. I listened carefully as General after General gave glowing speeches about the value of the enlisted man and the non-commissioned officer, and, but for the sacrifices, talent, and selfless dedication of these lower-ranked men and women, the U.S. Air Force would not have accomplished what it did and these Generals and Admirals could not do what they do, and how much these high ranking officers really appreciated what the lower rank personnel did. But, then, I witnessed something that I experienced to be incongruent with these expressions of deep appreciation for the contributions made by the enlisted and non-commissioned personnel. After these fine speeches, all of this high brass exited the stage and took their chairs, immediately before and in the center of the stage . . . and all of those lower ranking folk in attendance, as always, were again relegated to the back. I thought to myself, those Generals and Admirals would have manifested real class, some true leadership of distinction if, on this one special distinction, if on this one day–one out of 50 years!—they had opted to one of two different seating arrangements–"open seating" regardless of rank, or "reverse seating," with the lowest rank seated closest to the stage. But, again, talk is cheap. Thanks, guys, we love you, but move back and let us hog the best seats.
"Rank has its privileges," in the military community and in the civilian community. But, in a system that claims to have a slavish devotion to "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW," there is, ideally, no such thing as "rank has its privileges."
Better yet, in a viable system of meaningful, true, Constitutional Rule of Law, there is something better than "rank"–there are inviolate "rights."
But, I have not heard a peep from any of this nation’s political dilettantes, some of whom are presidential hopefuls or also rans, about what happened to Cindy Sheehan or the lady on the bus in Denver. Instead, I have heard, "The nation mourns for your lost. Thank you. Now, sit down. Shut up! Go away! Obey!"
But, if a Washington, D.C. cop had laid hands on them, to seize them because of what they wore, or had seized someone connected to them by blood or marriage or otherwise, we would all be bombarded by what the media would incessantly broadcast was their righteous squeal arising from that.
Our Federal Government initiated an undeclared war against Saddam and Iraq before we were attacked. We crossed an international border with arms, with hostile intent, uninvited, and we did so on flimsy evidence that did not hold up. When Cindy Sheehan asks "How many more?," peacefully and silently, she is arrested. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive constitutionally legitimate power to declare war. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that one of the President's duties is "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," but, he purposefully engaged in an undeclared war, in violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
The U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the United Nations, and the President, individually and combined, do not have constitutionally legitimate power to grant an American President the power to commit U.S. troops to an undeclared war, but, that is what our Federal Government, and Americans, have tolerated and condoned. Thus, there has been a complete break down of checks and balances on an issue as vitally important as war, as international murder under color of law, of thousands of people—Americans and foreign—being maimed and killed, and of trillions of dollars in tax tribute being spent in violation of our Supreme Law.
How sane are we?
How law-abiding is the United States Federal Government?
What organization is the world’s biggest criminal enterprise?
I consider myself to be intensely nationalistic and patriotic. As a teenager, when Fidel Castro turned off the water in Quantanomo, I was willing to join the Marine Corps and try to be the one who put a 30-06 round between Fidel’s eyes. I remain intensely nationalist and patriotic, but I now see a lot more gray in what use to be stark black and white.
This nation has changed for the worse far more than I have changed. It has abandoned me. I have not deserted it. I have changed only in the sense that I have grown older and learned more. The nationalism and the patriotism is still there, intensely.
And, now, most of us seem willing to tolerate Washington, D.C. police violating Cindy Sheehan's First Amendment rights of fee speech.
How much further erosion of the real Constitutional Rule of Law are we willing to tolerate?
All who were—and are—hostile to the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to arms [e.g., Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Don Perata, Gray Davis, and thousands of others] laid the groundwork for the Bush II administration to be hostile to Cindy Sheehan's peaceful and lawful exercise of her First Amendment rights.
Why do I make this assertion? Answer: Because constitutionalism, namely, functioning consistent with the United States Constitution’s commands, is not a pick and choose smorgasbord. Instead, it is a seamless cloth, principled, intellectually honest, way of thinking. Reformulated, it is constitutionally infirmed to arbitrarily select which right shall be enforced and which shall be under enforced and allowed to wither. The anti-Individual Gun Right Liberal Democrat crowd made it much easier for the neo-conservative Bush II Administration crowd to bring us Patriot Act I and II and the arrest of Cindy Sheehan.
Our best protection lies within this concept: ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FIRST–24/7, 365 DAYS A YEAR, FOR ALL, REGARDLESS OF RACE, COLOR, CREED, AGE, SEXUAL PREFERENCE, and INDIVIDUAL QUIRKS, ETC.
The Bill of Rights is the nation's invisible glue that is suppose to hold us together as a nation, but too many of us are pouring a solvent on that glue with our myopic, infantile, imprudent, political discourse. When the Bill goes, the nation goes—into the toilet.
Envision a United States without a meaningful First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Now, who among us is willing to pay tax tribute for such a United States? To pick up arms and fight for such a United States?
Strip the U.S. of its Bill of Rights and do you still have that grand lady in New York Harbor? What do the words "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" mean then?
Strip the U.S. of its Bill of Rights and I will tell you what you have: You have a Third World Banana Republic on steroids, a post-Industrial Age, over-the-hill, long in the tooth, needs Viagra to get it up and keep it up, gaggle on the decline, in free fall toward Tyranny.
Am I willing to fight for a United States that arrests Cindy Sheehan for what she wore on her clothing at last night’s State of the Union speech? No.
Am I willing to fight for a United States that abused Elena Sassower? Rick Stanley? Irwin Schiff? Joe Bannister? No!
What horrible bad things can Osama do to us that we are not now doing to ourselves? We are doing to ourselves, under color of law, what 100,000 Osama’s with 10 million virulent followers could never do to us: We are committing constitutional suicide or constitutional murder under color of law. What is worse than that? We can erect hundreds of Twin Towers at record speed if we wanted to, but, we cannot now save ourselves from ourselves.
We do not have a Culture of Constitutionalism in this country. If we did, Sheehan would never have been arrested.
Everyone in the chain of command that lead to Sheehan’s arrest needs to be held accountable, meaningfully, the quicker the better. Ditto the chain of command who have had the lady on the bus in Denver arrested and prosecuted.
We do not have a Federal Department of Bill of Rights Enforcement. We do not have one because those in charge do not want to be burdened or hamstrung by one that would live up to its name, in earnest.
We are all now virtually totally dependent on Governments' Agents interpretation of the Bill of Rights and the enforcement of same, which is a major reason why so many of those rights have been gutted. Police officers, prosecutors, and judges have too often interpreted the Bill in favor of government. Citizens who think civics are boring have failed to exercise oversight control.
Regardless of what you might think of Cindy Sheehan and her position regarding the undeclared war and who is responsible for her son’s death in Iraq, if you do not give a damn about what the police did to suppress her First Amendment rights, you are a hollow shell of my concept of what it means to be an American. The proverbial bell that tolls for Sheehan tolls for thee, too, whether you hear it or realize it, and for the United States.
There are far more Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution than there are foreign ones.
There are more American Talibans in the United States than there are Afghan Talibans in Afghanistan.
The sworn peace officers who arrested Sheehan, who denied that Congressman's wife her First Amendment rights, who stripped the lady on the bus in Denver of her Fourth Amendment rights, etc., all acted pursuant to the orders of their superiors, who acted pursuant to orders from their superiors. Most public employees live in constant fear of being reprimanded or fired or sued. Hence, most act only when they are confident they will not be reprimanded or fired or will be protected by the legal system when sued. Reformulated, the official power structure in the nation's capitol is hostile to the peaceful, silent exercise of the First Amendment's "guaranteed" "right" of "free speech."
"Free speech" is code for "off limits," but, as enforced in the United States in 2006, "free speech" exists as long as one does not dare to exercise it or exercises it only as a cheer leader for the Establishment. "Free speech" is no longer "free." Instead, it is costly. It triggers a criminal arrest. Our combat vets planted in Europe and the Pacific, at the bottom of the oceans, and blasted in the skies into vapor, must be asking themselves did they make their sacrifice in vain.
Americans, on February 1, 2006, remain mute, acquiesce, and go about their business, blindly compliant or deeply satisfied that officials did what they did to enforce a regime against Sheehan and a Congressman's wife.
To make matters worse, American Talibans, Political Whores, Useful Idiots of Tyrant Wannabees, and Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution enjoy protection from America's Statist Judges, who function as the opposite of Guardians of Liberty.
Only time will tell if Bush II succeeded in putting two more Statist Judges on this nation’s highest court.
There has been a complete break down in our system of checks and balances. The Media is a toothless dog who refuses to sniff out and track down official wrongdoing. Lawmakers approve unconstitutional laws without even reading them or knowing what they say. Judges sanction official lawlessness. Constitutionally illiterate juries convict people who peacefully and correctly assert rights.
We are sick. We have lost the Love of Liberty. We are unduly compliant. We pay tax tribute to governments' agents to slap handcuffs on anyone who peacefully and silently protests. We are digging this nation's grave deeper. The grave is dug. Too many stand in a pit—one dug by themselves and/or by those who pursue folly, deliberately or negligently, indifferent, to the wrongs committed in this nation under color of law.
What the government calls "law" is too often governments’ crime against the Constitutional Rule of Law.
Too many of us are "united" in only one meaningful way: They have broken faith with the Constitution envisioned by its Framers.
Follows, then, the internet url for the above article:
3 Feb 2006 @ 21:51 by : And I...
thought that someone at a place on the net called ''New Civilization Network'' would be interested in this article. That there have been no comments, so far, speaks reams about this place. A ''New Civilization Charter'' has been proposed and that the UN, of all things, should be asked to ''sponsor'' such an NGO! What tripe. Yet in the meanwhile this Nation has gone down the tubes for all intents and purposes.
I am reminded of something that Ron said in "Conquering Chaos:"
The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have
different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank
principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and
seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving
for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has
been what has made Earth a Hell-and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would
certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great
governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by “public opinion” media.
Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves.
Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of
freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is
4 Feb 2006 @ 04:43 by : read this detailed anaylsis
point after point, it seems clear that being arrested for wearing a message on your t-shirt is unconstitutional.
Is it so under the Patriot Act? When Cindy sues the gov't, will she win her case?
What's going on under this new law brandished by the gov't? What rights of the individual are left?
Will i be arrested if i think about wearing a t-shirt while daydreaming about showing up at a Presidential rally?
Oh, judih, they are simply tools who refuse to realise what has been done to this nation. One must go back in time beyond the traitor FDR, beyond even the Federal Reserve right to jolly old King George the 3rd who was no dummy.
As I do not tire of stating that there is a remedy, just so, these people are all fighting in the wrong way with the wrong weapons in the wrong courts. They will tire of being used and abused by the system as it is and my fervent hope is that they will begin to learn how to fight the color of law (fiction) with the truth of sovereignty. I shan't hold my breath.
No matter how eloquent Peters' words are in the above article he is still a lawyer bound to the lie. The way out is through. In Commerce Truth is Sovereign. Those words are not empty and they give a clue as to the way out and what must be done. The constitution, the original one of 1789, still exists though submerged by the 'color of law.'
These people must learn how to become American Citizens and not Corporate slaves of the Federal US, which they are now, which is why the corporation in Washington D.C. can do with them as they may. The 'people' of this nation, unbeknownst to themselves, have become chattel for the debt. There is no money but there are plenty of 'Human Resources.'
The British Accreditation Regency is 'the BAR!' The 'American BAR' is simply a franchise of it. They own every 'law,' statute, and oridinance enacted here in this un-free land. It is in their name via 'copyright.' The truth is so shocking and unbelievable that, of course, no one wants to hear it let alone learn how to use or instantiate the real LAW against the usurpers who concocted it.
There is a remedy for the fraud that has been perpetrated upon this people by its' misleaders. It is not found in De Jure. Baruch Ha Shem! ;) Thankyou...
You never tire of stating that the clues are in self-defense through knowledge of the law. i go to the links and i feel my academic mind run the other way. If i'm running, who else is in the mob running the other way. Am i the only lazy one, choosing to leave a country rather than dig down and discover what the law says?
You also counsel reading my birth certificate and looking at it for what it is. Since i've already admitted to being lazy, i am not afraid to admit that i need Birth Certificate 101. Could you give me guidance. What am i seeing there?
I presume that you are a dual citizen? Concerning the Birth Certificate (American) I'll send you a link or txt concerning that. It is quite a load of study, I must admit, and it takes years to really make headway but...it really must be done for anyone truly considering reclaiming their birthright of sovereignty especially here in the US but elsewhere as well. Can't go into it here, too lengthy, but I loved Israeli courts and believe me I fought in them often. I found the Shoftiim to be just and a lot of fun.
I've been out of the 'world system' for many years now and will not return unless called but I still study the law. My weapons are better now and sharper and every day I learn some new application that can be used in defense of my own sovereignty. It is a daunting task, to be sure, and I think that you aren't lazy but rather may feel a sense of being overwhelmed. Remember one thing, though, Mosaic Law rules. The remedy is truly there in the Law of the Sea or Commerce Law. So don't give up but do what you can a little bit at a time. Know that you are a sovereign being with unalienable rights. Rights unto which ''liens'' cannot be attatched. Fraud is rampant and In Commerce the Truth is Sovereign. Jurisdiction: Juris means 'oath.' Diction means "spoken." Feud is old English for Oath. In Propia Persona as opposed to using a court officer or appearing pro se. Oh, thanks for dialoguing, judith. Thankyou very much. ;) Shalom also means wholeness.
///////////////Yes! Please send me the link, vax. Exactly what i was hoping to hear - that there's a huge underscore to what appears on that piece of paper. i'm not only double citizenship, but also tri!
cdn/am/israeli - but at least there's only one birth certificate - a mer i can
Certainly you are welcome judith. Here is a link and if you need more let me know.
"cdn" is? Canada?
yeah+++++++++ thnx for link. nothing like being chattel and chained for life!
Yes, the PTB would like to think that; however, redemption out of thier 'system' of slavery is possible. It starts with the Birth Certificate. The process is well known and we are perfecting it in the 'courts.' Knowing that fraud has been perpetrated upon you is the beginning. Finding out exacrly what was done and how then knowing that you have distinct recourse to the remedy that is called redemption can give more than just false hope. The whole system is based on fraud. In commerce the truth is sovereign!
4 Feb 2006 @ 10:00 by gea : I read.
But I´m not American. (Should I say "Thank God"?)
(PS - I know the same crap happens everywhere; but it happens that you Americans have elephant shit right on your doorstep, which might - might! - be an opportunity to shift the winds towards real evolutionary goals for the whole of humanity. Or to make the whole boat sink for all. Interesting times, eh?)
4 Feb 2006 @ 12:01 by : Delicate Droppings Of Elephants
I mean, everything is relative...and so from some huge high perspective, they would appear as delicate as a gnat. BUT such dung is sacred fuel in parts of our world. People follow along hoping and waiting for such mutual relief efforts. It may be but a moment in time before today's dirtbike roadhogs are yearning to follow elephants.
And speaking of droppings, here we have assembled in this thread a few NCNers who know what it's like to pour out our hearts to each other...and not hear a peep from the au courant 10152 "members." I think I read judih almost drop her patience a bit up there...and that would be a remarkable first in my experience of her. I'm imagining a meeting between Vax and Job, and wondering how that would go. Oh well, when times get rough for real dialogue at the Network, I'm sure Gea wouldn't mind if we visit her down in the LadyDragon cave. There's always delicious stew in the cauldron.
5 Feb 2006 @ 09:15 by gea : :-)
Yup. And there´s always some fermented honey drink, too. The sacred brew of the druids, you know?
5 Feb 2006 @ 09:16 by gea : Sorry, Vaxen
Wouldn´t want to distract from the real seriousness of it all. But I´m sure you would have a drink too, eh?
dear gea, you never distract. and the ''seriousness'' of it all is really the fun of it all and yes, meade is always welcome. i make my own when required, too... ;)
5 Feb 2006 @ 10:25 by : Staggering Off Topic---or am I?
04 February 2006
New Scientist Magazine issue 2537
Alcohol dampens the expression of hundreds of genes in the amygdala, new research reveals - it might account for alcoholics' dysfunctional symptoms
WE MAY never understand the mind of every alcoholic, but we are starting to learn more about alcohol's specific effects on a region of the brain that regulates emotion and behaviour.
A team in Australia has found that alcohol dampens down the expression of hundreds of genes in the amygdala, which might account for why alcoholics suffer dysfunctional symptoms such as disrupted sleep and depression. It may also help explain why recovering alcoholics are prone to relapse.
The amygdala is a key structure in the brain's emotional system that acts as an interface between incoming sensory signals and behavioural responses. It is believed to play a key role in drug-seeking. Brain images suggest it is more active in alcoholics, so Rosemarie Kryger and Peter Wilce at the alcohol research unit of the University of Queensland in Herston decided to investigate whether gene expression in the amygdala also differs between alcoholics ...
(I'm afraid you have to pay to read the rest of it~~~
5 Feb 2006 @ 11:35 by gea : Hey-ho! :-)
I didn´t mean getting drunk on mead, just have a taste of it! Being drunk (on anything, including dogma and power) might well be a way of avoiding the real discussion about reality.
5 Feb 2006 @ 11:50 by : It Would Appear
to me that these altering elements constitute both the appeal and the payback of---let's say...just stopping into the pub after the sensory onslaught of a day on the job. The findings give definition to what "unwind" means, when one uses sacred brew...or even the secular kind.
5 Feb 2006 @ 12:36 by gea : Compensations?
Yes. Let´s be aware of them. I have the compensation, for example, of eating produce from my garden, after back-breaking work for a whole season! I´m for THAT kind of compensation.
When you see and feel where people are at, in the "evil society" that passes for civilization, yeah, it certainly takes a draft or two of mead sometimes to just ease the pain of the awareness!... (And then, back to work the land!)
6 Feb 2006 @ 05:33 by : Thanks
Thanks for the article.
I truly appreciate your incessant efforts to enlighten the rest of us.
Here’s another article on the state of what’s left of the Union.
Several nice paragraphs in there, one of which:
“Neither did Bush tell Americans any of the dire facts reported by economist Charles McMillion in the January 19 issue of Manufacturing & Technology News: …..The US "superpower" is dependent on China for advanced technology products and is dependent on Asia to finance its massive deficits and foreign wars. In view of the rapid collapse of US economic potential, my prediction in January 2004 that the US would be a third world economy in 20 years was optimistic. Another five years like the last, and little will be left. America's capacity to export manufactured goods has been so reduced that some economists say that there is no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.”(author: Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)
Thanks for the link, koravya. The ''Great Depression'' was not an ''accident'' due to the Federal Reserve (Privately owned and not Federal at all) mishandling/bungling things and being ''new at the job.'' It was planned! As is the present chaos a planned chaos. A chaos of invention. We know who is behind it and we know what their goals have been and who they are. Americans are the declared 'enemy' of the 'de facto' government which is, in fact, a British 'Crown' owned Corporation. Redemption is available for those who do wish to be sovereign citizens of America as opposed to the Corporation known as The Federal US. ;)
"Seek and ye shall find."---Y.B.Y
" The assertion of independence in the economic picture is a very effective one. And when you get too worried and too excited and too upset about the economics of the situation, you'll fix yourself up so you'll fail. Because you're just resisting another set of factors, a set of factors designed to enslave. What difference is there, then, between fighting these economic factors and resisting the subversive or control group? Hm?"---LRH 'Conquering Chaos'
Sovereignty is your birthright and that has been stolen from you. Take it back!
6 Feb 2006 @ 20:18 by : Check this link:
This represents the Omega Ring we all should wear on our ring finger at all times.... should and should...well, I hope you all know whadddimeaaaann... : )
been watching ( and participating just a tadd... ) this fundamentalist fight on Ming's Blog, now, over the week end... Wwhooooahhh...I think this little microcosm on NCN this weekend, really is perfect relexion of the macrocosm out there in the World: The big guys, just managed to put out yet another provocation NOT with these Cartoons, making fun of Islamic Fundamentalism. As we all know: Political as well as religious SATIRE has been around for a long, long time -and rightfully so! As it seems now, even THAT venue is under seige! "How dare you poke fun of OUR Religion?!???" ALL the fundamentalists shouting that same insanity: "destruction of the other!... while the Big Boys of this 'British Owned Corporation' as you put it so eloquently, Vax, : ) got a whooole weekend with NO EYES on them and their undoubdtly evil-doings!... far too many were too busy with this EGO-PISSING MATCH between these people with such a low Self- esteem, that all they can do to feel BIG, is to support boys who really know how to be evil, like all the guys in the higher political ehcelons, dancing to tunes of the WHO EVER is THEIR leader".... all this is so easy done in the name of "RIGHT "Religion"!
Fortunately our cloudships are invisible to 'them.' It has always been that way. The petty squabbles over who owns this and who owns that. The fictions that call themselves by fancy names yet are only 'fictions.' The puffed up, fancy, pseudo-egos, drinking gin and tonic at some Washington, or Beijing, or Paris ball ... yet remaining so not on the ball.
They will all pass away whilst we shall remain for we, unlike them, are here to stay. They weep bitter tears each night for our grimm weaper waits for them to cut them down in the prime of thier so called lives ... which are naught but hollow, holo-grams and nano-bytic representations of us when we were dreams ... theirs.
22 Feb 2006 @ 12:24 by : Me too Vax
reading your stuff. Its OK to repeat, don't worry, each time we read it sinks (stinks) a little deeper. And how come so many know about elephants'.., were you there in the jungle in front of freshly steaming piles? wondering how far away the previous owneres were?
Seriously, it is good to know about sovereignty, even it has had to change to survive in modern times.
I feel, tho so completely un read in this area as I am, that the pride of place for individual rights without land is in la belle France. The general level of society achieved that stage which was able to articulate coherently its position AND it was in this very COHERENCE that they could no longer be ignored, and became as effective as CARVED in stone. The capitals are used to denote something very important in Carved in Stone, for the carving permits a double sense of awareness, not just through the eyes, but thro the music of the tones in the wind brushing past the carvings and making their own unique tunes in keeping with the carvings of THOSE words, carrying them all around. They may be outside of our daily audible range but subconsciously surely they can be heard too with the ears.
What I am saying is that a same level of coherence needs to be attained by your readers, so pound away, Vax - but - what about shorter sentances, is this a bold thought? In the lexicons of writing technique, short sentances relate to impending happenings, quicken the heart beat, get things going. We can't hear you breathing, take breathe, pausing for emphasis, letting the stragglers keep up . .
5 Sep 2009 @ 05:18 by @188.8.131.52 : Pc mastercard travel insurance
Greeting. I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
I am from Spain and , too, and now am writing in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Since using the many studio in 1986, the due two underwriters include for the applying districts of merchants: the taxation of canada goes a term of the centers, changes, position allegations and subway chargebacks of not 200 beer losses high in canada."
With love :p, Nishan.
29 Apr 2016 @ 11:10 by @184.108.40.206 : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online
17 Oct 2016 @ 15:41 by @220.127.116.11 : agen bola terbesar
This is great and really informative.. I'll keep following your web and your article, thanks for sharing :)
28 Nov 2016 @ 19:38 by @18.104.22.168 : togel online
was very helpful and very useful
articles that you provide very helpful and nice to everyone thanks