“A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premises—often implicit—are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous, unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
A CLASH OF IDEOLOGIES; A NATION AT A CROSSROADS
No one can reasonably doubt that the United States is in the throes of a major cataclysmic event. Two factions face off against each other in mortal combat for the soul and psyche of this Country. We see, in the desperation of one faction, the lengths at which it will go in its bid to regain control of its agenda. That faction through its proxies in Washington, comprising Congressional Democrats and Centrist “Bush” and “McCain” Republicans, has maintained control for the last three decades. That faction has exerted a stranglehold on the Country, slowly squeezing the lifeblood out of the Nation and its citizenry through control, inter alia, of Congress; the Federal bureaucracy; the federal courts; the mass media; and, of course, through the Federal Reserve, part of the Central Banking system–the brainchild of Mayer Amschel Rothschild–that has extended its tentacles around the world, up to the present day.
The Leftist faction was well on its way toward completing the items on its agenda, as Barack Obama was ticking off the items during his two terms in Office. Hillary Clinton was poised to be elected U.S. President. Leftists of all stripes were smugly confident. After all, hadn’t virtually all the exit polls predict a win–a landslide. They were certain that Hillary Clinton would secure the U.S. Presidency.
Even if many on the Left would have preferred the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, as President, they knew, full well, that Hillary Clinton, would faithfully proceed, in the footsteps of her predecessor, Barack Obama, toward accomplishment of the Leftist agenda.
Had Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, she likely would have re-nominated Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to the high Court; or, if not him, then she certainly would have nominated someone like him, someone who shares Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy and jurisprudential approach to case analysis–a man who had no fear of legislating from the Bench; a man who would contort and distort the dictates of the U.S. Constitution beyond anything the framers of that historic and sacred Document had intended or would have wished for. And, with control of two critical Federal Branches, the Executive and Judiciary, along with control of the mass media apparatus and the massive federal bureaucracy, the actual composition of Congress would, likely, have been, at least, in the short term of less critical importance. But, Clinton did not make it into the White House. Leftists, in our Country, including the internationalist billionaire benefactors of Leftist groups and causes, were thunderstruck, and they were already plotting their revenge, even before Donald Trump took the Oath of Office, as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
SEATING JURISTS ON THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH TO CASE ANALYSIS COMMENCES WITH AN ABIDING LOVE FOR, DUE RESPECT FOR, AND DUE REGARD GIVEN FOR THE IMPORT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN, AND WHO INTERPRET FEDERAL STATUTE ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT, WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT GOALS IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM.
With the surprising election of Donald Trump as our Nation’s 45th President, and with Republican control of Congress—especially, the U.S. Senate—and too, with Trump’s nomination of one strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Neil Gorsuch, presently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, and a second strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, just confirmed as Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court now securely has a conservative-wing majority, albeit with one important caveat. Chief Justice Roberts is considered the new swing vote moderate. Chief Justice Roberts is, though, a more reliable conservative than retired Justice, Anthony Kennedy. So, where does this leave Leftists, and their agenda?
Leftists and Leftist mobs are left scurrying about hither and yon; ranting and raving. The Leftist agenda seems to be on the verge of collapse or, if not, then, for the moment at least, the work of effectuating the Leftist agenda has certainly appreciably slowed. And, with the Left’s failure to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high Court, that critical item of the Leftist agenda–preventing a conservative-wing majority, is a failed item. And the Leftist faction knows it. Leftists know that federal and State legislation that fails to cohere with the United States Constitution will not be allowed to go unchallenged. They know that, with Brett Kavanaugh on the high Court, those challenges will be taken up for high Court review. An “assault weapons” case, like the Kolbe and Friedman, would henceforth be heard. Leftists know that, if lower Courts continue to ignore the precedents of Heller and McDonald with impunity, there will now be a day of reckoning, and those lower Courts that so act with impunity will be called on the carpet for it.
Democratic Party control of the Judiciary, is, then, critical to completion of the Leftist agenda and that can only be accomplished through election of a Democrat as U.S. President, along with Democratic Party control of the Senate. Failure to win the White House in 2016, and failure to control the Senate explains why Democrats have, themselves, gone off the rails in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court.
And Americans have seen just how far Democrats are willing to go. After Judge Kavanaugh acquitted himself well in defending the vicious personal assault against him, they would not, could not admit even that much. Democrats speciously, even ridiculously, claimed that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has shown that he is unfit, temperamentally, to sit on the high Court, ostensibly because he happened to have the seeming audacity of displaying emotion and in having displayed righteous indignation in defending his character, his reputation, and his honor against a scurrilous, flimsy, rambling, barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated public attack; an attack engineered by the Democratic Party leadership and by those Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they desperately sought to prevent, by any means they could drum up, the Senate confirmation of a highly qualified Judge–however outrageous, patently unethical, and, perhaps, even illegal those means may be.
These “Leftists” cared not one whit that they would be damaging, possibly, irreparably, the character and reputation of an honorable man. And they cared not at all that doing so would also endanger the life, safety, and well-being of Judge Kavanaugh and that of his family. They operated callously, maliciously, and reprehensibly, completely beyond the bounds of reason, and ethics, and human decency. Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee are utterly shameless. Their machinations and subterfuge rest well beyond the pale of human decency, let alone beyond the pale of what would count as proper U.S. Senate etiquette, decorum, and propriety. Americans have not, for decades, seen anything like the public spectacle they bore witness to that took place over several days of Confirmation Hearing. Democrats appeared, by turns, as circus clowns, sanctimonious inquisitors, and, as members of a cabaret burlesque troupe–many things, indeed, but not solemn, dignified members of the United States Senate, that a few Americans might have mistaken them to be.
The disgusting displays of Democrats during the course of the Hearing, and the actions orchestrated by Democrats and by their allies behind the scenes is just a foretaste of what the American public may come to see, and would have every reason to expect if a liberal-wing Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps, or Stephen Breyer, retires or resigns from the high Court before President Trump’s first term in Office ends, and President Trump thereupon nominates a third Judge to sit on the high Court. Keep in mind that, according to USA Today, Justice Ginsburg is 85 years of age, and Justice Breyer is 79.
If one more conservative-wing Trump nominee can be confirmed–assuming one of the liberal-wing Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer, retires–the conservative-wing majority, barring any unforeseen event, will be stronger yet, virtually impervious to Leftist attempts to complete the hijacking of the Nation and the Nation’s Constitution.
The Leftist faction knows that it has suffered a profound defeat having failed to derail the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh or at least to delay a vote on the confirmation until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when it hopes to gain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
LEFTISTS KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THE COMING MIDTERM ELECTIONS. CONSERVATIVES SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE, TOO.
So, with the 2018 Midterm elections around the corner, Leftists are frantically, frenetically engaged in sketching out new strategies in a bid to regain traction so that they can continue jumpstart the Leftist agenda. Republicans must not sit back and relax.
The Leftist leadership, Congressional Democrats, and their billionaire internationalist benefactors know this; they know that they have been hamstrung, and they are literally exploding with rage. They have no cogent argument to make in their defense. Mobs of activists are enlisted to shout down conservative voices and anyone else who disagrees with the Leftist agenda. Mass demonstrations, violent outbursts, visible threats to those they target all point to the singular desperation of this faction. They can do nothing now, but flail about. So, the first order of business for Leftists is for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. Senate. But, even with a substantial number of reliable Democrats in the Senate, along with several swing votes in the U.S. Senate, that would not mean that more Democratic nominees for Federal Court seats, at all levels, would be confirmed. For, only the President of the United States can nominate federal judges, although Democrats can and in fact have blocked confirmation of many of Trump’s nominees to sit on the lower federal Courts. So, then, the second order of business for Leftists is to make sure that Democrats can regain and hold control of the U.S. Senate through 2020 with the goal then of retaking the U.S. Presidency with a reliable Leftist. Once that step is accomplished, Democrats will be able once again to nominate reliably Leftist judges to sit on the federal Judiciary and will be able to confirm those Leftist Judges. Then Leftists will find themselves in a stronger position to reset the political and social direction of the Country, albeit with a little more difficulty now that the highest Court in the Land sits a reliable four Justice Conservative wing + one moderate/conservative Chief Justice majority.
CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME AMERICANS MAY THINK, THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THIS NATION IS DIRE. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A CIVIL WAR.
We see two distinctive political/social factions fighting for control of the Country’s direction. Two visions for our Country are coming into sharp focus, into sharp relief. Whichever side ultimately prevails will see its world view realized. But, what are those two world views? How would each vision, if realized, affect this Country, and affect the lives of the Country’s citizenry and affect the Constitution upon which the foundation of our Nation rests? We begin with this assertion: the two visions–the two world views–for this Country and for its people, rest on two mutually exclusive frameworks. Only one of the two can be realized. Democrats are a proxy for one vision. Republicans are a proxy for the second. It is not, then, a simple matter of a Republicans versus Democrats conflict that we are seeing. That is too simplistic. To frame the issue in terms of Republicans versus Democrats trivializes the matter before us.
We are engaged in a Civil War. The central question before the Nation, then, can be stated thusly:
Shall the Country continue to exist as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic as the founders conceived and intended, with the Nation’s Constitution, laws, and judiciary intact and supreme, subordinated to no external system of laws and external tribunals; or, will the Country, as an independent Sovereign Nation and Free Republic, see its status as a singular, unique, independent, sovereign Nation State, at once diminished, impaired, or severely truncated?
If the independence and sovereignty of the United States is impaired, we must consider a corollary question, namely, whether the supremacy of the Nation’s Constitution, its laws, and jurisprudence will similarly be impaired. And, if the United States finds its sovereignty and independence curtailed by pacts and treaties it happens to enter into with foreign entities through which such foreign elements insinuate their power and authority over this Country’s Government and institutions, will we then see the United States, as an independent sovereign political entity, subsumed into a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social framework, requiring that the Nation’s system of laws be subordinated to or otherwise replaced by foreign law and foreign jurisprudence? If such events were to occur, then this Nation and its Constitution will, de facto, cease to exist.
If such were to occur we would see the United States and the American people effectively subordinated to the governance and will of a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social system to which the Nation would henceforth belong. This is not conspiracy. This is not alternative history. This is fact. The events that have played out before us in recent months dispel perfunctory dismissal of the seriousness of the situation facing the Nation and its people. We have seen clear and categorical attacks on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We have seen lower U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal flaunting the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and flaunting the President’s Article 2 powers. We have seen undisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level federal bureaucrats having conspired against and continuing to conspire against the United State President; and we have seen undisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level bureaucrats actively attempting to sabotage the Administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. We have seen undisputable, irrefutable evidence of the leadership of a few States openly defying Federal law; and in open revolt against Federal Officers tasked with enforcing Federal law. We see a Press, misusing its sacred right under the First Amendment. It has undertaken a campaign of disinformation and misinformation. It routinely smears the President, in a reprehensible attempt to discredit him, to isolate him, to prevent him from doing his job on behalf of the American people; and, in that reprehensible attack on the President, the Press has also attacked the very institution of Office of the U.S. Presidency, and, in so doing, has attacked our institutions, our Nation, and our people. We have seen an insidious attempt to question the sanctity of the very notions of, ‘Nation State,’ and of ‘Citizen of the United States.’ We see raging mobs in the Streets, on university campuses, and in the Halls of Congress. We have seen lunatics harassing both Government officials and members of Congress. We see sacred statues toppled; history rewritten; our Nation’s Flag disrespected; our system of laws defied. None of this is accident. It is all by design.
Ever since Donald Trump assumed the mantle of President of the United States, the ruthless, secretive, seditious, extraordinarily powerful, and inordinately wealthy forces that have worked to disassemble this Nation, have had to come out of the shadows, albeit reluctantly. What they could not accomplish quietly, within the interstices of the Nation’s laws and institutions, they have come to realize they must use brute force. These forces are fomenting violence, anarchy, in a crude but, as they see it, necessary attempt, to force the Country back on the path they had established for the Country, a path that the Clintons, and Bush, and Obama–the willing accomplices of the Leftist agenda–had quietly, inexorably directed this Nation and its people to.
As we continue to explore the two visions of the Country–one ascribed to the Leftist agenda, and the second ascribed to the Conservative cause–we need to take a closer look at the two factions–one of whom we have referred to here as “Leftist” and the other that we have alluded to as “Conservative.” We must take a closer look at these two factions, and we begin with a consideration of the labels heretofore used as descriptors for them, even as we find all those descriptors to be inapt. We explain why. We then consider better descriptors that better encapsulate the beliefs, precepts, assumptions, aims, and ultimate goals of each faction, each side, in this conflict. We will then take a close look at several of those beliefs, precepts, assumptions, and aims, and show the logical end point realizations of each.
WHAT EXPRESSIONS BEST DESCRIBE THE TWO FACTIONS?
In describing the two factions, the two combatants, we have considered various terminology and rejected that terminology because we considered the verbiage are either vague and ambiguous, and therefore likely to create confusion, or too narrow in scope or range, and therefore deficient as descriptors. We have heretofore employed the expressions, ‘Democrat,’ ‘Leftist’, ‘Progressive,’ ‘Liberal,’ and ‘Radical’ loosely and often interchangeably to denote one faction. And, we have employed the expressions, ‘Republican,’ ‘Conservative,’ and ‘Populist’, loosely, often interchangeably to denote the other faction. But, these expressions, as well, are too vague or ambiguous and too limited in range to be effective for our purpose here. Furthermore, they have been so overused that they are tantamount to clichés. A couple of the expressions may be considered to be, simply, pejoratives. Lastly, a few of the expressions, may readily, or, at least, arguably suggest ideas, beliefs, and precepts of both factions, as there exists significant overlap. Or, the expressions are simply and essentially empty and vacuous vessels, and so serve no useful, functional purpose.
We have also considered using the expressions, ‘Globalist’ or ‘Internationalist’ or ‘Transnationalist’ to describe one faction and the expression, ‘Nationalist’ to describe the other faction. But these expressions as delineated come up short as apt descriptors, as they, too, have been overused; are, in fact, inaccurate descriptors; and, in reference to the term, ‘Nationalist,’ have been used as a term of disparagement, as the mainstream media, when writing or talking about President Trump or anyone who supports him, equates the President’s nationalist fervor with fascism, even though President Trump is clearly not a fascist and the term ‘nationalism’ does not denote ‘fascism’ and should not be construed as synonymous with ‘fascism.’ But, the allusions are there, operating as a meme.
A well-learned attorney, and legal scholar with whom we have discussed the matter, suggested that the expressions, ‘Collectivist,’ and ‘Individualist’ are the best terminology to be used to describe the belief system of a member of one faction or the other.’ And we concur. These two expressions are precise, carry no connotation of disparagement, have not heretofore been used by anyone, to our knowledge, to describe the two factions; and broadly embrace all beliefs, precepts, presuppositions and aims of the two groups facing off in this modern civil war taking place in America, but without any overlap. Therefore, mutual exclusivity in both the connotation and denotation of the expressions, as applied to each of the respective groups, is faithfully maintained. The expressions, ‘Collectivist’ and ‘Individualist,’ then, are the two expressions we will use as referrers and descriptors for each of the two factions at war with each other.
Now, let us consider several of the basic belief systems, precepts, and ultimate goal and logical outcome of the Collectivist and Individualist philosophies. We will see in this delineated list two competing visions for our Country, one of which, taken to its logical conclusion, results in the ultimate dissolution of the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, together with the dissolution of the Nation’s Constitution and system of laws, and the other which preserves the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, with its Constitution and laws intact.
We thus have two distinct, mutually exclusive visions of the Country and of the world; two distinct notions of law and government, and of the relationship of man to government and to each other—two distinct visions, only one which can be realized; and two ever diverging paths, only one, of which, our Nation can take! Our Nation is at a crossroads.
COLLECTIVISTS VERSUS INDIVIDUALISTS
COLLECTIVISTS’ BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND ULTIMATE AIMS
1) THE ‘NATION STATE’ IS AN ARCHAIC CONCEPT. THE UNITED STATES MUST EVENTUALLY BE SUBSUMED, INTO A NEW TRANSNATIONAL POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, AND SOCIAL FRAMEWORK. THIS NEW FRAMEWORK WILL CONSIST OF THE RELICS OF THE OLD WESTERN NATION STATES TO BE OVERSEEN BY A WORLD CORPORATE, FINANCIAL AND TECHNOCRATIC CONGLOMERATE, THAT WILL PRESCRIBE UNIFORM RULES OF OPERATION, BEHAVIOR, AND CONDUCT OF THE VARIOUS UNITS AND POPULATIONS WITHIN IT.
2) SINCE THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ IS TIED TO RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF A SELECT GROUP OF PEOPLE WITHIN THE NATION STATE, CALLED “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” AND, AS THIS NATION STATE, AS A POLITICAL CONSTRUCT, IS, EVENTUALLY, TO BE DISMANTLED, A CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES’ WILL NO LONGER BE MEANINGFUL. INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ONCE PERCEIVED AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WILL, HENCEFORTH, BE CONSIDERED “SUBJECTS” WITHIN A GREATER, TRANSNATIONAL POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL, SYSTEM OF GOVERANCE, COMPRISING PEOPLE OF DIVERSE CULTURES.
3) VAST AND DIVERSE POPULATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO INHABIT REGIONS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD ARE HENCEFORTH TO BE INTEGRATED INTO A NEW GLOBAL POLITICAL AND SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL WORLD COMMUNITY. MULTICULTURAL DIVERSITY WITHIN A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL FRAMEWORK IS TO BE CONSIDERED A MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE END IN AND OF ITSELF. A POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL FRAMEWORK THAT SERVES TO MAXIMIZE DIVERSITY IS PREFERABLE TO ONE THAT DOES NOT. NATION STATES DO NOT MAXIMIZE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY. THERFORE, THE CONCEPT OF A NATION STATE IS TO BE CONSIDERED DETRIMENTAL TO THE WELL- COLLECTIVE MULTIDIVERSITY. SINCE, THE UNITED STATES IS A NATION STATE, THE UNITED STATES IS DETRIMENTAL TO COLLECTIVE MULTIDIVERSITY, AND MUST, EVENTUALLY, BE DISASSEMBLED AND SUBSUMED INTO A GREATER POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CULTURAL FRAMEWORK THAT BETTER SERVES AND EXEMPLIFIES COLLECTIVE MULTIDIVERSITY. A UNIFIED TRANSNATIONAL POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE GOVERNANCE IS THE GOAL OF COLLECTIVISM. COLLECTIVISM STRIVES FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW TRANSNATIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE.
4) INDIVIDUALS, AS SUBJECTS OF THIS NEW TRANSNATIONAL GOVERNANCE ARE FREE TO TRAVEL TO AND RESIDE IN ANY GEOGRAPHICAL UNIT WITHIN THE GLOBAL REACH OF THE NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE THAT THE SUBJECT WISHES. ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS, DEMARCATED BY GEOGRAPHICAL BORDERS, ARE HENCEFORTH ERASED.
5) THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THAT INCLUDES THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IS MEANINGFUL ONLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION. ONCE THE UNITED STATES CEASES TO EXIST, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WILL BE RENDERED OBSOLETE. ONCE THE POLITICAL ENTITY THAT EXISTED AS THE “THE UNITED STATES” IS DISSOLVED, ALONG WITH THE VARIOUS STATES WITHIN THE UNION, THE NATION WILL BE SUBSUMED WITHIN THE NEW BROAD TRANSNATIONAL SYSTEM OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION NEED NOT BE FORMALLY REPEALED. IT SIMPLY WILL, AT THAT POINT, UPON THE FORMAL DISMANTLING OF THE UNITED STATES, HAVE NO LEGAL FORCE OR EFFECT.
6) THE RULERS OF THIS PLAN FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE WILL DESIGN, PREPARE, AND IMPLEMENT A NEW LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE SYSTEM’S GOVERNANCE. THIS NEW LEGAL AND ADMINISTRAIVE FRAMEWORK—CONSISTING OF A NEW SYSTEM OF LAWS, RULES, AND TRIBUNALS, ALONG WITH A NEW JURISPRUDENTIAL PHILOSOPHY AND METHODOLOGY FOR HANDLING CIVIL DISPUTES THAT HAPPEN TO ARISE AND CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT MUST BE ADJUDICATED—WILL BE ESTABLISHED. A CONSTITUTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE DRAFTED. IT MAY BE USEFUL, BUT IS NOT REQUIRED.
7) ALL OF THE SUBJECTS WHO RESIDE IN, AND COME WITHIN, THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW GLOBAL POLITICAL AND SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK, ARE SUBJECT TO THIS NEW SYSTEM.
8) THE NEW LEGAL SYSTEM WILL BE ENFORCED BY THOSE OVERSEERS, APPOINTED BY THE NEW GLOBAL GOVERNING BOARD, TO METE OUT JUSTICE AND TO SET FORTH THOSE PRIVILEGES THE SUBJECTS MAY HAVE AND ENJOY, SUBJECT TO CONSTANT REFINEMENT, MODIFICATION, OR ELIMINATION AS THE OVERSEERS DETERMINE.
9) SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS ARE PERCEIVED AS ALL MAN-MADE CONSTRUCTS. SINCE IT IS DECREED THAT, FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, NO CREATOR EXISTS, IT FOLLOWS, THERE ARE NO NATURAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS INTRINSIC TO MAN, ENDOWED BY A CREATOR UPON MAN. SUCH RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT SUBJECTS HAVE ARE DEEMED MERE PLATITUDES AS SUBJECTS HAVE NO RIGHTS OR LIBERTIES AS SUCH, BUT, RATHER, PRIVILEGES BESTOWED UPON THEM, DENOTED BY LICENSES, THAT ARE PRESENTED TO SUBJECTS BY THE OVERSEERS OF THE NEW TRANSNATIONAL SYSTEM OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE. LICENSES SHALL BE SURRENDERED TO THE OVERSEERS ON DEMAND OR AS PRESCRIBED BY SUCH LAWS AND REGULATIONS, SEEN AS EDICTS, THE GOVERNING BOARD HAPPENS TO CREATE. SINCE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE NO MORE THAN OR OTHER THAN LICENSES BESTOWED ON SUBJECTS, THEY CAN EASILY BE CEDED TO THE OVERSEERS, BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UPON DEMAND. IT SHALL BE DECLARED, THEN, THAT NO SUBJECT WITHIN THE NEW TRANSNATIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE CAN CLAIM ANY RIGHT OR LIBERTY AS A MATTER OF PERSONAL, FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, RIGHT AS NO SUCH RIGHTS ARE RECOGNIZED AS ALL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE SIMPLY MAN-MADE CONSTRUCTS AND ARTIFICES. THE OVERSEERS MAY, AS ORDERED BY THE BOARD TO WHOM THE OVERSEERS ANSWER TO, AT THEIR PLEASURE, MODIFY OR ELIMINATE OUTRIGHT SUCH PURPORTED RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THEY DEEM NECESSARY. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS MAY MODIFY OR ELIMINATE OUTRIGHT ANY LAW, RULE, CODE, OR REGULATION, IN ACCORD WITH CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THEY PERCEIVE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
10) THE ETHICAL SYSTEM UTILIZED BY THE OVERSEERS, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD TO WHOM THEY ANSWER–THE RULERS OF THIS TRANSNATIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE–IS BASED ON THE NOTION OF UTILITARIAN CONSEQUENTIALISM. THIS IS A SYSTEM OF ETHICS IN WHICH “THE GOOD” IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF ‘UTILITY.’ WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘THE GOOD’ IS ANYTHING THE RULERS OF THE TRANSNATIONAL SYSTEM DEFINE ‘THE GOOD’ TO BE THAT IS DEEMED BY THE THEM TO BENEFIT THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE. UNDER THIS SYSTEM OF ETHICS, UTILITY IS MAXIMIZED WHEN THE GOOD, WHATEVER IT IS, HOWEVER DEFINED, HAPPENS TO BENEFIT THE MOST PEOPLE.
11) MORALITY: THE CONCEPT OF ‘MORAL GOOD’ IS DETERMINED BY THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONE’S ACTIONS ALONE—NOT BY ONE’S INTENTION TO DO A GOOD OR EVIL ACT. WHAT CONSTITUES “MORAL GOODNESS” IN THE BROADEST SENSE IS, THEN, THAT WHICH BENEFITS THE COLLECTIVE—THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. WHAT BENEFITS THE COLLECTIVE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY ALSO BENEFIT THE INDIVIDUAL. IN FACT, WHAT BENEFITS THE COLLECTIVE MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL. THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS CONSIDERED BENEFICIAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL BUT DETRIMENTAL TO THE MASSES, THEN FIREARMS’ OWNERSHIP MUST BE CURTAILED. SIMILARLY, IF FREE SPEECH, AND FREE ASSOCIATION AMONG PARTICULAR GROUPS IS DEEMED TO HARM COLLECTIVE COHESION, THEN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION ARE DEEMED TO BE CONTRARY TO MAINTENANCE OF THE ‘MORAL GOOD’ AND MUST BE CONSTRAINED. ACTS THAT NEITHER BENEFIT THE COLLECTIVE NOR ARE DEEMED HARMFUL TO THE COLLECTIVE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MORALLY NEUTRAL. MORALLY NEUTRAL ACTS ARE ACTS THAT MAY BE TOLERATED.
12) RESULTS DESIRED OUTWEIGH ADHERENCE TO A CONSTITUTION AND TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND. IF THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED CONFLICTS WITH THE LAW AS APPLIED, THEN, THE LAW MUST GIVE WAY TO THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED. THUS, THE POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END TO BE ACHIEVED OR DESIRED SHALL ALWAYS OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS. IF, THEN, A DESIRED POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END TO BE ACHIEVED OR DESIRED CAN BE ACHIEVED IN NO WAY OTHER THAN BY IGNORING, SUSPENDING, OR ABROGATING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE NATION OR BY SUSPENDING OR ABROGATING THE LAWS OF THE LAND, THEN THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS SHALL BE SUSPENDED, ABROGATED, OR SIMPLY IGNORED. THUS, THE MEANS TO BE ACHIEVED ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE END SOUGHT. THUS, ALL LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, CODES, AND THE ARTICLES OF A CONSTITUTION, IF THERE IS A CONSTITUTION AT ALL, ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AD HOC AND, THEREFORE, ULTIMATELY ILLUSORY.
13) THUS, LAW, AS SUCH, IS WHATEVER THE RULERS ESSENTIALLY SAY LAW IS AND THEY MAY CREATE OR SUSPEND LAW BY SIMPLE PROCLAMATION. LAW IS ADJUSTED BY DEMAND OF THE RULERS TO OBTAIN A PARTICULAR RESULT. ORDER IS MAINTAINED BY FORCE, AS NECESSARY.
14) THE RULERS MAY DELIBERATELY CREATE OR ACCEPT DISORDER, WITHIN PARAMETERS, AS A POLITICAL DEVICE TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS.
15) INDIVIDUAL AMBITION, MOTIVATION AND DESIRE IS CONTAINED AND CONSTRAINED. IT IS COLLECTIVE WILL—THE WILL OF MASSES—AS SHAPED AND MOLDED AND PERIODICALLY CONTORTED, DISTORTED, AND THEN RESHAPED, REMOLDED AND RECONFIGURED BY THE RULERS, TO CREATE A CONDITION OF NEUTRAL STASIS IN THE MASSES, IN THE COLLECTIVE, THAT IS ULTIMATELY DESIRED. SO IT IS, THAT UTILITY–THE ‘GOOD,’ SEEN AS A CONDITION OF NEUTRAL STASIS–IS MAXIMIZED, AND PEACE AND HARMONY WITHIN THE NEW ORDER IS MAINTAINED, AND THE WILL OF THE MASSES, “THE WILL” OF THE COLLECTIVE IS ACHIEVED.
16) COLLECTIVISM SUGGESTS THAT POPULAR OPINION OVERRIDES THE EFFECT AND IMPACT OF THE LAWS, TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED END. BUT, POPULAR OPINION, AS UNDERSTOOD BY COLLECTIVISTS IS LESS A PUBLIC RESPONSE TO GRIEVANCE, EMANATING FROM THE PUBLIC, AND MORE A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DEVICE, USED BY THE RULERS WHO, ALONE, WIELD POWER. THUS, POPULAR OPINION IS ESSENTIALLY ILLUSORY, IF IT IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE ARISING FROM THE MASSES–THE COLLECTIVE ITSELF. FOR, IF POPULAR OPINION WERE TO EMANATE IN THE PUBLIC, THE RULERS WOULD NOT PERMIT IT TO GAIN A FOOTHOLD, TO GAIN TRACTION AS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE VERY SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE TRANSNATIONAL POLITICAL, SOCIAL, FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK, ESTABLISHED. THUS, SUCH POPULAR OPINION THAT SEEMINGLY ARISES, WHEN ALLOWED TO EXPRESS ITSELF, IS DONE SO ONLY BY TACIT PERMISSION OF THE RULERS AS THEY HAVE CREATED IT. THUS, THE MASSES, THE COLLECTIVE, BELIEVES, ERRONEOUSLY, THAT IT IS THE COLLECTIVE THAT IN FACT WIELDS POWER TO AFFECT POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE AND THAT THE DESIRE TO EFFECTUATE CHANGE EMANATES FROM THE COLLECTIVE. IT DOES NOT; FOR, IF IT DID, IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO EXPRESS ITSELF, AS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE TRANSNATIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE.
17) POPULAR OPINION IS DRIVEN BY THE DEMAND OF THOSE IN POWER TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED END, AS POWER–ITS CREATION AND USE–FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF GOVERNMENT, NOT THE PEOPLE, UNDER THE COLLECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY. THUS, ALL LAW IS AD HOC, WHICH IS TO SAY THERE IS NO LAW UNDER COLLECTIVISM. THERE IS THEN NO PRINCIPLE OF “RULE OF LAW” UNDER COLLECTIVISM. LAW IS AN ARTIFICE, ANOTHER TOOL OF GOVERNMENT TO BE USED AS A MECHANISM OF CONTROL.
18) SINCE GOVERNMENTAL POWER AND AUTHORITY DOES NOT REST IN THE PEOPLE, BUT IN GOVERNMENT ITSELF, GOVERNMENT IS NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE, THE MASSES, THE COLLECTIVE, MAY SEE POWER RESIDING IN THOSE COMPRISING THE COLLECTIVE, THE MASSES; BUT THIS IS MERE SIMILITUDE, A REFLECTION OF POWER MIRRORED IN THE COLLECTIVE THROUGH GOVERNMENT, AS TRUE POWER, RESTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, I.E., IN THE GOVERNMENT’S RULERS.
INDIVIDUALISTS’ BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND AIMS
1) THE CONCEPT OF THE ‘NATION STATE’ IS NOT ARCHAIC. IT IS NOT TO BE PERCEIVED AS APPLICABLE ONLY TO PAST ERAS. IT IS AS BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL, AND PERTINENT, AND USEFUL A CONSTRUCT TODAY AS IN ANY PAST CENTURY. AND, THE UNITED STATES AS A NATION STATE IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN ENTITY, NEITHER BEHOLDING TO NOR SUBORDINATED TO ANY OTHER NATION, COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS OR FEDERATION OF NATIONS; NOR BEHOLDING TO NOR SUBORDINATED TO ANY OTHER ENTITY.
2) THE UNITED STATES, IS A POLITICAL CONSTRUCT, CREATED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION. SINCE THE NATION AND ITS GOVERNMENT WERE CREATED BY THE PEOPLE, THE NATION AND ITS GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY BE DISMANTLED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IF THEY SO WISH.
3) ULTIMATE POWER AND AUTHORITY RESTS WITH AND VESTS IN THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, NOT IN GOVERNMENT.
4) THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ IS TIED INEXTRICABLY TO THE CONCEPT OF THE ‘NATION STATE.’ THOSE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. AS THOSE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXIST INTRINSICALLY IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SUCH FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE LAWFULLY MODIFIED OR ABROGATED BY GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT DID NOT CREATE THOSE FUNDAMENTAL AND NATURAL RIGHTS, GOVERNMENT CANNOT RESCIND THOSE RIGHTS BY LAW OR DECRESS, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO, DOES NOT THEREBY EFFECTUATE ABROGATION OF SUCH RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, AS SUCH ATTEMPT AT RESCISSION, ABROGATION, OR MODIFICATION IS INHERENTLY UNLAWFUL.
5) AS THE UNITED STATES IS AN INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION, ITS CONSTITUTION AND LAWS CAN NEVER BE ABROGATED OR SUBORDINATED TO THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER NATION OR INTERNATIONAL OR TRANSNATIONAL BODY, FEDERATION, OR COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS.
6) SINCE, AS HERETOFORE STATED, THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE A CODIFICATION OF THOSE RIGHTS, PREEXISTENT IN MAN, NOT CREATED BY MAN, NO MAN OR GOVERNMENTAL BODY HAS LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO ELIMINATE OR MODIFY THOSE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES. FURTHER, NO CITIZEN CAN BE DENIED THAT PERSON’S RIGHT TO EXERCISE SUCH FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN LAW AND WITH ALL PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS , AND JURISPRUDENTIAL RULES AND STANDARDS ADHERED TO AND MET BEFORE SUCH RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE RESTRICTED OR CURTAILED IN THAT PARTICULAR CITIZEN.
7) AS A LEGITIMATE, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN ‘NATION STATE,’ THE GEOGRAPHICAL BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE PHYSICALLY DEMARCATED. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ITS BORDERS FROM ANY INTRUSION BY ALIENS WHO SEEK TO CROSS THE NATION’S BORDERS AND TO REMAIN IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.
8) NO ONE, NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, CAN CLAIM ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, BUT MAY ONLY ENTER AND REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES AS THE LAWS OF THIS NATION AND THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION SO PRESCRIBE.
9) THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO PRESUME TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AND DO SO IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE NATION’S LAWS AND CONSTITUTION, HAVE ILLEGALLY ENTERED THIS COUNTRY AND HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE NATION’S LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. SUCH INDIVIDUALS ARE DEEMED CRIMINAL ‘ILLEGAL ALIENS,’ NOT ‘UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS’ NOR ‘UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS,’ NOR ‘NONDOCUMENTED CITIZENS.’ AS SUCH INDIVIDUALS HAVE TRANSGRESSED OUR NATION’S LAWS, THEY ARE NOT PRIVILEGED TO REMAIN WITHIN OUR NATION’S BOUNDARIES; NOR ARE THEY ENTITLED TO THE FULL PANOPLY OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES THAT EXIST FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZEN. THUS, THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WHO ENTER THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY, ARE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION AND EITHER CONFINEMENT OR DEPORTATION, AS DICTATED BY LAW AND BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
10) THE SANCTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN CITIZEN IS NOT TO BE DENIED. MORALITY PROCEEDS FROM THE DEONTOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE THAT GOOD AND EVIL DERIVE FROM ONE’S MOTIVATIONS, NOT MERELY FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONE’S ACTIONS. THIS ETHICAL STANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE IDEA THAT A PERSON’S SELF-INTERESTS ARE TO BE RESPECTED AND, SO, THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PREVAIL OVER THOSE OF THE COLLECTIVE AND ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE EXERCISE OF ONE’S SELF-INTEREST ARE NOT TO BE RESTRAINED OR CONSTRAINED UNLESS SUCH ACTIONS ARE HARMFUL TO THE INTERESTS OF ANOTHER. THUS, ‘MORAL GOOD’ IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF THOSE ACTIONS THAT SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN CITIZEN, SO LONG AS THE INTEREST OBTAINED DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY, OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. A PERSON’S INTENTION TO DO GOOD OR EVIL, AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENCES STEMMING FROM THAT INTENTION, DETERMINE THAT WHICH IS MORALLY GOOD AS OPPOSED TO THAT WHICH IS DEEMED MORALLY EVIL. THE COLLECTIVIST WOULD DISAGREE WITH THIS. COLLECTIVISM ADHERES NOT TO NORMATIVE ETHICAL PRECEPTS, BUT TO UTILITARIAN PRECEPTS. COLLECTIVISM CONSIDERS THE ‘MORALLY GOOD’ ONLY FROM STANDPOINT OF CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS. HENCE, COLLECTIVISTS CONSIDER MORALITY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THAT WHICH BENEFITS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, NEVER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BENEFITS TO THE INDIVIDUAL. THUS, COLLECTIVISM IS AT LOGGERHEADS WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE VERY FRAMEWORK OF OUR NATION.
11) THE DICTATES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE STRICTURES OF LAW MUST ALWAYS BE ADHERED TO IF THIS NATION IS TO BE DEEMED TRUTHFULLY TO BE GOVERNED BY LAWS AND NOT BY MEN.
12) NO PERSON, REGARDLESS OF STATION IN LIFE, OR PERSONAL MONETARY WEALTH, IS CONSIDERED TO BE ABOVE THE LAW, ON THE BASIS OF THAT STATION IN LIFE, OR ON ONES’ PERSONAL FINANCIAL MEANS.
13) OUR NATION’S CONSTITUTION AND ITS LAWS—STATUTES AND BODY OF CASE LAW—DICTATE A PERSON’S RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN OUR NATION.
14) NO PERSON OR POLITICAL BODY SHALL CONTRIVE/CONSPIRE TO IGNORE OUR NATION’S CONSTITUTION OR SYSTEM OF LAWS, OR THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXISTENT THEREIN; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON OR POLITICAL BODY ESTABLISH ITS OWN SET OF AD HOC RULES TO BE APPLIED WHENEVER THAT PERSON OR THAT POLITICAL BODY SO WISHES IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH EITHER A PERSONAL OR POLITICAL END; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON OR POLITICAL BODY CONTRIVE OR CONSPIRE TO APPLY LAWS UNLAWFULLY TO DENIGRATE, OR DISPARAGE ANOTHER PERSON, OR TO DENY TO A PERSON SUCH RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TO WHICH THAT PERSON IS ENTITLED; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON OR POLITICAL BODY CREATE AD HOC LAWS TO DO SAME.
15) THE NATION’S HISTORY AND CORE VALUES ARE SACRED AND SACROSANCT. OUR HISTORY AND CORE VALUES ARE NOT TO BE ABROGATED, AS THEY DEFINE OUR NATION.
16) POPULAR OPINION DOES NOT, NEVER DID, AND NEVER WILL CONTROL OR SUPERSEDE OUR CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OR THE SUPREMACY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
17) RESULTS ARE NEVER MORE IMPORTANT THAN ADHERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE LAND. IF THE GOAL TO BE ACHIEVED CONFLICTS WITH THE LAW AS APPLIED, THEN LAW MUST NEVER GIVE WAY TO THE GOAL DESIRED. NO POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END TO BE ACHIEVED SHALL DICTATE WHEN OR IF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE LAND OUGHT TO BE SUSPENDED OR ABROGATED.
18) IF THE DESIRED POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END TO BE ACHIEVED CONFLICTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION OR THE NATION’S LAWS, IT IS THE POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END THAT MUST BE FORESAKEN, NEVER THE CONSTITUTION OR THE NATION’S LAWS.
19) SUSPENSION OR REPUDIDIATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEPTS AND LAWS MUST NEVER BE SUSPENDED IN FAVOR OF ACHIEVING THE POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END. FOR, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DANGER OF SUSPENSION OF OR ABROGATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION OR LAWS TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND A FREE PEOPLE.
20) THUS, PRESERVATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ALWAYS OUTWEIGHS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF A PARTICULAR POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOAL. THE ATTAINMENT OR REALIZATION OF ANY POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOAL, HOWEVER SEEMINGLY CRITICAL TO THE WELL-BEING OF A NATION OR ITS PEOPLE CAN NEVER BE DEEMED MORE CRITICAL THAN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS THAT THE ATTAINMENT OR REALIZATION OF ANY GOAL SHALL NEED CAUSE TO ABROAGATE, WHETHER FOR THE MOMENT OR FOREVER.
21) THE DESIRE TO ACHIEVE ANY POLITICAL OR SOCIAL END CAN NEVER JUSTIFY THE SUSPENSION OR ABROGATION OF THE SACRED PRECEPTS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. POPULAR OPINION, PERCEIVED AS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY IS NOT SOUND LEGAL, LOGICAL, OR NORMATIVE PREDICATE FOR SUSPENDING, MODIFYING OR ABROGATING THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, AND UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN CITIZEN.
WHERE DO AMERICANS FIND THEMSELVES AT THIS JUNCTURE, NOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?
With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists’ vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a “Living Document,” susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country’s independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But, there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.
The forces of Collectivism, as we have seen, are capable of planning and implementing most obscene, insidious stratagems to frustrate the efforts of the Trump Administration and thereby frustrate the will of the American people. These Collectivists are ruthless, relentless, and seemingly impervious to defeat. They have unlimited stores of cash, along with extremely effective organizational skills. They are masters of propaganda. They control legions of agitators. They know how to whip the ill-informed among us into a frenetic, raging mob, urging them to coerce and intimidate law-abiding citizens, including Government officials and members of Congress. They are absolutely bent on getting their way. We must see to it that they don’t.
Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.