Are YOU Ready to be Manipulated by Technocratic Diktats?


John R, Houk, Blog Editor

© January 6, 2023

Yesterday while sharing on various Social Media Platforms I belong to, I came across a Bitchute video posted by In4mation. The pseudonymous In4mation shares on multiple platforms as I do. This particular video was borrowed from The Epoch Times TV and is narrated by Roman Balmakov (sadly, In4mation failed to include source info in the borrowing).

I am grateful In4mation “borrowed” because Epoch-TV can be a bit stingy on embed shares.

In4mation does not share the Epoch-TV description. Ergo, before I cross post the Bitchute version, here is the Epoch-TV title, narrator and description:

‘Operation Jigsaw’: Google’s 4 New Secret Methods of Online Censorship | Facts Matter

By Roman Balmakov

January 2, 2023

Google has a new initiative called “Info Intervention.” It’s a plan couched in the idea of keeping people safe from misinformation and harmful language—and the way to do that is to control ever more what we are able to see and say online.

Their official website bills this new initiative as a “set of approaches, informed by behavioral science research and validated by digital experiments, to build resilience to online harms.” This new initiative has Google essentially using the exact same methodology on the user that Pavlov used on the dogs during his experiments. However, while Pavlov was trying to get the dogs to salivate, Google is trying to make their users question anything that goes against what their fact-checkers determine to be misinformation.

This new “Info Intervention” initiative is being led by one of Google’s subsidiary companies—a company called Jigsaw. It is under complete Google management, and its mission statement is to “[apply] technological solutions, from countering extremism, online censorship and cyber-attacks, to protecting access to information.”

Episode Resources:

🔵 Moonshot:

https://ept.ms/3Cksxt7

🔵 Info Interventions:

https://ept.ms/3G8B5o5

🔵 Jigsaw:

https://ept.ms/3jNjBGo

https://ept.ms/3Z6xWO5

Before I post the Bitchute version of the video, I feel compelled to offer some of my thoughts.

Balmakov talks of Google’s motivation is to expose Conspiracy Theory Misinformation. This is a Globalist-Leftist program. Thus you should be aware the Google-thinking is Leftist ideology is true-think and anything contradicting the Left is wrong-think.

Balmakov highlights Left-think enemies White Supremacists and Extremists. Which sounds like a great group to target and expose. The Problem is in Left-think definitions. For the Left White Supremacism encompasses more than bigoted racists such as Neo-Nazis (which is actually Leftist Extremism), the KKK, Skin Heads and the such usually labeled as White Supremacists. For the Left, if YOU are pro-Originalist Constitution, an American Patriot (American Exceptionalism, MAGA proponent, a Biblical Morality proponent and so on), anti-Illegal Immigration, Limited Government and such Conservative notions; THEN YOU are a White Supremacist Extremist.

THINK ON THAT! As you watch Roman Balmakov explain how OPERATION JIGSAW plans to program the American Sheeple into compliance.

Then as a bonus, I want to share a lengthy yet VERY important insights from the Substack-site A Lily Bit on Klaus Schwab-WEF intentions to transform the entire culture of the World into subservience to the diktats of a Technocratic Society. A hint: You will be told how to live, think and believe – AND BE HAPPY ABOUT IT!

And if this not upsetting enough, you should read a relatively short essay from Victor Davis Hanson:

JRH 1/6/23

Thank you to those who have stepped up!

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support CPCR

YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying healthy supplements/products from Online stores (mine & my Honey):

My Store (please use referral code 2388058): https://modere.co/3SrOHzI

My Better Half’s Store (please use referral code 3917004): https://dianahouk.shiftingretail.com/

STORE EXAMPLE:

Bitchute VIDEO: TRIM – SALTED CARAMEL

 Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

**************************

Bitchute VIDEO: GOOGLE: OPERATION JIGSAW

Posted by In4mation

First Published January 5th, 2023 01:01 UTC

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Schwabian Cyberpunk

I read Klaus Schwab’s book “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”, so you don’t have to.

By Lily

January 6, 2023

A Lily Bit

Since the turn of the century, we have been in the midst of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” according to the World Economic Forum (WEF). Klaus Schwab, the Forum’s founder and CEO, describes this as a technical revolution accompanied by nothing less than a dramatic transformation of human civilization that “will radically affect the way we live, work, and engage with each other.” This transformation will usher in an entirely “new chapter in human development.”

The availability and fusion of new, “quite astonishing technology,” according to Klaus Schwab, is a distinguishing aspect of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This, he claims, will eventually result in “the blurring of the boundaries between the physical, digital, and biological domains.” This mostly pertains to the application of bio- and neurotech, implantable technologies, and the Internet of Bodies (IoB).

The Cyborgization of Society: How the WEF seeks to turn you into a spineless drone

These are technologies that are less concerned with the human surroundings and more concerned with transforming the human person itself, having a long-term impact on its being and identity. With the Fourth Industrial Revolution—according to Klaus Schwab—we are facing “a metamorphosis of the human being the likes of which we have never encountered before”.

THE MECHANIZATION OF MAN

Schwab clearly can hardly contain his excitement about the impending technological breakthroughs and mechanization of man he predicts. He anticipates that humans would soon begin “integrating digital technologies into our bodies.” The new technology may “actually become a part of us” in the process. This, he claims, will blur the distinction between technologies and living beings. He builds his technocratic ideal of a new human being, alluding to the “cyborg” metaphor, and predicts that in the future there will be “strange hybrids of digital and analog life that redefine our very being.”

Schwab’s statements speak of the traditional dream of a new, more ideal human being. This is a long-standing dream. It is nothing novel or special. A diverse range of intellectuals often aspired for a more perfect human being, while remaining confident of humanity’s unending growth. This conviction in development was sometimes accompanied by an unwavering faith in scientific advances and, later, in the potential connected with the widespread application of technology.

The new man of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, on the other hand, differs fundamentally from prior ideas of man created by Friedrich Nietzsche, or even Karl Marx, for example. Moral ideals, character structure, and societal conditions have all been replaced by technology. Humans are supposed to progress simply through the successful application of new technologies, rather than through education, upbringing, practical experience, or revolutionary action. According to the World Economic Forum’s stated intention, the human being emerging from the future economic transition will predominantly be the result of new technology. This transhumanist future vision seeks to perfect and further perfect man through the application of new technology processes and technological interventions in his body. It promotes an elitist and repressive technocratic image of man, the repercussions of which cannot even be estimated at this time.

NEUROTECHNOLOGIES FOR BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR CONTROL

According to the World Economic Forum, neurotech is at the heart of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. After all, they provide for “unique insights—not only into how the brain interacts with its physical and social environment, but also into novel ways of experiencing life.” They could also assist to “advance the industry of mechanizing the human body” by tackling a variety of neurological illnesses and physical limitations.

It is not uncommon for the military to provide the required financing for neurotechnologies and other cutting-edge research. There, they are initially placed in the “defensive context,” and then their results are used. As a result, the human brain—particularly “in the border area of war and security”—is the focus of attention. According to Schwab, crossing a national border may need a comprehensive brain scan in the future to assess a person’s security risk.

Employers will be increasingly interested in using neurotechnologies to boost performance, as well as to evaluate job applicants and monitor staff. The usage of biometric technology in the workplace, as well as tracking via radio frequency identification (RFID), may lead to “employers directly or indirectly monitoring the brains of employees” in the future. Increased use of brain-monitoring gadgets is also on the horizon for the retail sector. This would allow firms to see through key consumer decision-making tendencies and more readily encourage consumers to behave in a desired manner.

Fundamentally, neurotechnologies are proving to be ideal for affecting people’s awareness and thinking. Furthermore, such technology can aid in decoding ideas, repairing “errors” in the brain, and “enhancing” its function. In a society driven by algorithms and pervasive data collecting, access to even a person’s most private thoughts cannot be ruled out.

DESIGNER BABIES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

The World Economic Forum also sees biotechnologies as having a great potential for increasing mechanization of humans. They provide critical tools and techniques for fundamentally reframing man’s connection with nature. Recent advances in biology, particularly genetics, have been remarkable. For example, there has been significant advancement in gene editing. Researchers from Yatsen University in Guangzhou presented the world’s first scientific publication on modifying the DNA of human embryos in April 2015. As a result, it is now possible to “precisely modify the DNA even in living embryos.” All of this, Schwab explained, “means that in the future, designer babies with exceptional features or illness resistance can be born.”

The Forum then sees the next logical step as the broad application of synthetic biology, which results in the production of designer creatures. This would eventually usher humanity into “a whole new age of metabolic engineering and synthetic biology.” This should allow one to create organisms for oneself. “They can be customized by writing their DNA. Ultimately, this is about nothing less than interfering with future generations’ genetic code,” according to Schwab.

IMPLANTS FOR HUMAN BODY OPTIMIZATION

Computer technology will no longer be worn or carried around on the body (wearables), but will instead be implanted directly into the human body with implantable technologies. This will largely help to increase communication as well as to identify people and track their behavior, in addition to medical needs. In this regard, Klaus Schwab refers to “active implantable microchips that break through our body’s epidermal barrier and generate exciting alternatives.” These range from “possibilities for maximizing and enhancing human capabilities” to “integrated therapeutic systems” (human enhancement). Small computers will be integrated into the human body in this manner and “gradually become a physical part of us.” It is thus an issue of technological intervention in the body, which will essentially result in the merger of man and machine. The goal is to enable purely technological further development and optimization of the human being, which should contribute to an increase in performance.

The World Economic Forum has been discussing an Internet of Bodies (IoB) in its publications for several months. Recent technological advancements have heralded the IoB’s new era. This period is distinguished by an unparalleled number of networked devices and sensors that can be attached to the human body (non-invasively), implanted, or otherwise introduced into the body (invasive). Invasive technologies include digital pills, the first use of which was allowed in the United States in 2017. They have microscopic sensors that are linked to a medicine, activated in the patient’s stomach, and provide data.

The Internet of Bodies makes it fundamentally possible to generate massive amounts of biometric and behavioral data. The human body will be changed into some kind of “technology platform” as a result of this process. However, not everyone will be able to pay the sometimes prohibitively expensive technical optimization of their physical and mental processes, which will inevitably lead to additional discrimination against specific groups and hence a widening of society’s already existent social divide. In this event, “a gap is likely to grow up between all those who technically enhance their bodies and those who are left behind,” according to Schwab.

EPOCHAL CHANGE WITHOUT DEMOCRACY

The Earth is currently “on the verge of major structural transformation,” the World Economic Forum continues. As a result, the globe is more polarized “between those who embrace change and those who resist it.” The resulting “ontological inequality separates those willing and competent to adapt from those refusing to adapt,” thereby defining who will succeed and who will lose in this process. While the victors would gain from “some forms of radical human optimization,” such as genetic engineering, the ‘losers’ would not—I am so sad! The resultant tensions promote the creation of “class conflicts and other disagreements unlike anything we have ever known.” As a result, there is a significant risk of “greater fragmentation, exclusion, and social instability in a hyperconnected world of increasing inequality.” Klaus Schwab sure did read his Cyberpunk.

In 2016 Schwab wrote that there is a “dearth of a cohesive, optimistic, and unified narrative that highlights the prospects and challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” However, he believes that the existence of such a narrative would be necessary if various people and communities are to be encouraged to play an active role in defining it while avoiding “a broad social backlash against the basic changes.” Under such conditions, the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s present potential cannot be efficiently and thoroughly harnessed. In numerous instances, politicians lack the essential leadership and awareness of the changes that are occurring. Furthermore, “the required institutional regulatory structure is either insufficient or non-existent.” Aha, thanks Klaus. And who again told you that you are supposed to come up with that narrative?

SHOCK STRATEGY AND “OPPORTUNITY” FOR AUTHORITARIAN CENTRALISM DURING COVID-19

With the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting constraints on public life, the digital transformation of society has found its “impetus,” as Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret write in their book “Covid-19: The Great Reset” which I have analyzed for you here:

‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ is the Perfect Manual for Tyranny: I read Klaus Schwab’s infamous book, so you don’t have to. Here’s what I found.

As a result, they regard the pandemic as a “fundamental turning point” in global development. They claim that the time has finally come for a paradigm shift. In the following decades, “a new world with a new normal may develop.”

The World Economic Forum’s organizers regard the crisis caused by the Coronavirus pandemic as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to carry out a “Great Reset” of the capitalist economic order. They are concerned with the global implementation of far-reaching economic and social reforms, which will result in a fundamental upheaval of the entire previous economic and lifestyle system. They rely on enhanced centralism with strong authoritarian elements in the measures they intend to implement to build their technocratic agenda. Within a global regulatory framework (global governance), “‘bequeathed’ actors must consider themselves as elements of a globally ramified power system that can only succeed through increasingly cooperative forms of engagement.”

Concerning the worldwide ‘catastrophe’ caused by the pandemic, Schwab and Malleret believe that it is precisely deep, existential crises that “carry the promise for change.” They even have the nerves to say that the Corona pandemic is similar to World War II in terms of transformative force because “both have the potential of a transformative crisis of previously unknown dimensions.” Just as the Second World War caused a “fundamental transformation in the world order and the world economy,” the “moment for a paradigm shift” has arrived today. The pandemic expedited this transformation by acting as a catalyst for technology changes that had already begun before the crisis, Schwab continues.

The thesis of the close relationship between a crisis and later social change dates back to economist Milton Friedman, who died in 2006 and was one of the most important economists of recent decades.

“Only a crisis, genuine or perceived, leads to meaningful change. What happens next in such a crisis is determined by the ideas that are in circulation.” — Milton Friedman

This speech by Friedman is referred to by Naomi Klein as the key strategic ideology that would become a kind of chant for his movement: the shock doctrine. He claims that the strategy entails “using periods of communal traumatic experience to compel dramatic social and economic change.” Here’s how the shock doctrine works:

An initial disaster shocks practically the whole society, softening it for the transformations that will follow. “Shocked cultures frequently accept things they would otherwise strongly reject. Companies and politicians would take advantage of people’s fear and disorientation as a result of the ‘shock’ to impose an economic shock therapy. A severe collective trauma that either temporarily suspends or completely stops democratic activities is required for this to be implemented without restriction.” This necessitates authoritarian settings and the focused deployment of the state’s regulatory agencies.

A cabinet strategy paper on COVID-19 containment, initially confidential, adopts and applies Friedman’s shock strategy. The study was written by a group of academics, the bulk of whom were economists, and it is likely that it influenced the federal government’s decision to impose the lockdowns, which restricted the economy and fundamental rights. Instead of presenting individuals with real information and educating them to build trust and alleviate existing worries, the scientists took an entirely different strategy. Thus, they openly support a policy whose purpose must be to instigate terror in the peoples’ minds through a “desired shock effect.”

Schwab and Malleret saw the shock effect of a crisis on people as a wonderful opportunity for social reform to occur. The Corona pandemic, for example, is “a huge shock” that “brings with it the uneasy confidence that it will have both unexpected and extraordinary implications.” Despite the difficulty of the changes ahead, Schwab believes the pandemic will hasten a systemic transition that was already underway before the crisis. These include “increasing technological power” and rapid automation. For many individuals, this means that the technologization of their lives will accelerate quickly, as a result of which “life as they have known it up to now will rip apart at the seams with alarming speed”. At the same time, however, “the technologization of life provides an opportunity, and this is also the real meaning of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

REPRESSION TECHNOLOGY—CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE

In the aftermath of the Corona crisis, representatives and supporters of the World Economic Forum see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to implement a comprehensive mechanization of man, as well as the system change they forecast and consider essential, in an accelerated and non-violent manner worldwide. According to Schwab, the drastic system transformation envisaged necessitates people constantly adapting to the changes that are occurring. However, it is unclear “how the constant integration of technology into our lives will influence our idea of identity and whether it would damage key human capacities such as self-reflection, empathy, and sympathy.”

Furthermore, governments face a genuine risk of combining technologies to undermine civil society organizations and citizen groups that demand for transparency in government and economic activity. Finally, constraining such organization’s’ independence and operations through laws and other measures further reduces the space for civil society. As a result, the instruments of the Fourth Industrial Revolution enable “new types of surveillance and new control possibilities that run antithetical to healthy, open communities.” Additionally, as the digital world developed and evolved, the Corona pandemic improved options for human observation and control.

In this context, “contact tracing,” which was supposedly critical in countering COVID-19, appears to be on track to becoming “a facilitator of mass surveillance.”

Corporations, in particular, have become increasingly interested in tracking their employees’ health. As a result, it is reasonable to expect increased surveillance of dependent employees in the future. This could be attributed to concerns about their health and safety. According to Schwab and Malleret, technical surveillance tools will most likely stay in place even after the pandemic. This is evident, they write because “employers have no reason to remove a monitoring system once it has been installed, especially if one of the indirect benefits of monitoring is to check worker productivity.”

Technical solutions implemented to contain a pandemic, on the other hand, are also ideal for expanding a surveillance state. They can also be employed as political surveillance technology, allowing for greater human control as well as additional coercive tactics. Schwab and Malleret even advocate for “a global surveillance network” in their book. According to them, “once released,” “the genie of technical monitoring” will not be “put back into the bottle” in the post-pandemic period and will thus be with communities for a long time. Hooray.

DECAY, CHAOS, AND DYSTOPIA

Both authors also predict that “the number of those who are unemployed, concerned, dissatisfied, indignant, unwell, and hungry today (will) increase considerably” following the pandemic. They also note that “two types of people” will confront a “particularly bleak employment situation”: “young people entering the pandemic-ravaged labor market for the first time and workers who may be displaced by machines.”

There will also be personal tragedies, as well as the hatred and despair of people from all walks of life. The emergence of social unrest must thus be seen as one of the most serious threats, with such a development—in their opinion—even “generating to social breakdown and political collapse” in extreme situations. However, history has shown that prospects of eliminating current inequities “are unlikely without accompanying severe social disturbance.”

To be sure, governments and corporations had employed “increasingly sophisticated technologies to monitor and occasionally control citizens and employees” in earlier years. However, the potential offered by the Corona crisis could have a considerably greater influence on individual rights and liberties, making it a “watershed moment in surveillance history.” Such a scenario would result in the growth of authoritarian tendencies and more repression. Perhaps some individuals will soon discover that “their country has suddenly turned into a place where they no longer want to live,” as Schwab and Malleret rightfully worry.

Overall, it “all comes down to individuals and values,” summarizes Klaus Schwab. That is why it must be feasible to create a future worth living in because “in its worst, dehumanized form, the Fourth Industrial Revolution does certainly have the ability to turn people into machines without a heart or a soul,” says Schwab. Furthermore, there had never been a moment “that arrived with more promise, but also with such immense looming doom.” As a result, the utopia of mankind’s technological perfection may lead sooner than predicted to a dystopian society that offers no future worth living for humans.

The yearning for a new, designed human being did not emerge accidentally, but rather as a result of a protracted historical evolution. However, such a growth is not predetermined nor necessarily imperative for humanity. As a result, it is correctable. Nobody has to accept it as fate. We’ve been warned!

Lily is worthy of your SUPPORT: Paid Subscription Options From which to Choose

© 2023 Consolidated Frontiers – A Lily Bit HOMEPAGE

Intro to ‘We the People’


A Divided or Unified America

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© November 21, 2018

 

This is one of the most thought provoking submissions from Justin Smith on the state of our U.S. Government platformed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

I am uncertain if it was Justin’s intention but this essay provides good reasoning to reform America’s Constitution. There is as much a divide between naysayers and pro-Constitution reformers for a new Constitutional Convention for American Governance.

 

The naysayers are concerned about the intrusion of abusive power (both Conservative and Leftists) in government. Constitutional Reformers believe that parameters can be imposed on Constitutional delegates in the framing of a new Constitution. Frankly, in this day and age there are elements of truth that are probably valid concerns from both the naysayers and reformers.

 

My biggest concern based on America’s last two election cycles, is that Americans are so divided on political ideology (Conservative vs. Leftist) the atmosphere for give and take deliberation in a convention may be impossible.

 

If you look at American history, Americans were not exactly unified in certainty in leaving the British Monarchy for complete independence. Many Americans considered themselves British citizens living in colonial America. While many other Americans were so upset with British governance exploiting colonial life relegating colonialists conquered subjects with no self-determination in practical local governing robbed of British privilege.

 

The former were loyal to the Crown but still displeased with socio-political governing. The latter were so displeased with British governing that the feeling of self-governing would provide a better socio-political life based on representation. Then there were a group of colonials that were ambivalent and just sought existence.

 

Of course the outcome favored the self-government by representation group of colonials; however, there was enough displeasure with British governance among Crown-favored Americans that remained after the Revolutionary War that a consensus could be deliberated upon in the formation of a national government of united former colonies.

 

On a personal level, I have doubts such a consensus via deliberation is possible in America’s current political divide. The political atmosphere today resembles the America of the Civil War than the Americans during the War of Independence.

 

I suspect America’s current divide may devolve into a war that would determine the political future of make-up of the United States. Lacking a Lincoln-like individual, that make-up may or may not be a Fractured States of America.

 

My prayer for America is for a Lincoln-like individual for a unified future. If not, I fear America’s future will fated to foreign domination by a more globalist-minded governance.

 

JRH 11/21/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:

Please Support NCCR

********************

‘We the People’

Or A Nation of Sheep

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM

Americans, by and large, have not kept themselves informed, and adhered to the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government, which has resulted in more than half the problems we face today as a country. And, because the voters themselves do not know, or care, what the Constitution says, they elect candidates who have no intention, or desire, to support and defend it — believing in “the end justifies the means”.  It is a vicious cycle that repeats itself every election cycle and won’t stop until the people take the time to learn what the drafters of the Constitution intended when they wrote it.

So, as Lysander Spooner so aptly said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorizes such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” I could almost stop right there, saying that is how I feel about our system of government, and the document that established it…but I won’t.

Even though the Constitution outlined a fundamentally sound system of government, in theory, the problem is that it was the creation of a group of men who held differing views on what government should look like and what powers it should hold.

Ben Franklin explained it best when he said:

 

“For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received …” (Source: Franklin’s Final Address to the Constitutional Convention.

There were many concerns expressed by these patriots who opposed the Constitution, but the underlying theme that can be found in most of their writings is that the Constitution created a consolidation of the States into a Union under a strong centralized government.

In a more perfect union, a more perfect Republic, our sovereign and independent states would reassert the 9th and 10th Amendments more forcefully, since they have been abrogated out of existence by federal laws and judicial activism; the states should unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

One of the primary concerns of the anti-Federalists was: Did the Constitution do away with the status quo and create a consolidation of the States into a single, indivisible Union; or Republic, or did the States still retain all powers which were not expressly given; allowing the government to intrude into and interfere with the lives and liberties of the people.

 

[Blog Editor: It is my humble opinion the concerns of the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the Constitution is important thought relating to America’s current political divide. Here are posts with some perspective on Anti-Federalist thought:

 

 

 

 

 

On June 5, 1788 in a speech opposing ratification of the Constitution, Patrick Henry expressed those exact sentiments as follows:

“I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”

It should be obvious, that the people had already established republics by their having created their own State Legislatures, so they actually had no need to create another Republic for the purpose of governing them all. The purpose for which the delegates were sent to Philadelphia was to arrive at suggestions for amendments, in order to make the existing Confederation Government adequate for the needs of the country; not to toss the existing form of government in the trash heap and replace it with one of their creation.

If the powers given to this new form of government were to be exercised primarily upon the States, then why did the drafters of the Constitution demand that it be ratified by the voice of the people; as it was the States whose authority would be further restricted, or usurped, by the creation of this new form of government. However, if this new system of government was, in fact, a consolidation and a diminishing of the sovereignty of the States, then it would make sense that the people must give their consent to it.

Yet, in Federalist 45 James Madison attempted to ensure the people that the States would retain their authority over the lives and liberties of the people by saying:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

 

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Most Americans believe the Bill of Rights protects certain rights against governmental interference. That is only partially true, since the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution which created our federal government; not the constitutions which framed the various State governments. Therefore, technically they only apply to the federal government. However, an argument can also be made that, since the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the land, any amendment to it could be implied to apply to the States as well.

Keeping things simple, let’s just say that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. How is it then that the government can dictate what kind of guns private citizens may own; how is it that the Supreme Court — which is PART of the federal government — decides whether a State may display the Ten Commandments, or that children be prohibited from praying in school; how is it that the federal government can violate the 4th Amendment by spying upon the private conversations of every man, woman and child in this country, just to keep us safe from terrorism?

There exists a whole list of things the federal government has done which are not among the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 as those powers given to Congress; which in case you have forgotten, is the lawmaking body of our government; not the President as so many seem to think.

This has all been done because of the concept of implied powers; something introduced while George Washington was President. That occurred because the Constitution itself did not provide specific enough limitations upon the powers it was granting government; leaving loopholes by which government has expanded its power well beyond those originally intended.

So, if that is true, then the Constitution itself failed the people as it did not provide sufficient means for the people to resist the encroaching powers of government and to ward off tyranny and oppression.

Not one individual can provide me with the Article and Clause that grants any of us the authority to arrest and charge any of our elected officials, for the crime of violating the Constitution, because such a clause simply does not exist. And, it is this oversight that has resulted in the Constitution’s failure, by not providing the means to oppose a government that no longer adheres to any kind of limits upon their power and authority.

I only care whether the party that is in control adheres to the Constitutional limitations imposed upon them and seeks to protect and defend my rights…that and nothing more, and both parties have failed miserably in this duty. If government does not do this, then I revoke my consent to being governed by it.

Why do Americans still support a government that no longer resembles or represents the ideas and beliefs which led our Founders to seek their independence from a tyrant? Why do they so meekly submit to tyranny and oppression today? Is there not a drop of patriotic blood left in their bodies?

One certainly must wonder what has kept Americans from marching on D.C, with rifles in hand and sixteen feet lengths of rope, so criminals like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Susan Rice and many others could be hung from the highest tree, or the balcony of the Capitol Building; especially in light of the current double standard of “law” applied in America.

All I see is a nation of sheep who meekly obey the commands of their masters. What has become of the land of the free and the home of the brave? LaVoy Finicum was brave and he was gunned down in cold blood; with the media and the people calling him an extremist.

I seek to restore America to Her Founding Principles and more of an Originalist approach towards the implementation of the U.S. Constitution, which has been bastardized far and away from anything ever intended by the Founding Fathers. If Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they would either have fled the country, or they would be serving time, in Guantanamo Bay as domestic terrorists, because the people of this country no longer care about limited government or individual liberty; all they care about is comfort and security, whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans providing it.

And it makes me sick to death to watch.

~ Justin O Smith

______________________

Intro to ‘We the People’

A Divided or Unified America

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© November 21, 2018

______________________

‘We the People’

Or A Nation of Sheep

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Most source links by Justin Smith. Some links are by the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

%d bloggers like this: