The Only Game In Town

Brother Theo

by Brother Theo

Where we came from

Carl Sandburg once wrote a nation that forgets where it came from soon forgets where it is going. Like and share if you agree! I mean that’s where we are isn’t it? No one who reads this will disagree with Sandburg, and we all know that we have lost our way; but we are limited to watered down ways of expressing our frustration like memes kind of like the big yellow smiley face that was ubiquitous during Vietnam. Don’t worry, be happy! What I’m going to write about is state funded election rigging, but first, where we came from.

The authority to govern is conferred upon it by those whom it governs

To cut things short, the founding fathers made it painfully clear that the authority to govern is conferred upon it by those whom it governs. This notion did not appear out of thin air, but rather from two millennia of oppression by the power elite enforced by horrific violence. Every nation which has failed to follow this example has, well, failed. Although the founding fathers wrote a perfect document in the constitution, they could not protect us from subsequent stupidity and corruption buttressing the Declaration of Independence, and providing the perfect segue into the constitution. The preamble states that We the people of the United States in order to Form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity do ordain And establish this constitution of the United States of America.”

Snowflakes? Hardly! This cannot possibly be misunderstood. This is where we came from, using it as a reference point for our future. It’s crystal clear that we have lost our way to a future that might have been rationally charted from that point.

Politics isn’t politics

So why didn’t we? Well,politics isn’t politics as we lower case citizens think of politics; it’s politics the way that upper case Citizens think of it. Long term, not four years or eight years, but twenty year intervals at the minimum, which is the average term of a Supreme Court Justice, a figure likely to increase to 35 years over the next few decades.

Collective votes to create tenable conditions

Because the collective votes to create tenable conditions for living, working, raising kids, and such, whereas small special interest money groups vote to keep their status as ultra- rich forever. Judiciary customs such as Stare Decisis (Google it guys, I’ve got a word limit here) extend judicial thinking forward for a century or more in some cases so let’s just visit a few cases where the Supreme crud (sorry just trying to convey some contempt of court here) decided that the preamble was kind of like that last couple of squares of toilet paper we never bother peeling off to use; it’s there but what the hell, who wants to wash their hands after?

In 1946 by way of Justifying their decision against the state of California for an illegal sales tax against Richfield oil Corporation, and I quote the court: “All words in the constitution or meaningful every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force in effect have been missed have been understood no word in the instrument can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaningful.” Booyah!

The power of the federal government’s right to compulsory vaccination of citizens

Now, I don’t know what you, dear reader believe, but I for one think that we as a nation had our heads screwed on pretty tight in that adherence to the letter and spirit of our most fundamental of laws. So to be clear in 1946 we remembered where we came from and thus according to Sandberg presumably knew where we were going; but wait, what about 1904 when the court tried Jacobson v Mass. the case essentially upheld the power of the federal government’s right to compulsory vaccination of citizens. The view of this decision was that sometimes the rights of the individual must be infringed upon for the common good. As a liberal I’m OK with the notion that liberty does not mean that we may act in a completely unrestrained fashion, but it clearly represents the verge of the slipperiest of slopes. The judicial review proved this this when they decided that this made citizens subject to police power of the state, no real surprise to 21st century Americans right? I mean you have read the Patriot Act right? Still walking the tightrope the court then decided that “The preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordain and establish the constitution alone, and that the preamble was, and never has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred upon the government of the United States or on any of its departments.”

No part of the constitution confers powers!

Oops! No part of the constitution confers powers, substantive or otherwise on our government, or its departments! No wonder the world thinks we are hillbillies! And that’s SCOTUS! The court goes on to say “Such powers embrace only those expressly granted by the body of the constitution and as such may be implied from those granted.” Oops again, they just offhandedly gave the constitution a circumcision. Put plainly the court said yes the constitution has a preamble, but it’s like the forward to a book you don’t have to read it, and it doesn’t count; this plainly dangerous doctrine came home to roost in 1972 with Roe V Wade when confronted by an issue that most definitely concerns the states interest in posterity (unless you don’t think of future generations of Americans as posterity), and how that aspect of the preamble overrides the personal rights of women the court again decided to divorce itself from the preamble as being separate from the main body of the constitution and in a decision which basically admitted that the myriad complexity of the case made it impossible to decide on constitutional grounds once again decided its outcome along purely pragmatic lines, pretty much the same way they did in Jacobson V Massachusetts.

Frustration leads inexorably to aggression.

Now let us proceed to what is ailing all of us. As we can see, lots of folks cannot talk about politics or the direction of our nation coherently anymore; that is due to ideological stress which goes unrelieved day after miserable day. It’s a condition caused by frustration fostered by peddlers of propaganda. Studies conducted in the US army throughout the 1960s generally concluded that frustration leads inexorably to aggression.

Aggression leads to social alienation

Aggression leads to social alienation. We know that we are supposed to be the source of legitimate power in this country, but how are we to do so if we remain divided over issues that belong to narrow special interest groups? Groups whose voices would be merely local (as is proper for special interests) but for money? Our government has consistently acted against the interests of the overwhelming majority of its citizens for the last 30 years in lockstep not because liberals are all powerful and rampant, nor is it conservative moon bats, but because our politicians work for rich people, and not you!

The answer is yet another Supreme Court case, Citizens United. You see, the Supreme Court justices wield great power, and are themselves really wealthy, and the consequences of their actions determine our future. In a nakedly political move, our present Chief Justice, John Roberts, invited David Bossie, the chairman of the 501c known as Citizens United, to bring the case known as Citizens United v FEC (our federal election commission), before the court. Now I’m no constitutional scholar, but I do know a nickel from a dime, so I’m pretty sure that’s social engineering and not umpiring; especially when the folks over at Brietbart broke out the champagne a day ahead of its being scheduled on the docket.

The court redacted parts of the constitution

No, I’m not going to go into detail about that case because it reads like “The reason it was OK for three bears to murder a little girl” but what I will say is that the majority ruling in that case went far beyond those cases which divorced the preamble from the main body of the constitution and openly robbed we the people of our right to confer legitimacy on uponour governing authority by hand delivering that authority to David Allen and Bill Koch and the 17 richest families in America, and to their heirs and assigns thus making your wishes or opinions irrelevant save on Facebook perhaps, by conferring personhood onto corporations and then giving them the right to bestow unlimited funds onto the political candidates of their choice; in doing this the court redacted parts of the constitution as well as divorcing the collective from the establishment. Period!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s