Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Grayson

Conspiracy Cafe
Messages
1,117
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Originally posted by CaryP@Aug 28 2004, 10:25 AM


I can see how it got to the point where we had to tell the English what freedom and democracy meant. I can only tell you that liberty for Americans is an impassioned principle, not a papery concept. You can tell what is an important value in a culture by what they are willing to bleed for. I would give my life for the way of life outlined in the Constitution, for the freedom of other Americans, and for yours.

I'm with you bro'. Reading your post followed by Grayson's was a great juxtaposition of the American and British viewpoints.


Cary

Let me be clear here Cary, this was just that, an attempt to offer another view from another perspective. That is not necessarily how I see things, but the scope for debate here is phenomenal.

I am curious to see Paul's expanded view of his comments above.
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Let me be clear here Cary, this was just that, an attempt to offer another view from another perspective. That is not necessarily how I see things, but the scope for debate here is phenomenal.

I am curious to see Paul's expanded view of his comments above.

Hey Grayson,

No problems pal. I wasn't trying to jab at you. I realized that's what it was, just my brash American knee-jerk reaction. I'm sure you can see that of me. Just wanting to be clear with you here bro'. We're on the same side. The scope for debate is definitely on the phenominal side. You'll probably see me throw my 2 cents in from time to time. My apologies if my comment offended you.

I'm await Mr. Lyon's additional comments as well.

Cary
 

Grayson

Conspiracy Cafe
Messages
1,117
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Originally posted by CaryP@Aug 28 2004, 08:31 PM
Let me be clear here Cary, this was just that, an attempt to offer another view from another perspective. That is not necessarily how I see things, but the scope for debate here is phenomenal.

I am curious to see Paul's expanded view of his comments above.

Hey Grayson,

No problems pal. I wasn't trying to jab at you. I realized that's what it was, just my brash American knee-jerk reaction. I'm sure you can see that of me. Just wanting to be clear with you here bro'. We're on the same side. The scope for debate is definitely on the phenominal side. You'll probably see me throw my 2 cents in from time to time. My apologies if my comment offended you.

I'm await Mr. Lyon's additional comments as well.

Cary

I don't want to get in to belabouring clarifications here. I wasn't actually aiming that at you, I was just using you as a reference to explain my position. I don't want any misunderstandings from anyone outside the Family, those of us who understand the rules of play here.

A debate is a debate and often we may take an opposing viewpoint to stretch an argument. I need to be crisper with my stated purpose as I sometimes expect a bit of reader ESP to help cover the points that I skim over, or just plain miss. :D

So don't worry, you never offend me big fella. >:D< The mistake was mine. ;)
 

Judge Bean

Senior Member
Messages
1,257
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Originally posted by Grayson@Aug 28 2004, 01:52 AM
A brief history of government

Smart persons can adjust to living happily within the framework of their government, of any government. Only fools try to attack or change their governments, or their politicians and their political agendas. Mischievous politicians are the price we have to pay for civic order.
....
The concept of freedom is very broad. It has many faces and nuances. It is very important to appreciate the fact that a reference to freedom does not imply that we must feel free to stand on a soapbox. When we talk about freedom, we are referring primarily to our economic freedom: The ability to engage in economic transactions without coercive interference by our government.


I am not a fool. I refuse to "pay the price" of corrupt government for freedom, which, to me, is not a simple matter of the unhampered ability "to engage in economic transactions."

Some governments are not worthy of the adjustment mentioned in the first sentence.
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

I am not a fool. I refuse to \"pay the price\" of corrupt government for freedom, which, to me, is not a simple matter of the unhampered ability \"to engage in economic transactions.\"

Some governments are not worthy of the adjustment mentioned in the first sentence.

If this is just a debate, I'm on Paul's side.

Cary
 

Judge Bean

Senior Member
Messages
1,257
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

The warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary as ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.
George Washington

I am not a blind Admirer (for I saw the Imperfections) of the Constitution I aided in the Birth of, before it was handed to the Public; but I am fully persuaded it is the best that can be obtained at this Time, that it is free from many of the Imperfections with which it is charged, and it or Disunion is before us to choose from. If the first is our Election, when the Defects of it are experienced, a constitutional Door is opened for Amendments, and may be adopted in a peaceable Manner, without Tumult or Disorder.
George Washington

…should an unwarrantable measure of the Foederal Government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people, their repugnance and perhaps refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State, the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose in any State difficulties not be despised; would form in a large State very serious impediments, and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the Foederal Government would hardly be willing to encounter.
James Madison

I would not be understood my dear Marquis to speak of consequences which may be produced, in the revolution of ages, by corruption of morals, profligacy of manners, and listlessness for the preservation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; nor of the successful usurpations that may be established at such an unpropitious juncture, upon the ruins of liberty, however providently guarded and secured, as these are contingencies against which no human prudence can effectually provide. It will at least be a recommendation to the proposed Constitution that it is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of Tyranny, & those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any Government hitherto instituted among mortals, hath possessed. We are not to expect perfection in this world: but mankind, in modern times, have apparently made some progress in the science of Government. – Should that which is now offered to the People of America, be found on experiment less perfect than it can be made—a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration.
George Washington


Whatever the wrongs done to them before now, the final degradation would be to insist upon bloodshed—to require the people to pay with some of their lives, and to go to war against themselves, in order to gain the justice they are entitled to without question. There is no doubt about whether we are due our rights, nor that they have been taken from us.

Those who have done this are those who have gained from it—see for yourselves if you question it—track the profit to the source of the crime. The profit is the proof; the proof is in the profit. The criminals know that Americans will not go to war against themselves, and won’t agree ever again to tear their loyalties apart, uncertain whether their obligation lies ultimately with the government or with their local communities. The compulsion of this choice is yet another crime against the people.

Our duty is to ourselves, and to one another, and to the corrected government. The law is only as good as the ones who obey it. The choice to obey it is the choice of the people; it is the original democratic election. The law gives us a way to govern ourselves, and without its integrity intact anyone else can govern us instead. We owe one another our lives and fortunes—we don’t owe them to a government run by pirates and con-artists.

Our Constitution gives us the final right to condemn a government that has condemned us to lives of servitude and rote taxation. It provides the legal means to order the capital vacated when it should ever come to pass that those in power have encroached upon our rights and liberties to such an extent as to have compromised our lives and property and livelihood and welfare.

It is a violation of the sacred trust—the compromise in which power was entrusted to the government—for those in power to continue despite the will of the citizens that they should resign if unable to obey the law.

The government as it now stands is nothing if not a broad confession of the inability to govern. Where it is not frankly criminal in its operation, it is criminally incompetent. Whether it bumbles toward its Stygian morass, or marches there forthrightly, makes no difference in the final analysis. The government asks the people to go to hell in its handbasket in either case.

It asks the people to go to the hell of civil war and rebellion if the people are really serious about cleaning out Washington and repairing the damage done to the law of the Constitution. It asks the people to accept the lesser hell of diminished freedom as an alternative to justice.

Either way lies divisive policy, and the end of the voluntary union of the States, who surrendered a portion of sovereignty for federal benefits. The government thus adds insult to the injuries it has imposed, and leaves for us the choice between civil war and a republic of crime. As Madison admonished,

The picture of the consequences of disunion cannot be too highly coloured, or too often exhibited. Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he many cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it.

The Constitution is not perfect and the Framers were not gods; having left a way open to amend the law of the land, amendment was anticipated and continues to occur. The Constitution contains its own healing rule; change is the law also. As anticipated by our fundamental law, an “unwarrantable measure” will be opposed, and the dissent to wrong or bad law is, therefore, the enforcement of law. Disobedience to unconstitutional federal law is the equivalent of law enforcement, and within the power of the citizens if the States shirk the duty.

The process for Constitutional change begins with the insistence by the people that the government should obey the law; the insistence that the government should obey the will of the people, who have an obligation to oppose unconstitutional measures, or oppose representatives who pass or enforce unconstitutional measures. Disobedience by the government spells the end of that government by any means within the legal power of the people.

In recent history, have the people expressed their will and has the government obeyed it?

As a result of the exploitation and high risk of the people in the 1920s and 30s, President Roosevelt propounded rights that are now understood to have been an expression of the will of the battered Americans at that time. They have not since gone away as he expressed them, and have instead become incorporated into the standard idea of the people’s political desires.

Americans have the right to work, and to be compensated for it to the extent that they can provide for their families. They have the right to adequate housing, health care, education, and provision for the retired and elderly. We also believe that we have the right to be free from fear—by which we mean free from the fear of epic failure of the law or the economy, including the threats of foreign criminal regimes. Freedom for Americans, therefore, means the ability to carry on daily life without having to worry about, for example, being bombed.

The people wish not to invade or conquer or militarily oppose other nations—they wish not to send troops overseas to wage wars for the benefit of others unless it is absolutely necessary for the survival of democratic civilization. They wished specifically to immediately end the war in 1968, which was not ended until 1975. This is not “isolationism,” it is the ignored but specific statement of Americans as a whole that war is a last resort, a means of defense, instead of a device used to change foreign governments to ones amenable to American business.

The people wish not for the government to keep secrets as a way of doing its business. They want open, truthful conduct, not intrigue and espionage. They want the old skeletons out of the closet and buried, and old ones who were buried in unmarked graves to be exhumed and identified.

The people wish to have an expanding, stable, healthy economy and clean environment. Proof of the former is that a president is reelected every time the economy is in good shape and as many as possible are employed. Proof of the latter is within the lungs of every child. The people want corporations taxed on a par with individual taxation, and a portion of the grand profits turned into better roads and schools; and they also want adequate police and fire departments.

The people want decent and affordable health care, universal free education, and cheap college, but they want teachers and paid professional salaries. They want cheap universal insurance of all ordinary kinds. They want no crime, and to make the current one the last generation of career inmates. They want no homeless or cast-off persons, and no street drugs or unregistered weapons—though they want no limit on the weapons otherwise.

They don’t want to encourage or finance abortions; they want government programs to eradicate AIDS and distribute birthcontrol information; but they want no government interference with private decisions.

They want less government intrusion and interference in all respects—they want it to stay out of business, but tax it fairly—to stay out of local government, but give local governments adequate money—to stay out of private lives, and defend any intrusions by business or government. They want to reduce government overall, and do more governing at local and State levels.

Contrary to the will of the people, Americans every day lose jobs and the chance to get them, and their pay is becoming less and less valuable to them if they can work at all. More and more cannot provide for their families. They have lost the ability to get adequate housing, health care, education, or to take care of those who depend upon them, the ill, the very young, the old.

We have lived in fear of nuclear holocaust for decades, in recent years of terrorist attack by “weapons of mass destruction.” We live in a state of suspended terror. The economy seems to be out of our hands, and foreign policy is dictated by gangs operating from caves on the other side of the world. Our official solution has been to invade and conquer other nations, and demonize other races and religions. Ignoring the will of the people, the government sends troops overseas to wage wars for the benefit of giant corporations and vested interests.

The government continues to keep secrets as a way of doing its business. Many Americans believe that some of the most important historical events of the past 50 years have been shrouded in deliberate obscurity.

The economy is on the verge of collapse due to the unchecked expansion of credit; it can best be described as an enormous bubble. The environment is shrinking, drying, and burning to enhance private profits. Corporations pay only the taxes that suit them, and the schools and police and fire departments scrape by with marginal budgets.

The health care, education, and insurance systems all view reductions of services as their primary goals. As a result, criminals, the homeless, and armed addicts make up an ungodly percentage of the population. Government intrusion and interference in private lives expands daily, as does the federal government itself, rendering local and State government token and impotent.

Across the whole spectrum of specific rights, penumbral or implied rights, and rights that have developed when Americans were confronted with the pitfalls and tyrants of the 20th Century, the federal government has operated to curtail, to intrude, to suppress, and to restrict. It no longer even carries on the pretense of effectively enacting the official desires of the citizens, or even trying to reflect Americans’ obvious democratic policies and intentions.

If the government has not represented the American people, and has not worked for the people for decades, who has it represented and for whom has it been working? By what rule or right does it continue in power?
 

Grayson

Conspiracy Cafe
Messages
1,117
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

We and the Government as it stands:

Three billion years of evolution have imbued all life on earth with one basic motivation: All living organisms, including all human beings, always act in what they consider to be in their best self-interest. This unalterable motivation is the source for all other emotions of all living organisms. This motive is also the precursor of the Negative Golden Rule, which first appears in the writings of the nascent periods of major religions and civilizations.

The Biblical Golden Rule states: "Do unto others what you want done to yourself" The Negative Golden Rule states: "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself". This nugget of wisdom goes back thousands of years. It appears in old Judaic teachings as well as in the ancient Tibetan Buddhist aphorism: "Let all hear this moral maxim and having heard it, keep it well: Whatever is not pleasing to yourself, do not that into others".

The actual Golden Rule, as embedded in the New Testament of the Bible, is adverse to human emotional and evolutionary motivation. Unfortunately, St. Matthew was not familiar with human nature when he said in (7-12) "Therefor all things whatsoever ye would that men do to you, do ye even so to them. For this is the law and the prophets".

Immanuel Kant, too, knew little about human nature when he torturously invented his Categorical Imperative. Since this long-winded moral exhortation is nothing but a convoluted version of the Golden Rule, it is just as ineffective as the Golden Rule. Most people are not even aware of this Kantian moral imperative and nobody pays any attention to it. This type of philosophizing exposes Kant as just another one of the many philosophers who lacked a basic understanding of human nature and reality.

The same psychological principles that apply to the moral code of a society, also apply to individual members of a society who merely wish to enhance their coexistence with other members of their family or society. All human beings have an infinite number of wants, needs and desires. It is impossible to know and understand all of the wants and likes of another person.

Therefore, it is impossible and presumptive for a person to decide what may be desirable for another person, merely as a projection of his own desires. A projection of our own likes would rely on the unrealistic assumption that others have the same needs and desires as we do. We know from everyday observations that other people do not have the same likes as we do and, since we can merely surmise what others may like, we will almost certainly create dismay more often than happiness.

So, we are not concerned with the political machinations of governments. We are merely concerned with the interaction between governments and our singularly individual needs. Our main individual concern in maintaining our own health, wealth and happiness is the need to protect ourselves from impositions created by governments.

We must be careful to achieve this objective without conflicting with the government and its laws, without rocking the boat of government and without even giving the appearance of interfering with the demands of the government.

Nothing good is going to happen if we attack any government in any way, form or shape. It is best if we leave confrontation to self-destructive hotheads. Rational persons have only one objective in life, and that is to be as happy as humanly possible. People who fight the government are not happy people and they usually lose.

We therefore cannot change the world, or the people in it, to any substantial degree. What we can do and what we must do in order to achieve happiness is to be fully aware of the way the world works, to align ourselves with the reality of the situation and to cope with obstacles in a non-confrontational, rational and efficacious manner.

It is the nature of governments to deprive their constituents of their hard-earned wealth by taxation and inflation; at worst, governments may subjugate us or kill us. Governments may not hesitate to force their constituents to become the willing or unwilling canon fodder of military involvements. If we should try to shirk this duty, we may be shot as deserters, just to set an example.
Our government will demand all such sacrifices in the interest of the Common Good of the Nation, as defined by the government. If it is in the interest of the political leadership, appropriate propaganda will persuade citizens to believe in and act upon false or spurious objectives.

Those who suffer from the tumultuous emotion of patriotism, commonly encourage the love of one's own country and its frequent offspring, war. Politicians invoke patriotism to stimulate sacrifices from those who will suffer the most from war. As George Bernard Shaw asserted so humorously but succinctly, "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others, merely because you were born in it".

Patriotism is to politics what faith is to religion: The unquestioned acceptance of information that is either unverified or that may actually be in conflict with factual evidence. Patriotism is the incubator of wars.

Similar to religion, patriotism is an emotion, as opposed to a rational thought process. Studies and surveys have consistently indicated that approximately 90% of persons in any given country have strong patriotic sentiments. This percentage is similar to the percentage of people involved in other faith-based activities, such as religion. This same percentage also reflects the bell-curve of the general intelligence level of a population: 90% of all persons in a Caucasian population group register an IQ below 120.

It is counter-productive to look to the government for gratuitous benefits. So-called free goods or services offered by the government are not free but always carry a hidden price tag: The price we pay could be a restriction of our freedom to act independently, or we may receive goods and services that are of inferior quality.

Governments only provide such services or goods that the Free-Market has declined to provide, usually due to a lack of demand for a product at a specific price level. Private investors do not hesitate to launch commercial satellites but they do consider it unprofitable, unproductive and a waste of resources to send space vehicles into the distant universe. Only governments engage in such wasteful endeavours in order to enhance their appeal to the patriotic masses.

We always need to be cognizant of the fact that the government, any government, has no money and no wealth of its own. Governments, as represented by professional politicians, have only four methods of acquiring financial resources that they can then dole out to further their own objectives. 1. Direct taxation of its citizenry; 2. Indirect taxation involving the counterfeiting of its own currency, also known as inflation; 3. Wars provide for the looting of other countries. 4. Political manipulation of the economy.

Bureaucrats, the true executive branch of any government, pursue only two objectives: To preserve their own jobs with a minimum of work and to create or enlarge their own private empires, their circle of influence. Ordinary citizens have no contact with the political power structure. Even in a democracy, members of the electorate are always restricted to dealing with bureaucrats, rather than having direct access to their elected representative.

The primary objective of bureaucrats is to lead simple and hassle-free lives. If we are dependent on their favourable response, we will find it to our advantage to flatter their sense of self-esteem. Bureaucrats will not condone any attempt to question their sense of importance: Keep it simple, flatter them, make life simple for them, do not contradict them, and all will be well. Do not rock the boat of government: It is far easier to simply slide through the quagmire of bureaucratic impositions.

The government has practically unlimited resources. Our own resources are limited and puny in comparison. If a government needs additional resources, it merely has to tap the wealth of its citizens by taxation. This approach to wealth is clearly an option not available to ordinary citizens.

At all costs, we should avoid a situation where the government may just want to set an example of its power to deal with any perceived or imagined obstructionism: If we expose ourselves to such a situation, we may lose all we have, including our freedom, on the altar of a god called Idealism.
Idealists, like Pastor Niemoeller and Company, pay dearly and accomplish nothing. Only other idealists, who are smart enough to avoid confrontations with the government, will glorify such misguided approach to happiness. Idealistic fools usually become unsung martyrs. We should only speak the truth, but we should not speak of everything that is true.

Aside from the practical consideration of not irritating the government, we need to remember that governments have always been an integral and necessary part of human society. Indeed, without governments, human society and civilization could not prevail. Governments are a curse and a blessing. They will continue to help and to plague us, until the very nature of man changes.

Governments exist because, similar to religions, they meet certain innate, irrational needs of man: People mistakenly believe that governments, or religions, can provide them with benefits that would not otherwise be available. People tend to overlook the fact that the government has no money and no resources, except those that it can claim from its citizens.

Taxes are the lifeblood of any government. Governments cannot exist without taxation. Any government can and will obtain compliance with its demands by the use of force or the threat of force.

The government can bankrupt us just by hauling us into its courts on spurious charges. We may win our case, eventually, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory because we will be much poorer. This process is also known as Winning the Battle but Losing the War. This outcome is inevitable if we play philosophical games with the government.

We must also remember that the Judicial System, from the local Justice Court to the Supreme Court, is an integral part of the government. Politicians set the salaries of all judges, even Supreme Court Justices, and pay for them out of tax revenues. There are the limits to the impartiality of judges. They know precisely who pays their salaries. Every human being always does what he considers to be in his best self-interest.

So, do not believe a single word a politician utters and pay no attention to statistics or news releases by the government. In order to keep their constituents ignorant of the realities of life, and in order to renege on previous promises or contracts such as social security schemes, all releases of information by the government are highly suspect. From crime statistics to economic statistics, all such information is essentially self-serving and useless; it may even be dangerous.

For example, if we wish to inform ourselves of the actual level of inflation, we merely need to observe the price level of common goods over a period of several decades: From books, to cars, to stocks, to houses. We will then know, factually, that most governments routinely inflate their currency at the inconspicuous rate of 6-7%. This inflation goes on year after year, doubling all prices approximately every 10-12 years, decade after decade after decade.

However, government statistics consistently show that, due to the vigilance of our government, inflation runs only 2 or 3 % per year. In 2002, inflation in the housing sector was 25%, but government statistics showed an inflation rate of 1.4%. Such misrepresentations severely distort the economic projections and financial decisions of ordinary persons.

Reliance on such governmentally induced distortions can be extremely destructive to our financial health. Only governments can create inflation by counterfeiting their own money. However, governments assert simultaneously that they are struggling heroically against inflation. Unless we perceive inflation correctly, we may become the tragic victims of the economic policies of a government.
It would be ludicrous to pay any attention to the campaign promises of politicians. It is foolish to believe what any politician says: His sole objective in life is to be elected or re-elected. He is an expert in the elusive manipulation of data and he will camouflage in ambiguity any false statement or promise that will help him accomplish this objective.

If we really feel the wasteful need to participate in electing a particular politician, we need to look to his previous actions, not to his gilded promises. Do not pay attention to what a person says; pay only attention to what a person does.
Thus, do not waste your time participating in elections. It requires time, effort and thoughtful analysis to vote in political elections. Unless you are casting your vote on a small Board of Directors, or a similar small institution, your vote represents a meaningless illusion of power.

Voting in the political arena is like voting for tomorrow's weather. Your single vote will never make the slightest difference to the outcome of any election, no more than it would affect tomorrow's weather. In national elections, your vote is completely irrelevant because it is one of 100,000,000 votes. A person would have to be a raving megalomaniac to believe that his lone vote matters to the outcome of political elections.

Of course, some self-anointed patriots may admonish you by saying: "If everyone would take this attitude, our democratic form of government would collapse". However, the fact remains that most people are not motivated by rational thought processes. Most people are governed by the emotion-driven psychology of crowds. Therefore, most people will continue to vote, regardless of whether you vote, or not.

The concept of voting is a lure to the mind because it provides an illusion of power. Regretfully, it also results in a waste of our limited resources, such as our time and effort. Politicians will always exhort people to vote because "it is the patriotic thing to do". Their power and their income is dependant on the voting process: The more people vote, the more power accrues to the politician. Alas, the same benefits do not accrue to the voter.

While we navigate our puny vessel through the shoals of life, we realize that human existence is full of rocks, shallows and other disasters, waiting to destroy or damage us. Since our government appears to be all powerful because it commands police forces, armies, nuclear weapons and unlimited resources, we feel justified in assuming that our government can protect us from adverse events such as burglaries, thefts, injuries, terrorism, job loss, etc., etc. Unfortunately, this na?ve assumption is a complete fallacy and illusion, carefully nurtured by our politicians. Instead of protecting us, our government is frequently a major contributing factor to the calamities of our life.

Homes in most Western countries are burglarized around the clock. Can our government protect us? Of course, it cannot. If we want to protect ourselves against burglars, we need to install a burglar alarm, hire a guard or take other protective measures. The police can do nothing except try to catch the perpetrators and punish them.

This governmental approach to security may be interesting to the victim and enhance the prestige of the police, but it does not restore our property. We do not benefit at all from the fact that the burglar has been put behind bars for a limited period so that he cannot burglarize the homes of other persons.

The recovery of goods taken in burglaries is so miniscule as to be practically non-existent. To add insult to injury, we may be required to waste our time by having to attend the court proceedings as a witness, or to identify the culprit. This system is hardly worth having but probably better than no system at all. If we really want to be secure from burglars, we need to install and pay for a good security system in our house. The same situation prevails in all other instances where the government, or its agents, is supposedly protecting us.

All persons, with the exceptions of a person we call a sociopath; develop moral codes of one kind or another. A moral code is a code of conduct, a shortcut, to pre-determine the consequences of potential actions or inactions. When we deal with other persons in an environment of free markets, it is in our best self-interest to conduct our exchanges with other persons above board and without coercion, fraud or threats.

However, our dealings with governments are not based on a mutuality of benefits; they are based on coercion by force or the threat of force: If there were no punishment for the non-payment of income taxes, would anyone pay income taxes? Therefore, it may be advisable to use a modified moral standard when dealing with the government, then when dealing with people in consensual transactions.

Politicians lead their followers because they consider such action to be in their own best self-interest. Politicians find it rewarding to be leaders, because their status as a leader enhances their power, as well as their financial and emotional rewards.
When some persons refer to politicians as arrogant, demagogic or power-hungry, such denigration should not be considered a moral judgment. We are not the moral guardians of other persons in this society.

Therefore, we neither approve of the conduct of politicians nor condemn their conduct. We merely recognize that their conduct represents the way the world really is. If we were intellectually and temperamentally as cunning as politicians are, we might act in precisely the same manner.

Any effort we might expend to modify an undesirable situation in the political arena is a waste of time and imperils our happiness. We must not attack any obstacles that we encounter merely because they were set up by our politicians and our governments in the promotion of their own objectives. It is far simpler, and far more effective, to circumvent such impediments to our happiness while adhering to our lawful and peaceful conduct.

We must optimize our happiness by dealing effectively and realistically with our environment. It is essential to our happiness to clearly understand the nature of reality, including the innate nature of man, of politicians and of governments.
A case in point is the difference in attitudes between Europeans and Americans. In order to accumulate ever-larger houses and automobiles, Americans have to work more hours than Europeans do. Instead of two weeks vacation, practically all Europeans earn four or six weeks vacation each year. Americans traded appearances and the need to impress strangers, for the ability to rest longer and work less intensively. The perceived standard of living and the standard of happiness are obviously on the side of the Europeans. The life expectancy of Europeans, as an indicator of the standard of living and health care, is identical to the life expectancy found in Americans. Happiness does not rest in the quantity of money that we control; it rests in our quality of life.

If we have more money than we need for preserving the necessities of life, we will worry about losing it. The Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes lived a very simple life and considered himself a much more fortunate and happy man than the most powerful man of his time, Alexander the Great. The story goes that, when the almighty Alexander asked Diogenes if he could do anything to alleviate his apparent poverty, Diogenes merely asked Alexander to step aside because he was blocking the sun.

As human beings it is our responsibility to determine what it is that we seek from our lives and how we set about achieving these objectives. If our current system of Government does not help us in achieving our shared life goals, we assume that we can change it and in this we are wrong.

Democracy is a carefully crafted tool of Government, one which requires participation of its individual subjects to thrive. The Democratic process is deeply embedded in our Psyche and we believe that we can only change a Democratic Government by subscribing to the processes of Democracy. In this we are wrong as the very act of engaging with the Democratic process simply perpetuates it. Democracy thrives on debate, factional arguments, individual choices and ultimately the ballot box.

This process changes nothing and simply serves to gift Politicians with more opportunity, more options for the accumulation of personal power and wealth and a greater capacity to interpret the Will of the People to their own ends.

The American Constitution was drafted by people far wiser than their time, visionaries who saw the inherent evil of the Democratic process and the contradictory simplicity of its ease in interpreting the Will of the People and in implementing it. Yet it has ultimately failed because the simplicity of Democracy is its greatest downfall. Its Achilles Heel. Whilst we participate in responding to the lies of Politicians at the Ballot Box, we will not change anything of benefit in our present system of Government.

But, if we stop participating, what happens then?

What if?


EDIT: Reconstructed an illogical paragraph.
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Well it seems that AG Ashcroft and his boys don't think the public should be able to read what the Supreme Court is telling them. Seems the boys over at Justice are blacking out passages they don't like in filings with the court. You have to click the link to a copy of a blacked out document. You also get to see what was underneath. Paul should have a field day with this one.

Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote

Offers Smoking Gun Proof That Document Redactions Are Often a Joke



>>> Anybody who has read many official documents?including those making headlines in the last year or more?has seen plenty of redactions (those portions that are blacked out or otherwise made unreadable). This, we're told, is for legitimate reasons, such as \"national security\" or \"protecting intelligence sources and methods.\" But now we have absolute, incontrovertible proof that the government also censors completely innocuous material simply because they don't like it.

The Justice Department tipped its hand in its ongoing legal war with the ACLU over the Patriot Act. Because the matter is so sensitive, the Justice Dept is allowed to black out those passages in the ACLU's court filings that it feels should not be publicly released.

Ostensibly, they would use their powers of censorship only to remove material that truly could jeopardize US operations. But in reality, what did they do? They blacked out a quotation from a Supreme Court decision:

?\"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.\"

The mind reels at such a blatant abuse of power (and at the sheer chutzpah of using national security as an excuse to censor a quotation about using national security as an excuse to stifle dissent).

It's hard to imagine a more public, open document than a decision written by the Supreme Court. It is incontestably public property: widely reprinted online and on paper; poured over by generations of judges, attorneys, prosecutors, and law students; quoted for centuries to come in court cases and political essays.

Yet the Justice Department had the incomprehensible arrogance and gall to strip this quotation from a court document, as if it represented a grave threat to the republic. Luckily, the court slapped down this redaction and several others. If it hadn't, we would've been left with the impression that this was a legitimate redaction, that whatever was underneath the thick black ink was something so incredibly sensitive and damaging that it must be kept from our eyes.

Now we know the truth. Think about this the next time you see a black mark on a public document.

The image at top shows a portion of the ACLU's court filing after the Justice Dept was allowed to censor it. The image below shows the restored passage. The full document is located here [PDF format], with background info here (includes many other documents in which the Justice Dept censored innocuous passages)..

The Memory Hole

Check out the site, there's more.

Cary
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

More of the Bushco neocon team scaring Congress into ongoing war around the globe. Next thing to clamp down on looks to be the internet.

US hopes to establish "friendly militias" for the world's "ungoverned areas"

The Pentagon has urged Congress to authorize 500 million dollars for building a network of friendly militias around the world to purge terrorists from \"ungoverned areas\" -- and warned Muslim clerics against providing \"ideological sanctuary\" to radicals.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq war, told the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday the money would be used \"for training and equipping local security forces -- not just armies -- to counter terrorism and insurgencies.\"

Ya mean like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? They used to be on our side, weren't they?

In his testimony, Wolfowitz also suggested expanding the scope of the war on terror by including into the list of its possible targets radical Islamic clerics, who, in his words, provide \"ideological sanctuary\" to terrorism.

In addition, he called for tightening control over international communication networks, including the Internet.

He did not say what additional measures could be taken to prevent terrorists from exploiting freedoms in the United States, but pointed out it would involve \"difficult decisions.\"

Take away the last bit of free press that remains. "Difficult" for whom?

\"There should be no room in this world for governments that support terrorism, no ungoverned areas where terrorist can operate with impunity, no easy opportunities for terrorists to abuse the freedom of democratic societies, no ideological sanctuary, and no free pass to exploit the technologies of communications to serve terrorist ends,\" Wolfowitz insisted.

I just posted excerpts, but the whole article is a good read. Lawdy, lawdy, where is all this headed?

Cary
 

Judge Bean

Senior Member
Messages
1,257
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

"There should be no room in this world for governments that support terrorism, no ungoverned areas where terrorist can operate with impunity, no easy opportunities for terrorists to abuse the freedom of democratic societies, no ideological sanctuary, and no free pass to exploit the technologies of communications to serve terrorist ends," Wolfowitz insisted.


No room for some governments... the ones we decide...

No ungoverned areas for untouched criminals... but Washington, DC is OK...

No easy opportunities for abuse of freedom... unless you are in the White House or Dept. of Justice or in the CIA...

No "ideological sanctuary" in which to believe as you wish... anywhere in the world...

Not free to hold certain political opinions or use the internet to serve improper purposes... opinions which we ban... purposes which we define...

You know, if I didn't know better, I'd think that that was a member of the National Socialist Party of Germany speaking in 1939. No room for the governments of Poland and Czechoslovakia, France, Norway... we need the room for our own government and people. Oh, wait-- I guess they didn't have the internet then. Forget everything I said.

You are getting sleepy: forget everything you have read and thought... very sleepy...
 

Top