Once the Rule of Law is established, there is little good reason to abandon it. If its tenets were sound and just from the beginning, we are right to consider any departure from it to be suspicious, out of order, and dangerous to the very foundation of our Republic. Indeed, who would suggest a departure from the Rule of Law except someone who hoped to profit from it somehow? And upon investigation, we will discover that practically every proposed departure is promoted so that some interested party can derive a profit or benefit from an unfair advantage that they can gain by suspending the Rule of Law.
Naturally, no such interested party says, “We’d like to suspend the Rule of Law so that we can gain an unfair competitive advantage from it to our own profit.” No, instead of this honest approach, they always spin the affair into somehow being good for the nation. They’ll say it’s for our “protection” or for our “prosperity”, perhaps. We do well on principle to shun outright any promise of some supposed benefit that is said to be expected from skirting the Rule of Law. If it is indeed such a great idea, then let’s amend the Constitution to allow for it. To go ahead with a new practice while violating the Constitution to do it, we should rater view as if stepping off a firm plateau onto the proverbial slippery slope.
In the unrefined human nature, however, there is a nasty bent to want to “set it and forget it” or to “fix it and forget it”. Both these slogans are famous in the American food preparation market, but they make terrible paradigms when it comes to the Rule of Law. It is senseless to assume that the Constitution could be ratified and then left alone, with neither improvement nor enforcement nor reconsideration, yet that more of less what we have done with it. And while some pay lip service to the idea of reforming ourselves once again to some better state of adherence to it, there is no substantial and sincere movement afoot to that end. Neither major party is interested in such reform, and neither are the American people, who don’t even perceive much of a problem.
It is as if most of us occupy the building atop the skateboard in the cartoon above, arguing fervently over various policies while being utterly ignorant of the overall state of things. Some would call this “rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.” In my recent political initiative, Rule of Law Restoration, I put it this way:
Battling over “Left” and “Right” when government is exceeding its lawful limits is like arguing over who gets to sit in the driver’s seat as a car speeds off a cliff. It’s time we came to our senses and put first things first: restoring all governments in the USA to the Rule of Law!
We would rather not view our world this way, however. For us, it presents too much alarm, difficulty, and uncertainty. We prefer rather to be lied to and told that if we can just get this one bill repealed, or get that other bill passed, we’re pretty sure things are going to get better.
America, therefore, is in a state of denial.
The fact of the matter is that we have been on this slippery slope since very shortly after our Constitution was ratified. In fact it was the First United States Congress (1789-1791) that would first violate not only our Constitution, but the very fundamentals of the “all men are created equal” paradigm! Would you like to take a guess as to the subject matter of these acts?
They were about money!
The second statute ever enacted by the Congress established the Hamilton Tariff. This tariff placed a 5-10% tax on imported goods, having the effect of driving business to existing domestic manufacturers in the northern states, and away from foreign markets. Not only did this suit Hamilton’s business friends, but it practically forced the southern states to buy from the north, rather than to enjoy a competitive and free trade with European nations. This extra burden on the South, who had little manufacturing industry of their own to profit from it, would mark the beginning of what might as well be considered a social class system in the United States. Seventy-two years later, several southern states would secede from the Union over this sort of subjection to northern financial interests. This time, however, they would not be punished by a tariff, but by total war. They were unconstitutionally disallowed from seceding and, more to the point, from taking their business elsewhere.
And ever since then, government-approved history books have covered up the purpose of the Civil War by telling us that it was “about slavery”. On the contrary, it was about using the power of the United States Military to forcefully maintain trading partners for the established business giants in the north. And the aftermath of the Civil War simply shored up that same foundation, gutting the local and state governments of the South and replacing them with North-friendly puppets while burdening the nation with regulation after regulation aimed at further protecting the favored industries. Ever since then, we have used our military (and eventually, the CIA) for quite similar purposes abroad, overthrowing foreign governments as needed to ensure that US business interests could continue to flourish under the puppet governments we would install.
The other act of that First Congress that I’d like to point out was to establish an unconstitutional central bank. That bank was called the Bank of the United States, and yet it was to be a private company. Further, despite its name, foreigners were allowed to hold stock in it! [i] And as if that weren’t enough to undermine our national security, it was allowed to practice what we now call “fractional reserve banking”, in which a bank loans out several times more money than it actually has in deposits! That is, if the bank has one million dollars worth of actual gold deposits, it can loan out several times that much value in bonds or paper scrip. This allows the bank to make an astronomical profit from money that it doesn’t really have in the first place! (Were you and I try such a scheme, we would be arrested for fraud.) It also significantly undermines the economic security of the nation as the entire monetary system is inflated by the bankers and serves to their own profit while it hurts everyone else.
With these two examples alone, we can see that the chain in the cartoon above was immediately snapped by Congress, almost as if such a move had been premeditated all along. And perhaps it had been premeditated, but that subject is outside the scope of this present book.
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury had been the primary public proponent of this Bank of the United States. He is the one whom I previously quoted as saying:
…the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.
~Alexander Hamilton [iii]
Hamilton obviously did not believe the idea expressed in the quotation above, however, as he clearly believed it acceptable to enact laws that serve unfairly to the benefit of a privileged few, while forcing others to behave contrary to their own best interests. He set up the Bank to undermine the power of the people in deference to the private bank corporation and its stockholders—which included foreign parties!
It may come as a further shock to find out who else was behind this early betrayal of the Constitution and the People. None other than President George Washington was complicit in these dealings, having at least signed them into law when he could have exposed them for what they were and vetoed them. I say “at least” because it appears that Washington may have had his own personal interests in mind when he agreed to support the Bank of the United States. The result of all this was to:
“…reimpose in the new United States a system of mercantilism and big government similar to that in Great Britain, against which the colonists had rebelled. The object was to have a strong central government, particularly a strong president or king as chief executive, built up by high taxes and heavy public debt.” [iv]
Thus began our national plunge from that firm beginning onto the slippery slope. Having immediately cut loose from the solid moorings of the Constitution and the principles of our own Declaration of Independence, we set ourselves adrift from fairness and certainty and have meandered ever since where the interests of industry would lead us.
In 1861, the southern states that had seceded and formed the Confederate States of America would ratify their own Constitution, in most respects identical to that of the Union from which they seceded. It differed, however, in Article I, Section 8. Compare the USA and CSA versions below:
USA Version: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
CSA Version: (emphasis added) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
In boldface above lies the primary reason for their secession from the Union. And in their secession lay the primary reason for the war that was waged against them. In that war, over 600,000 Americans would die so that the northern industry establishment would not lose its southern trading partners. Ever since then, the power of the establishment has been further strengthened and secured as they ride this “skateboard” down the slope for their own profits. Do you see why it would be necessary to get away from the Constitution and the “all men are created equal” paradigm if you wanted to establish a scheme and artifice to serve a privileged class to the detriment of the unprivileged? Is it not obvious?
The United States fell, therefore, in its first session of Congress. I could go on and on about the reasons for it, and about the shortsightedness, carelessness, and hypocrisy that went into it. The fact remains, however, that since the public did not care to maintain its own government, someone else seized the opportunity. What we have witnessed amounts to a series of what we might call “nested tyrants”. One would-be tyrant lives under the tyranny of another, so he complains and rebels in order to be free of it. In his rebellion, he waxes philosphic and makes all manner of grand statements about liberty and justice, but as soon as he is free, he commences to set up his own kingdom, placing himself or his favored class of people as the leadership thereof.
This is the state of things here. The American public still goes on and on about the philosophical declarations of the Founders, but the real state of things is that we are a mercantilist oligarchy, and have been since 1789. How ridiculous, then, is our constant bickering over mundane matters as though we had any immediate and honored say in our destiny. We will have no say until we make it stop—until we put an end to the reign of the central bank and its darlings.
Sure, we could go on and on about how terrible it will be for us if Barack Obama is reelected, or if Mitt Romney takes his place, but to argue such is to miss the proverbial “elephant in the room”. The United States and all that it stands for—all the things about which we wave our flags—was subverted long ago and the economy which we now support exists primarily to benefit those who run it. Whether you and I can afford to eat is not their concern. And apparently, whether our kings remain in power is not ours!
Do you see now just how foolish is our constant strife about things when we do not even realize the true state of our Union?
There is no “brink”.
Many have endeavored to alarm us that we are on the “brink” of this or that calamity in the United States. Some stockpile food and seeds, some stockpile gold, some move or plan to move to other countries, some suggest that this or that candidate can save us from the brink, and some even make a living from promoting such ideas. To be sure, certain unpleasantries are most likely imminent from time to time. The idea, however, that the “brink” always just ahead of us plays a strange psychological trick on us all. The fact of the matter is that countless unconscionable events have already taken place in the United States, and have never been reformed or remedied.
As we shall see at length, we have already committed a high number of unthinkable acts that have already undermined our nature and our principles. We are already owned by a bank, already influenced by foreign powers for their own benefit, already hypocrites with regard to the value and protection of human rights, and already ignorant of the depths of philosophical value that were built into our original national documents. We already commit our armed forces to fight wars that rarely suit our rightful national interests, but that always suit the unjust commercial interests of the mega corporations among us.
What further manner of atrocities could a coming “brink” provide for us than those which we have already committed or allowed to be committed in our name? And what better reason for alarm do we need than our own history and our current misdeeds?!
If there ever was a “brink”, it was the one that is depicted in the cartoon above—the day that Congress first dared to violate the Constitution. Up until that day, it was a nation of principle, and ever since that day, it has been a nation of relativistic compromise—a floundering and courseless enterprise run by whomever had the greatest zeal to have a personal government of his own to do his bidding.
Since then, our political parties have played political “leap frog”, and most of us cling faithfully to our favorite among them while we agitatedly point out the indiscretions of the government when under control of the other party! We are caught up in the idiocy of “electability”, and the foolishness of “Lesser Of 2 Evils” voting, which I mock elsewhere by the acronym: LO2E, which looks ironically like the word “LOSE” at a glance. And that, as the joke goes, makes such people LO2ERS (losers). And why? Because no matter their fervency or the amount of work they pour into the system, the result is as in the cartoon above. No matter who wins, we end up further down the slippery slope.
Another great deception lies in the so-called “conservative movement”. Many take pride in the distinction, and call themselves ardent defenders of the Constitution. They argue that their party should be in power because, if it were, we could “get back to the Constitution”. One fundamental problem with this is that even when the “conservative” party is in power, we still slide further and further down the slippery slope. Perhaps no one wants to admit it, but it’s the truth. Thus does the “staunch conservative” look foolish as he boasts of his position, as in the cartoon below, for he’s slipping along with the rest of us, no matter his philosophy.
We argue and argue about whether it’s better to be “left”, “center” or “right”. But even so, nobody wants to admit the stark reality—-the truth of the matter—that all three “groups”, if it is right to think of them that way, are all headed alike down the slippery slope.
Many consider themselves wise, in light of our current quagmire, to vote for the “lesser” of the two offenders. To them, it’s perfectly reasonable at least to want to slow things down on our descent. At the end of the day, however, the stark reality remains: both parties are headed down the same slope, with the difference in their relative speeds being a meaningless distinction, as in the cartoon below.
We are all caught up on this slope together as we share but one nation. It matters not our individual philosophies; the only thing that matters is the aggregate behavior of the nation, which is manifest in the acts of our government. Meanwhile, some try to calm themselves with gymnastics of attitude, as in the cartoon below, but it does nothing to change our sad state.
We must admit the obvious–that no strategy has been more tried in America than to put the other party in power when things are going poorly. Having tried it so many times, and having seen it fail every time, with absolutely no exceptions, why are we currently locked in yet another episode of the same struggle?
We are insane. Dysfunctional. Irrational. That is our aggregate mindset, regardless of the level of enlightenment of any particular one of us. This “party game” is hopeless, and has been proven so a thousand times over–whether we want to face the truth of it or not.
This is why I watch with such disdain as movements such as “The Tea Party” pretend to be about some serious business, when they stand no chance whatsoever of turning the tide by the same manner of political activism that has proven insufficient for reform over and over again. No new party, nor pretend party, nor reform of a party has any chance at success—and especially no party that is itself a creation or a co-optation of the bankers and their corporate darlings. Indeed, in the mere two years since the advent of the Tea Party, they have already been effectively co-opted by the Republican Party, which itself is owned by the industry moguls, such that there was no viable Tea Party candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. If after supposedly “sweeping” the congressional elections of 2010, the Tea Party were still viable, how could they possibly have failed to have produce a candidate for President in 2012? Further, Candidate Ron Paul, who is probably as much to be credited for the rise of the initial Tea Party movement as anyone else, was deliberately downplayed by the RNC and their media puppets so as to influence the voting public against him!
This constitutes plenty of evidence from which to draw a rational conclusion about the impossibility of reforming either of the major political parties, yet few will want to “quit believing in Santa Claus”. Indeed, we are too busy trying to pretend that “all men are created equal” hasn’t long been exchanged for “bankers and their friends are more equal than others.”
This is life on the slippery slope, my friends. We live here, and so did our ancestors. We dare not deceive ourselves into thinking there is any hope for true reform unless we are willing to do the work of cutting the ties to the bank that pull us ever downward and climbing back to the top of the hill.
[iii] The “Novanglus” Papers, Boston Gazette (1774- 1775), No. 7
[iv] The words of Murray Rothbard in The Mystery of Banking (p. 192)