Is the US a Carefully Constructed “Mock-Up?”

unitedJanet Phelan – Those familiar with settings for Hollywood movies will recognize that there is a difference between façade and structure. In the case of celluloid, a “mock-up” may be used to simulate a structure without, however, its three-dimensional and functional integrity. A mock-up may look like what it is simulating, but on close examination, it will become apparent it is only a Sim.

A “mock up” may be defined as follows: a “full sized scale model used for demonstration, study or testing.”

This article will explore the possibility that, far from being a Constitutional republic, that the United States is, in fact, a “mock-up” and a Sim.

First, we must ask the questions: “What is the United States? How do we define this entity? And are there indications that the definitions do not describe the reality?” This would be our first clue that the US may be a Sim.

For most purposes, the United States can be described in two ways: 1) As a system of laws which define it and 2) As a territory, circumscribed by its borders.

Is The US A System Of Laws?

The first definition quickly breaks down under scrutiny, as the reality peeks out behind the Sim. As described in Article 1 of its founding document, the US Constitution states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Continue reading

The Graveyard of the Elites

politics Chris Hedges – Power elites, blinded by hubris, intoxicated by absolute power, unable to set limits on their exploitation of the underclass, propelled to expand empire beyond its capacity to sustain itself, addicted to hedonism, spectacle and wealth, surrounded by half-witted courtiers—Alan Greenspan, Thomas Friedman, David Brooks and others—who tell them what they want to hear, and enveloped by a false sense of security because of their ability to employ massive state violence, are the last to know their privileged world is imploding.

“History,” the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto wrote, “is the graveyard of aristocracies.”

The carnival of the presidential election is a public display of the deep morbidity and artifice that have gripped American society. Political discourse has been reduced by design to trite patriotic and religious clichés, sentimentality, sanctimonious peons to the American character, a sacralization of militarism, and acerbic, adolescent taunts. Reality has been left behind.

Politicians are little more than brands. They sell skillfully manufactured personalities. These artificial personalities are used to humanize corporate oppression. They cannot—and do not intend to—end the futile and ceaseless wars, dismantle the security and surveillance state, halt the fossil fuel industry’s ecocide, curb the predatory class of bankers and international financiers, lift Americans out of poverty or restore democracy. They practice anti-politics, or what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” DeMott defined the term in his book “Junk Politics: The Trashing of the American Mind”:

It’s a politics that personalizes and moralizes issues and interests instead of clarifying them. It’s a politics that maximizes threats from abroad while miniaturizing large, complex problems at home. It’s a politics that, guided by guesses about its own profits and losses, abruptly reverses public stances without explanation, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized (e.g.: Iraq will be over in days or weeks: Iraq is a project for generations). It’s a politics that takes changelessness as its fundamental cause—changelessness meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that, decade after decade, strengthen existing, interlocking American systems of socioeconomic advantage. And it’s a politics marked not only by impatience (feigned or otherwise) with articulated conflict and by frequent panegyrics on the American citizen’s optimistic spirit and exemplary character, but by mawkish fondness for feel-your-pain gestures and idioms.

Continue reading

The Tyranny Of One Man’s Opinion

dronesAndrew Napolitano – Thomas Cromwell was the principal behind-the-scenes fixer for much of the reign of King Henry VIII. He engineered the interrogations, convictions and executions of many whom Henry needed out of the way, including his two predecessors as fixer and even the king’s second wife, Queen Anne.

When Cromwell’s son, Gregory, who became sickened as he watched his father devolving from counselor to monster, learned that an executioner for the queen had been sent for from France a week before her conviction, he asked his father what the purpose of her trial was if the king had preordained the queen’s guilt and prepaid the executioner. Cromwell replied that the king needed a jury to give legitimacy to her conviction and prevent the public perception of “the tyranny of one man’s opinion.”

In America, we have a Constitution not only to prevent the perception but also to prevent the reality of the tyranny of one man’s opinion. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment makes clear that if the government wants life, liberty or property, it cannot take it by legislation or executive command; it can do so only by due process — a fair jury trial and all its constitutional protections.

The constitutional insistence upon due process was the result of not only the Colonial revulsion at the behavior of Henry and his successors but also the recognition of the natural individual right to fairness from the government. If one man in the government becomes prosecutor, judge and jury, there can be no fairness, no matter who that man is or what his intentions may be. That is at least the theory underlying the requirements for due process. Continue reading

America’s War On Everything It Claims To Stand For

“Prosecutorial injustice is rife. Courts most often are conspiratorially involved. Guilt by accusation suffices. Fabricated evidence is accepted as real. So are confessions extracted under torture. Multiple studies over the last half century show courts punish prosecutorial misconduct in less than 2% of cases.” – S Lendman

steveLendmanWhat kind of nation scorns basic precepts free societies cherish? Mocks them. Operates extrajudicially. Polar opposite what it claims to support.

Rewarding its wicked. Most reprehensible. Punishing its best, brightest, most honorable and deserving of praise.

What nation has far and away the world’s worst human and civil rights record over a longer duration? Affecting the greatest number of people.

Which one bears more full responsibility for multiple global genocides? At home and abroad.

Which cares only for its rich, well-born and privileged? No others. Which more systematically wants its middle class eliminated? Its working population exploited as serfs.

Which one more disproportionately shifts wealth from ordinary people to corrupted rich elites already with too much? Billionaires and multi-millionaires. Making money the old-fashioned way.

Which one more egregiously supports wrong over right on a global scale? Which continues inflicting more harm on more people than any nation in human history?

Which more systematically trashes its own laws on fundamental rights?

America’s Constitution Preamble stresses “form(ing) a more perfect union…”(E)stablish(ing) justice…(I)nsuring domestic tranquility…”

“Provid(ing) for the common defense…Promot(ing) the general welfare…Secur(ing) the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Bill of Rights guarantees include free expression. A free press. Freedom of religion. Freedom of assembly and association.

Privacy by prohibiting unjustified searches and seizures. Due process and judicial fairness.

Cruel and unusual punishments forbidden. Other rights guaranteed by law. Continue reading

J. D. Heyes ~ Sheriffs Are Key To Protecting Americans From Unconstitutional Gun Laws

NaturalNews | January 22 2013

Local sheriffs are the preeminent legal authority in the country and have the power, by constitutional design, to prevent or refuse enforcement of federal statutes which violate the U.S. Constitution or their oaths of office, according to one former sheriff who has battled the Feds over gun laws and won.

Richard Mack, the one-time sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., said in a recent interview withWorldNetDaily.com that he joined with then-Rivalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a successful lawsuit against the federal government during President Clinton’s terms during the 1990s to oppose provisions of the Brady Bill gun-control law.

Since winning that battle, Mack has been a leader in the movement emphasizing the roles and responsibilities of local sheriffs. And now that gun control is once again at the forefront of domestic policy, both inside the Obama White House and Congress, Mack says once more that hope remains in local law enforcement.

‘I hope and pray sheriffs won’t allow anymore gun control

“Gun control is illegal, and it’s against the Constitution,” Mack said, noting that the process of opposing such mandates and laws is not a complicated process. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”

Mack said he expects elected county sheriffs across the country to defend the rights of their constituents.

“I hope and pray America’s sheriffs won’t allow anymore gun control. The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it,” he told WND.

“In the ’90s when I was the sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., we worked with other sheriffs and stopped two or three Brady Bills,” he said, a legal battle he talks about in seminars with sheriffs.

Continue reading