Source: www.dictionary.com

Imagine that some investors have established a corporation with a set of bylaws and, pursuant to these bylaws, a number of officers are assigned to control the three branches as independent and separate companies, which are all ultimately responsible to investors.

One of the leaders then announced that:

1. he, and only he, will decide as to just what these policies really mean and their application as to a particular circumstance,
2. regardless of whether the other directors are or are not not in accordance with a particular company policy, he has the ultimate authority of interpretation,
3. the investor has absolutely no voice in this type of determination, and
4. should the investors not agree as to this unilateral determination, their only option is to rewrite those rules of the charter company which apply to the director’s interpretation.

How long do the investors tolerate this absurd situation?  But this is exactly how the United States Federal Courts operate pursuant to a so-called a modern doctrine of “supremacy.”

A hanging judge? No, a judge hanging!

Judicial Supremacy is an acute over-extension– indeed, perversion– of the legitimate tenants of “judicial review” and stare decisis (“…to stand by matters that have been settled.”).   “Judicial review”– just think that the Supreme Court has the power– and in practice often must– construe the Constitution in deciding what the Constitution describes as “cases” and “controversies” that arrive in court.  Notice of the Supreme Court on a constitutional question finds and applies the comprehension of the Constitution at this point of law, the particular facts of this case and controversy, as against the parties then before the court– but in general, do not contradict the second.  Stare decisis is simply judicial policy that courts, in order to promote stability and predictability in the law must abide by their previous decisions in future cases raising similar issues being substantially equivalent legal facts– at least good reasons to depart from these decisions.

Judicial hegemony is still argued, however, that the opinion of the Supreme Court determines and applies under the Constitution, the question arising as to the dispute that is not necessarily, nor even essentially, the real parts before the Court on the circumstances of their cause, but in principle, against everybody in the same situation in all possible cases, and especially so against the President, of Congress, the states, and even “we the people.” That simple statement on its opinion itself becomes “the supreme law of the country” at which this point of law that everyone in all places, is requisite to accept and to follow, regardless or accord or, perhaps I should say, discord.

Additionally, Judicial Supremacy stipulates that:

1. a point of constitutional law decided in a review by the Supreme Court may be modified or nullified by a subsequent opinion of the Supreme Court or by a formal amendment of the Constitution (the importance of law will decide for themselves the Judicial Supremacy) and,
2. nothing can be done to the Supreme Court judges, either collectively or individually, as a result of an opinion they hold of a question constitutional law, regardless of any ulterior motives, including, but not limited to, the clearly false, politically motivated, socially or economically destructive; nor however knowingly and intentionally false and misleading, it can be.

Thus, under Judicial Supremacy the Supreme Court distorts “judicial review” and stare decisis into mechanisms for reversing, monitoring, revising, and contravening the acts of all other branches of government– including the states and their various and sundry subdivisions, the General Government, and even “We the People“ themselves.

This is all well and good under a “normal” set of circumstances as undoubtedly envisioned by the Founders of the United States.  However, modern law schools have deliberately and purposefully determined, almost as if by conspiratorial means, to undermine and subvert these basic Constitutional principles, the tenants of which have been the mainstay of our society since its inception.

Judicial Supremacy in contradiction with the Declaration of Independence’s fundamental principle of popular sovereignty, that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”– provides that a government (as Abraham Lincoln correctly described it) “of the people, by the people and for the people” and not arbitrarily by the judicial authorities (or other) elite to anyone but themselves.  The Constitution’s Preamble itself proclaims that “We the People”– not “we the judiciary”– “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.“ The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that the power to enact “carries with it final authority to declare the intention of the legislation.” Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949).  Sir William Blackstone, the Founding Fathers’ legal mentor, stressed that “whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”  Commentaries on the Laws of England (American Edition, 1771), Volume 1, at 212.

Judicial Supremacy quite illogically presumes that the implications of constitutional provisions are

1. largely unknown, or even completely unknown, unless and until each clause becomes the subject of a notice of the Supreme Court, and that
2. plastic politics, since the law can and must be modified from time to time by the Supreme Court as it, and only it, considers to be appropriate.

First, each and every proviso of the Constitution in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791 had to contain concepts known to, or at least understood by, the people who ratified them at those times.  Otherwise, as a matter of law, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights ever became “laws” at all.  For “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”  Connally v. General Construction Company, 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).  Except in the minds of residents of mental institutions, “the supreme Law of the Land” cannot desecrate “the first essential of due process of law.”  And if, because of their supposed vagueness, various provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had not became “laws” at their inceptions, none of them could ever have been magically transformed into “laws” later on, simply because some majority among the justices of the Supreme Court purported to discover what those provisions supposedly meant for the first time at that subsequent date.

In practice, the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never be dependent on judicial constructions.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution is ratified.  No judicial decision construing the Bill of Rights were in force when the first 10 amendments were ratified.  And, until now, the potential constitutional problems still arise on or countless conflicts.  Nonetheless, from ratification of the Constitution onward, public officeholders have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the] Constitution”– or, in the case of the president of the United States, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Article VI, Clause 3 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7.  Not one of these persons could honestly have taken such an “oath or Affirmation“ if they did not know, or thought that they did not know, what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in their entireties, actually meant at that moment in time– or if they believed that what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean can be derived only from, and may unexpectedly change with, decisions of different session-generation majorities of justices of the Supreme Court as their opinions are handed down in some distant and uncertain future.

Self-evidently, because at the very beginning, even without the intermediation of courts, “We the People” had to know what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meant, “We the People” today must be equally able to distinguishing those concepts separately from any judicial decisions.  For, contrary to the apologists for Judicial Supremacy the Constitution most determinedly is not simply, peremptorily and unilaterally “what the judges say it is” from time to time.  The Constitution is what it says it is, both then and now.  And that alone is what judges are “bound by [their] Oath[s] or Affirmation[s]” to say that it is.  No judicial opinion can assess or monitor the Constitution, instead, the Constitution governs all judicial opinions and judges.

What the Constitution says that has been called its “original intent.” In fact, the term “original intent” is a bit misleading, since the Constitution of the “original purpose” is also present purpose, unless the change has occurred, when the “original intent “of the amendment shall enter into its present purpose.  In any case, the “original intent.” Most will also be words or phrases of the Constitution defines that as a “Treason.” Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.  It also embraces words and phrases that, although not explicitly defined, can be defined by reference to those portions of English common law adopted in America, to the laws of the Colonies and independent states, and to the Articles of Confederation– for example, “Militia of the several States” and a “well regulated Militia” in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 and the Second Amendment, which neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights defines, but whose intention is in the militia statutes of the colonies and independent states enacted in the 1600’s during the War of Independence.  And the “original intent” and look at the common uses of other words and expressions, both in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was ratified, especially in light of legal history and American politics and philosophy.

Secondly, unlike the defenders of Judicial Supremacy “original intent” cannot be superseded by their doctrine of “the living Constitution.” In historical context, “the living Constitution” is nonsensical.  “We the People” having “ordain[ed] and establish[ed]” the Constitution in the manner most obviously understandable by themselves– that is to say, by committing its words and phrases to paper; and “We the People” having anointed no one to “construe” the Constitution in any manner other than by imparting to its words and phrases their legal or common understandings, as conceptualized by the people themselves at that time; and, in fact, no other methodology having been available to “We the People” for construing the Constitution when they ratified it; therefore, the “original intent” was then and remains today the one and only plausible and legitimate means for construing the Constitution.

Also, as a matter of constitutional structure, the so-called “living Constitution” is a mess.  Ultimately, the “living Constitution” theory holds that that the Constitution can be amended only by judicial decree.  Article V of the Constitution, however, explicitly provides for a complex methodology of change.  If the “living Constitution” is available to bring about change by the simple expedient of court litigation.  In the present day, such complex litigation is beyond the financial reach of the average citizen, excepting for the infrequent high-profile cases (both civil and criminal), wherein some case is brought to bear, usually not because of constitutional principals, but because the attorneys and/or organizations backing them financially are seeking publicity.  A case in point is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which chooses cases which will not anger its donors, regardless of the happenstance of misapplication of the Constitution.

It “cannot be presumed that any clause of the constitution is intended to be without effect.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174 (1803).  And even if “We the People” do amend the Constitution as it explicitly provides, under “the living Constitution,” the Supreme Court can then decidedly tell them just what this new amendment supposedly means, perhaps decimating its true purpose altogether– thus potentially nullifying the process of amending itself an act of futility, or at least a trap and of cosmetic illusion.  But because all of the Constitution’s provisions are of “equal dignity,” one cannot “be so enforced as to nullify or substantially impair [any] other.&dquo;  David Muskrat and J.  Henry Dick v. United States, 208 U.S.  340, 353 (1908).  Accord, South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286, 328 (1904) (White, Judge, dissenting).  Therefore, the Constitution cannot possibly countenance “the living Constitution” as an aspect of the “judicial power” in Article III, because to do so subverts or even destroys Article V.  The gist of this was to deliberately and purposefully erode states’ sovereignty, subjecting states to the will of the federal judiciary.

Was it not enough, Judicial Supremacy is a little, yes, in some respects, ridiculous process, in which to rely upon to construe the Constitution.  Under the heading “Judicial Supremacy,” in the opinion of the Constitution “the law ”is always unpredictable.  Lots of potential constitutional issues the Supreme Court has never decided, and perhaps never will decide.  And those it has targeted can not be considered as finally settled, because that the Court often modifies collective consciousness.  See, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827-830 & note 1 (1991).

Moreover, always remember that the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, decides what and which issues will be brought before it!  Regardless of conflicting decisions of the lower courts or of any other issue which dictates a universal clarification.  No one can force the Supreme Court to do what it does not want to do.  Only an Amendment to the Constitution could possibly force an audience (and that will NEVER happen, trust me), and even then, the Court would surely find a “loophole” in which to slip through.

There is no assurance that the actual treatment of the Supreme Court cases or controversies will result in good constitutional issues are answered or even asked.  For one reason, the court indulges a policy of avoiding constitutional issues if at all possible.  see, e.g., Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936) (opinion of Brandeis, Judge.).  To this end, it may dismiss a litigant’s case because of an ostensible lack of “standing” (as the recent cases challenging Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro)’s eligibility for the office of President have been dispensed), or because the plaintiff ostensibly seeks nothing but an “advisory opinion” or raises only a non-justiciable (not able to be decided by a court) “political question.” Insofar as ignorance and uncertainty means “the supreme law of the Land” identified with the vagueness of this doctrine to clearly promotes insubordination to the law, up to and including, civil disobedience and outright anarchy, because it makes the implications of a large part of the Constitution, or their application in distinct situations thereof, unresolved for an indefinite period, regardless of the consequences to humans or even the whole country.  The constitutionally appropriate aspect along the lines described is Justice Stephen Field:

Legislation in Congress is supposed to be of a public nature, affecting the interests of the whole society, and often attacked for its unconstitutionality on certain points, may be regarded as referring to other unconstitutional provisions called our attention upon review of the law, but not specifically mentioned in the objections made in the records or briefs of counsel, that the Constitution is not violated by the negligence or omission of counsel in particular.  [see, e.g., Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 604 (1895) (separate opinion)].

But the court has never instituted Justice Field’s exhortation as its acknowledged policy.  For another reason, even where a constitutional issue is not avoided, the likelihood of its being presented and settled in a exacting manner is not high– exactly because of the many serious practical shortcomings of litigation.  For example:

• The character, identity, and peculiar special interests of the particular litigant may have a significant bearing on what issues may be raised, how, when, and to what extent.  For example, litigants defending a statute banning so-called assault weapons will surely refrain from informing the Supreme Court that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” ultimately relates to Americans’ service in “well regulated Militia,” the members of which must be supplied with personal firearms at least equivalent to what the regular armed forces employ.  If the opponents of the statute fail to substantiate this point (as almost all “gun-rights” advocates invariably do), and if the court itself fails to perform independent research (as it quite often does), the case will be decided from an angle distinctly slanted against an appropriate constitutional result.
• The political, economic, and social circumstances in which the litigation arises may predispose or prejudice the judges toward a decision not in keeping with what the Constitution demands– the old adage, “the Supreme Court follows the election returns,” having more than a little cut to it.
• Counsel on one side or both may not be particularly well versed in constitutional law, in specialized or general trial litigation (particularly with respect to the use of expert witnesses), or even in appellate practice.
• Through the blunders or insouciance of counsel, or the inadvertence or even malevolence of the trial judge, the full factual record necessary to frame the constitutional issue properly may not be prepared.
• In the Supreme Court itself, the decision may very well be dependent upon the happenstance of which particular justices happen to hear the case.  “The living Constitution,” after all, depends upon who is then living: Justice John Marshall’s grasp of the Constitution may be expected to be quite different from that of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s– and even increasingly more so these days.
• The Court’s decision may likewise turn on the quality of the legal research and advice proffered to the justices by their law clerks, fresh from the establishment’s leading law schools where professors have filled their heads with the latest legal trends and mindsets.

Worse yet, Judicial Supremacy has been shown to be deleterious in the most important circumstances in which it has been employed.  Today in particular one calls to mind the Supreme Court’s reprehensible decisions in Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1871), Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), and the Gold Clause Cases, 294 U.S. 240 (1935), which set the stage for the looming economic catastrophe that has arisen out of the United States Government’s foisting upon the American people a national paper currency, redeemable in neither silver or gold.  Then, in relation to the constitutionally protected right to “keep and bear Arms,” one thinks immediately of the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (reported in volume 554 of the United States Reports), the grotesque errors of which were dissected in “Gun Rights on Trial,” The New American (September 1, 2008).  If the Supreme Court could not interpret the Constitution accurately with respect to its two most important powers, the Power of the Purse and the Power of the Sword, what value can Judicial Supremacy have across the board?

Judicial Supremacy thus challenges “We the People” to reassert their own control over the power of construing their own Constitution, before an errant and arrant judiciary damages “the supreme Law of the Land” beyond repair.

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court was fundamentally in error to opine that “it is emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is.”  The judiciary construes and applies the laws in specific cases and controversies.  But its decisions are not themselves “laws” or conclusive proof of what the “laws” are, but only judges’ opinions about the “laws”– opinions which may be correct or incorrect.  It is the province of “We the People”– and “We the People” alone– to say what “the supreme Law of the Land” actually is.  And it is the province of Congress– in which We the People have “vested” “All legislative Powers… granted [in the Constitution in Article I, Section 1]”– to enact statutory “laws” for the United States.

“We the People” control the application of the Constitution to remain vigilant in monitoring to see how elected officials use their legislative power, and carefully comparing their actions (and sometimes, inactions) constitutional mandates.  If “We the People” find those results deficient, we are, theoretically at least, able to change the composition of Congress and the identity of the President through the electoral process.  And if “We the People” find the behavior of the judiciary below the constitutional standard of “good Behavior” in Article III, Section 1, they can expect Congress and the President to change the composition, again in theory, of the courts by impeachments, convictions, and removals from office of bad judges, and appointments of better ones in their stead.

This will probably never happen either, excepting for perhaps the most egregious of moral turpitude, ala Bill Clinton (who was not removed) or Federal Judges Walter Louis Nixon, Jr., impeached but who is still practicing law, and Alcee Lamar Hasting, also impeached but was subsequently elected to the United States House of Representatives.

Between elections, “We the People” can exercise the authority to construe the Constitution by invoking the ”right …  peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances“ both as ad hoc groups and as individuals and – as the First Amendment guarantees– and to even greater effect as “the Militia of the several States,” which the Second Amendment declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State.” Self-evidently, nothing could be more “necessary to the security of a free State” than strict control over interpretation and application of “the supreme Law of the Land,” upon which all rights depend in the first stance.

Admittedly, “We the People” are having a hard time controlling Congress and the President, let alone the judiciary, today.  This is because all too many Americans have forgotten that self-government requires self-reliance and self-assertion.  But once the people recognize that they are the masters of their own Constitution, that the Constitution provides them with efficacious means to assert that mastery, and that those means must be put into effect in order to make them meaningful, things will change for the better very quickly.

Judges seem to think that they are gods, particularly United States Federal Judges.  While I will not argue the need for some sort of order and decorum in a courtroom, there is no excuse– none for some of the actions (or inactions) of some members of the judiciary.

A case in point are prosecutions of United States tax evader/tax schemer Irwin A.  Schiff, et al.  The Federal Judge at Schiff’s trial, Judge Kent J. Dawson would not allow the defendants to cite the law in their own defense, nor allow any other evidence!

Another case involves Proposition 187, a California referendum that was passed by a 58% majority vote and of which most provisions were declared unconstitutional by the Federal Courts, based on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which, in the application in the instant case, said that Federal Law precluded state law.  The ballot initiative, passed in November 1994, Proposition 187 sought, among other things, to require police, health care professionals and teachers to verify and report the immigration status of all individuals, including children.

Judge A. Hitler

Okay; let me see…  if a person is here illegally– um, that means that THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW– so then, ah, states, cities, and their corporate law enforcement entities do not have the right to enforce it.  That makes perfectly logical sense.  As if this writing the state of Arizona has enacted similar legislation, as yet to be enforced and/or challenged.  I find it fascinating that the Arizona law is identical, practically word-for-word– to the existing federal law and also nearly identical to a California law and similar to many other state statutes.  Not a word of that in the controlled corporate media, however!  So here we go on the media merry-go-round with yet another distracting, and contrived and divisive, issue.

Yet another case involves the concept of gay marriage.  And once again the courts have stepped in, in many cases, and declared laws prohibiting the union of same-sex couples to be unconstitutional.

Turning back the clock to another era, in both Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the state of Georgia defied a Supreme Court Order and correctly gambled that President Jackson would not enforce the Supreme Court’s decision.  Justice Marshall, opining for the Court, declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee’s status that of a “denominated domestic dependent nation,” giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with them and creating a duty to protect the Cherokee from Georgia’s hostile actions.  The decision in Worcester barred Georgia from annexing the land, and ruled the state did not have the right of possession, nor dominion over Cherokee laws or territory, short of military conquest or legal purchase.  The Supreme Court’s opinion applied specifically to Georgia, not to the federal government.

Jackson disregarded Marshall’s contention that the federal government was obligated to protect the Native Americans; there way no legal requirement for the federal government to adhere to Marshall’s decision because

1. The statement wasn’t part of the official ruling (Worcester v. Georgia, in 1832);
2. the removal issue wasn’t a question before the Court;
3. the United States wasn’t party to the case; and
4. the Court has no enforcement power anyway, nor does the Congress for that matter.

Enforcement of laws is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch, the Presidency.  To reiterate, the Constitution assigns authority over law enforcement to the Executive branch of government, over which the President presided.  Because Jackson, then Van Buren, and Congress were in agreement about the appropriation of Cherokee land and moving them to less hospitable territory west of the Mississippi River, the Supreme Court had no way of preventing their action.

History tells us that Jackson defied a Supreme Court Order.  Based on the above, he did not.  As a point of fact, President Jackson is often blamed for the so-called “trail of tears” in which thousands of Native Americans perished.  Although President Jackson (a known Indian fighter and hater) was quoted as saying, “John Marshall has made his decision.  Let him enforce it.” But in point of fact, President Jackson wasn’t even in office when the Cherokee were forced from their land following the 1836 Treaty of New Echota.  It was President Martin Van Buren who ordered the United States Army to relocate the Cherokee in 1838!

The Supreme Court never had an opportunity to rule on the validity of the Treaty because no case was presented for consideration.

These decisions set the stage for further decisions by the courts.  Just a few years later, the United States was torn apart by a vicious Civil War.  History records what we were all taught in school: that the Civil War was fought over the sole issue of slavery.  Again, history is wrong, or, should I say that the corporate version of history is inaccurate, as usual.  It has been said that “History is written by the victors,” (often misattributed to Winston Churchill).  Whether he said it or not, it is completely axiomatic that those “in charge” dictate what is recorded.  Fortunately, with the advent of the Internet, this is no longer completely true, which is why governments and globalists, and their corporate masters, so desperately want some form of regulation.

These cases I have cited all have one thing in common: they are about states’ rights, or, should I say, the invasiveness of the United States Federal Government into every nook and cranny of our lives.  Enter the Court system, which dominates the 3 branches of government.  The insidious in which the courts have usurped power into our society cannot be denied.  The balance of power between the 3 branches of government has for decades now, been a veritable “tug of war” between the Executive and Judicial Branches, meanwhile, a complacent Congress just sits back in its impotence.

The corporate-elitists utilize the Courts to force their will upon the people, while eroding states responsibilities’ into the dustbin of history.  Once was the time when state legislatures appointed United States Senators, but when the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, this changed to an elective process, just like the House of Representatives.  This was, of course, the same year that the 16th Amendment (federal income tax) and the ubiquitous Federal Reserve Act, a banner year for the tyrants!

These folks have known exactly what they were doing for a long, long time!  The government has used the so-called divide et impera (divide and rule), sometimes referred to as “divide and conquer,” on the citizenry successfully for many decades, with the Civil War being the most egregious example.  Do not fall for it!  Regardless of your feelings on issues, such as racial equality, illegal aliens, and gay marriage, don’t be fooled!  You are being used!

Your public schools would attempt to indoctrinate your children into believing that we live in a democracy.  This is, of course, another falsehood perpetuated by the governmental-educational complex!  Our constitutional form of government was designed to be a representative republic.  If we were, indeed, a true democracy, no woman would be voting today!  Think about it.  Our constitution was designed to PROTECT the minorities from the majority.  The crux of the argument is, however, what is a “protected minority,” and who decides?  The legislature?  The President?  The Courts?  A vote of the people?  A Constitutional Amendment?  The answer is: All of the above, or so it would seem.

Allow me return to an issue on which we can all agree to disagree: Same-sex marriage.  Like many civil rights issues, we have the left-leaning liberals on one side of the issue and the right-leaning conservatives on the other, for the most part.  Throw in a little religion and what do you have?  A mess, for sure.  What these idiot Christian zealots do not realize is that they are being manipulated.  That’s right I called them idiots.  They are just too dumb to realize that they are being “used” by the people that would take away their freedom of religion.  What’s that you say?  How could that be?  Well, I’ll tell you.  You are so blind in your hatred of homosexuals, lesbians, call them what you may, that you do not care one whit about a candidate’s position on anything else but “gay marriage.” This is one reason why our political landscape is in such a mess today.  Your candidate may be as dumb as a box of rocks on such really important issues as the economy; just so long as he or she supports (or doesn’t) same sex-marriage!  The real issue should be that marriage is an instrument of RELIGION, not requiring a license from the government.  Marriage licenses are only a recent invention, after all.

The pro-life/pro choice debate is a similar debacle.  What about the death penalty?  Usually the groups in favor of one, i.e., pro-life, are on the opposite side, which I euphemistically call pro-death, as to death penalty advocates.  Likewise the pro-choice folks are on the other side in opposition to the death penalty.  To me, God and only God can make a life-or-death decision.  It is paradoxical to think otherwise.  It is also hypocritical!

Most everyone today would probably agree that the color of one’s skin should not be a factor in any issue.  How about in employment?  Are some to be considered “protected minorities” or not?  What about so-called “reverse discrimination,” also based on skin color (or the perceived lack of it)?  Once again, “divide and conquer,” enters into the picture.  They ran a Presidential candidate with a brown skin coloration; and everyone hailed him as the Savior, the Messiah; the Anointed One.  Yeah, he was anointed all right… by Goldman Sachs and their corporate alliance.

In the next presidential election, “they” (that is the “powers that be”) will undoubtedly be running two women in both the Republican and Democratic parties, Sarah Palin (with Michelle Bachman as a back up) and, dare I say it, Hillary Clinton, respectively.  On did I mention that Barack Obama is toast?  Palin has insinuated herself into the so-called “Tea Party Movement,” and Clinton is… well, a Clinton, after all!

These are all completely false paradigms.  Do not be fooled! I am reminded of the idiom, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”  (I still chuckle over silly George W. Bush tripping over his tongue while trying to recite this phrase,
click here to enjoy it for yourself.)

Tyranny exists when this balance is upset from what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned.  Today, the Executive Branch appoints judges who will eke out the will of the Presidency without question.  So-called “Executive Orders” are issued, robbing us of our liberty, while the Congress stands idly by and the Courts have no case before them.  Ah, where, oh where, is the ACLU when you need them?  The ACLU has a completely hypocritical position on the right to bear arms, by the way, asserting that the term “the people” that is contained in the Second Amendment does not apply to “the people” as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights.  Go figure!

Unfortunately, the politics of what has evolved to be a Fascist United States government precludes any modicum of justice being served on any level whatsoever.  The unholy alliance between our various levels of government and the corporate-financial oligarchies that control them will never permit this!  Our governments, federal, state, and local,exist to serve themselves and their corporate masters.  It is what I like to refer to as a “self-perpetuating bureaucracy.”

Can David slay Goliath?  We must reel in those who would seek to deny us our liberties.  We must not succumb to the controlled corporate media’s [mis]representation of the issues.  Stop and think about what possible ulterior motives are lurking beyond the hype and the hyperbole.

I ask again: Can David slay Goliath?  Only time will tell!