Joined: 18 Feb 2007
|Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: The Pinnacle of United States Hypocrisy
|The Pinnacle of United States Hypocrisy
What rational motivation does any democratic free and sovereign foreign State have in desiring membership in this Union, when our open arms is but a Trojan horse? For, the moment that State becomes a new member, its whole material and cultural wealth is seized and dissolved into the great mass of the union.
Is thrusting such evil upon any one member the true purpose of UNION — to not only encourage a State's dissolution by the other members, but to go so far as to demand it of the Federal head; and, welcoming the new member with not enthusiasm and open arms, but with resentment, jealously, envy and greed? For, in our current state of affairs, evil is not in the eye of the beholder but in any individual State that is unfortunate enough to find itself a member of our Union that has differing interests and habits, or wealth and resources greater than other members that may have little or none.
In truth, it is only the envious want of their fair share of that which they have not; and, if a direct possession by a redistribution of its material wealth is not sufficient, then it is finished off by an indirect possession of those darling State objects that are its natural resources that make up the remaining portion of its wealth — by the Federal head making a tyrannical use of its might under the pretense of regulating trade, common national interests, general welfare, national security or some other repugnant measure — commandeering and regulating those natural resources for a more proportioned distribution amongst the rest; for it is the evil's creed: that no single entity has a right to posses such wealth when others abound that are not as fortunately blessed.
And, after confiscating and gaining dominion over all its wealth, and so neutralizing its ability to resist, the pent-up aversion to its religion, interests and habits, that are contrary to that which is falsely believed defines an American People and an American State, is crushed; for, its indoctrination and conformity to the rest, and its submission to not the Constitution that is the fundamental law and those principles upon which the Union is truly founded, but instead to the illegitimate WILL of a bare designing majority that is their false laws. And, it is that illegitimate WILL to which it, and its citizens, now find themselves forcibly owing their allegiance.
Is this not making a tyrannical use of Federal government powers against the States and, as such, evil? And, is this evil not that which has been perpetuated and continues to flourish today — pilfering the wealth and resources of each other’s neighbors, be it an incorporated State, an extension of a State or of an individual citizen of a State — using pretenses and reasoning contrary to the fundamental principles for which the Union and the Federal government were created?
How can the Federal government, for example, be further trusted and tasked with the obligation of protecting the States against each other from unjustly taxing each other's wealth when it is involved in the same repugnant measures that it has an obligation to guard against?
“Was it for this that the States adopted the Constitution and joined the Union” — to have these evils, meant to be guarded against, instead, thrust upon them; with, the Federal government — the guardian itself, encouraging and facilitating the evil — destroying and dissolving the States from within? (Paraphrased to fit this occasion from a quote made by Mr. Jackson on August 11, 1789, in the 1st Congress on the destruction of Georgia and the obligation of the Federal government to protect and defend it.)
Consider a foreign State that is not a member of this Union. Would the other Nations of the world tolerate the same evil imposed upon it by any one of our members or by this Union’s Federal government? Is it equitable to invade a foreign State so that its wealth and resources may be controlled and those spoils of conquest used for our selfish interests or the interests of some poorer or less endowed States — or to install, in our opinion, a JUST government or one that conforms to what we merely believe the standard should be? Then what makes that which is deplorable amongst or against foreign Nations and States, acceptable amongst our own members — especially considering, that "evil" which we encourage and do at home is deplored by our own citizens when done against those that are not among our members.
For that matter, what rational motivation is there for any current member to want to remain a member of a Union that is not a nation of LAW, but instead a nation of HYPOCRISY and designing men and women — a Union with a governing head that no longer does anything for which it was instituted; and rather than protecting its members against each other, instead makes a tyrannical use of its powers — judging them, encroaching upon their individual rights and further encouraging the same amongst its members.
Worse, is the hypocrisy that it carelessly flaunts — when, on the one hand, it condones the actions and encourages the People and their States abroad to defend their rights and declare their independence from, in their opinion, the oppression of a tyrannical governing head — going even as far as to interfere with that head and giving condemnation to any government that interferes with a free and sovereign People and their State exercising their fundamental right of self defense and the right to escape from under tyranny; while at the same time, by threat or deadly force, compelling seceding States back in or to remain as members in this Union, even though “each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Madison, fp39), — preventing them from taking up arms to defend themselves from tyranny waged against them and exercising that same fundamental right that each State and its People in this Union have been guaranteed, and so that there would be no doubt on this point, by them being further guaranteed the TOOLS necessary to effectively exercise that right by the addition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. (Hamilton, fp26; Monday, August, 17, 1st Congress)
(Protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. You may not reproduce this post without express written permission from the poster. You may, however, disseminate a link to this post in any electronic communication or web page.)