Editorial: Sept. 21, 2009 — How the 2 Parties have corrupted America

by John Charlton

I have a few beefs with the common parlance of the day…

First: No one talks about patriotism anymore, except to claim everyone is a patriot!

To which I say: Hogwash!

Second: No one talks about heroism anymore, except to say that everyone is a hero, or every victim is a hero!

To which I say: Hogwash!

Third: We are constantly heckled to vote either of 2 ways, Republican or Democrat, as if American depended upon it. 

To which I say: Hogwash!

THE SAD REALITY

The sad reality is that the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party have corrupted America.

They are not our saviors. Patriotism does not consist in being a member of one or another.  Our loyalty is not measured by our devotion to one or another!

Rather the major parties have corrupted American in my opinion.

There is no longer any public forum for the expression of an opinion without it being characterized or co-opted by one or the other party.

But worst of all the parties have so infiltrated and taken possession of the political order of the United States, that they are the true bi-polar power structures in the country.

Even the Constitution does not mean anything anymore.  The real power is the parties.

And the parties are controlled by the same New World Order elitists.  So they are nothing more than stage-left and stage-right of the same theatrical company.

But the worst they have done is corrupt the judicial branch:  because the nature of the Constitution was to prevent the Executive and Legislative branches from being undermined by greedy power-hungry careerists, by means of a Judicial branch which would faithfully uphold the laws of the country and provide We the People with a means to redress our grievances.  A right to which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

The Federal Courts are failing us, and have been failing us for a long time.

Why?

Because of party politics.

How does this come about?

Through the Senatorial Confirmation Hearings.

Explain this…

No one gets past the withering debate unless he shows himself to be subservient to the party politics power play, in which the parties alone run the country and the non-affiliated citizen has no standing.

Such confirmed justices would never question the violation of the Constitution by the parties; in fact they have developed a doctrine of jurisprudence to do away with any attempt by common citizens to see that the Executive or Legislative branches follow the Constitution.  This doctrine is called the doctrine of standing.

The doctrine of standing is supposed to be invoked to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

But the Courts have applied it to give them reason not to hear cases of non-constitutional behavior.  They actually say this in plain terms, in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, where they give a faux reason not to uphold the Constitution.  Supreme Court Justice Berger writes in his majority decision in 1974:

Moreover, when a court is asked to undertake constitutional adjudication, the most important and delicate of its responsibilities, the requirement of concrete injury further serves the function of insuring that such adjudication does not take place unnecessarily. This principle is particularly applicable here, where respondents seek an interpretation of a constitutional provision which has never before been construed by the federal courts.

This is an invalid argument, because it is obvious to anyone with a highschool education, that when the Court upholds or defends the meaning of any provision in the Constitution, the entrance of the Court into the question is not only “un-necessary”, but essential to the continuance of the constitutional order; nor can such an “intrusion” be a danger to the republic, because to uphold the Constitution cannot be a danger to the Constitution!

But, to whom it is a danger?

First to the judges.  Why?  Because they are appointed after confirmation by the Senate (party controlled) and can be removed, by means of impeachment, by Congress (party controlled).

Thus if the parties are obviating the Constitution, a Federal judge is literally taking his career in his hands if he should rule against the parties’ usurpation of power.

Second to the major parties.  Why? Because if Federal judges slapped their wrists every time they exceeded their constitutional obligations or powers, they could not work to overthrowing America and establishing a new political order where ONLY the parties have power, and in which there are no rights for the common man.

I won’t mention the outrageous claims made in the same above-mentioned case, namely that tax-payers have no standing to see that the Constitution be upheld by federal courts…don’t even try to remind the Courts that the cry of the American Revolutionaries: “no taxation without representation,” is just as valid as the cry of the American Constitutionalists, of today, who shout: “no taxation without the observance of the Constitution”!

If we have a usurper in the Presidency, it is because the parties have arrogated to themselves the interpretation of the requirements thereof, and the Federal Courts have acquiesced entirely from their duty to check the parties usurpation of power.

It remains to be asked, therefore, what duty does the average American citizen have anymore to pay taxes to such a Federal Government, which no longer follows the Constitution?

Is not such a government a faux government? One which pretends to be our Government, but which is really the tool for the exploitation and rape of America?

0 Responses to "Editorial: Sept. 21, 2009 — How the 2 Parties have corrupted America"

  1. Daniel M. Cleveland   Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 3:26 PM

    The following paragraphs are from pages 14-18 of the original copy George Washington’s Farewell Address.
    At the end of the excerpt I placed a summary of Washington’s main points, along with the two websites that I obtained this information from.

    “All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.
    “However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
    “Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
    “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
    “This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
    “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
    “Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
    “It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
    “There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

    Summary:
    IV. Spirit of Party.
    A. Parties are “potent engines” that men will use to take over the “reins of government.”
    B. Washington warns against parties’ “baneful effects”:
    1. leads to the absolute power of an individual
    2. “discourage and restrain” the spirit of party
    3. leads to “jealousies and false alarms”
    4. “animosity of one part against another”
    5. can lead to “riot and insurrection”
    6. opens “door to foreign influence and corruption”
    7. “it is a spirit not to be encouraged.”

    Sources:
    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=62
    http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html

    I highly recommend to anyone who cares about this nation that they read the Washington’s Farewell Address in its entirety. Those that do will find it eerie. Washington’s words are nearly prophetic on more than one front.

  2. Daniel M. Cleveland   Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM

    Dear John,

    I feel like your argument would be strongly supported by George Washington’s Farewell Address.

    Please read the address and add the paragraphs in which Washington warns against parties.
    ——————-
    Mr. Charlton replies: Mr. Cleveland, send me the quote, and I’ll add it. Thanks.

  3. Joe The Blogger   Monday, September 21, 2009 at 9:25 AM

    Hi John,

    I enjoy your column. I raised the taxation issue to Clark Hamblin three months ago. I don’t know if he’s followed up on it.

    “At 8:33pm on June 18, 2009, Joe The Blogger said…

    It was great to hear Clark Hamblin again on The Liberty Pole Show on Plains Radio tonight.. I was one of the lucky people to have been listening to the live internet radio broadcast on Plains Radio Network, last December, in which Clark read his open letter to John McCain. That was possibly the greatest and most inspiring broadcast in the history of internet radio. Clark has followed that up with an exemplary lawsuit.

    I understand the legal point that Clark Hamblin is making by his complaint of involuntary servitude. This could possibly be backed up with the well established complaint of “No Taxation Without Representation”. Every Federal tax demand has to be authorised by The President of The United States of America. The electoral fraud, relating to ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Constitutional ineligibility, has denied all Americans the right to be properly and legally represented – and in the process has driven a ‘coach and horses’ through our Constitution, to the detriment of every American”.

    “[Clark Hamblin is an Arizona resident and has an active case in the Arizona Courts based on Barack Obama’s false swearing of eligibility to be POTUS. Clark is a real American hero – a Vietnam vet who has fought a lonely and valiant fight to get this matter addressed by the Arizona Courts]”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.