The Democratic Socialist State of "America"

[Litequeer]

The Democratic Socialist State of "America"

by Bobby Garner
June 20, 2005


Why do politicians speak so patriotically and proudly about "America" but almost never mention the "United States" except to imply "America"?

Our constitution established a federal government which functioned as a servant of the people. The people were sovereign citizens of one of the several states united and the job of the federal government was to protect and regulate commercial intercourse between the several states, and deal with foreign powers. No state could exercise any of those powers "delegated" to the federal government, and the federal government could not exercise any powers NOT delegated. It exercised authority exclusively over those state governments (not the people) which decided to join under it. It had absolutely zero authority over the people of any state. The only government directly affecting the people resided in the states capitals. The highest official elected directly by the people was the County Sheriff. All other government agencies (state and federal) had to come through him before interacting directly with the people. That protective barrier, a standard feature of the united states as a republic is unknown in the Democratic Socialist State (singular) of "America". This fact alone is positive proof that the constitutional republic both demanded and established by the Constitution of 1789 is no more.

Since the constitution does not apply to a democratic government and is therefore NOT legally binding on a democratic government, the Democratic Socialist State of "America" has no constitution. The sworn oaths to uphold one are empty and dead on arrival. Most politicians who take this oath are either ignorant of the facts, or well aware that it is for show only.

The most dramatic change in this structure of political power came as a result of the military conquest by the federal government of the southern states at the close of the Civil War. In war, the winner takes all, and Federal occupation of the southern states soon spread to every state in the union. At first it was under the guise of "winning" the west, government regulated railroads, and wagon trains heading west all of which seemed innocent enough were the grounds for justifying this giant power grab. Taken together it all served to set the "precedent" which in legal jargon allows extension of federal government tentacles into every aspect of todays American life. It is in fact an American government with NO resemblance to our constitutional republic.

When Abraham ("I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends") Lincoln pronounced "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" he was in fact announcing the new 'Democratic Socialist "State" of America. You didn't know ol' Abe was a socialist because you have been kept ignorant of that fact. It is a fact which becomes obvious when you look at his favorite admirers and the things which they support. Lyndon H. LaRouche for example groups him along with Franklin Roosevelt whose legacy is the 1930's New Deal socialist programs. LaRouche is a great historian and economist, and we can learn a lot from him, because he explains a lot of the details of what is happening and the history behind it, but we need not accept his politics. One of the best reasons for that is his use of such terms as "a forced-draft development of the labor-force" The Coming Scientific Revolution.

We the people have become the chattel property and slaves of this new and unauthorized government whose only constitutional concerns are limited to finding clever ways to circumvent it's former strangle hold on the concentration of federal power while holding it up as a relic worthy of worship by the true believers. It is the defacto American government. The several states of America united, ceased to exist at the end of the Civil War. Our pitiful state governments are nothing but surrogate nurse maids administering the distribution of federal funds through thousands of programs from public schools and social welfare to law enforcement, war on drugs, crime and many "normal" human activities where constitutional rights, freedoms and liberties have been infringed.

The now powerful federal judicial system has purview over all manner of activities which were once the responsibilities of the states. The states criminal law has been trumped by federal law such as those dealing with hate crimes and sex crimes for example. We pledge allegiance to the federal flag, and we declare ourselves and our children to be federal US citizens. With all crime now being a federal offense, the prosecutor's are the new slave master wielding the whip of fear and intimidation from possible violation of some draconian law which no human eye has even seen.

New hate crime, sex crime and many other laws are now triggered by as little as an anonymous phone call to 911. That fact coupled with the fact that the accused may no longer have the right to face his accuser is tyranny of the highest order. People are asked to call 911 if they see any "suspicious" activity knowing that suspicion is like beauty, it rest only in the eye of the beholder. How does one avoid looking suspicious to someone? There is no effective defense against suspicion. When local, state and federal police and prosecutor's can drag someone out of their bedrooms at 3 am without warrants, hold them indefinitely without formal charge, confiscate their possessions without recourse, then finally prosecute them in a case built upon circumstantial evidence which they themselves help to create through their funded alphabet soup organizations, this is Gestapo tyranny American style!

It's democracy at it's best, and the true believers enjoin with the tyrant, "If you're not with us, you're against us", "Love it or leave it!".

The State of America stands naked and void of any legitimate cover, and very few understand that fact let alone point it out as the little boy watching the Emperor's parade exclaimed, "but mommy, the Emperor has no cloth's!". Shhhhh! she whispered, "The Emperor is very proud of his new suit".

The Three United States
Steps toward Global Mind Control under the banner of Mental Health and Education


Bobby Garner is a researcher on the phenomenon of One-Worldism with an emphasis on the methods and techniques employed in it's attendant deception without which the New World Order cannot happen. He may be reached via E-mail from http://www.congregator.net/pages/contact.html. He welcomes your comments. Visit his website www.congregator.net This article may be posted in it's entirety on any website provided this statement remains attached.

[Litequeer]

The Con Game Called Democracy

Autumn looms and presidential elections will soon roll around, like droppings pushed by dung beetles. We will be exhorted to vote. Better advice would be not to vote. The proper response toward what we occasionally imagine to be democracy, methinks, is to retain one’s self-respect by not participating in it.
Voting in particular is an embarrassment, being a public display of weak character and low intelligence. Let us face the truth: Democracy, like spitting in public or the Roman games, is the proper activity of the lower intellectual and moral classes. It amounts to collusion in one's own suckering.

The United States of course is not a democracy but a wonderfully crafted pretense. We have separated the results of elections from the formulation of policy. It is a neat trick: Voting distracts the rabble without disturbing the government. You cannot possibly – can you? – believe that your vote will change anything of importance? That it will end the flood of semi-literate Mexican proletarians who join our own? Divert the schools from their ghettoish apotheosis of the mentally lame and halt? Cause governmental behavior to rely on merit instead of race, creed, color, sex, and national origin?

No. These things are determined remotely by lobbies, by criminals, and by forces that have no name. If you are lucky, you may be able to change parking regulations.

Given that democracy is pointless, and participation in it a sign of a weak mind, what is the wisest attitude toward the government?

That of a tick toward a cow. Nothing else makes sense. The central question of American government is not what mountebank shall be president or what eructations of mendacity he may devise. The question, almost the only question, is whether the government can get more from you than you can get from it. One picks pockets, or one’s pockets are picked.

The clever or well represented – the racial lobbies, defense industry, teachers unions, feminists, AIPAC, big pharma, oil, corporations – suck money from the government. In turn the government gnaws like a hagfish at the entrails of middle-class people moldering in cubicles. These spend their lives in jobs they hate to buy things they don’t want, such as half-million-dollar houses in the suburbs, so as to pay taxes. Elections give them a sense of having a stake in their flensing: The government is their hagfish.

Clearly taking part in this is unwise. What then do you do?

First, and most important, stop regarding yourself as part of government. Government doesn’t concern itself with you; why should you concern yourself with it? The change of attitude provides both relaxation and perspective.

Next, avoid governmental impositions. There are many. Military service is the worst of them. Don’t go. A little man in Washington, whom you have never met and wouldn’t talk to over a back fence, tells you to kill people who have done nothing to you in a foreign country you may never have heard of. Does this seem reasonable?

Finally, cultivate apathy, which is cheaper than ****** and works better. You do not worry about what you do not care about. I do not propose a depressed scowl at life, but merely a wholesome indifference toward those forces malign and otherwise over which you can have no influence.

Better yet, enjoy the onrushing atrophy. Is the United States going to hell, western civilization being subverted, knaves scuttling like fetid crabs through the corridors of power and nitwits ravaging the schools in the manner of monkeys in a fruit store? (Yes, actually.) Relish it for the splendid historical theater that it is. A better spectacle there cannot be.

I say this seriously. If you regard yourself as audience rather than participant, the accelerating collapse becomes entertainment. You read each morning’s headlines with zest to see what new and preposterous clownishness erupts from Washington. It is high comedy. Just now Mr. Bush wants to tighten the embargo on Cuba because of its violations of human rights; meanwhile Mr. Bush is running a torture camp at Guantanamo. We have a war on poverty that perpetuates poverty, a war on drugs that guarantees availability by keeping prices up.

I doubt that Mark Twain could make such things up.

A huge gap separates those who, on the one hand, eat their souls up over things they can’t change, and those who, on the other, focus on their friends, family, children. You probably have a sense of what is right, wrong, moral, decent, and just. To these, I say, you owe allegiance. To nothing else.

A wholesome apathy does not mean giving up a love of music or travel or dogs or books or contemplation of starry skies should the pollution clear momentarily. Nor does it mean lack of concern for those around you. It does mean, or more correctly require, moral self-determination insofar as it is possible.

The wise recognize that they are insignificant atoms and set their course accordingly. Yes, in a small town enjoying sovereignty over its institutions, participation might make sense. You might expect to have an influence over matters material to you. If you wanted the high school to offer advanced classes in mathematics for your advanced child, you would stand a reasonable chance of persuading the school board, and finding a volunteer teacher if need be.

But today you are merely a minor source of taxes. It is reasonable therefore to regard governments not as enemies – they are larger than you are and will usually win – but as intricate puzzles. If the government won’t school your children, do you home-school? Move to France? Can you qualify for some form of welfare and have the government support you instead of you, it? Are laws more to your liking in Thailand?

To what, then, you might ask, does one owe allegiance? A better question might be: Why should one owe allegiance to any distant group beyond one’s influence? Yes, I know: The dog-pack instinct dominates human behavior. It is why we have wars and teen-age gangs and attach ourselves furiously to football teams. Patriotism, meaning an irrational attachment to whatever country we were born in, comes naturally. But does it come reasonably? To use the tired but effective example, should you be loyal to your country’s government if it begins operating torture camps in, say, Bergen-Belsen or Treblinka or, once more, Guantanamo?

Or should you do what you believe to be right, decline to be herded like cattle, and live decently in the interstices of things? These at least are choices not as humiliating as voting. Those who wash regularly should not stoop to democracy.

Copyright © 2004 Fred Reed