Standing On The Brink...

We Stand On The Brink Of Breakthrough

I

In my last blog I talked about this being "wrap-up time…Of the whole scenario".  I would like to elaborate on that attitude a bit; to say, my reason for thinking, and feeling, it.

I see the world's historical process unfolding very much like the so-called Hegelian dialectic has it: whereby a position is taken - the 'thesis' of the process - which generates, in an action-reaction sort of dynamic, a response - the 'antithesis' - out of which tension develops a third 'position' - the 'synthesis' stage of the dialectical process.  But, since the process is not complete - with there being still 'undeveloped' aspects of the socio-econo-political state of being - it is not a complete synthesis, becomes the 'thesis' of another, to say the next, stage of the unfolding process.  Hegel himself apparently envisioned the culminating Synthesis of the historical process as in a sort of enlightened European royalty-like State.  Whatever the best description of his vision, it was not sufficient to cover the totality of 'internal contradictions' in the process still to be unfolded.  And the same applies to Marx's vision of the stateless state, with the state - having assumed all power - in his scenario ultimately withering away.  Fat chance; with such materialistic power also generating a response.  And such total material power/control generating its opposite.  Anyway: On with this show-and-tell.   

My take on the whole shebang:

Once humanity reached the stage of entertaining the notion of, and being capable of applying, a global government, characterized by total power over and control of The People - reached that level of historical development, via a Hegelian dialectical, action-reaction-type process - it was ready for the crowning achievement of the historical process: a true, to say total, stage of Synthesis; the process not needing to go through another stage of unfolding -

of the dynamic between the Right and the Left of the political process; between their ultimate, to say extreme expressions, of fascism - a corporate-government nexus - on the one hand, and socialism - no private property, everything owned by the collective, to say the state - on the other, in their action-reaction tension; reaching now a state - the state - of equilibrium;   

and including the crowning of the heretofore unfinished process of the dialectical dynamic between relativist (culturally-derived) religions and absolutist atheism.  The Truth is now ready - to say, we are now ready for it - to be unveiled in the brilliant light of all of its glory; as we stand on the pinnacle of our perfecting, as 'spiritual beings' now ready to move on beyond just having a human experience, into the surpassing realm of the kingdom of Heaven.  Or at least of the first 'landing' thereof, of the stairway to the heavens.1   

II

A Treatise On The Attempted Takeover Of The American Republic By Barack H. Obama

As the Figurehead Of The Process

A short Review of Where We're At, in relation specifically to the attempted takeover of the American Republic, and its coerced merging into a statist New World Order, by the several actions of the Obama Administration.  Which Review requires a close look at the Constitution, and a clarification of what we actually mean, or at least what is actually meant, when we talk about 'our constitutional rights,' or 'our First Amendment rights,' e.g..  Bear with me in this review.  I'm not a lawyer, so I may well not get this critique of the Constitution, and the details of its rule of law for the nation, spot on.  But a) I know tyranny when I smell it; and b) I know the gist of the constitutional matter; and that's where I will address this issue from.  

This exceptionally important issue, now.  For, Obama is threatening the basic rule of law in the nation, in taking on despotic power in cahoots with other branches of the government, especially the judicial branch (with what are called 'activist judges'); and we need to understand precisely what is going on, in order to mount a properly informed response to it. 

First, some constitutional basics.  No. 1: The Bill of Rights is a list of powers (and but a partial list at that) that the federal government does not possess over the States, "or the people".2  Thus, the First Amendment, e.g., is addressed specifically to the federal government: "Congress shall make no law…"  But, No. 2: The People's rights need to be secured by their individual State's constitution, for the citizens of their respective States.  The rights and powers do not exist simply on their own.    

The American form of government is a federal constitutional republic; not a central/national constitutional republic.   It is, we are, a federation of sovereign States.  The States have considerable powers; as enshrined in law by the specific wording of the Tenth Amendment.3  So, for example, the state of NewYork might have a more liberal definition of 'free speech' allowed in their state than another, more conservative, state has; the same with abortion laws; and so forth.  These are, properly, State matters, in a federal constitutional republic.                 

Now.  Complicating this whole thing are two factors in particular.  1a) Powers assumed by FDR in the '30s, to 'fight' the Great Depression, under Emergency Powers, similar to War Powers.4  These Powers have never been officially rescinded.  1b) Powers given to the Executive by Congress in our modern day to react in War situations expeditiously; requiring, however, the Executive to come to the Congress within a time certain to be ratified by Congress in his/her employment of said powers (and who hold the pursestrings for the appropriation of funds to prosecute said war in any event).  And 2) The employment, in our modern times, of a judicial 'principle' called 'incorporation'.  

As to this latter factor.  Liberal judicial types - law professors and judges alike - have argued that the14th Amendment turned the Bill of Rights around, and aimed it as applying from the federal government to the States; in trying to make of the American form of government a central/national constitutional republic.  The easier to eat you with, my dear.  On our way to having 'the constitutional bit' jettisoned altogether - under War/Emergency Powers, or whatever other excuse we may find/employ to do the job.  And then the last stage of the takeover of the country - the elimination of the 'republic' form of government bit - will be like a ripe fruit, falling neatly into our waiting hands.  And our takeover will be complete.  And you cattle will take orders from us; your rightful masters... 

What is this all about.  I mean, the 'incorporation' bit.  (The rest is, or at least should be, obvious.)

This so-called 'principle' means that the 14th Amendment has been and is being used to destroy the 'federal' form of the American governmental equation.  Here's the sophistic, legalistic thinking behind it.  The key to the scam is in this section of the 14th Amendment; to wit:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 5  Without going into a wordy reprise of what the intention was behind this amendment, I'll summarize:

This is post-Civil War stuff, where the Congress was giving the newly-enfranchised slaves the benefit of legal protection.  The 'due process' clause meant specifically that the States could not be arbitrary in their treatment of their newly enfranchised former slaves, had to abide by the rule of law, and that went for all of their citizens as well, for that matter; and the 'equal protection' clause meant specifically that the States could not have one set of laws as applying to their newly enfranchised former slaves and another set for the white citizenry; that the laws had to apply equally, for all citizens.

What happened out of this legislation?

Legal decisions started to be made based on the idea that the 14th Amendment applied - as I say - from the federal government to the States.  Thus, e.g., the Supreme Court struck down, in around 1941, some State's outlawing of the burning of the United States flag, under the 'principle' of 'incorporation': that a) the act was a political act, and the Bill of Rights protected it under the 'free speech' terms of the First Amendment; and that b) such rights were now protected by the federal government, under the 'principle' that the terms of the Bill of Rights were now 'incorporated' into federal law under the terms of the 'due process' clause of the 14th Amendment.  

Under such juridical thinking are whole nations overturned.

I assure one and all that the 14th Amendment does not say (and was not intended to say):    

'The powers formerly reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, shall now reside in the federal government.'  That is, a total, wholesale overturning, of both the clear principle of 'enumerated powers' and the specific terms of the Tenth Amendment.6  

And now, here we are, in our compromised day and age, where two legal decisions in particular have caught my eye recently:

1) the California Supreme Court has just ruled that an illegal alien can apply for and receive a license to practice law in the State.  (An illegal alien??  Who is subject to the laws of his home country, is not recognized as being subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, for not being here legally???) 

2) the Supreme Court in New Mexico has just ruled "that a devout Christian woman who owns a photography studio MUST photograph a same-sex 'marriage' ceremony even though her deeply held religious convictions say homosexuality is a sin".7 

Which law trumps which in this country anymore???  I happen to side with the argument that a State constitution can establish 'free speech, or 'practice of religion' terms in its state, which are no business of the federal government.  ('Congress shall make no law…')  But there is a huge amount of precedent by now which says that it is…

I know one thing.  Such obfuscations of the law have allowed a man like Barack Obama, with his obviously despotic leanings and tendencies, the opening to start running the country like a fiefdom of his.8  All in all - and especially with his announcing, towards the end of his 2008 campaign for the presidency, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - a dangerous time for the American Republic. 

I didn't hear this announcement at the time, living outside of the country as I was (and had been, for many years); and so it took me a while to get up to speed on what, precisely, he was up to, in his presidency.  Which turned out to be, on closer inspection, a purloined presidency, by an ineligible candidate for the office. 

All of this opens this conversation to another level, which I won't go into here.  Just to say, in closing, that if you're going to acquiesce in the overthrowing of your rule of law, and open yourself to the operations of a dictator - who believes, as with Hitler, that "I am the law," you had better make damn sure that you can trust that dictator to be, not only a benign one.  But a spiritual one.  

Or you open this country to a terrible, terrible fate.  Both for itself.  And for its citizenry, as individuals.

Be informed.  Be very informed.  To know what you're getting yourself, and all those around you, into.

Either deeper into hot water.

Or higher in the cosmic realms.   

It is a choice.

And one for us to make.

Here.

Now.               

---  

footnotes:

1 Of which there may be twelve, all told.  But that's just conjecture; at this point.
     P.S. And I won't go here into the proofs that we are 'spiritual beings' ('having a human experience').  I have gone into them in other blogs.  Suffice it to say that they are legion.
The proofs, I mean.  Well; my postings, too.
     I mean, how much more evidence do we need than is already in???
     For those who have eyes to see.
     P.P.S. As for the political aspect of the "unfinished process": a word.  Back when I found out that Obama had said on the eve of the '08 elections, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that he could have meant, like, 'from the industrial, warmongering state as personified by, and risen to new heights by, George Dubya and his happy gang of NeoCons, relishing the idea of rampaging around the world scene in order to make said world secure for the likes of Halliburton' sort of thing; including 'overthrowing' the tendencies demonstrated by the Bush gang of the authoritarian surveillance of a free people, a lack of transparency, and that sort of demonstration of the arrogance of power.  Well, as we have seen, he has raised that tendency to a new level.
     To a level which brings the dialectical process to a head.     

2 It possesses only those powers specifically entrusted to it by the States - in their ratifications of the Constitution - in the body of the Constitution.  These are limited and delegated powers - "few and defined," in the rather authoritative words of the man called the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.  The legalese term for them being the enumerated posters.

3 By employing a Bill of Rights in their ratifications of the document, the compact, the contract, the States were making sure - at least as sure as they could - that the federal creature that they were breathing life into did not take on a life of its own, was held down by some specific ropes - the Bill of Rights being merely examples of the powers that the new, federal government was not being awarded.

     Some of the statesmen of the time, including Madison, argued against the addition to the Constitution by the States of a Bill of Rights, on the grounds that future Americans might be deluded, by their less-than-illustrious leaders of their time, into thinking that the federal Leviathan had the power to do all manner of things that weren't expressly forbidden it by a Bill of Rights; rather than understanding that said Bill was just an example of such powers forbidden it/that it was not being empowered with.  That the awareness of the principle of enumerated powers would be watered down over the succeeding years. 

     Sound familiar???    

     P.S. Some people seem to have been confused on this issue by wording in the 14th Amendment. Quote: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…'  As I understand it, that simply means that we are all citizens of the United States, besides being citizens of the States wherein we reside, and cannot be treated arbitrarily, insofar as the 'law of the land' goes - that is, the Constitution.  Which the federal government is subject to as well. 

     As long as we have a, the, national Constitution… 

4 It was by the employment of this ploy that he was able to confiscate the privately-held gold of the people.  And under the provisions of which, The People became Enemies of The State.  A condition which unscrupulous individuals could use to their advantage.

     Sound familiar???   

5 These words are what are behind the better--known expressions, 'the due process clause' and 'the equal protection clause' of the 14th Amendment.  

6 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

7 quote from a mailing by the Defense of Family Center, a project of the United States Justice Foundation.

8 Particularly blatant, and offensive, is his administration's applications, through the (executive-branch agency) Environmental Protection Agency, of unilateral power to regulate every aspect of the nation's economy, by imposing taxes on energy usage; which, in normal times, would be recognized as a matter for Congress (via its taxing powers) to decide, being a far cry from simple 'housekeeping' regulatory power.  

     More in the nature of his unilateral actions regarding illegal aliens, where he has simply stopped enforcing the law, and has released thousands of detained illegal aliens, and granted de facto Amnesty to one million of them.  (My thanks to the Southeastern Legal Foundation for some of these facts.)