THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NOTHING BUT LIES
The article below is a departure from my usual musings. It has nothing to do with my book, nor does it have anything to do with nihilistic existentialist philosophy, which apparently defines my worldview. I wrote this and five others nearly a decade ago, but never bothered to publish them.
This is the first in a
series of essays, more or less polemics, coupled with analysis, which will
prove that Americans have no ‘inalienable’ rights, given by a god or by man,
and that we never did have any rights, other that that which are granted by a
governing body. Our supposed ‘rights’ are only privileges at best, which can be
taken away at the leisure of elected criminals who control this decadent,
moribund society.
Premise noted; I have elected to focus upon the ‘Bill of Rights’, which is comprised of the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, authored by James Madison. He was a brilliant political theorist and the fourth president of the United States, not to mention a hypocrite.
Madison was a man of his times, a wealthy elitist who owned slaves that were charged with raising and harvesting tobacco for him and his family, so he could lounge around, thinking great thoughts while profiting from the unpaid labors of his slaves. He rationalized all of the above by claiming to be a ‘Christian’ or deist of sorts, plainly stating that Negroes were three-fifths of a human being. I must say, judging from their behavior today, I candidly wonder if some Negroes are human at all, but that's another story.
That aside - James Madison created one of the most brilliant compositions to have ever seen the light of day - The Constitution of the United States of America, together with his "Bill of Rights". These documents were and are supposedly revered by American politicians and the drooling cadre of insensate drones who vote for such criminals, with the vast majority of the fools occupying this nation not even knowing what the Constitution says, or is supposed to mean. No matter, this dying nation is getting exactly what it deserves; hopefully I will live to see a vicious civil war, so I can laugh maniacally, while stating, "I told you so".
Looking at the soft-palmed gangsters charged with administering this bankrupt farce of a country, I utterly despise hypocrisy and arrogance, much like a Biblical character that called himself Jesus Christ. He detested the elitists of his day; those frauds called Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and moneylenders, together with other assorted vermin that infested Roman Judea, freeloaders living off the stupid populace. The bloodsucking leeches running this benighted entity today are no different than they were, and, if history is any precedent, those parasites of today will receive their just desserts, just like the Judeans received theirs from the conquering Romans under General Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian.
It is my intent to concentrate on Madison's ‘Bill of Rights’ and conclusively prove before all who read that they are, at best, suggestions, and at worst, nothing but lies - mendacious contrivances that should be exposed before the people as the worthless, rhetorical sophistry that they are. Each Amendment will be noted and addressed, after which blatant violations and contradictions of said Amendment will be presented. Afterward, employing a dialectical approach, a thesis and antithesis will be created for the reader, with a synthesis deduced from the preceding. That effort will result in the Amendment being exposed for the lie that it is, proving it as a contrivance used to dupe credulous, unthinking idiots – by employing cited evidence from history.
Listing and analysis will follow, starting with the First Amendment, noted verbatim:
THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Analysis of the First Amendment:
The Congress is the Legislative Branch of the United States, and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically prohibits the Establishment of a ‘State Religion’ by Congress.
According to the First Amendment, Congressional interference with the free exercise of any religious belief, or the lack of religious belief, is prohibited, period. Quite simply, if one wants to worship Jesus, or Satan, or Mohammed, or even Bib the Michelin Man, they have the right to do exactly that with no interference from the government. Further, people have the right to promote their beliefs, or the lack of them, and can stand in a public square and shout "Jesus is the Son of God" or "God does not exist", or "Jesus sucks" or "God hates fags" or even "Mohammed was a murderous pedophile" - it is any citizen's right to do so, and Congress cannot do anything about it, pro or con, at all.
Further, according to the First Amendment, the Congress of the United States of America cannot stop anyone from uttering any of their opinions or beliefs, no matter how ‘offensive’ such beliefs or opinions may be deemed to be by politicians or the masses. Neither can Congress prohibit a newspaper or other media from printing or promoting such beliefs or opinions, however ‘offensive’ such beliefs or opinions may be deemed to be by the politicians or the masses. Further, Congress cannot prohibit the RIGHT of anyone to peacefully assemble to discuss and promote their views, no matter how ‘offensive’ such views may be considered by politicians or the masses. In addition, Congress cannot prohibit the people from contacting their government to address perceived ‘grievances’ in the form of a hearing.
At least that is the apparent intention – it is very different when it comes to reality.
I will now conclusively prove before all who read that the First Amendment is a lie.
How will I prove conclusively that the First Amendment is a lie?
To begin, the historical evidence of wanton mendacity is myriad, starting in, at the very least, the early twentieth century, with other examples going back to 1798, CE, under yet another hypocritical president called John Adams, with his ‘alien and sedition acts’. Adams was a bigot and he hated frogs and micks, perhaps because they weren't Federalists, and he made no bones about it, you see.
Concentrating on the twentieth century, we will first address the acts enacted under yet another mendacious, hypocritical president, a scoundrel called Woodrow Wilson; may he rot in his grave forever without respite. Incidentally, for those uneducated, simpering ignoramuses that view Wilson as a liberal icon, the man was a true, unabashed racist who despised Negroes, viewing them as little more than troublesome dimwits that were barely human. He also lied though his teeth in order to be re-elected, and then immediately involved the United States in the debacle of World War One.
The First Amendment meant nothing to Wilson; in fact, he went out of his way to abridge the freedom of speech of the American people, using the ‘Sedition Act’ of 1918. This was an extension of the ‘Espionage Act of 1917’, an earlier law passed to criminalize those who disagreed with this tyrannical megalomaniac's subjective worldview. Look it up for yourself; I cannot and will not waste time and space reiterating the obvious and easily verifiable charges that I bring.
Employ the common Wikipedia links provided to begin, and then consult more reliable resources to verify Wikipedia, as you should. Wikipedia is inherently untrustworthy, but I have read their entries on the Bill of Rights and American History; though clumsily edited and sophomoric, they are generally accurate. I'll include hypocrite John Adam's Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, and an article on Wilson, a no-good sonofabitch, included for continuity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
How's that for ‘freedom’?
Moving on to the thirties, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was even worse than Woodrow Wilson, if such is possible. Under his watch, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was created in 1938; ‘Un-American activities’ being a nebulous term at best, used by the Federal Government to crush dissent - at that time, in the form of those labeled by the authorities as ‘communists’ or ‘fascists’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
That crippled piece of disgusting, chain-smoking, philandering trash, FDR, also signed the Smith act of 1940, which was and is a complete antithesis to the First Amendment. He then proceeded to round up communists, fascists, Germans, Italians, Japanese and all others he deemed to be ‘enemies of the United States’. Stalinesque, isn't it, to imprison and control the lives of others without due process of law, according to the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Link to an explanation of the draconian "Smith Act" is provided below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
One would expect such laws to be enacted in places like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China or Kim Jong Un's North Korea, but to be promulgated in the United States, the ‘bastion of freedom’? The Smith Act took decades to be proven as the enemy of freedom it was, via lawsuits, with various Supreme Court decisions during the late forties through the fifties nullifying its most draconian provisions, but not before hundreds of people had their lives destroyed by this gross violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and the right of the people to peacefully assemble to discuss ideas - regardless if such ideas are considered ‘offensive’ by those criminals in power.
An outgrowth of this tyrannical legislation were the hearings of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, who proceeded to turn the lives of many Americans into a living hell, due to being accused by McCarthy, et al, of being ‘communists’, whatever they actually are, considering that Marxism is a rather eclectic worldview. Simply compare Karl Marx's worldview to that of Vladimir Lenin, and then Lenin to Leon Trotsky, and then all of the former to the likes of Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao. That noted, regardless of his good intentions, apparently Mr. McCarthy never bothered to read the text of the First Amendment. According to Amendment One of the Constitution of the United States of America - The First Amendment - people have the absolute right to be communists if they so choose.
That is a paradox – the Constitution carries the seeds of its own destruction. Communists, fascists, socialists, muslims and other assorted malcontents want to destroy the United States, and the First Amendment gives them the very tools that they need to do so.
According to the text of the First Amendment, the people, as free sovereign Citizens of the United States, have the absolute right to be Democrats, Republicans, Federalists, communists, anarchists, fascists, or nazis, or racists of any type, be they white, black or yellow and all in between. Whites can be cross-burning Klansmen, and blacks can be Caucasian despising Black Panthers, and anyone can be an atheist, a theist, or even a pantheist, et cetera, ad infinitum. Further, according to the First Amendment - people have the right to hate other people if they so desire, for any reason they may choose, or have the right to love other people if they wish. They also have the right to exclude or include any of those they deem unsuitable or suitable to associate with, period.
In other words - anyone has the right to discriminate, i.e., to be ‘bigoted’ or ‘prejudicial’ in his or her worldview. Whether those who practice such beliefs are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is not the issue here, as morality and ethics are relative constructs from the mind of man. The First Amendment, as written, guarantees that any citizen can entertain and promote any of the above ideas, period, and Congress is absolutely forbidden to interfere with those promoting such ideas.
That is what ‘freedom’ is. If you don't like it – well, you can move to North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. They will gladly tell you what to think, or they will kill you for not thinking what you are ordered to think. The former will slaughter you in the name of socialism, the latter two will slaughter you in the name of some non-existent turd puncher called
allah, who is just about as real as Dracula or the Wicked Witch of the West, only one hell of a lot meaner than both combined.
Even individual states get into the act of abridging freedom of speech, a glaring example being the State of Alabama in 1956, which attempted to twist a provision of their dubious law regarding "registration of foreign corporations" in their state to prevent NAACP members from operating in Alabama. In 1957, the Supreme Court became involved, deciding in the favor of NAACP, specifically recognizing the right of ‘Freedom of Association’, implied, but not specifically noted in the First Amendment. Honestly, to any critically thinking individual, ‘freedom of association’ is quite obvious and not implied when looking at the phrase of: ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble’. Why it had to be decided by the Supreme Court strains credulity, though I am quite pleased that they decided in the favor of the NAACP in a rare case of justice actually being done. Really, what part of the phrase ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble’ did not the crooked politicians running Alabama understand? I wager the criminals running Alabama at the time considered the plaintiffs ‘niggers’ and nothing more, and as ‘niggers’, they had ‘no standing’, to use a phrase so commonly employed by the criminal judges running many of the courts today.
See link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People_v._Alabama
You see, according to the First Amendment, Negroes have the right to assemble peaceably to further their agenda and promote their worldviews; so do whites, Hispanics, Jews, queers, theists, atheists, UFO believers, polygamists, animal rights whackos, bestiality aficionados, and so forth.
Examples of groups ‘peaceably’, for the most part, promoting their agendas are as follows:
http://www.naacp.org/
http://www.blackpanther.org/
http://www.kkk.com/
http://www.natallnews.com/
http://www.nclr.org/
http://www.bnaibrith.org/
http://www.glaad.org/
http://www.christianrights.org/
http://www.cair.com/
http://www.atheists.org/
http://ufo-news-club.ning.com/
http://www.sisterwives.net/
http://www.peta.org/
http://www.zeta-verein.de/en/
Yes - the bestiality site is based in Germany - I have always thought Germans are fucked up people, considering their bizarre history, coupled with the above site. They’re the same folks who brought us Kaiser Wilhelm, Sigmund Freud, V2s, Volkswagens, BMWs, and Adolf Hitler, Führer of the ‘Thousand Year Reich’. Yes, two of the men in the preceding sentence were considered Austrian nationals, as if there is much of a difference between Austrians and Germans, or bohunks, or even frogs or block-headed polocks for that matter.
Most if not all other sites are American, not that I even bothered to look up the WHOIS on any of the above collection of deranged weirdoes, as I don't really care who they are, and I never want to know any of them, on any level. All are undesirables in my book. It's bad enough that this nation is so Balkanized that it is on the verge of civil war - I wager those occupying the top of the list truly enjoy pouring gasoline on a raging bonfire.
Using the evidence presented above, it is time to cogitate as to whether Americans have ‘inalienable rights’, or is the First Amendment, in actual reality, nothing but contrived sophistry?
Thesis: According to the First Amendment, Americans have the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religious or anti-religious propaganda, the right to utter their opinions for good or ill, the right to peacefully assemble to discuss and promote dissenting opinions, they have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and they have the right to associate with whom they please.
Antithesis: Historical precedent plainly shows that the Federal and State governments of the United States of America can easily abridge or completely negate freedom of speech, or even freedom of religion, assembly, and association, via ‘laws’, or even decrees, as with ‘martial law’. Based on the evidence presented, all one needs to do is to review the laws passed in the twentieth century for proof of the assertion that the people truly have no rights, only privileges which can be rescinded on a whim by the governing body. Further, legal items from the 21st Century, specifically the ‘Patriot Act’, signed into law by that simpering, empty-eyed moron, George W. Bush, limit all of the above, together with violating other Amendments in and even beyond the Bill of Rights.
Synthesis: The First Amendment, regardless of all of the flowery rhetoric, is a lie.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comment at your own risk...