"Constitution" (a.k.a. re-incorporation) Day

222 years ago the FIRST corporation that colonial Americans had lived under was 'modified'. That's what it says in the 'Preamble' to the 1787 Constitution. A mere nine years after the founders of the nation had formed a Confederacy, they were forming a 'more perfect' union among the States. That union was ALREADY called The United States of America, according to Article I of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

So . . . what was wrong with the FIRST United States of America?

For one thing, there is no mention of individuals (referred to as 'inhabitants' of the States) having any 'rights'. They are granted 'privileges', but no rights are mentioned except those enjoyed by the States. Nice to see that some of those same men eventually recognized this as lacking in the first contract, and corrected it in the second (only by amendment, as if in hindsight), but that is not the point of this post. The purpose is to point out that BOTH documents were literally articles of INCORPORATION.

Or didn't you get that when you were studying 'government' in high school? Your teachers didn't tell you (probably because they themselves hadn't thought in these terms?) that this was a compact, an agreement, a contract between STATES, and the men who 'belonged' to those States. It was probably not explained to you, nor did you stop to think about it, because your English instructors didn't give you a proper grounding in the language, that (as is so clearly pointed out toward the end of the Preamble to the 1787 Constitution) this new, or modified corporation, was set up for the benefit of THOSE men who signed it and THEIR posterity.

It was not set up for your benefit. It was not set up for the benefit of anybody else living at that time. It was set up for the landed gentry of the day, specifically the ones who actually signed the document, their CHILDREN and descendants (see Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary definition of the word 'posterity', if you don't believe this), anybody who followed them in their offices, of course, and NOBODY else.

So, my question is: why do we keep 'defending' this document with our lives, our children's lives, and our fortunes if the ONLY beneficiaries of the corporation are the wealthy who hold those offices and THEIR children?

Something to think about . . .

In the 234th year of our "declared" independence . . .

Thus begins our 234th year of 'declared' independence from the British Crown, our 'perceived' independence from rule by pretenders to the aristocracy. But are we really free of that influence and power?

One might argue that point, as 'The Informer' and James Montgomery do in their writings which can be found on these two websites:

http://www.atgpress.com

http://www.civil-liberties.com/books

When one digests all that is presented there, one sees that we have NEVER been free of control by England or the forces concentrated there - specifically 'The City' of London - and I make the distinction between that global trading arena and the city of London. Look it up. Until one realizes that we are STILL controlled and manipulated by political and economic forces far larger than we can imagine, one is incapable of grasping that we are, quite literally, slaves to one degree or another. Nothing has changed over the centuries. Our forefathers knew that on this day 234 years ago. They knew that something had to be done about their condition, else they would soon become slaves in fact, and not just in theory or through their pocketbooks. They were probably already talking about the "R" word (and the attendant "T" word) in pubs all across New England. How many of them knew, I wonder, that before the year was out, they would see the signing of a document that cemented all their hopes into one idea - that we ARE and do declare our independence from the usurpers of the world.

How many could have even guessed that 234 years AFTER that declaration, we would of necessity be considering the "R" word again, and for much the same reasons? This is likely going to be the year we either resolve to throw off the economic and political chains once again, and perhaps for good this time, or slide down that slippery slope to oblivion.

Boston - 234 years ago

It was on this night that a beginning was made in 'the new world', and an old world began to come to an end. That old world, ruled by a despot, acceded to by smaller minded would-be despots, reached across the globe. Indeed, it was said that "The Sun never sets on the British Empire", as it had colonies on nearly every continent. But, as the Sun slowly set in the West on this one night, men who were bone-weary of that tyrant's ever increasing greed, paid for with taxes on almost every essential item of life, and the enforcement of his rule by his far-flung henchmen, gathered to demonstrate their resolve to end that rule. Before the night was over, 342 wooden chests of tea had been dumped into Boston Harbor from the 3 ships that held them. 200 men, dressed up as Mohawks, had done the deed, out of a crowd of some 5,000 - 7,000 people who had gathered at the docks. About 4% of the gathered crowd had decided to act, rather than just merely complain about the 'tea tax' and then submissively pay it. That was about 2% of the estimated population of Boston.

History shows that about 2% of the people are required to make any significant change. It was estimated that about 2% of the American colonial population desired freedom from tyranny, about 2% were Royalists (loyal to the Crown) and the rest couldn't be bothered with fighting for the freedoms that they enjoyed - at the cost of 4,435 lives and 6,188 wounded, out of the estimated 217,000 who eventually fought in that war. Luckily another 5% of the colonial population saw the light and threw in with the 2% who started the war for independence.

Today it would take about 1.5 million to free this country from the oppression we face in the coming years. That's based on an approximate 70 million males old enough to actually do something. That's if they could first be convinced there actually IS something worth fighting for, other than their 9-5 barely more than minimum wage jobs, Monday night football and a Wally World on every other corner selling toxic Chinese toys to their children.

I wonder if we're capable of changing things around in time to avoid the eventual "Mad Max" scenario Mssrs. Miller and Gibson so prophetically outlined for us 28 years ago. Can we bring an end to this nightmare world we have so complacently accepted, or is it about to bring an end to us?

All endings must have a beginning . . .

In the first days of Autumn, after much reflection on the past few years, my recently passed older teachers and friends, and my own mortality, I begin.

These thoughts are not intended to be so much a long-running epitaph (though they may turn out to be exactly that) as much as an instruction to a younger, more vigorous generation on the state of things - both seen and unseen. Perhaps they will show a way forward out of the mess America has become in the late 20th - early 21st century. Perhaps these youthful people I direct my words to will take the hint and actually DO something about it, instead of acceding to the thought control so all-pervasive and prevalent among the "XYZ (read:TV) generation".

And so . . . on to the bean field.