The answer to that question is up to us.

We were attacked on 9/11. We reacted. Eight years later, with over a million dead, many more millions displaced, infrastructures destroyed, Billionaires made, our economy shattered, Torture accepted, Mercenary Corporate Armies empowered, a World aroused against us, and a Future threatening wars and more wars, who do we blame – those who attacked us, or should we blame ourselves for the reaction ( The War on Terror) and the carnage that has followed?

Although millions of foreign innocents have suffered, we have suffered mightily also – so who are the victims? Are we the victims, or is it those others that have suffered so much?

Did those foreign innocents do something to us to bring this carnage on themselves or are we to blame for allowing those that would profit from war to seize on an opportunity to instigate a war for profit?

Was there an avoidable event that happened prior to 9/11 that brought on that tragic morning in September and the consequences that followed? If there was such an avoidable incident what could it have been? If it could have been avoided, and we didn’t make any effort to avoid it, why did we allow it to happen? If that were true would that make us victims or perpetrators?

Wouldn’t it be beneficial to review the past and see if there was or were events that we should have paid heed to, and if we could identify those points, shouldn’t we make sure we remember what they were and examine how we addressed those impending problems in order that we might head off another 9/11?

What were the warning signs in those years before that morning, that we should have noticed, and when noticed, what should have been done? Well for one, Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, at the advent of Desert Storm, promised a declaration of war if the United States placed a Military base on Saudi soil. But at the time Bin Laden was a friend of the United States and was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan working with the United States to expel the Soviet invaders, and his transition from friend to foe could have been avoided. Unfortunately the Military wing of our Government wanted a base in Saudi Arabia and using Desert Storm, a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, as its basis, pressured the Saudi Government into allowing a United States Military base to be placed on Saudi soil. Ben Laden then declared war on the United States.

Another warning sign was Desert Storm itself. For those who have forgotten, that war was to be between Iraq and Kuwait because of oil piracy committed by Kuwait against Iraq. But before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he asked the United States if they would intervene for Kuwait after he gave Kuwait an ultimatum to stop the piracy. The well-documented reply by the United States delivered to Saddam by U S Envoy April Glaspie was “The United States considers the argument between Iraq and Kuwait a local issue between the two and the United States would remain out of the conflict”. Saddam gave the ultimatum, Kuwait ignored it, Iraq invaded, and the United States went ballistic. And as they say, the rest is history. We should never forget that history plays itself out over many years and this episode most likely isn’t over yet, which brings me to some more happenings we shouldn’t forget – if we want to learn from history.

The Project For a New American Century outlined its proposal to promote the United States to Sole World Power in the early 90’s. One of the items of interest should be the word “Sole”. That word would indicate Empire building – The Worlds Policeman and the Worlds subjugation. Little countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East shouldn’t be a problem, we can run over any one of them easily or any two or three, but there are some other strong Military powers on this earth, and embarking on subjugating them might be quite risky. One thing for sure is that “There will be blood” when the attempt starts. And blood is the fertilizer for the War Industry Profit garden.

Our Foreign Policy of conquest and domination of the Worlds resources can take us to the goal of Empire, but it can also take us to defeat and our own eventual demise. It is risky business for you and me, but is it risky for those who would initiate wars of conquest? The most dominant of the World’s organizations is the Financial sector. Wars don’t start without their funding and like several of the Nazi Financial and Industrial Corporations, they survived WWII and their Upper Management just moved into the winning Country, the United States, absorbed by U S Companies who were in partners with those Nazi Corporations before and during the War.

Every time you buy medicine or aspirins just remember Bayer is a name now identifying the German Industrial War Giant I. G. Farben, who’s business management were allowed to skip Nuremberg and go directly to work in the U. S. That’s what happened to the elite.
For regular people like you and me, somewhat over a hundred million died. But some U S Companies like say Ford, continued to supply German war needs, even after the war was ongoing. We didn’t do anything to them and they found that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or should I say the World’s financial and War Industry Corporations came out of it better than they went in. That’s called profit.

So whether we know it or not, what we do, or don’t do, will affect the future and the future inhabitants of the world.

What we can do, and what we must do, is always punish criminals even if they are our leaders. Today’s Political Parties work our populace into a frenzy opposing the other Party. They keep us divided so that we are easy prey for their criminal activities.

Any party that advocates fear of the future instead of a mutual solution to problems is not worthy of our votes. How we use those votes will determine the shape of the future.

Michael Boldin of the 10th Amendment Center discusses how the doctrine of enumerated powers has become quaint, how the Constitution provides persuasive talking points for a strictly limited government for those otherwise undisposed, why activist priorities should be on limiting federal power as it is the most expansive and potentially destructive and how the states are, in some cases, resisting federal laws and asserting their own.

Cross-posted from TenthAmendmentCenter.com

Editor’s Note: June 8, 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of a hero. Thomas Paine was actively involved in both the American and French Revolutions and is best known for his major works Common Sense, The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason.

But, Paine was more than just a pamphleteer for the cause of freedom. He was a serious political philosopher, as the following excerpt from The Rights of Man demonstrates.

Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil
by Thomas Paine

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together.

The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man it is necessary to attend to his character. As nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants acting upon every individual impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants, which the reciprocal aid of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.

If we examine, with attention, into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.

Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.

For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, it acts by contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organization which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilized life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.

Formal government makes but a small part of civilized life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilization – to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained – to the unceasing circulation of interest, which passing through its innumerable channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilized man – it is to these things, infinitely more than anything which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.

The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilized life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense man into society, and what the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other.

Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware of, or that governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are the laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.

But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being engrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favor and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.

If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have happened in England, we shall find, that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of consolidating society, it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders, which otherwise would not have existed. In those associations which men promiscuously form for the purpose of trade or of any concern, in which government is totally out of the question, and in which they act merely on the principles of society, we see how naturally the various parties unite; and this shows, by comparison, that governments, so far from always being the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it. The riots of 1780 had no other source than the remains of those prejudices that the government itself had encouraged. But with respect to England there are also other causes.

Excess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never fail to appear in their effect. As a great mass of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the brink of commotion; and, deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government, which injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.

Having thus endeavored to show, that the social and civilized state of man is capable of performing within itself, almost everything necessary to its protection and government, it will be proper, on the other hand, to take a review of the present old governments, and examine whether their principles and practice are correspondent thereto.

It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle, sacred and moral. The obscurity, in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present governments of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honorable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.

It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contribution. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of robber in that of monarch; and hence the origin of monarchy and kings.

The origin of the government of England, so far as it relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.

Those bands of robbers having parceled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian.

The conqueror considered the conquered not as his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power they originally usurped, they affected to inherit.

From such beginning of governments, what could be expected, but a continual system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a trade. The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the common principle of all. There does not exist within such governments a stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and most effectual remedy is to begin anew.

What scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves in contemplating the character, and reviewing the history of such governments! If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of heart, and hypocrisy of countenance, that reflection would shudder at and humanity disown, it is kings, courts, and cabinets that must sit for the portrait. Man, as he is naturally, with all his faults about him, is not up to the character.

Can we possibly suppose that if government had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, that the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plow, to lay aside his peaceful pursuits and go to war with the farmer of another country? Or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man’s estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest consequence? Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the faro table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.

If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments, more than might be expected, it is the progress that the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce have made, beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilization operate in man. Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.

Thomas Paine (1737–1809) was an English pamphleteer, revolutionary, radical, and classical liberal. Born in the market town of Thetford, England, he migrated to the American colonies at the age of 37, just in time to take part in the American Revolution. His main contribution was as the author of the powerful, widely read pamphlet, “Common Sense” (1776), advocating independence for the American colonies from Great Britain. He is also known for “The American Crisis” (1776–1783), a series of pamphlets supporting the American Revolution, and “The Rights of Man” (1791) defending the early French Revolution.

The previous essay is an excerpt from the writings of Thomas Paine which can be found in the third chapter of Liberty and the Great Libertarians, edited by Charles T. Sprading.

Featured Post for 06/05 – 06/11

Dear President Obama,

I, like many millions of Americans, voted for you in the last general election in the hope that your promise of change would be the change that we had longed for during the previous eight years.

Powerlessly, we watched our nation being run into the ground by a runaway despotic regime. We saw wars begun under false pretenses, which have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars; we saw our natural resources being despoiled by greedy profiteers; we’ve seen our small businesses and small farms being destroyed by bureaucratic intrusions into every aspect of their lives and businesses, apparently for the enrichment of the big megabusiness cartels.

We’ve seen most of the jobs that gave America a healthy middle-class outsourced to nations where people will work twelve hours or more for a dollar or two a day, or for a cup or two of rice to feed their family. 
CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE

Under the radar in most spheres until now, Wisconsin Assembly Bill 203 (introduced in April, 2009) seeks to restore a Constitutional balance to the common practice of federalizing the national guard.

AB203 “requires the governor to examine every federal order that places the Wisconsin national guard on federal active duty to determine if that order is lawful and valid. If the governor determines that the federal order is not lawful or valid, the bill requires the governor to take appropriate action, which may include commencing legal action in state or federal court, to prevent the Wisconsin national guard from being placed on federal active duty.”

The bill also “requires the governor to submit to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature a summary of the governor’s review of every federal order that places the Wisconsin national guard on federal active duty and any action he or she takes in response to that review.”

The Guard considers its charter to be the Constitution of the United States, and specifically mentions Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia — “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.” All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.

Read the full text of the Bill below:

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

AB203, s. 1
Section 1. 321.02 (3) of the statutes is created to read:

321.02 (3) The governor shall examine every federal order that places the national guard on federal active duty after the effective date of this subsection …. [LRB inserts date], to determine whether the order is lawful and valid. If the governor determines that the order is not lawful or valid, he or she shall take appropriate action to prevent the national guard from being placed on federal active duty. Appropriate action may include commencing a legal action in state or federal court to prevent the national guard from being placed on federal active duty.

The governor shall submit a report to the standing committees of the legislature with specified subject matter jurisdiction over military affairs, as provided under s. 13.172 (3), that summarizes his or her review of every order that places the national guard on federal active duty and any action he or she takes in response to that review, within 30 days after his or her review is complete.

Mr. President, you have indicated a return to Constitutional Government. That must surely mean that such unconstitutional acts as the Patriot act, the MCA, the various spying on citizen acts will be repealed as they illegally set aside the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Posse Comitatus must be replaced so the military can no longer be used against us in the US. Habeas Corpus must be restored. As long as these illegal acts continue to hang over us, we will NOT have a Constitutional Government.

Let’s see if I ever get an answer.

Here’s a link to the story.

Supposedly, some lawyers were half-joking that not abiding my the Constitution exactly, by not stating the exact words for the oath of office, there is a doubt, or question, that he is truly and officially the President of the United States. So, they did a “do-over”.

When I heard this, I seriously gave out a burst of laughter saying “So, now they actually care about what the Constitution says!”.

In the United States, the oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):

• I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

When was the last time that actually happened?

Ever since FDR proclaimed that the Constitution was “quaint” and written in the “horse and buggy era,” congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for illegal wars, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks, etc, etc, and etc. This quick note could be a 100 page book of lists.

All of this legislation — merely the tip of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg — is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress and the President gets away with it – day after day after day.

But, when they are concerned about the legitimacy of themselves in power, THEN what the Constitution says all of the sudden means something to them.  Sure is convenient that they can pick and choose when to apply the Constitution and when they don’t have to.

It’s so sad, it’s almost hilarious…

What could denigrate the Office of the President more than letting murderous, thieving crooks rob the treasury, lie us into wars and condemn millions to death or ruin? What is more impeachable than to take an oath to “Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” then refer to it as a “Just a God-damned piece of paper.”?

The Constitution lays out the use and need for impeachment and if you read it closely, it amounts to a way of removing forever from office one who has breached the public trust. Most of the Legislature as well as the Executive realizes that they would all be subject to impeachment, removal from office and trial for their breaches of public trust, the lies, evasions, sweetheart bills and kickbacks.

My “Democratic” Congressman wrote me back in 2006 and told me that we had re-elected him, not to end the war or impeach the President, but to add a few cents to the minimum wage and other such great services to the people. He also said he was not convinced that the President had broken any laws! I sent him quotations from the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the things Cheney/Bush had authorized or ordered alongside it. He never responded. When I ran into him at a Democratic BBQ, he turned his back on me and walked off.

In my opinion, they don’t want an impeachment, or anything that will bring the Constitution back into the government because whoever gets to run the show wants to inherit this current criminal mess to use for their own ends, which are probably not far from what the current gang is doing.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

What has been happening for the past several decades is that those chains have been shattered, link by link, by the government; so we now have in place exactly what Jefferson was warning against. There is no way We the People will ever get our Constitution and Bill of Rights back unless we perhaps take another Jefferson quote seriously.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

I do not see the power elite that controls this country ever giving up its illegal power without a fight.