The United States or Just America

| March 10, 2013 | 25 Comments

Julian Assange Wikileaks named Man of the Year by Le MondeDoes the United States actually exist as the country we once knew, or is this nation really just some sort of transitional nation which is or will be called America? The concept of our founding fathers, obviously, was to create a Constitutional Republic where men could pursue their dreams and live a life free from the twisted whims of tyrants. Of course, as we all know, nothing man-made lasts forever and it appears that dream is either dead or dying and at a rapid pace. I believe what we now have, is exactly what the framers fought to rid themselves of, a dictatorship run by petty demagogues in a so-called foreign nation which is now just called America.

So just exactly what has transpired to foster this atmosphere, which has festered over time into this seamy dictatorship that would make King George proud? One factor is undoubtedly the misguided belief that the U.S. Constitution is a ‘living Constitution’ which evolves over time. According to David A. Strauss, “A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended.” Mr. Strauss explains some of the pros with regard to a living Constitution such as, “The cumbersome amendment process, the world has changed in incalculable ways, the nation has grown in territory and population, technology, the international situation, the economy and social mores,” are all different today. But he also touches on the cons, “The Constitution is supposed to be a rock-solid foundation, our basic principals-our constitutional principles-must remain constant, and the term…is hardly ever used, except derisively.” So, although time moves on and the nation and the world changes, should the U.S. Constitution change? I believe the Law of the Land is just that and it shouldn’t be surreptitiously altered, by public opinion, a liberal or conservative agenda, or the whims of anyone, especially politicians. I believe a cumbersome amendment process is a good thing; it keeps politicians and judges from forcing their opinions and their laws down our throats just because they are in office or on the bench. However, that rock-solid foundation appears to be more like quick sand than anything else.

Obama care is actually a good example of why a living constitution is a bad idea. Whether we need some sort of overhaul regarding our health system or not, is a matter that should be up to the States. Yet, somehow this immediately went to the Supreme Court to decide. In essence, doesn’t that remove State sovereignty? The University of Alabama Law Review states, “A problem for our time is that we cannot help knowing that our highest courts are not merely enforcing rules…We know too well that they often shape the rules… according to their own preferences to assist one rival interest or another.” (p. 4 of 68) Something tells me if Judges are supposed to be impartial referees, their own preferences should have absolutely nothing to do with enforcing rules. The Alabama Law Review goes on to state, “Justices sitting on the Supreme Court…have by the terms of their certiorari rule almost completely disowned responsibility for assuring that individuals’ legal rights and duties are actually enforced by lower courts in individual cases. They seldom bother to decide a case unless it has impact on some public interest…It decides only those cases which provide a suitable occasion for expressing policies the Justices choose to express.” (p. 5 of 68) So it would appear that the Supreme Court has, in effect, become an activist for political cause within the U.S. government. How is it possible to be an activist and impartial at the same time? Rather than allowing the States to decide an issue which is inherently an issue for the people of each sovereign State, the Supreme Court has decided that for us all; the Supreme Courts usurpation of the rights of each and every sovereign individual as well as each and every sovereign State is apparent. If the U.S. government wishes to make a nationwide health care system, shouldn’t they actually be required to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make that law? As far as I can tell, a national law, such as Obama care, is much like an amendment to the Constitution as it becomes (part of) the Law of the Land. As sovereign individuals, which is a status guaranteed to each of us in the U.S. Constitution through Republicanism, we cannot simply step away from this edict, because the self-serving type of politician which has decreed a national health care system, is the same type of politician which has decreed we are no longer a Republic, but a democracy where we are governed by force. This is the malevolent effect of a living Constitution.

Lobbyists and PAC’s are another form of decimation to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the extremely wealthy organizations who can simply pay for votes to achieve their goal. I’m certain Machiavelli would be proud of our politicians, after all, to these types of people, the end justifies the means. However, if you stop to consider the Republic of the United States is not supposed to be a Machiavellian society where the Prince rules over the people with an iron fist, then there must be a problem. What we now have, like it or not, is a nation which is sold to the highest bidder. This comes in the form of the special interest group. Among these advocacy groups you will find according to Dr. Kathi Carlisle, “The AFL/CIO, Amnesty International USA, the Arab American Institute, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, Campaign for United Nations Reform (or Citizens for Global Solutions), Communist Party USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Feminist Majority, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the John Birch Society, Muslim Public Affairs Council, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the Socialist Party USA” and many more. In essence, these groups attempt to influence the way which elected officials vote, which basically puts the politician in someone’s pocket. These groups also attempt to steer the country in one direction or another with no legal basis for their actions. Governance paid for by pressure groups is governance by force, not freedom.

Another factor which I believe erodes our Constitution and the status of our nation are agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), OAS (Organization of American States) and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which is now called the WTO (World Trade Organization), and are all undoubtedly beholden to The World Bank. Organizations such as these can only tend to move jobs and money out of the United States to others around the globe and leave us here, in the United States, in a position of poverty and servitude. We no longer have a manufacturing base of well paying jobs, we are stuck buying substandard products which are intended to break and be thrown on the junk heap as well as further the misguided notion that we are the world’s policemen. All of this has been done at the cost of our bank accounts and our sovereignty. While Americans are and have always been a people who are extremely generous, that generosity needs to come directly through the people as we see fit, not as the government sees fit. Organizations such as these, especially when given the blessings of our so-called leaders, can only chip away at our individual, State and national sovereignty.

I believe this is, in part, the New World Order. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “Many economists agree that NAFTA has had some positive impact on overall U.S. employment. But most also agree that gains have been accompanied by some painful side effects.” According to Edward Alden, “Wages haven’t kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality has risen in recent years.” Opponents of NAFTA such as the Economic Policy Institute state, “The deal’s trade agenda has served to widen U.S. trade deficits and has indirectly pushed some U.S. workers into lower-paying jobs.” I don’t know about you, but I personally don’t like the idea of ‘painful side effects’ or ‘lower-paying jobs’ for Americans. According to RT Question More, “The US government’s official unemployment rate, now at 8.3 percent, only takes into consideration those who have no jobs and are looking for work…this is called a “U-3″ rate…The national U-6 rate is 15.3 percent, but some states have a shockingly higher individual rate.” Somehow, I just cannot fathom how these so-called economic blocs are good for either U.S. workers or our economy. But with such a high unemployment rate, the U.S. government still thinks we should allow others to come and take our jobs away from us. I defy anyone to prove to me that politicians in the U.S. aren’t crooks. In a report by Erika Lovley on 6 November 2009, “Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.” Keep in mind that was nearly 3 years ago, so the figure is undoubtedly higher today. Yet these individuals believe they know what is best for the people of the United States.

I believe other factors which further this agenda are a perverted immigration policy, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA and even TSA. If we look at our immigration policy, the word amnesty is used far too often. The Washington Post reports, “Under the new policy, as many as 1.4 million undocumented immigrants under age 30 will be able to apply for the amnesty.” It appears the Federal government doesn’t have a problem with the 1.4 million ‘undocumented immigrants,’ which is a really a euphemism for people who broke U.S. law by entering the United States illegally, and their families. If 1.4 million are eligible, how many others are there who are also here breaking our laws? Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security (the name itself smacks of Soviet style language) doesn’t see this as a threat to our sovereignty. But I have to wonder why? Isn’t it their duty to protect the ‘Homeland’ against invasion? If it isn’t, then why have they ordered 450 million rounds of ammunition from ATK? If it isn’t to keep illegal invasion from happening, perhaps it’s for some other diabolical reason. We already know all too well what FEMA’s position is with regard to Americans. During Hurricane Katrina, they stood by and did nothing while Americans died and lived in squalor in New Orleans and many still do. In a PBS NEWSHOUR report, Senator Lieberman stated, “But government failures…allowed much more human suffering and property destruction to occur than should have.” Louisiana Governor Blanco’s press secretary stated, “We wanted helicopters, food and water. They wanted to negotiate an organizational chart.” How pathetic is that? It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if FEMA, which was incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, was in league with the rest of the Federal government in an attempt to assist in the formation of a new North American Union, made up of Canada, the US and Mexico, after all, they are doing quite a good job of turning the United States into a Third World Nation.

In a report by Jerome Corsi on 19 May 2006 he stated, “Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.” The report goes on to state, “President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union.” The report concludes, “His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won’t do.” As previously stated, it appears President Obama is on board with this same idea. He also refuses to secure the border with Mexico, he refuses to enforce existing immigration laws, and neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations are friends of the sovereignty of United States of America. Quite frankly, I believe this goes back even further. Something tells me George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barak Hussein Obama are all cut from the exact same piece of cloth. Plots such as these do not hatch themselves overnight, but take decades to form and implement.

Could this lead to a complete loss of our rights guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution? Would the U.S. Constitution even exist under such a system? While it isn’t much of a secret that the United States has been bankrupt by our leaders; our outstanding public debt as of 7 August 2012, according to Ed Hall of brillig.com is, “$15,918,879,613,227.57.” Would such a ploy by the Federal government con-artists of this former Republic be for such a simple reason as to gain new taxpayers? I can’t believe it would really matter. Without the United States or the U.S. Constitution, we would be nothing more than slaves to our usurpers, who already are nothing more than puppets of their masters, the so-called ‘illuminated ones.’ So just exactly where would the central power then be located? I have no doubt the central power would temporarily be somewhere in North America. I can’t help but imagine some sort of Triune would be set-up. After all, the United States has already proven their affection for Trinities; Nimrod-Semiramis-Tammuz is a good example of that. But undoubtedly, the central power would eventually be shifted, or should I say freely given to the Vatican. All of this is simply a precursor to a One World Government; a New World Order which has been envisioned by certain extremely wealthy families for thousands of years.

Before you laugh too hard, perhaps you should take a moment and think about the ramifications of such an idea. Ask yourselves if the Constitution and your rights have been slowly eroded by the U.S. government, extremely wealthy multi-national corporations and banks. It’s funny how they seem to get bailed-out by us, but we get shafted by them. And by them I do mean the government, corporations and the banks. Please prove me wrong.

Tell me, are the secrets which are enthusiastically and fastidiously guarded by our so-called leaders for the protection of the nation, which means the people of the United States, or are they kept for the protection of the ruling elite? I submit that these secrets are maintained because the people would most likely revolt if they knew the truth. These deceivers know they can continue to spoon-feed us lies and they know we will accept the continuation of those lies because they are easier to swallow that the truth.

Don’t be fooled by the families of those who have prepared for countless millennia for their ‘thousand points of light.’ It’s not the light which they seek, although they call themselves ‘the illuminated ones,’ they seek darkness; war, famine, disease, slavery and death, all in the unholy name of their master who yearns for our wanton obedience to feed his desire for the power to control and destroy. Be assured, these people and their master, seek to enthrall others by any means available, but they prefer to receive this through our free-will. Treachery and deception are a small part of the arsenal from which their cabal ensnares others into taking their mark freely by thoughts and beliefs as well as acts and deeds.

Now is the time to wake up! Arise and throw off the chains of mental, physical and spiritual slavery which unknowingly have been fastened around our throats with the sole intent of dragging us down into the depths of the abyss where they reside. It’s never too late to come to our senses and do what’s right and save ourselves and our Republic, the United States of America.

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

Brett Baker was born in the sovereign State of Washington and is a graduate of the University of Washington. http://mytreatises.blogspot.com

Article Source:
http://www.articlebiz.com/article/1051591515-1-the-united-states-or-just-america/

photo by:


Abode of Chaos

Filed in: Uncategorized
×

25 Comments on "The United States or Just America"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. bumgardo says:

    citizenship: Lawyers group opposes proposed US Constitution change

  2. The Dark Knight says:

    John F. Kennedy was the 35th president but what exactly did he do that was important for the United States of America?

  3. Gabriel Kenney says:

    I am aware that the united states of america started when the war of independance began.
    But there were only 13 east coast states that were part of the splitting off of england.
    So how on earth did they convince the other colonies owned by spain and france to join america by 1845???

  4. Andre says:

    Was John Hanson the first President of the United States of America? I am not retarded, I know that George Washington was the first President, but I read on several websites that John Hanson was noted as the first President. So I just wanted to know if it was true or not.

  5. HASTHEANSWERS says:

    Another way to ask the question would be to ask the following: What is the first word that comes to mind when you hear "The United States of America"? Think of it as word association with "The United States of America."

    There are no right or wrong answers. I am simply conducting a survey for a research project and need as many answers as possible! Thank you for your time.

  6. Kaylla says:

    How did globalization affect the United States of America during the clinton years?

    An explanation or a website where i can find lots of info will be helpful

  7. Jermaine J says:

    I am doing a project of the USA for school and need to know the ethnicities in the United States Of America for my Project. Please Help!

  8. JOHN KAISER PHD says:

    In What year do you estimate the United States of America will become the United States of China?
    Solution- Very informative.

  9. Muzahid says:

    Which four presidents had the most impact on the history of the United States of America and why?

  10. Samuro says:

    I need to know which state is the biggest state in the United States of America?

  11. Thomas Lopez says:

    seceding from the United States of America defies everything the United States of America stands for......we are supposed to be UNITED.....not seceding from the each other.

  12. medael says:

    Take Action Now - Amnesty International USA

  13. dubmecrazy3 says:

    On one side it says United States of America Free Coinage 16 to 1 and on the other side it says Prepared for J.A. Crumpton Lincoln, Ne.
    What the heck is it? It was in my grandfather's coin collection.

  14. Sergio says:

    I am looking for a list of all the various names the US went by, before it was called the United States of America. I think the brits called it one thing, while the colonist called it another. I am not sure.

  15. gal says:

    The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

  16. lucasg615 says:

    I would say Franklin D. Roosevelt because he had a game plan to get the United States of America out of the Great Depression.
    Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the First Republican President of the United States of America.

  17. encyclopath says:

    I am a Perm. resident in the united states of america ( green card holder ) and i am a citizen of Iran.
    My passport got expired couple of months ago and i am clueless about the steps to renew my passport in the states since we do not have an embassy here.
    Please advise.
    Thanks

  18. Andres C says:

    Why do we have animal testing in the United States of America? Is animal testing right, or rong?

  19. Many Illegal immigration laws written by ALEC & funded by our taxes provide a lucrative stream of new customers 4 PrivateDetention centers.

  20. jamison del says:

    Barak Hussein Obama. Hmm Hmm Hmm. Killer of the American Economy, & Dreams.

  21. Salam says:

    What if Maryland spoke Italian.
    California spoke Spanish.
    Illinois spoke French.
    Gerogia spoke Swahelee.
    Idaho spoke Hebrew.
    New York spoke Latin.
    Colorado spoke German.
    Wyoming spoke Russian.
    Florida spoke Aribic.
    Texas spoke Chinese.

    Would this have hindered the development of trade and Economics in the United States of America? Do you think the States would have stayed "United" with different languages; or would there have been sucessions?

  22. Kevin says:

    I was wondering if Mexico were a territory of the United States of America like Puerto Rico or Guam, would this make the immigration problem any better? Could a sovereign country like Mexico ask to be part of USA Territory?

  23. lin says:

    Overview of the amendment of the US constitution: guide

  24. sher says:

    Overview of the amendment of the US constitution: words

  25. mcelyn chad says:

    IRS Favored HAMAS-linked Council on American Islamic Relations While Targeting the Hero Who Exposed Them |

Post a Comment