- Part 1 was an open letter to Poppy Bush, suggesting that
he give up on the World Government idea and face reality, as the cabal
to which he seems to belong can never achieve its crazy goals. Here, in
Part 2, the theme "delenda est cabal!" (Latin for "the cabal
must be destroyed!") will be continued, using a different approach,
namely the approach of bringing traitors to book.
-
- The Constitution of the United States, Article III, section
3, calls on Congress to make a law against treason. The following
is what Congress has come up with, as can be found in 18 USC 2381. ["USC"
means the United States codification of all Congressional legislation.]
-
- "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States,
levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and
shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and
fined under this title but not less than $10,000...."
-
- In order to make this article as punchy as possible,
attention will not be placed on the lesser punishments -- fines and imprisonment;
we will go straight for the gallows. Thus we see that today it is legal,
and officially provided for, that an American levying war against the people
of his/her own nation is eligible for PUNISHMENT BY DEATH.
-
- That should seem like a reasonable deterrent to a would-be
traitor; no one wants to have his life ended at the will of others. But
in order for 18 USC 2381 to act as an effective deterrent, the would-be
traitor has to be aware of three things: 1. That the law does exist, 2.
That observers will be able to recognize when treacherous deeds are being
committed, and 3. That traitors don't have such control over
the machinery of justice that they can thwart it every time.
-
- Regarding that last item, much has been written to suggest
that traitors do control the justice system both federally and in each
of the 50 states. OK, let's agree that they do. Such control
depends on American folks tolerating that arrangement. I am pretty sure
their toleration is based on the belief that they have no option but to
tolerate it. What nonsense! The people could turn things around
tomorrow morning if they recognized their power. Let's do that.
- Delenda est cabal!
-
- GETTING POWER
-
- How does anyone get power in this world? Specifically,
how do people who feel hard done by, get the power to crush despots? (Note:
despots do get crushed fairly often.) Quite simply, they might experience
uncontrollable anger and use their bare hands to attack the despot. In
the history of Australia's penal colony, Port Arthur, there was a cruel
overseer who used to walk unarmed amongst the men he was dominating until
one day the men noticed how easy it would be to overwhelm him. Then it
was curtains for that particular fellow.
-
- In modern times people have often obtained power by yakkity-yakking
about right and wrong, casting the despot into the position of looking
bad -- and hence illegitimate. Such is the gist of Jefferson's
description of King George III in the Declaration of Independence. Remember
George was 'our' king, not just Britain's king. (Indeed, recall that we
were British!). People usually shrink from saying "The
king is a baddie," but if the accusations are dressed up in solemn
terms, pointing to righteousness, the tables can turn quite dramatically.
-
- Another main method by which sufferers can put an end
to a despot's untrammeled freedom is for them to become aware of their
strength-in-numbers. This can only work, however, when people
can see a way to combine. When there are millions, all wishing
for a change in the status quo, and not seeing how to obtain it, the rule
of the despot actually gets strengthened. For example, academics today
like to reiterate that a tiny percent of people own some vast percentage
of all assets; this has the effect of reinforcing the public's feeling
of impotence.
-
- DO AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE POWER?
-
- Just a few decades ago it would have sounded crazy to
ask "Do Americans have power?". The answer was obvious: yes.
And why? because the lucky people of the US have a Constitution that acts
as a barrier against anyone gathering so much power to himself as to be
able to step on the little guy. Sure, big guys do step on little
guys, but the little guy can go to this great big piece of paper, the 'parchment'
and it will stick up for his rights. Heck, the big guy may even
get hauled off to the klinker.
-
- What changed? A few things. 1. Kids are no longer taught
'civics' in school, so do not learn about that very upbeat constitutional
doctrine. 2. Adults of the baby-boomer generation had so many new opportunities
and 'entitlements' that they lost contact with the whole notion of having
to band together for survival. 3. Kids are now explicitly taught that there's
only one option: look out for oneself. They are unschooled about
an entity called 'society' that incorporates the ideal of sorting things
out fairly.
-
- All of that took place by simple cultural conditioning
and it can, of course, be undone by more cultural conditioning. Happily,
the writings of educational theorists Charlotte Iserbyt, John Gatto, and
Beverly Eakman have already gone a long way toward waking people up to
some amazing policies that were secretly implemented in the pubic schools.
-
- Apparently it takes time for activism to succeed, as,
by 1954, Norman Dodd (see him on Youtube) had already found out what the
Rockefeller Foundation and similar foundations and, later, the 'think
tanks' -- were doing. No matter, a half-century of hard work
is cause for celebration!
-
- THERE IS NO OTHER WAY BUT RESTORATION OF RULE-OF-LAW
-
- Could we please spare ourselves a further round of several
decades of wasted time, that is, decades in which writers nominate various
cockamamie plans for the replacement of our 'old-fashioned' constitutionalism
with something more trendy? And by the way, could we please
stop being so dumb as to think that if a thing is 'old-fashioned' it is
therefore inferior?
-
- The reason why Americans had the jump on many other peoples
was that its Constitution actually did take power away from the sort of
creeps who normally get the better of everybody. That's quite a neat little
miracle, brought to us by the very strategy-minded Founding Fathers. Maybe
they should have named it, outright, An Anti-Creep Device, instead of calling
it "a constitution." (It was named that because it 'constituted'
a federal government -- how boring!)
-
- Here's the deal. Human societies can be so
small in population that every member has a chance of constraining, personally,
any other member who tries to harm him. Very few such tiny groups
still exist. Alternatively, a person can find himself in a huge
society in which the person who is giving him grief may live quite a distance
away, and of whose name he may not even be aware. (Quiz; who is harming
you today? Do you know their names?)
-
- In a big society you have no way to use your human nature,
such as your fury or your willingness to negotiate, as a means of altering
an unpleasant state of affairs. This almost certainly leads to a feeling
of resignation toward getting hurt. For centuries there was a sort of 'accord'
known as feudalism. A few men rose to the top "the lords of
the manor," and the other, equally worthy, human beings got cast into
the lifetime role of serfs.
-
- Feudalism deserves to be called an 'accord' only insofar
as the serfs at least gleaned a subsistence. (That is better than today
when 'the people' can easily be starved to death by cutting off mass transport
from farm to city, not to mention being nuked or flooded.) The
feudal system also had in it a justification provided by religion. One
could make sense of one's lot in life in connection with a metaphysical
scheme.
-
- Then a quite different arrangement came along called
rule-of-law -- an intellectual achievement par excellence. Its
ability to take root in eighteenth century America no doubt depended on
the availability of great resources, the geographical distance from the
mother country, and the lack of an existing social hierarchy.
-
- Howsoever it happened, it happened and we are its extremely
fortunate heirs. To anyone too young to recall, it should be pointed out
that rule-of-law, faith in the Constitution, and all that sort of thing
was a fantastic provider of personal dignity and sense of "social
standing with the best of 'em." It also meant bedrock security. Being
an American meant having a good chance of being happy for that reason alone.
-
- "Rule of law" means that we have a fearsome
ruler. However it is not a human individual. It is
also not the bureaucracy of the state, or a platoon of Taser-bearing cops.
It is simply the law. The law reigns over us. Granted,
the legislature can change the laws, coming up with some lousy ones indeed,
but in the US, neither Congress nor state legislatures can make new laws
that violate the Bill of Rights. If they do, those laws are
unconstitutional and hence it goes without saying -- illegitimate.
Unenforceable. Subject to nullification. Contemptible. And
wait for it: treasonous.
-
- How long, O Americans, will you put up with treachery
on Capitol Hill? Never mind the ballot box. There isn't time to go through
that process. Do you know where your weapons are? There is no better weapon
that Article III, section 3 of the beloved parchment. It says:
-
- "Treason against the United States, shall consist
only in levying War against them or adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on
the Testimony of two Witnesses" A mere two witnesses! I'll
be one if you'll be one.
-
- Delenda est cabal!
-
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Mary W Maxwell, PhD, is the author of "Prosecution
for Treason"
- She blogs at credosbooks.com.
|
