The ever widening schism that exists between the Public and the Apparatchiks of Politics is a subject that seems largely ignored and yet the casuistry in support of its occurrence is an incredibly fertile source for why Americans should step aside from the faux-reality of political rhetoric and see it all for what it truly is.
A supreme act of defiance dedicated solely to the expansion and preservation of orchestrated tyranny. The ability to step beyond and outside the boundaries of reason and into the ethereal domain of the specious and apocryphal; the eternal flaw of bias which accommodates any version of the less-then-factual just so long as there is no burden of truth the underlying premise being: We are entitled to say precisely whatever we want so long as we are never required to state what it truly is.
In the end, this is what happens when you vote-in Ideology and ignore-out the Ideal.
From a veritable cornucopia of available examples there are two in particular which high-light the cage-free zoo and both are presently playing out in the temporal firmament.
The Fading Constitutional Ideal:
This past week Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.” Key to understanding Panetta’s Ideology requires one to target two specific words: “permission” and “inform”. Further and more damning is his use of the phrase; “…whether or not we would want….”
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Al) took Mr. Panetta to task for his select use of words and he makes the point of my concern in his direct inquiry which followed the Secretary of Defense’s assertion: “Well I’m troubled by that. I think it does weaken the ability of the United States to lead. I do think ultimately you need the legal authority from the United States of America, not from any other extra-territorial group that might assemble.” Sessions attempted to give Panetta the opportunity to step-down from his overt crippling of an implicit Constitutional foundation barring unilateral action of any kind and yet he persisted with his position that Congress was, in essence, outside the chain-of-authority leaving the Senator to refine the point at issue:
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat; I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.” Thank you Senator Sessions for reminding the Secretary and anyone else who might be sufficiently alert that there remains and Ideal; one which must always trump Ideology.
If there is no faithful adherence to the Ideal which lays back of the abstract notion of what becomes The Law then the Sovereign Individual has no means by which their Unalienable Right remains superior to the impulse of those, who by the convenience of situational authority, are driven to universally subvert it.
Now then if we are willing to align ourselves with the thought that the Ideal of the Sovereign Individual and their Unalienable Right remains valid then you must then find any extension and occurrence of the very Panetta-esque risk very troubling; this very risk exists simultaneously in the ever-expanding practice of judicial-subversion an example of which is as follows:
The Next Great Crisis of the Mindless & the Mad:
While it is true that the British have nothing similar to the American Bill of Rights (the U.K. has nothing approaching a Constitution) the issue at hand rests on a series of dynamic conflicts: (1.) The outcome of mindless secularism. (2.) What occurs absent an Unalienable Right. And, (3.) The Madness of suspending Individual Sovereign Right to the abstract of a governing body detached and ambivalent to the Individual Corporal Form; all this from the Nation who gave the world the Magna Carta.
The British Government has now taken upon itself to assert that U.K. Christians have no right to wear a cross or a crucifix. Now then if this sort of lunacy is insufficient to stir one’s concern then perhaps consider this: Nadia Ewedia, a British Airways employee, and Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, apparently have only one apparent course of action available to them in order to preserve their right to wear a crucifix; they are forced to appeal their case to the European Court of Human Rights. A British Citizen(s) is now subject to the ECHR which is located in Strasbourg, France! Don’t you find this a bit New World Oderish?
Both women have been sanctioned by their respective employers however the U.K. Government’s “Equities” (yes, believe it or not – the U.K. has thought Police just like the good U.S. of A.) Minister, Lynne Featherstone, a Neo-Neanderthal is holding firm on her stated position and Government lawyers will argue that “…wearing a visible cross or crucifix” is not a generally “recognized form of practicing the Christian faith….” I suppose that there may be some pertinence to this statement particularly if we consider that if one appears in the corporal form that we’ve grown accustomed to recognizing as being human then in truth, as we see in the case of Ms. Featherstone, we must also consider that they may not be a Human Being at all but merely a degenerative form masquerading as one; yes, a Neo-Neanderthal might be quite right after all.
The lingering issue of course is the subsuming of a British Subject, Ms. Ewedia and Ms. Chaplin, to an authority beyond and arguably above the British State. We of course have the very same problem in the U.S. specifically in the case of the United Nations and in the increasing frequency were what is deemed The Law is suspended in favor of a State Bureaucracy, Foreign Court or Statute.
What’s the Point:
So then you might be prone to ask: So what’s the point? Well here it is: As this Nation moves closer to November 2012 and as we study the various Candidacy Rhetoric and the state-by-state processes one can be left with no other conclusion but that Ideology continues to rule and the Ideal is all but lost to the toxic ether at every level of the election process. The Romney Campaign is a mirror image of McCain’s failed 2008 affair and the President is simply duplicating the very same methods he employed in his efforts to acquire the Oval Office. Romney drives away voters due to his benign and uninspiring mantra and the President, as it presently stands, might very well win a second term due to Romney’s overwhelming success at being uninspiring; not unlike John McCain. Without a doubt, we are being far too submissive to the process.
The Ideological march continues to wage on and the Public is falling for it with barely a whimper. Second only to not permitting a second-term Presidency in 2012 is to prevent Mr. Romney from gaining a first-term; as a President he is incompatible with a future that is deferential to the sacred American Ideal.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder