Would this truly Revolutionary document survive "Patriot Act" scrutiny today?

.

Would this truly Revolutionary document survive "Patriot Act" scrutiny today?

We have arrived at an interesting point in history....

While we do not have an authoritarian development, the use of democracy is developing authoritarian aspects. We need a democratization of Democracy....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,^[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Representatives of the Thirteen states in Congress Assembled at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 4 July, 1776

Would this document survive "Patriot Act" scrutiny today? Would the drafter become an object of police surveillance...?

Shoot First Diplomacy, Made in Zioconned USA....

Philip Giraldi

It is difficult to imagine what might produce a longing for the good old days of George W. Bush, but the Obama Administration is certainly approaching that tip point. First there was National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair spelling out a policy of assassination of American citizens overseas based on suspicion and secret evidence and then there was last week’s revelation that the Justice Department guidelines for the FBI now permit relatively free searches of all sorts of personal information that once was regarded as private. The searches are without judicial oversight and there does not have to be any evidence that the suspect has committed a crime.

Now we have Hillary Clinton and company opening up the latest free fire zone against other American citizens who have done nothing wrong. The State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who is married to one of the ubiquitous Kagans, announced that “Groups that seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza are taking irresponsible and provocative actions that risk the safety of their passengers.” Please note: per Nuland/Clinton the passengers on the unarmed vessels in international waters, all of whom have signed a pledge of non-violence, are risking their own safety if they get shot by the Israeli military.

Nuland added that Gaza is governed by Hamas, “a designated foreign terrorist organization,” and that aiding such a group “could violate U.S. civil and criminal statutes and could lead to fines and incarceration.” This means that giving a loaf of bread to a child in Gaza is indictable as support of a terrorist organization, since the government is run by Hamas.

Once upon a time the Secretary of State was supposed to protect Americans overseas, particularly when the Americans are not doing anything illegal. But that was before Israel and its Lobby decided what American citizens can and cannot do. A good friend of mine Ray McGovern, who is on the American vessel, is a deeply religious former CIA senior analyst. He has friends on the National Security Council who informed him last week that the US government would let the Israelis do whatever they want to the flotilla and would, in fact, approve of any action taken. In the aftermath, the State Department would do nothing to help any US citizen killed, injured, or arrested. Except possibly have them arrested a second time.

However one feels about the Israel-imposed blockade of Gaza, it is important to remember that the Americans and others involved in the flotilla are doing nothing illegal under international law. Their ships have been inspected and have only relief supplies on board. No one is armed. Their objection is to the Israeli, and American, assumption that Tel Aviv somehow has the right to punish the Gazans in perpetuity and thereby create a continuous humanitarian crisis for the local people because they elected the “wrong” party back in 2006. The Americans and other foreigners on the flotilla have a perfect right to express that view peacefully without being excoriated by Hillary before being executed by an IDF goon....

Independence Day for Whom? The tenth anniversary of this editorial about July 4th Independence Day rings even louder today. SARTRE Commentary maintains a consistent and vocal message that is timeless. When you read the essay - Independence Day for Whom? - You celebrate the uniqueness of the American Revolution. Written before the September 11, 2001 transmutation of the country into a despotic police state, the excuse of a fake homeland security threat is used to destroy the foundation of individual civil liberties. The indisputable fact of the last decade is that America is no longer a nation of free citizens and a Republic government of public servants, accountable to the people. The injustice of the British Crown has only been substituted for the iniquities of the Amerika Empire. Reflect upon this editorial and pass it on.

The celebration of the Nation's birthday sometimes gets people confused. This day is much more than another holiday from work. It is a recognition of who we are as a People. What it is not is a saint's day for a Government. When the Nation and the Government are spoken in the same breath, most believe they are interchangeable. How mistaken and easily mislead, the public can become. Yes, a revolution was fought to establish a Free Republic, but that was well over two centuries ago. Articles of Confederation were formed to establish a working relationship among sovereign States. Later a Constitution was ratified that placed specific, distinct and enumerated limitations on the authority to rule of a central government. Functions not named, were left to the individual States. And finally, Bill of Rights Amendments were added and approved that codified guarantees for the protection of the citizen from abuses of that newly created central government. Up to this point, who would not want to attend the party? Well, the theory is fine; but the acting out of the play, has caused the show to be canceled. Why was the American Revolution fought? The reason was not originally accepted by the public that a new country was the purpose for the conflict. Many sought to negotiate a settlement with the Crown and remain loyal Englishmen. Only a small band raised the banner for self determination. Tories and neutrals were in the majority. Uncertainty prevailed with the gallows the reward for failure. The motivation to dare all was for an idea, not a lust for power. Most of the rebellious vanguard were established leaders and held authority within their circles. But they risked their sacred honor, more precious than their lives for the sake of LIBERTY. Out of this caldron of fire, the world witnessed the first attempt to create a society that could be governed by principles of constitutional law, as opposed to EQUITY at the discretion of the magistrate. That was the 'shot heard round the world'. Those first slugs at Concord Bridge were the aftermath. This is the singular significance of the American Revolution. It was born out of the eruption and the explosion that caused the demise of the old order. So what went wrong? For those who doubt that it has gone amiss, go off to your picnic or watch the tube. But for those who know in their heart that the tyrant that was King George III, was a mild despot, compared to the federal apparatus in foggy bottom; let us celebrate another anniversary. Our festivity will not recognize the central government as its legitimate steward, nor will we invite agents within their employ. Honored guests will be restricted to those who understand the nature of the American Experience and are willing to pledge their allegiance to that cause. Their Nation will profess the principles of universal sovereignty of the individual and will require strict limitations and comprehensive accountability upon those who administrate the public trust. Our gathering will bear the resemblance of our Founding Fathers home, for we are their posterity. So when your neighbor invites you over to have a cup of English Gray, remember your ability to smell its aroma and sip its flavor, is built upon the debris of tea casks from that Boston Harbor soiree. America is unequaled because its king is the individual citizen. The sheriff serves the former serf, who is now a freeman. And the crown is worn on the head of every man. This ideal deserves a true celebration, even if the reality has fallen so short. Our task is to restore the goal, and institute the means to make it genuine. If our Nation was created by men of honor, it can be reinstated with brothers and sisters of similar courage and integrity. Are you one of this new breed that seeks LIBERTY? Or are you content on bowing to a dictator of a depraved empire? We all must choose! Who's birthday will you celebrate . . . Your own as a 'son of liberty', or a master who you continue to pay homage. SARTRE - July 1, 2001 American Political Development..... Adam L. Silverman, PhD* Two most recent posts, on the Declaration of Independence and on Fareed Zakariya's understanding of the nature of the US, especially federalism, got me thinking a bit about American Political Development (of which I did not specialize in...) and how America has and has not changed over time, except that it has been utterly Zioconned wall to wall.... In the first post COL Lang asks if the document could bear scrutiny today and if its author, and I take that to me its primary drafter Thomas Jefferson, could avoid police state surveillance? I think the answer is quite simply that Mr. Jefferson would have little to no place in modern American political society. And while this has been evidenced by the State of Texas writing him out of their history textbooks (apparently the religious conservatives who control the board do not like him because he penned the phrase "separation of Church and State"), I think it goes farther than just Mr. Jefferson's status. I have often wondered, and sometimes remarked, that I do not think any of our founding and framing fathers could be elected to office today or even approved by the Senate for appointment. And this is not because of the obvious concern that many were slave owners and therefore on the wrong side of what we would today call racial issues (it was the 18th Century after all). Rather it has to do with their political views, ranging from the radical to the reactionary, their beliefs about the world and nature and the Deity, their understanding of government, and finally their personal lives. While I could produce a long list of these men, their ideas, and their foibles, with appropriate links, suffice it to say that Jefferson's affair with his sister in law (Sally Hemmings was Mrs. Jefferson's sister), Washington being a rum runner (smuggler), Hamilton's repeated affairs, Franklin's education and expertise (not to mention that he liked to pose, in prose, as a young housewife, making him a literary cross dresser), etc, etc, etc (and lets not forget they were almost all Freemasons, the horror...) would make it impossible for them to get elected today or confirmed if they were appointed. The genius of these men was not that they were all Simon pure, but rather that they were as flawed and fallible** as the rest of us, yet able when the time came to rise above their limitations, to compromise (even if they were bad compromises in retrospect), and to do the work that needed to be done. To be perfectly honest I am not sure that Ronald Reagan could be elected today, and certainly not as a Republican, given that he raised taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office, increased, or authorized by signing legislation that increased, spending, enlarged the deficit (tax and spender), and that he pulled US forces out of Lebanon after the Marines were attacked twice (cutting and running), negotiated under the table with Iran to try to secure the release of US hostages taken in Lebanon (negotiated with Islamic extremists), head of a union, and that is not counting me being polite and not mentioning the breakdown of his first marriage and other personal/familial issues that would not be off limits today. While many of my memories of President Reagan were formed in adolescence, it says something about where America is today that the great conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, could not make it through an Iowa caucus. At this hyperlink you can find the Austrian Economics (this is the philosophical/normative type of economics subscribe to by Congressman Paul, Senator Paul, Congresswoman Bachman, Congressman Ryan, and many others) folks going after him. I am not trying to run down President Reagan, rather this list of actions that he and his administration undertook (whether I agree with all, some, any, or none of them) are intended to demonstrate that the flexibility to make policy adjustments regardless of ideological posturing are something that is no longer valued in American political life any more by a great portion of the electorate. Given that conservatism's greatest American icon, President Reagan, would fail almost every litmus test that has been created by his own party, its supporters, backers, and those who claim to be part of the same overall movement, should clearly demonstrate that real radicals like President Jefferson, a man who wanted the Constitution scrapped and rewritten every generation or so as he perceived it as the ultimate social contract, would certainly be out of the question.... Continue reading "United States or united States: Some Additional Thoughts on Revolutionary Documents and State Sovereignty" »