I postulate that being a good American means living in harmony with the spirit of The Constitution of the United States. If that’s true, should we ever trust government?
The reason we have three, separate and independent branches of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) is to keep those governmental branches fighting among themselves and thereby prevent the emergence of a single, dictatorial government that worked for its own interests rather than those of the people. The mandate for three branches of government (separation of powers) is evidence that the Founders didn’t trust the federal government.
The reason we have “checks and balances” in the Constitution is to protect the people from the federal government. The Founders didn’t trust the feds.
The reason we have the 1st Amendment right to free speech is to allow us to expose government corruption.
According to the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” the reason we have the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted under the Constitution to the officers, officials and employees of the federal government.
Insofar as the Constitution was intended to allow for only a “limited” government, that Constitution was intended to protect against government’s inevitable and insatiable appetite for more power, more taxes and less freedom. The Founders didn’t trust the federal government.
In fact, it can be argued that the genius of our Constitution is that it’s the world’s only “anti-government” Constitution; that its fundament purpose was not to empower, but rather to restrict, government. The Founders recognized that, inevitably, there must be a federal government (a “necessary evil”)—but they never trusted that government and therefore enshrined their distrust in the limits imposed by the Constitution.
The Founders agreed with George Washington, who said, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant or a fearful master.” I.e., the best government you’ll ever get is a “dangerous servant”. If you are ever fool enough to trust that “dangerous servant,” you can expect it to quickly morph into a “fearful master”—a dictatorship and police state.
Thus, if being a “good American” means living in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution, being a “good American” necessarily means distrusting the government.
And, as you’ll read, the vast majority—73%—of all Americans implicitly agree in that they don’t trust the government. Today, only one American in four is sufficiently ignorant, naïve or treasonous to trust the government.
But, before we explore the statistics, let’s consider some evidence that distrust of government is reasonable, rational and warranted.
The New York Times reports (“Obama’s Backers Seek Big Donors to Press Agenda”) that,
“President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign organization into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.”
I.e., the President—whose job as highest officer in the Executive Branch of government is to execute the laws enacted by Congress—seeks to raise $50 million so he can influence or even control legislation.
But under our Constitution, we have three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) whose fundamental functions are supposed to be exclusive to each branch and beyond the legitimate powers of the other two branches. Nevertheless, President Obama seeks to raise $50 million so he can influence legislation and arguably bribe congressmen and senators.
Thus, it appears that, just like George W. Bush, President Obama also regards the Constitution as nothing but a “g.d. piece of paper”. It’s not enough to be the Chief Executive; Obama also wants to be the chief Legislator. The S.O.B. is attempting to subvert the form of government declared in our Constitution. By seeking to destroy our constitutional “separation of powers,” he is engaged in treason.
“But the rebooted [presidential reelection] campaign, known as Organizing for Action has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics.”
President Obama seeks to influence Congress in a way that is outside the law and open to whatever influence or control Obama can muster.
“In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors. . . . At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more.”
Average Americans need not apply. Obama will seek donations primarily from a few rich people.
But the rich seldom become rich by giving their money away without getting something in return. We can therefor presume that the rich will trade their cash quid pro quo for influence. Whatever the rich want, Obama will seek to deliver.
“Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.”
President Obama seeks to turn his reelection campaign organization into a lobbying group that will be largely above the law, unaccountable to the American people, and subject only to whatever regulations it seeks to impose on itself.
Do you believe that such an unaccountable lobbying organization will work for the best interests of the American people or for the best interests of major corporations and the government, itself?
Does Obama’s proposal inspire you to trust the government?
The reason anyone votes for a particular candidate is that we think that candidate has a system of values that’s much like our own. You might vote for the Democrat because you think his personal system of values is most like yours; I might vote for the Republican because I think his system of values is most like mine. I presume that since my candidate (or political party) has a system of values most like my own, then, when a new bill is proposed in Congress, my candidate will read that bill and decide to support, reject or amend it pretty much as I would if I were sitting in Congress.
You operate under the same presumption. You believe your candidate has a system of values so much like your own that you can expect him to vote as you would vote on proposed legislation.
The problem is that Congress no longer reads the bills that they vote for or against. It’s common knowledge that no Congressman or Senator read the original “Patriot Act,” the “National Defense Authorization Act” or “Obamacare” before they voted to enact those bills. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shamelessly illustrated the congressional disinclination to read bills before they voted on them when she told Congress, “But we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what’s in it . . . .” And the jackasses in Congress (that includes your favorite candidate and mine), voted for the 2,800-page Obamacare bill without even having seen it.
Given that Congress no longer reads or even writes most of our legislation, what difference does it make if your favorite Congressman has a system of values just like yours? If they don’t read the bills, their system of values is irrelevant. You could just as easily elect a child molester, serial killer or chimpanzee to Congress as a man who appears to embrace your system of values. If none of them will read the proposed legislation, what difference does their personal system of values make?
Which brings us to the next question: If Congressmen don’t read the proposed bills, how do they know which bills to vote for or against?
A: Someone tells them.
That “someone” may be the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, minority “whip”—or some lobbyist. But whoever tells your favorite congressman or mine how to vote, it’s not you or me. More importantly, whoever tells our congressmen how to vote, that’s who our congressmen truly represent. They don’t represent you or me; they represent whoever tells them how to vote.
Finally, we elect people to the Legislative branch of government for the purpose of “legislating” new laws. The process of legislation goes something like this: A congressman or senator sees a problem in our society or economy and believes that problem can be mitigated or eliminated by enacting a new law. That legislator drafts a proposed law and then seeks other legislators to support his proposal. Those other legislators read the proposed law and accept it, reject it, or insist on certain changes or additions. A certain amount of bargaining and horse-trading takes place and then a final bill is submitted to the Congress at large to vote for or against.
But today, given that Congress doesn’t read or write most of the laws they enact, congressmen no longer function as legislators. Instead, they focus as law “brokers”. Lobbyist approach congressmen with proposed legislation that the lobbyists have already drafted. Lobbyists offer congressmen bribes (a/k/a “political campaign contributions”) to “broker” the proposed laws. If the money is right, the congressman agrees to broker the proposed law—without even reading that proposal.
It’s all about the money.
That description is not true in every case, but it’s true in a lot of cases, probably most cases.
Your congressman is for sale to the highest bidder. He is a law broker and a treasonous whore.
Some congressmen are worse than others, but you’d be hard-pressed to find five men or women in the Congress (none in the Senate) who aren’t willing to betray this nation’s best interests if the money is right. They’ve abandoned their tedious role as legislators to embrace the more profit role as law brokers. In doing so, they’ve become laughing, grinning, treasonous whores.
Does that description inspire your trust for government?
You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who’s worked closely with our local, state and federal courts who doesn’t believe them to be corrupt, avaricious and self-serving.
The courts are famous for unilaterally amending the Constitution with “judge-made” law. However, when it comes to issuing treasonous decisions, the Supreme Court may have topped itself with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (A.D.2010), wherein the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.
The Moral Lowground described that case as follows:
“Citizens United freed corporations, unions and other monied interests . . . to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of American elections . . . effectively turning back the clock to the era of 19th century robber barons and wild capitalism.
“The Supreme Court’s perversely twisted logic boiled down to this: under the First Amendment, corporations are people and money is free speech. [Because] deep-pocketed corporations [will] drown out the voices of ordinary citizens simply by virtue of their newly-endowed unlimited spending powers, Citizens United effectively gives corporations rights that ordinary citizens do not enjoy.
“In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that ‘the Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.’”
The simple truth is that corporations are legal fictions; they’re not “people” and therefore not entitled to the rights of “people”. They can’t speak and therefore have no freedom of speech. The first Amendment was never intended to protect the “speech” of corporations. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” and entitled to spend as much money as they like in support of whatever candidates or issues are in the corporation’s interests.
But as the Moral Lowground concluded,
“Historians may very well look back at Citizens United as . . . one of the pivotal events in the emergence of what can only be described as the coming corporatocracy; a time when “We the People” metastasized into “We the Corporations,” when “of the People, by the People, for the People” got twisted into “of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations.”
“Corporatocracy” sounds very much like fascism. Does that prediction of a growing “corporatocracy” inspire your trust in the federal courts and/or the federal government?
• When you consider the blatant violations of the Constitution committed by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, there’s little reason to trust the government and much reason to fear the government.
Unfortunately, those who have such fears and distrust feel themselves to be in a minority and so badly outnumbered that they’re afraid to express their concerns.
But as a recent study by the Pew Research Center discovered, those who fear and distrust our government are not a minority of “extremists”.
Instead, they comprise the majority of Americans
• Here are excerpts from a transcript of a recent PBS Newshour radio program where Judy Woodruff interviewed Andy Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center:
“Judy Woodruff: A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds the nation increasingly distrustful of the federal government. The findings show that about one-quarter of Americans trust government to do the right thing always or most of the time. A whopping 73 percent don’t.
“So, Andy, you found that a majority think the federal government actually threatens their personal rights.
“Andrew Kohut: Yes—for the first time since we have been asking this question, we have a majority, 53 percent, saying that they feel their rights are personally threatened by the government. . . . Gun control is part of their worries. I think you go back to Obamacare, many people complaining the government is telling me that I have to buy health insurance. They don’t have the right to do this. . . . distrust in government has been endemic since the end of the 1960s . . . many surveys show support for Congress stands around 10 percent, an incredible number for a representative democracy and one that signals enormous disaffection.
“Three-quarters of US citizens don’t trust the US government and some 90 percent don’t trust Congress.
“But bear [those figures] in mind when watching or reading the mainstream media to get a sense of just how disconnected modern political policy is from the actuality of voter sentiment.”
In other words, government and the mainstream media would have us believe that virtually only a handful of “extremists” distrust or even fear the “beneficent” federal government when, in fact, those purported “extremists” now constitute a majority of the American people.
It’s vitally important that we “extremists” know that we are not an isolated minority, but are instead the majority.
53% of America agrees with us that the government is “threatening” our liberties. 73% of America agrees with us that the government can’t be trusted. As the majority, we have less to fear from government and should have more confidence in their ability to stand up, resist tyranny, and be supported by their neighbors.
Too many people–including me–have been deceived by government, the two major political parties and mainstream media into believing that the ideas we tend to embrace are only supported by a handful of fellow “extremists”. As a result, we’ve been hesitant to act in public for fear of being misunderstood by the purported “majority” of Americans and possibly crushed by the government.
We can abandon much of that fear because we not a minority of “extremists”–we are the majority.
Yes, those of us on this particular blog may hold some specific ideas (“The State vs this state,” “man or other animals,” etc.) that most Americans may find “peculiar”–at least at first. Nevertheless, most of America agrees with us that the government is threatening our liberty and can’t be trusted.
Actually, it’s pretty amazing, In terms of a struggle for the “hearts and minds” of America, we’ve won. Despite all the government’s resources, propaganda, and deceit, we’ve been winning. For years. We just didn’t know it . . . because we believed government when it declared us to a minority of “extremists”.
With blogs, websites, radio and public demonstrations, we are beating the government. Despite government huge advantages in resources and media, we are changing hearts and minds. Fair and square, we’re beating the bastards.
But, how strange. Here we are, advocating distrust of government, and yet, we have allowed ourselves to have been deceived by government propaganda into believing we are a tiny minority.
But, as Shakespeare sad, “The truth will out.” Sooner or later, the truth will be known. Sooner or later the true “extremists” (the collectivists in government or those who support big government) will be seen, exposed and perhaps even pushed back to sanity or at least poverty and political impotence.
If you’ve ever considered running for public office or starting a third political party, now might be the time to fix your sights on the 2014 election.
WE ARE THE MAJORITY!
LET’S TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK!
• If any other nation (say, China) inspired fear in 53% of its people, and distrust in 75%, we’d say that nation was at least a police state and probably headed for serious internal conflicts.
Could it be any different for the U.S.?
There is a political revolution in our near future. It doesn’t have to be violent. It could be as pacific as merely running for office with an openly anti-big-government philosophy–or starting a viable, anti-government, third party.
If the coming revolution is going to be violent, that violence will the instituted by the minority of “extremists” who favor fascism and big government, see their power withering in the face of the political majority who fear and distrust government, and know no other way to retain their power except by force.
It’s even probable that government’s recent orders for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, 2,700 armored personnel carriers, and blatant struggle to disarm Americans are all based on the government’s awareness that the majority of Americans now distrust government. If so, it behooves us all to hang onto our firearms.
We should aim to defeat the big-government “extremists” at the ballot box. But we shouldn’t be surprised if they initiate violence–like trying to effectively revoke our right to keep and bear arms or causing more “false flag” gun tragedies or even some sort of major, international war. We should be prepared to 1) not be deceived; and 2) resist in kind.
We are the majority.
We are the majority!
We hold political power. But we need to learn how to take that power and use to our and America’s advantage.