Archive for January, 2008

Rights vs. Privileges: An Essay on the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution

January 22, 2008

What are rights, and where to they come from? This may seem to many Americans an absurd question, as most of us who are American are quite familiar with the Declaration of Independence. However upon closer examination it is this author’s opinion that many Americans may not fully understand this fundamental concept to our form of government.

We take it as a given that our rights come from our creator. Was our creator government? What a silly question. The answer obviously is no. The whole purpose of government as set forth in the Declaration of Independence is that governments are formed to “protect and secure” our rights. This is the fundamental premise of our form of government. How many of you out there would agree that given the current state of political discourse in the USA, we no longer adhere in any meaningful way to this amazing document written by Thomas Jefferson? I think most would agree that we as a nation have violated this fundamental premise that was so important in establishing the USA as first among nations.

A right is defined in most legal dictionaries as an entitlement, which is far different than a privilege or a license which are granted from a legal authority such a law or statute made by a state legislature, or the the Congress. So if rights come from our creator, and privileges come from government, why the big fuss? What the fuss is all about is that government has now taken to doing exactly the opposite of what it was sworn to uphold, the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Most, if not all, government officials take an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately I believe that this oath is violated on a continual basis daily.

If government is continually violating the rights that people are born with, the question I must ask is: who are they working for?

It certainly does not appear to be you and me. Since the days of Marbury vs Madison the US Supreme Court has taken it upon itself the role of sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not, and in my opinion has let most if not all government officials off the hook in determining in their own consciences, if what they are doing is constitutional or not.

An obvious question that arises in the discussion of rights is what rights do we have?
Most people, including most judges, will tell you that you have the rights that are set forth in the Constitution and no others. This is not only wrong, it is also very dangerous in my opinion. This leads to the belief that our rights come from government, that is the Constitution. They do not. This is where a little known amendment to the Constitution was inserted at the behest of James Madison. It is the Ninth Amendment, which states,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.

Interestingly enough, to my knowledge the Ninth Amendment has only been used in jurisprudence twice in any meaningful way. The first was Roe vs. Connecticut, and the second was Roe vs. Wade. I am of the opinion that most Justices are scared stiff of what the Ninth means, and thus ignore it as much as they can.

As any legal scholar will tell you that the Constitution of the United States was more than anything a limitation on the powers of the federal government, and any power not spelled out specifically was left to the states or to the people in the tenth amendment.

Isn’t that amazing? It is to me, because what it means fundamentally is that the government is limited, and the people (individuals) are free, and can assert rights that they have that are not specifically described in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.

So what rights do I choose to assert as an individual? Aside from those guarantees set forth in the first eight amendments, I assert I have the right to be left alone, unless I am suspected through the probable cause clause of the Fourth Amendment of being engaged in criminal activity. I have the right to think what I want, to eat what I want. I have the right to put anything I wish into my sovereign body that I want. I could go on and on, however some people will say, no you don’t, because if you do something that is harmful to yourself, then society has to pay for it. I will respond that I did not create this idea of socialism, others did, and this is why in my opinion that socialism is so dangerous to individual human rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I am also arguing that if the government has the right, (which it does not) to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body – in this case pharmaceuticals come to mind – then the time will come when it will also tell me how many carbohydrates I can consume — only one donut today. It may sound funny to you now, but you just wait!

The path that we are following as a nation will surely lead to tyranny if we do not wake up and demand that the government adhere firmly to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without prejudice. I also firmly assert that the War in Iraq, and all of the wars that we have engaged in since World War Two have been unconstitutional, the War Powers Act of 1973 notwithstanding, as in Article 1, Section 8 only Congress can declare War, not the President. The AUMF (Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq) resolution is not an Act of Congress but a resolution as defined here in a legal dictionary:

The practice of submitting and voting on resolutions is a typical part of business in Congress, state legislatures, and other public assemblies. These bodies use resolutions for two purposes. First, resolutions express their consensus on matters of public policy: lawmakers routinely deliver criticism or support on a broad range of social issues, legal rights, court opinions, and even decisions by the Executive Branch. Second, they pass resolutions for internal, administrative purposes. Resolutions are not laws; they differ fundamentally in their purpose.

I urge all citizens of their respective States to assert ALL of their rights, and to DEMAND that their government not usurp them in any way, and to abide by the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Below is a brief clip of an eight-hour constitutional law class by former Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. I suggest that anyone who is really interested in this subject watch his class, which is available on Google video.


Pablum and Milktoast: Presidential Elections in the Land of the Free

January 15, 2008

Welcome to the Circus. An act put on for you and me to make us feel that we have any real choice for the next President of the USA. We don’t, and I will attempt to show why I feel this to be true. I will preface this article by saying to you the reader, that one of the primary reasons that I expect a tirade of readers who vehemently disagree with me, is that in order to accept my thesis, it requires a radical shift of belief. I suspect that many readers will have a hard time crossing this Rubicon. For if you the reader are to accept what I am saying, the bottom falls out, and you will be left with a creepy and perhaps hopeless feeling of unimportance as a voter. I crossed that Rubicon many years ago.

Professor Carroll Quigley, who taught US History at Georgetown University, and was Bill Clinton’s self-professed political mentor wrote the excellent book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the world in Our Time:

“When the business interests … pushed through the first installment of civil service reform in 1883, they expected that they would be able to control both political parties equally,”Indeed, some of them intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence of politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice.”

He then went on to say:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” he wrote. “Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

Have you ever noticed how so many Americans are now saying that they are tired of the politics in Washington, and how similar the two parties have become? So much that the American Electorate is now about 40% Independents. I am postulating as did Quigley that this has been done on purpose.

I will argue in this article that the whole Presidential Election process is nothing more than a charade, to make you think that you are living in a free country with free, open, and fair elections. Your don’t. This is done in my opinion, so that you the voter do not get too restless, and accept the outcome as democratically produced.

First a bit about voter fraud. The internet has been rife with not only allegations, but actual proof of fraud at the polls for numerous years. At the bottom of this article are several videos that show this to be true.

I maintain that in order for government; in this case State Governments since they are sovereign agents of the United States of America, to be valid they MUST assure that the voters ballot is accurate. This being the most important function of a free and democratically elected government. They have not done so, and quite frankly have moved in the opposite direction, the paperless, unverifiable voting machines being a prime example.

The first video shows Clinton Eugene Curtis an election machine programmer testifying before the U.S House of Representatives Democrats on the Judiciary Committee 12/13/2004. The second one is one made at Princeton University showing Diebold Voting Machine Flaws.

For those of you who do believe that your vote counts when using a touch-screen voting machine that leaves no paper trail, and who’s source code is held in secret, by the company itself, so that NO ONE can accurately determine, other than the voting machine corporation the validity of an election, I have some prime forest land for sale in the Sahara desert you may be interested in.

The whole structure of our particular form of government is based on distrust. Distrust of individuals, and institutions, this is primarily why we have the checks and balances that we do and a three pronged type of government, being Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Unfortunately in this Author’s opinion they have all been compromised.

The charade continues on a nightly basis on the television set. With all of the various pundits, with all of their excitement about how this particular Presidential election is so wide-open. Poppycock. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have Wolf Blitzer, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews, Dave (Bohemian Grove) Gergen, Frank (gag me) Luntz, and a whole litany of talking heads for your amusement, and to make you feel as if there is really an exciting election going on. Unfortunately most people buy into it. This does not make it true. One day a long time ago most people in the world that were educated, believed that the sun revolved around the earth, this did not make it true.

It is the old proverbial “good cop bad cop” being foisted upon us all on a daily basis. There is a reason that that the democrats in Congress have not stopped funding the War. Just as their is a good reason that such luminaries as Henry Waxman, and Nancy (give em hell) Pelosi do not support impeachment or listen to the electorate. They don’t have to, they do not work for you are me, as you have been led to believe. However you are more than FREE to continue to believing in the charade that has been foisted upon you. In fact they hope that you do!!

As long as the sheeple remain asleep we will have more of the same, perhaps most of you reading this at this time, have enough to eat, can still occasionally afford to put gasoline in your SUV’s, and provided you have the proper documentation fly where you want to. Some of you may even be able to afford Health Insurance. Amazing in the most powerful richest nation on Earth. We are the proverbial frog in the pot, slowly heating up, imperceptible to the average frog, wake up America before it is too late. Hop out!!

In my opinion the ONLY person in the public arena running for President, who has had the audacity to stand up for freedom and liberty, is Dr. Ron Paul. For this he has been ignored by the media, kept out of a national debate, accused of racism, called a crackpot, and generally been treated with disdain by the mainstream media. I watched at the last Presidential Debate hosted by the “fair and balanced” network, people such as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mit (haven’t caught a ball) Romney openly sneering at Dr. Paul when he was speaking. He dares to challenge the status quo, such as how money is made out of thin air, or why we should not be the world’s policeman. The act of sneering, with open contempt at a candidate who has raised more money without corporate sponsors than either of them should give us all reason to shudder.

You can tell what the candidates are like by the company they keep. Below are a few of the “top” advisors, or as I prefer to call them “handlers”working for our current top three contenders:

John McCain:

James (attack Iran, Iraq, Syria, and anyone else he does not like) Woolsey, Richard (expose covert cia agent Valerie Plame) Armitage, William (PNAC founder) Kristol, Henry (Chile overthrower) Kissinger, and Colin (lie to the UN) Powell. Yup that McCain is a real “liberal republican” alright.

Barack Obama:

Zbigniew (Grand Chessboard world Conqueror) Brzezinski and Richard (I am so sorry for 9-11) Clarke.

Hillary Clinton:

Madeline (Waco and dead children in Iraq Ok by me) Albright, Sandy (shoplifter of state secrets) Berger, Gen Wesley ( I hate Posse Comititus) Clarke, and Richard (Bilderberg) Holbrook.

Finally, being the coinspiracy theorist that I am, I would like to point out that each and every one of the above handlers, including the candidates or their spouses, all belong to that beloved American institution the CFR. I welcome your comments.

What is Coinspiracy?

January 15, 2008

This site is dedicated to the ignorant among you. Those of you that remain blind to what is happening all around you politically. I am not seeking converts, however if after reading and studying the information that I will be publishing you start to become awake, great, if not this is my little soapbox platform of castigation of the blind.

I have named this blog Coinspiracy for a reason, it being the first and main hoax that has been perpetrated against you, and most are wilfully and blindly igorant of the greatest hoax ever.

Imagine if you will that you and your friends could start a corporation that not only lends money to people and governments but prints it out of thin air too! This is in a cents alchemy as in turning lead into gold. However the modern day alchemists are far more sophisticated than their earlier bretheren. I will attempt to keep my posts short and to the point and include relevant urls written in depth by people that have studied the topics that I will cover in far more detail and substance than I.



January 12, 2008

In a seemingly unrelated event. Michelle Malkin and John Yoo, former Justice Department’s office of Legal Counsel today announced the birth of their “love child”. Aside from announcing their upcoming wedding, they are still in conference about whether to use Corporal Punishment or Water-boarding as disciplinary measures when she/he makes trouble.Mr. Yoo said that he would seek counsel from Alberto Gonzalez as needed. Unfortunately the US Department of Justice stepped in today, saying since the lovechild was born abroad, she/he had no legal status. The baby was turned over to the Dept of Homeland Security for the soonest available rendition to Jordan, as the baby upon its birth kept saying al-qaeda, al-qaeda, al-qaeda. 🙂


January 12, 2008

The American Heritage dictionary defines terrorism as:

“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological for political reasons. ”

Under this definition, the USA has been practicing terrorism for years. I will cite several examples. The United States in 1953 conducted clandestine military actions against the government of Iran and overthrew the former Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh to install the brutal dictatorship of Reza Pahlavi. This was done without a formal declaration of War as required by the US Constitution and thus unlawful, according to US and international law. This according to the dictionary’s definition was an act of terrorism.

In 1973 the CIA and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger orchestrated the clandestine and military overthrow of the government of Chile and the President of that country Salvador Allende, replacing it with that great humanitarian General Augusto Pinochet. A BBC article dated June 12, 2002 stated that Kissinger may face extradition to that country for his alleged role for the coup. Again, this is an act of terrorism under both US and International law according to the above definition.

In 1954 again the CIA conducted a covert operation to overthrow the government of Guatemala, and democratically elected President Arbenz.

These are only several examples that we know about, that became public due to diligent reporting by various journalists.

Unfortunately terrorism is not just practiced by religious fanatics that have no real affiliation with a country. It has been used throughout history not jut by the US, but by countless other nations and individuals to achieve political ends.

I personally abhor terrorism. However I find it hypocritical in the extreme to suggest that it is only others that conduct themselves in such a brutal uncivilized way.

I am not a fan of Islamic fascism, and quite frankly I find most of their religion that I know of, that being Wahabbism to be repulsive, and I do not fear them. However it is another thing entirely when the most powerful nation on earth engages in this form of brutality. Every act of barbarism, every clandestine operation that is military in nature, (that is not done with an open declaration of war as required by the constitution), and not based solely on intelligence, every act of terrorism that has been and perhaps will be done in the future that is conducted by the US government is done in our name. As an American take this very personally, as I do not condone terrorism in any form.

What can we do to stop this form of home grown terrorism? I think the first thing we can do is to demand accountability from our elected representatives. Under our form of government only Congress can declare war, the War Powers Act of 1973 notwithstanding. We must demand that all publicly elected officials adhere firmly to the supreme law of the land. If the terrorists in our land wish to continue their barbarous activities, they should do it legally, by amending the Constitution.

I do fear for our great republic, because barbarism only begets more barbarism. Even if it were based on the best of intentions; in the case of Chile and Iran it was not since both of those countries were replaced with brutal dictators, it is still terrorism under the above definition. We must, if we are to represent to the world, that we believe in freedom and liberty and not wanton killing.

So I find it disingenuous that the current and in my opinion illegal occupant of the White House talks so flippantly about terrorism. What I see more than anything else is him using this term to curtail our freedoms and rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution, and as set forth in the Declaration of Independence as rights that have been endowed by our Creator. If we do hold these truths to be self-evident that our rights come not from government, but from our creator, taking them away is a crime of the highest magnitude.

All around me I see the rising tide of a police-state authoritarian, and un-american ideology. They called it the USA PATRIOT Act, yet I find nothing patriotic in curtailing the rights that I was born with. I was taught at a very young age, that my rights stop where my neighbors’ begin, and I still firmly believe that. This is called freedom. What we have today in America is a not even a reasonable facsimile of what that means.

I believe that some of the reasons that this police-state authoritarian ideology has been gaining strength in the land of the free has particularly to do with terrorism both home grown, and our reactions to being attacked. President Franklin Roosevelt once said that the only thing to fear is fear itself. I find too many of our politicians in Washington and elsewhere are fomenting us being fearful, so that government may become more authoritarian. This concerns me greatly. I like freedom. I like eating what I want. I enjoy traveling where I want to go freely and without encumbrance. I like, as you can see here, saying what I want without fear of reprisal. I see more and more of this personal freedom disappearing in the home of the brave. I wonder if you the reader do too, and welcome any and all comments about what we can do to preserve them for ourselves and our posterity.

I also see a rising tide of Globalism. Many people say it will come anyways it is only natural. I saw a videotape recently of David Rockefeller one of the chief proponents of Globalism who is immensely powerful. He said, and I am paraphrasing that he liked globalism but did not endorse the citizens of the world being able to vote in that one world government. If the citizens of other nations wished to join us, in endorsing the idea of a constitutional republic, where the rights of the minority were protected, and civil liberties guaranteed, I might not have such qualms about Globalism. Unfortunately I do not see the United Nations embodying those ideals.

I hope that all reasonable people everywhere condemn terrorism as it only leads to more and more hate and violence.