In my last blog I dealt in the main with the Left's attempts, via the strategy of using smear words like 'racist' and 'bigot' and 'hater' and so forth against their enemies, the conservatives and 'Tea Party' patriots, to disempower the opposition to their revolution-in-progress.1 But I want to give due credit to where credit is due, also. And that includes the Right. (Or to say, the far Right. To say more clearly: the fascist Right.)2
This, as I was reminded by a mailing over this past weekend, that I finally got around to earlier today, from one of my favorite 'worthy causes,' Larry Klayman and his Freedom Watch. In his doctrinaire pro-Christian position he goes too far for me in one respect - in seemingly blind support for Israel in its face-off with its enemies.3 But in his down-the-line patriot stance, he is to be commended; and especially for his court-case argument against the overreach of the NSA in its police-state-like spying on the American people, which the judge agreed was an egregious case of unconstitutionality.4 That case is being defended - strongly - by the current government. But the protocol was put in place by the previous government, of George W. Bush.
And with that bit of awareness, let me get to the real, to say main, point that I want to make in this particular blog. And that has to do with the Constitution; and a widespread misunderstanding thereof, it certainly appears.
This current court case (which the Usurper's administration is doing its damnedest to stonewall as long as it can) involves the Fourth Amendment, and arguments about the interpretations thereof. Big mistake. It was the same mistake that was made under the rule of Bush Jr. I knew that we were in deep trouble as a nation when a Bush Jr. NSA (I think he was) official tried (on camera, with some reporters) to nitpick over the details of the wording of the Fourth Amendment, arguing that it said "unreasonable searches and seizures" with the emphasis on "unreasonable," while some reportorial critics of that take on the matter replied that the Fourth emphasized the need for their being "probable cause".
People, people. Do you want to eat your carrots or your peas?
To say: The emphasis should be on our constitutional rights, whereby the federal government has only strictly enumerated powers, examples of excesses of which are stated in the Bill of Rights.5 You have allowed your eyes to be taken off the ball; and a police state is being constructed before those very eyes, because of your failure of paying sufficient attention to detail.
And it is as much the fault of 'the Right' - under Bush Jr. - as it is the fault of 'the Left,' under the Usurper.6 The Bush Jr./Neo-Con administration called for a war footing - on al-Qaeda (a creature of the CIA) - on the domestic front as well, with the 'homeland' being declared by them a war zone, for a specific reason: to try to get around this very thing, of the constitutional limits to the federal government's powers, and in particular, the executives; not just in terms of this or that article of the Bill of Rights.7 But the Usurper's administration is content to try to stay within the Bill of Rights' constraints if it at all can; a) for not wanting to draw too much attention to its overreach, in order to keep 'the masses' dozing; and b) for not wanting to have to go to the 'war zone' well to draw their 'powers' waters from if they can help it, so that it can be established that they have such powers even outside of such a consideration, as simply the prerogatives of an 'activist' president. Like FDR.
Whose imperial-presidency approach to the job ultimately didn't work, either. Top-down government not being of the essence of a free people.
Unless it's the right top-down. Whereby all are, truly, One.
Another, although associated, matter.
---
footnotes:
1) I could have added to my comments on that thread, when the 'racist' baiters continued their attack on me, some such as the following comeback: 'So you're saying that to be for the nation-unifying factor of a common language is to be a 'racist' or, barring that attempt at a smear, a 'bigot'. I see. To say, I don't see, the logic in your accusation. But I do see what you're up to. And I reject it, totally.' And I might even have continued, if I thought it worth it in the context of that particular Comments thread: ' And tell me: Do you just enjoy, in and for itself only, trolling the Internet looking for conservatives to demonize with your stock-in-trade smear words, or are you paid for your services, to the Left's attempted takeover of the country? Just curious. Personally, I won't break faith with those Americans who fought, and some of whom died, in wars to make the world safe for freedom, and out of the hands of statists of either the Left OR the Right.'
But that may have been overkill, there.
But I can get into all this here, on my own blog site.
2 There is a misconception amongst some of the citizenry about 'the Right'. Some think of, e.g., the John Birch Society as being of 'the far Right'. But some also think of fascism as being of 'the far Right' as well; when the JBS actually believes in small government; not statism/collectivism, like either socialists or fascists. The far Left is socialism (or 'progressivism,' as the socialists like to be called, to get around being tarred by the same sort of demonizing brush that they wield against their enemies); the far Right is fascism (aka corporatism; an unholy alliance between the bankers/'Big Business' and the government). Technically, the political spectrum could be put as all the statists to the far Left, shading over to anarchism on the far Right. But that way of looking at it seems a bridge too far for people to handle. So: socialists and then communists (regulations on private property, all the way over to no private property, and other major controls over the people, like enforced equality) on the far Left, and capitalists and then fascists (private property and less governmental interference/essential liberty, all the way over to Big Banking/Business in cahoots with the government) on the far Right. That's how I am looking at it, when I talk about the 'left' and the 'right'.
They are both to go, when the real New Order of Things makes its debut. But, as far as 'being here now' is concerned, it is, I feel, a fair way of looking at the political scene. It still doesn't clarify as well as it could, for example, the difference between such as the JBS - who want less government ('and more responsibility and, with God's help, a better world') and fascists on, quote, 'the far Right'. But as I say, the time's they are a 'changing anyway.
3 the state of Israel needs to be told by the American government, in its arrogant assumption of ongoing financial assistance from Uncle Sugar: 'You need to tender an apology to the American people for the so-called Lavon Affair; for your attempted sinking of the USS Liberty; for your guilt at the least by omission in the suicide bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Lebanon; and for your guilt by both omission and commission in the 9/11 atrocity. And then we'll see where we all stand.'
4 "Almost Orwellian," US District Court Judge Richard Leon labeled it. A worthy call. He could have called it outright Orwellian, and been that much closer to the mark. But good for this good man and true, to the rule of law in this country, and to his calling.
5 'The Father of the Constitution,' James Madison, warned specifically about this sort of thing; i.e., against the danger of a Bill of Rights being added to the Constitution (as it was developed at the Constitutional Convention for ratification by the state legislatures), said Bill of Rights possibly leading some to think that the Constitution was conferring powers to the federal government that needed to be checked by such a Bill. The constitutional Framers were very clear, that the powers being conferred on the federal government by the constitution that they had crafted were limited and delegated - "few and defined," in the extremely defining words of Madison. But the state legislatures, in their suspicion of such things - conferred on them by history - wanted something even more specific 'down on paper' - to be written into the contract; and then, to make their intentions even more clear, they added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
And even with all that history (and as having been clarified beautifully in The Federalist Papers), we have ended up widely getting it wrong…
6 Which 'usurpation' situation is as well an example of this failing, of a self-governing body to keep an eye on 'their' government. But that specific issue is another one. But it is an example - albeit a particularly devastating one - of the sorts of ramifications there can be thereof.
7 To Bush Jr., the Constitution was "just a damn piece of paper". And so he - and his clever Neo-Con buddies - made it one.
Too clever by far. See the "another Pearl Harbor" of the manifesto of the Neo-Con's PNAC, as manifested - voila! -- in 9/ll.
No comments:
Post a Comment