Last week, the men and women who sit in the building that once housed the Supreme Court of the United States completed the Second American Revolution.  I know that very few will see it this way, but this is because we live in a time when people refuse to acknowledge that there is an objective reality, that this reality is governed by Natural Law and that part of this reality and Natural Law is the fact that words have meaning independent of what the reader wants to believe they have.  If this were not so, then language would be impossible, so I will not entertain anyone who tries to explain why I am wrong.  Such people are just trying to convince me to accept their personal delusion.  As for me, I know that form and function define, and that what I saw last week was the completion of a Progressive Revolution which finally destroyed the last vestiges of the Social Contract we call the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution assigns the duty of making law to the Legislature and only the Legislature (Congress).  The Executive (President) has the duty to approve these laws, then, once they are approved, to see to them that they are faithfully and consistently executed.  The Supreme Court is tasked with the duty of making sure these laws conform to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution and that the Executive faithfully and consistently enforces them.  In addition, all three branches of our government are tasked with the additional duty of keeping watch over the other two, to insure that they do their job properly and do not exceed their Constitutional authority.  Today, none of these three branches is doing any of this.  If we accept that form and function define, then this represents a violation of the contract between the States and the federal government which is the U.S. Constitution.

Congress has abdicated much of its job to the various bureaucracies.  There is nothing in the Constitution which authorizes this.  It specifically and clearly says that Congress is the only branch of government authorized to make a law.  This does not mean they can make a law that passes this duty to a new creation of the government.  This would require an amendment, which has not been done.  Nor can Congress side-step its duty by calling a law by a different name (i.e. regulation).  If it carries a penalty for violation that can be enforced by the Executive, then it is a law.  This is why we say form and function define: so that we do not accept lies created to subvert the terms of our Social Contract (i.e. the Constitution).

The President has openly defied his Constitutional duties.  He has refused to enforce many of our laws (ex. immigration).  He has over-stepped his authority by directly violating our laws (ex. the GM/Chrysler bailout and Banking/Insurance bailouts).  He has repeatedly made law through ‘Presidential Orders’ and by directing the various agencies that have been created under the Executive to make ‘regulations.’  All of these things represent clear violations of his oath of office and serve to subvert the terms of our Social Contract (i.e. the Constitution).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ignored the language of the Constitution, and the original founding document of this nation, the Declaration of Independence.  Instead, they defer to case and even International and Foreign law.  None of this is authorized by the Constitution.  The Court has overruled the States where it has no authority to do so (ex. the gay marriage ruling).  It has amended the Constitution by assuming language that is not in the Constitution and then ruling on their creation (ex. the separation of Church and State).  It re-writes laws to suit its political desires and then rules according to the new language they have created (ex. Obamacare — twice).  All of these things are a clear violation of the Social Contract the Court is duty-bound to protect.

On top of all of this, none of the three branches are doing their duty to keep the other two in check.  The Congress has a duty to impeach Obama.  He has not only violated his oath of office, but he has committed treason.  The evidence to convict him of treason is already in the Congregational record, but Congress refuses to do anything to stop open treason.  This makes Congress an enemy of the States and American people.  An enemy is never a legitimate ruler, nor does it have authority over the States and/or people.

Obama has openly defied the Constitution.  He has boasted that he can and will violate the confines of his office and the Constitution (ex. I have a pen and a phone).  Obama has actually assumed dictatorial powers.  This is by definition — not opinion.  But worse, Obama has given political and military aid and comfort to sworn enemies of America who are in a state of open, active warfare against the nation.  The Constitutional calls this treason.  The evidence is already in the public realm.  This is — again — by definition, not opinion.  What’s more, the State Department, DOJ and Homeland Security are all working toward the same agenda as Obama.  This means the entire Executive is an enemy of the States and American People.  An enemy is never a legitimate ruler, nor does it have authority over the States and/or people.

Finally, the Court has blatantly declared itself to be rogue.  Not only has it refused to force the other two branches to stay inside the confines of their Constitutional authority, it has declared itself to be an Oligarchy: acting as a dictatorship independent of but in conjunction with the President.  This means the Court is an enemy of the States and the American People.  An enemy is never a legitimate ruler, nor does it have authority over the States and/or people.

Now, just because there are vestiges of an appearance of what used to be, if the Congress, President and Court can and do whatever they please whenever they please, then form and function dictate that the Constitution is no longer in effect.  If this is the case, then form and function dictate that we are under some form of government other than the one that was created by the Constitution.  By definition, this means the Constitution is null and void.  It is not ‘broken,’ it is no longer in force.  The only way to repair a contract is if one or more Parties to it are trying to use the rule of law to enforce the terms of that contract.  As I have just explained, this is no longer the case.  So, again, logic dictates that we accept a painful truth: the U.S. Constitution is dead and the fifty States are now held captive by a form of tyranny the world has never seen and is yet to define.

However, there is hope.  The Declaration of Independence remains in tact and in place.  This is because it can never be changed or annulled by man!  So, if we are to have any hope of saving this nation as it was founded, we must be prepared to abandon the nostalgia that is the Constitution and return to the same appeal our founders made under the Declaration — and to the same Court they appealed.

The idea of ‘Justice” rests upon something we call ‘the rule of law,’ and the rule of law rests upon the written word.  The written word is governed by laws, Natural Laws.  However, there is a group of people who have a mental disability.  These people are known by many names.  I prefer to call them Progressives, but whatever name you give them, they all share the same mental disability: they have convinced themselves that these laws do not actually exist.  Well, if you can give me a little of your time, I can not only prove they exist, I can even prove it to any Progressive who actually reads this post.

I will start by asking you to picture what I mean by this sentence:

“Get my contact out of the cloud.”

Now, what does that mean?  I’ll make this easy: it means, “your dog ate my homework.”  Now, if you are a Progressive, you would accept this.  That is because Progressives honestly believe that words do not have any meaning except that which the individual reader assigns them.  In other words, the individual is empowered to believe words mean whatever they want them to mean.  For the Progressive, words never have a fixed meaning because they change with the reader.  So, if I say “get my contact out of your cloud” means “your dog ate my homework,” the Progressive has no grounds on which to object.  For me, that is what it means.  Incidentally, “Get my contact out of your cloud” actually means “get my call to start my old airplane engine out of your daydream.”

So why did I just put you through all of that?  To show you how meaningless language becomes unless it is governed by a commonly understood set of rules.  In general, language is governed by rules that tell us the sounds represented by each letter; how letters go together to form words; the thing or idea these words represent and how to put the words together to convey those ideas to each other.  But there is a set of laws that underlies this surface set of rules; a set of laws that govern the rule of language.  That law is a Natural Law.  You see, even if we describe the rules of how to use the letters to make words that make sentences, unless that set of rules remains fixed, they are still meaningless.  From the time I write “Get my contact out of your cloud,” the meaning can go from one thing to another, and further still, it can change from one reader to another.  In short, without the Natural Law of “consistency of understanding” governing the rules of language, language is nothing more than babble: we can never know what it means at any given time.

Now, if you and I cannot know what words mean from one time to another, then the rule of law becomes an irrational idea.  By definition, the rule of law is the impartial application of a written law that is commonly understood and fixed in its meaning.  As I just explained, language is governed by such a ‘rule of law’ (consistency of understanding).  It is very similar to the rule of law: it provides a sense of continuity necessary to apply the law in a consistent manner over an extended period of time.  However, the moment language is allowed to become babble, the rule of law becomes an absurdity.  If one cannot know what the written word means, then one cannot make an impartial ruling on that law.  What may be a warning to get my call to start engines out of your dreams today could be an accusation against your dog eating my homework tomorrow.  Now, how do you make a ‘fair’ judgment on anything under such conditions?

This brings us to the definition of justice:

1a :  the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

b :  judge

c :  the administration of law; especially :  the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

2a :  the quality of being just, impartial, or fair

b (1) :  the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) :  conformity to this principle or ideal :  righteousness

c :  the quality of conforming to law

3:  conformity to truth, fact, or reason :  correctness

Now, do you accept that that definition says justice means whatever I say it means?  Why not?  Because you know the rules governing language and you know that the words of the above definition do not mean that ‘justice’ is whatever I say it is — that’s why.  But what if five people in black robes tell you that the words of this definition mean whatever they say it means?  Will you believe that?  Progressive do.  In fact, that is what the last two ‘Supreme Court’ rulings were: a declaration that ‘justice’ is whatever they say it is.  But does that make it true?

In the case of Obamacare, the law is unconstitutional — by definition.  It originated in the Senate.  It contains taxes and spending.  The Constitution says such a bill must originate in the House.  Therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional by definition.  That is a fact and cannot be argued against by a rational person.  In the ruling yesterday, Obamacare says that the States have to set up an exchange before the federal government can give people subsidies.  Obama directed the federal government to give subsidies to people living in States without exchanges.  The ‘Supreme Court’ decided that ‘State’ means federal government.  By doing so, they destroyed everything upon which their own credibility rests.  If the ‘States’ = D.C., then the Constitution is null and void, in which case, so is the ‘Supreme Court’ — unless they say otherwise.  You see, the black robes have decided that ‘State’ can mean D.C. when they want to save for Obamacare, but it refers to the fifty ‘States’ when they want to save their own power.

Do you see the contradictions created by ignoring the rules governing language?  If so, congratulations: you understand that there is a Natural Law governing the rules of language.  You understand that the meaning of the language in a written law does not change according to the desires of the person reading it.  However, if you do not see this: if you do not agree with me, then tell me why?  It can only be because you are in my head and my words mean the exact same thing for you as they do for me….or you reject my argument because you recognize what I am saying!

Psst: If you object, then you do recognize what I am saying; and if you recognize what I am saying, you have just admitted that there is a Natural Law governing the rules of language because you just applied it.  🙂

[NOTE: This means that the last two ‘Supreme Court’ rulings are not law, they are the application of force against society  to over-rule Natural Law.  That is defined as an act of war against society.  The States and the People of those States have a Natural Right to nullify and/or disregard these rulings.  In addition, if the Congress refuses to impeach the ‘Justices’ that voted for them, and Obana for defending them and refusing to enforce those laws that have been properly passed, then the States also have a right to arrest those members of the House and Senate, along with the ‘Supreme Court’ and “Executive’ and charge them with subversion.  By ignoring the letter of the Constitution and laws properly passed under it and putting personal desires in their place, our government officials are declaring war against the States and People of America.  It is time we start treating them as what they are: enemies of the People and of mankind, in general.]

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obamacare today is a clear violation of the Constitution.  The ruling is illegal.  It is a clear violation of Natural Law in terms of language, the law and the Social Contract (i.e. Constitution).  The first case should have found Obamacare violates the Constitution by declaring the fees a tax when the language of the law said it was not a tax and the Obama Administration argued the same.  This meant Obamacare is unconstitutional because it originated in the Senate.  So, if it includes a tax, it violates the Constitution.  Now, today, the court has joined Obama in re-writing the law by ruling that people can receive subsidies directly from the Federal government in States where no exchange has been created.  This violates the letter of the law, but it also violates the Constitutional guarantee that the States are sovereign and retain a republican government.  If a State refused to create the Obamacare exchange, then this ruling tramples the rights of the People in that State.  So, no matter how this ruling is understood, the only rational conclusion is that we no longer live under Constitutional rule or the rule of law.  We live under the rule of men, and that, my dear reader, is defined as a dictatorship — tyranny!

BTW: this places Obama, his entire Administration and now, the Supreme Court in violation of the Anti-Subversion laws of this nation.  If the States want to cling to the Constitution and rule of law, they could go to Washington and legally arrest all of these people and charge them with subversion.  Barring this, the only path that remains for those States that still care about the rule of law is to secede from the Union — NOW!

The path of Constitutional Convention or Amendment is no longer viable.  The Court has demonstrated that they can and will ignore the law and just decree whatever they desire.  So we can amend the Constitution all we want, but the Court will just nullify it by decree.  So the only legal path left to those States that wish to remain under the rule of law is to secede from what is now clearly a dictatorial nation.

Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

So we need to get rid of the Confederate Battle Flag because of what others claim it represents.  It is ‘politically correct’ to hate the people who embrace the flag because they are ‘haters.’  In fact, it is ‘politically correct’ to remove any and all traces of the very culture that created that flag.  Well, if you believe this lie, make sure you remember you support the idea when Islam starts to do it in mass here in America — because it will.  It has already started.  But then, this is what all enemies of individual liberty always do: they always seek to change the past so they can control the present:

AGENDAS: Recognizing Totalitarianism in Modern American Society

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

This is why Islam always builds its mosques on top of the holy sites of the nations it conquerors.  It is why Muslims are destroying the monuments and museum pieces of those nations.  They have been commanded by Muhammad to destroy any and all traces of the former culture.  Anyone who thinks this will be different here in America is a fool. After all, this nation has twice elected a President whose wife openly boasted that he was going to do the same thing to us:

So why should we expect that Muslims will not be successful in doing the same thing?  Especially since they are not only being protected by our government, but their religion is actually being embraced by and pushed by government entities all over this nation:

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left

This is correct: the American Progressive Left has been allied with Islam for some time now.  Both seek to control every individual in this nation.  Both try to do this by destroying the past.  Both think they can use the other to achieve their goal — at which time, both will seek to kill off the other.  Why?  Because both reject the One True God and His Natural Laws.

In my last post, I explained that what is really at stake i the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on ‘gay’ marriage is whether or not we are going to give the government authority to define words.  Do not ignore the importance of my claim.  Progressive control our society, and Progressives honestly believe they can control humanity by controlling the language.  I have written about this on my other blog, The OYL  (TRUTH: Those Who Embrace Political Correctness Are Furthest From Sanity).  If the Supreme Court allows the government to “change our history and our traditions” by changing the meaning of words, then there will be no end to the tyranny that will result.  Once it happens, it will be only a matter of time before you find yourself on the receiving end of this compulsion to control and to destroy all those who oppose that control.  We are already seeing it now in the EPA. Continue reading First ‘Gay’ Marriage, Next — ANYONE Who Objects! →