The Rot in America...

...Stinks to High Heaven.

I haven't known, really, just how bad things were in my home country, until recently.  The rot going on in America is worse - more pervasive - than I thought.

Some pieces of that awareness, and rot:

* The power of the 'corporations' in getting the federal regulatory agencies to 'see things their way'.  I'm thinking of such issues as Fluoridation, and the mandating of dangerous vaccines (& the lack of proper accountability regarding same; and their use as anti-fertility agents without the public's consent; and their use as killer agents in their own right), and the medical-pharmaceutical complex's control over alternative cancer cures and treatments, and the FDA authorizing aspartame when it was known that it could cause birth defects; and GM foods not having to be labeled - let alone the evidences of their danger.  And I could go on in this vein.  Of danger to The People from both the Right AND the Left  (The Right, basically as in corporate control, and bottom-line considerations; and the Left, basically as in government control, and 'income redistribution' issues.)

* A specific in governmental agency control: the federal government's attempts, through the NEA & EPA/FDA/FTC interlocking agencies, to impose the UN's 'Agenda 21' on the nation.  The dumbing-down of the nation's populace going on.  Why?  Because our erstwhile Controllers have decided that the world's resources come first, and an educated, strong middle class uses more resources than a poverty-level lower class, and so we need to be 'uneducated'.  Educated as to the world's needs, and uneducated as to our own individual desires.

So: A lot of people-control stuff going on.  The taking away of personal responsibility, and free moral agency from the people, and the enthroning of the power of 'the state' over the people.  

* But what really got to me today was some comments in a book I recently received in the mail.  Entitled 'Officer's Oath,' it is the story of ex-Lt. Col. Terence 'Terry' Lakin, who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up, as an officer in the U.S. military, and ask for some evidence of the constitutional eligibility of the man in the U.S. presidential office to be his Commander in Chief.  He was tried in a military court and sentenced to prison, for dereliction of duty, before the man in the U.S. presidential office finally authorized a copy of his long-form birth certificate to be posted on the Internet.  But wait - inspection of that document by experts in electronic documents found it to be little better than Swiss cheese - full of holes.  Fraudulent.  A forgery.

So, not only should this have been enough to strip the man in the U.S. presidential office of his stripes  - to appear before a court of law in his own right - but ex-Lt. Col. Terry Lakin should have a received a pardon.  In the best of all possible worlds.

This is not, obviously, the best of all possible worlds.

Yet.

But to continue with the specific reason for my comment on this matter here.  In the book, not only does ex-Lt. Col. Lakin have the chance to tell his side of this story; but it contains essays by various people interested in this matter.  One of them is by Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of World Net Daily.com, an Internet news agency with an admitted right-wing slant on things.  (I say "admitted", because one has to begin to wonder about the true 'slant' of other such sites in this brave new world of mind control that we have been immersed in; for long enough, now.)  The subject of his essay is 'The War on Citizenship', and he has some interesting things to say on that specific subject, within the context of this matter, of the questioned eligibility of the man currently in the U.S. presidential office to hold that office, and be in that position of such power in the country and the world today.

Let me quote a particularly pertinent section of his (excellent) essay; pertinent, that is to say, to the specific point I am raising in this blog:

"The Constitution doesn't say anyone born in America is eligible to become president - and it doesn't mean that.  That's a deliberate media misrepresentation of what it means.

"While our immediate concerns about Obama's eligibility are rightly focused on the constitutional crisis before us, how this matter is resolved will have profound ramifications on the future of our political system.

"What we do in the next few years will determine whether we permanently dumb down the Constitution and our very concept of citizenship [my emphasis] - not just 'natural born citizenship.'

"That's what's at stake right now.

"Do we want to remain a constitutional republic of limited government under the rule of law?

"Or do we want to hammer what could be the final nail in the coffin of the greatest governing document in the history of the world?"

[Yes yes: I understand that there has been a major push in our time to rubbish the Constitution as the work of a bunch of slave owners, and property owners in general, and so forth; and the fact of that institutional rubbishing is part of my consideration here.  But to continue for now:]

"Let's face it.  Across the board, American citizenship is losing its meaning, being downgraded, redefined, and dumbed down.  When the courts interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that when any mother drops a baby in U.S. territory, no matter her own national status, the baby automatically becomes an American citizen, some cheered.  I mourned.

"When the American media and political establishment determined that the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' eligibility requirement for the president of the United States simply meant 'born in the USA,' some cheered.  I mourned..."

Farah is absolutely correct to draw this parallel.  These two issues are precisely related to each other.  And briefly here I have to interpolate my deep concern about how the Fourteenth Amendment got so wrongly interpreted.  Its roots are very clear.  First, a quote from it:

"Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States" - oops.  Excuse me.  That's NOT how it reads.  Let me try that again, this time with accuracy:

"Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...[my emphasis]"

Ah.  I see.  A qualifier.  And what, precisely, does that qualifier mean??  It means what the people at the time, who put it in there, and ratified it as an amendment to the Constitution, even specifically said it meant.  One such person, commenting to the phrase, clarified it by saying "not, of course [my emphasis], including persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens,..." etc.+  Which puts the lie to people in this day and age who say the phrase simply means that any resident is subject to the laws of the state in which they reside.  Not true.  In fact, I will spell it out, for those who have a hard time understanding plain English: that is a lie.++

I'm not going to get into a debate on this specific issue.  I refer to it in the context of the assault on the rule of law going on in America today, where sinister forces are trying to sever the country from its roots in its constitution, to blend the nation into their vision of a 'new world order', ruled over by tyrants, who, by definition, are not limited by any such rule, rather rule by their own power, and initiative.  And that state of being seems to be the desire from both sides of the political aisle; since the Republican Party did not do its duty, as the opposition party in the issue, and call the Obama presidential candidacy on the issue of his eligibility.

It has no excuses.  The issue was clearly brought up, for Congress to look at, in relation to questions regarding the eligibility of the Republican Party's candidate in that election, Sen. John McCain.  So they all knew the issue.  As I say: No excuses.

And the Republicans, who are, generally speaking, more associated with being protectors of the Constitution than their Democrat opposite numbers, have been sorely negligent in allowing the latter to get away with the 'legal' argument that considering the Constitution a 'living document, subject to interpretation', has the legal and moral equivalence of the doctrine of 'original intent', i.e., that the law is what those who passed it intended it to mean, and if the law is to be changed, it needs to be changed legally, not just subject to the personal political proclivities of the judges at the time.  There is no moral equivalence between the concept of 'original intent' and the idea that the Constitution - which is, after all, a contract between two or more parties - is what lawbreakers like to call 'a living document'.  

Or what another law-breaking disciple (on the other side of the political aisle from that of liberals; name of George W. Bush) called it, as simply "a damn piece of paper".  Which attitude does away with even the pretense of legality that is contained in the idea of 'a living document'.

If you want to make fundamental changes in the Constitution, amend it.  Like any contract, it allows for such a thing.

Grrr......

Anyway; to summarize this point:

The Powers That Be want the concept of citizenship undermined, in order to make everybody citizens of the planet, and erase national boundaries, in order to corral us all, into either a socialistic NewWorld Order on the one hand, or a fascistic New World Order on the other.  When neither of those 'ways' is the way to go.

The way to go, now, is Up.

Yes, it's good to think of ourselves - especially now, with world circumstances what they are; having created a globalized community - as citizens of the planet.  (I even worked, for a short time in my life, for an NGO associated with the UN called Planetary Citizens; so I know the thinking behind the concept.  An aspect of that thinking.)  But the end does not justify the means.  That is the philosophy of tyrants down through the ages.

It's time for something better.

Something new.

A New Age.  Built on the concept of our being 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.

And that difference, to what is going on today, on both the Left and the Right, is all the difference in the world.

 --

P.S. As for illegal aliens (let's call them what they are; enough of this PC 'undocumented workers' weasel-word crap) illegally gaining American citizenship automatically for their children born here - the so-called 'anchor babies' - that's not the half of it.  Americans were not so bad at the scamming arts themselves.  How did the Democrats ever get sufficient Republicans to go along with their initiative of creating a permanent welfare class by paying females to have babies on the taxpayers' dime?  That's immoral to the taxpayers - many of whom couldn't even have their own children because of the expense, let alone having to pay for others - and immoral to the children, thus born into poverty conditions.
     No one is 'entitled', as a matter of 'right', to the earnings of any other person.  Period.
     I am incensed at all of these immoral doings that have crept in over the years.  And if Republicans/constitutionalists 'did their best' in educating the public to all this, why wasn't it sufficient enough to pull America out of the gutter of immorality that it was beginning to wallow in??
     How did the country get so far off the track of morality?  It could be that the rot set in at the top.  At the least, in the federal government in general, whose individuals - and many Republicans amongst them; enamored of the almighty dollar as they were - the public saw (or at the least, surmised, from various bits of evidence) early on were 'in it for themselves'.  So I don't blame just the public at large.  I blame, and to the greatest part, their leaders.  Who have clearly failed to live up to their responsibilities, in a republic, where the government is of the people.  Not a special person, or class.
     Take a bow, ALL of you responsible for this mess.
     And then let's recognize it for the lessons to be learnt from it.  And then move on.
     Up.
     The stronger - more conscious; more aware, of how actions have consequences; and unto generations - for the experience.

   

---

footnotes:


+ check the site 14thamendment.us


++ the Supreme Court to the contrary notwithstanding.  I am aware of some decidedly erroneous decisions by that Court down the years on this subject.  Saying something is red when it is green does not make it red.  (I think in particular of Blyer v Doe 1982.  That 'law' is an ass.)
     That business, of treating 'truth' as relative, is part of the problem we are facing today.  Which I will probably get to somewhere herein.  If I can hold my temper that long.
     People who putz around with the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, are trashing my country, and my people. And I won't have it.