On Deceit

One of the mailings that I get from having had my mailing address sold to other bodies turned out (from yesterday, just gotten around to today) to be from an outfit called the Life Legal Defense Foundation.  As its name implies, it is an anti-abortion outfit (although, it turns out from glancing through their literature, they also support and defend "the elderly and infirm with the same tenacity…").  So far, so routine.  But my eye was caught by a particular reference: "LLDF is currently fighting the tyrannical Health and Human Services mandate that would force medical participation in abortion - and countering the Obama administration's efforts to prosecute all pro-lifers as 'terrorists'!"  Emphasis mine.  (And how.)

This is a perfect example of how governments - under the influence of immoral agents - use deception to accomplish their real purposes.  

'Roll up, roll up  Everyone a terrorist…'  

So much for not even needing anymore to be an "unlawful enemy combatant," for a drone strike on you.  Or an incarceration of you - without access to a lawyer, or even formal charge - in a FEMA camp.  For re-education.  Or whatever…

But back to the Constitution.  (Please.)

For this particular example:  Roe v. Wade.  A big, big mistake, on the part of the Supreme Court of the United States, on behalf of the federal government of same.  The decision based on something called our 'privacy rights'.1  

A look at that matter.

The context of the Constitution is clearly that of spelling out the powers being delegated to the new federal government, with some examples, in its appended Bill of Rights, of various powers being spelled out double-clearly as not being granted to the new federal government  and with the  addition, among that appendation, of the 9th and 10th Amendments, to make it all even MORE explicit.  The federal, national government simply wasn't given the power to adjudicate over so-called privacy rights.  It was, in rather point of fact, barred from being involved in such questions in any way, including adjudicating for them, because they were - that subject was - not part of their limited and delegated powers - "few and defined," in the rather authoritative words of the man called the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.  

This business of talking about our 'constitutional rights' is misleading.  The Bill of Rights only protect us from actions of and by the federal government.  They don't confer rights on us from the federal government.

Let me emphasize that point.  People need to secure such rights in their State constitutions.2    

Now.  Unclarity comes in from the 14th Amendment's declaration that all citizens of the individual States are also citizens of the United States, and are vouchsafed the rights ("privileges or immunities") accorded to them by the Constitution.  But such 'rights' as people think are being talked about here are the ones being exampled in the Bill of Rights as being beyond the power of the federal government to mess with - NOT that the Bill of Rights was to be treated as being turned on its head by this Amendment and tendered wholesale as now emanating from the United States government to the several States.  That would make a mockery of the whole intent and purpose of the Constitution.    

Even some conservative constitutional scholars have accepted (as 'settled law,' presumed to be too difficult to try to change now) how, with the 14th Amendment, a new 'doctrine' was introduced into the Constitution, given the fancy name of 'incorporation' - that all of the rights as exampled in the Bill of Rights were now to be 'incorporated' into the federal constitution, as emanating from the federal government to the States, either via the "privileges or immunities" statement in this amendment or, more widely utilized, by its statement about '"life, liberty or property'" - the so-called 'due process' clause.  

Wrong.     

The 14th Amendment, Sect. 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,3 are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  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."       

That is to say, reasonably: the States' laws cannot be a) arbitrary, or b) selective - and that's all it says, and meant.  That 'the law' has to apply to all equally.  In the context: There cannot be one set of laws for the whites and another set for the newly enfranchised blacks; all citizens have to be treated equally before the law.

That the South got around this requirement, with so-called Jim Crow laws - separate drinking fountains and schools for the whites and the blacks, e.g. - behind the argument that they were provided "equally" ('separate but equal') was a travesty against the purpose of the law; a fiction, a bit of sophistry, that would have had to have been addressed sooner or later.  And it was, with the 1954 Board of Education case brought before the Warren Court; which, to its credit, faced the challenge.  But also in doing so - declaring, rightly, a difference between de jure segregation and de facto segregation - opened the door to judicial tyranny; that door being pushed open wider and wider, under the socialist banner of 'equality' (more on which in a moment).  The principle was sound.  But people, being who they are (i.e., 'less than angels', in James Madison's reference to the need for such as constitutions), took advantage of an opportunity, and have tried to convert it to their personal, life-circumstance, and political-philosophy advantage ever since.

And speaking of.       

There is deception going on in regards to the 'left' and the 'right' in politics in general as well.

For the 'normal' left, their political 'enemy' is the Big Guy - the Wall Street crowd, the ownership class, the boys with bucks, who look out for their own interests, against the Little Guy, whose working-class interests are being looked out for, by and large, by the Democrat Party.  But for the far left - who also take up the cudgels against the 'corporate' world - their real enemy is the Tea Party types: those citizens in the broad middle who don't want Big Government (from either side, socialist OR fascist), want essential 'liberty,'4 less regulation of their lives by the intrusive government, etc.  The far Left wants the same as the far Right does: Big Government, regulating The People to within an inch of their lives; just from their perspective, point of view, of being for 'the little guy,' the working class, whereas the far Right wants it for their 'base' - the ownership class, the bankers, the 'corporatists' OVER 'The People'.  They both want 'The People' to be sheeple, to be controlled, just for different purposes.  But the far Left hides behind the normal Left, waiting for their chance to strike, against - as I say - their real enemy.5  

I read the material of the far Left, and it is very misleading in this regard.  They make a good fist of it in being against the 'corporate' crowd; but their real animosity is for the Tea Party crowd, whom they want to control, hamper like a hobbled horse, to serve their interests, environmental and a nation of entitlements - 'redistribution of wealth' - and so forth.  It's insidious.  And they're getting away with it; with a citizenry too enamored of their 'bread and circuses' pursuits to notice, sufficiently, the wolves in their own midst.

The answer?

Not just for 'the sheeple' in the broad center of politics to wake up to how they are being manipulated.  But to do something about it, in response.  My recommendation would be for there to be created a new political party, of The Great American Middle, who don't want either 'isms' to prevail - i.e., socialism or fascism.  And who need to unite - if only for these next two elections - against both extremes.

And 'git'er done'.  

A major change is coming through, anyway; whereby humanity as a whole is going Up.  (And in parts, not.)  But until then -

We have work to do, folks.  Let's be about it.   

It's why we chose to incarnate at this time, anyway. 

As I encourage you to listen deeply, and 'get' for yourself.   

---

footnotes: 

1 Abortion "falls within the penumbra of" said rights; you see.  Or don't; as the case may be.  As it is with me; to say, with my interpretation thereof.

2 Yes, in the Declaration of Independence it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.."  But such rights need to be spelled out in their details amongst men in constitutions.  (A point that I  will get into in a little bit more detail in a moment.)  As T. Jefferson went on, in hiss estimable Declaration: " - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

     He goes to make another pertinent point in this vein; but you can read that for yourself.

3 This part of this sentence having become conveniently overlooked by shyster lawyers and dozing judges when the 'anchor baby' phenomenon was visited on the United States.  In this context, Illegal aliens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the State in which they are illegally residing; they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the nations that they are citizens of.   As are ambassadors or tourists; etc.  

     What a nonsense this has become.  Sometimes, judges get it right.  And sometimes, as in this instance, they get it wrong.

     Yes, judges are human, just like the rest of us.  But that doesn't excuse ineptitude. 

     Their jobs call for more of and from them than the average Joe and Jill.  And, they need to be called on that difference, when the occasion calls for it.    

4 their rallying word.  As opposed to the 'equality' rallying word, and state of being, of the far left; ultimately, as in communism, to everybody having the same income.  Everybody being equal, you see.

     Not.  But that's another blog.  (The 'tall poppy' syndrome, and all that.)
     P.S. Aa far as this movement of the Democrat Party away from its traditional base: that's well exampled by the statement of Ronald Reagan's, that "I didn't leave the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party left me."
      (Why do you think the far Left crowd hated Ronald Reagan so much - and still do to this day??  Besides damning him for his conspicuous rooting out of communists in Hollywood as head of the Screen Actors' Guild at a particularly sensitive moment in this subject area, he put a terrible crimp in their best-laid plans with his populist, middle-ground popularity, and for his homespun political observations, such as how, "When someone says to you, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you,' you should run the other way as fast as you can."  He was viewed as a traitor to their 'well-intended,' statist cause - and a particularly effective one at that.  Their lament: 'How things could have been, if Ronnie had just stayed with his roots…')    


5 The fascists are finding a hard time hiding in the Republican Party now, with the Tea Party crowd starting to feel their oats, and up in arms over how the country is being taken over, and the far right is supporting it, with their plans for the likes of regional trade pacts of both the Atlantic side and the Pacific side of the continent threatening the nation's sovereignty; regardless of whether those plans ripen and unfold under them or the Democrats.  Since they figure they will control the outcomes regardless, at the top of the pyramid of political power.  
     There is but one New World Order planned for.  Both sides of the political aisle are trying to feed the country into the same sausage machine.  The rest is Kabuki theatre for the ignorant - but still stubborn - masses. ' Don't they know yet who's boss??' 
     Actually - don't you, yet???