Congress, via the Constitution is vested with "all law" but has abdicated to the "experts" in various fields. They have wrongly assumed these experts were true experts indeed, i.e. objective scientists. They have granted to these experts the power to make regulation that hold full force of law. In most agencies of government they have allowed these agencies to encompass not only the power to create law - (congress) but also the power to administer law (executive) - and also the power to pass judgment upon the laws they have created and try cases (the judiciary). This is a TOTAL destruction of the separation of, and balance of powers. I.E. the total destruction of constitutional liberties. This is not new, it is a position and power first accorded the IRS and increasingly accorded other agencies.
In all of the fields where Congress has abdicated to "experts" the experts are not experts in most cases, but merely ideological adherents of Secular Humanism. They form and administer laws according to their sociological law model. Which is: A group of people decide what is sociologically good for society at the given moment, generally following a grand plan. That "good" is decided arbitrarily, from their viewpoint, moment by moment as they "make the law" via their personal arbitrary decisions. Now they can spin these laws and this power with legalese and techno-jargon, but at its core it holds no more weight than the definition I have given it and can prove by example of unscientific action after unscientific action. Rather than "expertise" the rightful word to describe their actions is "arbitrary" i.e. sociological not scientific.
Those people who are just NOW screaming about the destruction of the constitution have been asleep for 30 years. This Secular Humanist structure begins with denying "higher law." Higher Law says that man's place in society is as a creature, created in the Image and Likeness of God, endowed by that creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, etc. The inhuman and insane twist of law and bureaucracy that has invaded our lives and our country, stifled our speech, crippled and killed our businesses, conditioned and brainwashed our children instead of educating them, comes NOT from our rightful exercise of our place in society via Higher Law, but via the sociological planning of those who deny Creation, and have removed God from the Public Square.
Some people have mistaken this slavery to the whim of sociological experts as "liberty." Abortion rights advocates have sold themselves into this arbitrary slavery for the exercise of one false freedom. Once the line of Human Dignity was breeched where a woman could capriciously decide the fate of another human's life in the womb it was no big step for the Federal Government through ObamaCare to add "The State's Right to Choose" - and create literal death panels to capriciously deciding who is "worthy of life extending treatment" and who is not. And how is this decision made? Not upon the worth of the individual life, according to Higher Law, but according to the sociological model created by the Secular Humanists. Further and virtually on the heels of ObamaCare the State subsumed the right to "Choose To Execute" any deemed a threat to the collective, without trial, without recourse to the previous rights as citizen. (This is no exaggeration - clearly part of the last Defense Authorization Act).
Let us not deny the reality, our loss of God in the public square has created not secular liberty, but death to the vulnerable: the very young, the very old and the unborn. This month we have to add, Death to those deemed a threat. Next and please mark my word, comes Death to those deem merely a burden.
When the bureaucracies began to add thousands of serious regulations to the books every year, which began in earnest under Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, I perceived the situation and asked and answered the follow question for myself, and asked an answered the same question before any willing to listen. "How do you enslave a people? By creating laws that cannot be kept." This wasn't an original thought, but it was original to Alexis de Tocqueville when describing the "mild slavery in Europe that destroys free enterprise." People looked at me always like I was insane, like I was the radical. I spoke "en clair" but they, for the most part, read it as code. Surely I had some evil agenda to try to frighten them. Family and friends were very busy living their happy lives, gathering wealth and as the scripture said, "For as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered into the ark. And they did not know anything until the deluge came and swept them all away."
Those not familiar with history are bound to repeat it and repeating Europe's experience with crippling bureaucracies we are. When Tocqueville looked at America and witnessed the combination of exercise of civic duty, and private enterprise that was taken by the individual with such energy and personal responsibility, he nailed the core reason the complex American system worked. He said, "The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other." Not so any longer and we are paying the price with 60 million dead already and more insanity coming every day.
I submit that Liberty can't exist without the Religion, and not just any religion, certainly not the religions of Secular Humanism or Islam, or any other death cult or culture of death. Rather ONLY, OUR Judeo-Christian heritage that puts a premium on the concept of LIFE and the Dignity of the Individual. Until we en masse return to our FAITH ROOTS, we have NO prayer of re-securing our Liberty. Please hear me. Make no mistake, just because you may live in your home at this moment unmolested, that does not mean you have retained the RIGHT to live unmolested. In fact the opposite is so. Without warrant, without trial, without resort to habeas corpus, you can be deemed (unknown to you) a threat, and with no opportunity to defend, and no presumption of innocence (as the Higher Law codified on our Constitution allowed) you may be whisked away to a military prison or executed, LEGALLY by a state that has subsumed the 'Right To Choose', the "Right to Choose Death by neglect or execution" the "Right to Choose Incarceration" (read re-education.) These things are already happening and we have NO grounds to demand redress without first grasping our Faith Heritage.
______________________________________
Note* Even though multiple sources have announced that the Defense Authorization act has the provisions I describe above, Congressman Allen West who was on the committee that drew up the act denies that this specific authorization is in it.
Here is a typical story about President Obama signing the act into law and seems to confirm my take on the issue: Written by By D. Benjamin Satkowiak | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Tue, Jan 3, 2012
ANALYSIS | On Saturday, as many Americans were busy preparing themselves for the ringing in of 2012, President Barack Obama was busy signing into law the controversial National Defense Authorization Act. The bill, which was debated with heated fervor, is considered by some, including members of Congress, to be legislation that crosses the boundaries of the United States' Constitution.
President Obama, himself, had originally threatened to veto the bill, if language that would have precluded Americans from being subjected to indefinite detention was not removed. The bill's co-sponsor, Michigan Senator Carl Levin also stated that it was, in fact, the Obama administration which demanded that language specifying U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens would be exempt from the indefinite detention provision be removed.
The provision, though touted as a necessary inclusion to benefit the war on terror, has come under immense scrutiny as its language sets the stage for American citizens to be detained, arrested and potentially dealt with by use of extreme prejudice, for the mere assertion the one may be involved in potential terrorist activity. The potential, some fear, will do away with the requirements of probable cause, Miranda rights and the right to a fair trial.
In his signing statement, President Obama stated that despite having "serious reservations," the bill was deemed too important not to sign into law. Furthermore, administration officials stated publicly that the final version of the bill was not consistent with the position of the White House.
According to Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, the bill seals Obama's legacy as the president who legalized indefinite detention without trial or cause. The ACLU also voices a similar opinion, stating that the bill damages America's reputation for upholding the rule of law."
What is left to be unfurled, by the American public, are the potential future complications caused by such an open-ended piece of legislation. While many view the world's current standing as removed from immediate threat to Constitutional rights, the provision allows for a multitude of interpretive change, as future administrations enter and leave political power.
It is for these fears, alone, that many feel the disenfranchisement of voters will escalate in response.
No comments:
Post a Comment