My good friend Ralph inspired this blog by sending me a link to an article entitled
“The Covert Agenda Behind the Occupy Wall Street Protests.”
What caught my attention (besides the main point of this article) was a video by Garret Lo Porto entitled “The Wayseer Manifesto.” You may have seen this video on YouTube recently. After this upbeat and empowering video, one may feel inspired to feel “special” about themselves (a common tactics of cults). Lo Porto’s video then ends without offering a viable solution to your “new empowerment.” Why? One must look as to the motivation of the author.
The key to understanding this video is the knowledge you have already gained by your involvement with Herbie’s religious cult, the Worldwide Church of God. So the next question is, who is Garret LoPorto, the author of the video below?
This man is a psychologist. In the article I linked to above, he is quoted as saying “If you want people to believe in your brand, (and share that belief with others), your brand must be evolved into a cult brand. If you want buzz; if you want viral marketing; if you want sky-high conversion rates and you want customers to not just be customers, but total converts, then you’ve come to the right consulting firm.”
Here is the video, “The Wayseer Manifesto.”
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDaiFfY78a4
So did you spot the cult tactics?
Below are two very good videos that refute LoPorto’s video.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS5l3ODroHo&feature=related
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXeWPi8IHqk&feature=related
As you can see, cult tactics are not only used by religious charlatans, but marketing firms who replace your current ideology with a brand new one! Its called “The Haircut.”
Well done. I’m reminded of a statement by my hero Philip Slater back in the sixties. What you see are thousands of people slavishly conforming to the principle of non-conformity.
Judge Napolitano on Fox News has a video on wars and rumors of war”.
Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com
And if that don’t work, click n this:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1269071638001/
I began studying the history of law several years ago, and discovered that it consisted mainly of two basic branches, one known as common law, and another as civil law.
You can find the basic concepts of common law by reading Blackstone. You will also see that common law and “due process” were equated as being one and the same, so that in the Fifth Amendment, the due process clause refers to common law protections, over which the Supreme Court had no general jurisdiction, as stated by Chief justice John Marshall in “United States vs. Aaron Burr”.
In fact, Blackstone points out that common law does not recognize the authority of civil law. And what is civil law?
“civil law
n.
1. The body of laws of a state or nation dealing with the rights of private citizens.
2. The law of ancient Rome as embodied in the Justinian code, especially that which applied to private citizens.
3. A system of law having its origin in Roman law, as opposed to common law or canon law.”
Civil law is connected to Roman law, the Justinian Code. If you look at the introductory passages of the Justinian Code, it makes the interesting declaration that if you are not Roman Catholic in your beliefs, you are legally insane!
But more importantly, he did the founders recognize the relationship between common law and civil law or rights under civil law?
For this we can turn to James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, in Federalist 51:
“Whilst all authority in it[federal government]will be derived from, and dependent ON THE SOCIETY, the society itself will be broken in to so many parts, interests, classes, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or the minority, will be in little danger from INTERESTED COMBINATION OF THE MAJORITY…”
What Madison writes next is very important, because he specifically links civil rights, NOT to the power of the federal government or federal courts, but to an entirely different level of power.
“In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects…”
We know from the Fifth Amendment that no person ca n be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, defined by Justice Joseph Story as common law. Such due process, under the Fifth Amendment, renders due process to the control of the states, as we also see Madison writing in Federalist 46. “The powers reserved to the states will extend to all objects which…concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”.
So we know plainly from Madison;s statement that due process is reserved to the states, under common law, since due process IS common law, referring to life, liberty, and property of the people.
But what of civil law and civil rights? Madison writes that they are to be treated the same as religious rights. And what does the Constitution say of religious rights? “Congress shall make no law…”
Does Congress have authority over civil law and civil rights? Not according to Madison, and not according to the Constitution. The very act of passing civil laws by majority would contradict Madison’s own statement, above. Since SCOTUS has no general jurisdiction over common law, all power regarding due process AND civil rights are reserved TO THE STATES. Obamacare, anyone?
“no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”
Unless they are suspected of being terrorists (or a million other things).
In our state, we have property taxes. This must be based on the premise that we all are merely commodities, slaves for the powerful, livestock, which neither have any real rights nor own anything: If the government can take it away if we don’t pay taxes on it, that means the government owns it.
Imminent domain, my foot! The government has taken away private property to give to developers for what turned out to be a failed shopping mall.
Nice theories, Ralph. How do we get our rights? We don’t seem to have any.
Douglas, the only way to do it is to LEARN for ourselves. Funny, but it seems the universe exists for just that purpose. I recently went to court over a seatbelt charge. The judge loked at me and asked “Were you wearing your seatbelt?”
“That’s what i was accused of”.
“That’s not what I asked. Were you wearing it?”
“Isn’t there something called the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination?”
The judge looks at me, tries to stare me down, but I’ve stared down so many marines in my time I stare right back. He finally says “Your constitutional rights come second to the compelling interest of the state”.
When the judge tells you an outright lie, and you can prove him wrong, as I did by quoting from SCOTUS decisions, you have two basic choices:
1.You can look for others to agree with you, or build some kin d of consensus
2.You can declare that your rights exist regardless of what the stupid ass judge tells you, and go to jail.
And of course, the third bullshit option, pay the fine and meekly walk away.
I have come to believe that we are being tested every day of our lives as to what we choose, how we live, and what responsibilities we take for obvious evils, God or no God.
Whatever decision you make, it will be yours and no one else’s, along with the consequences.
What your rights have become under the current established society:
“I spent 33 years in the Marines….most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Buisiness, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”
-Marine General Smedley Butler (1881-1940)
War is a Racket.
“The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –
yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
Why shouldn’t they?
They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!
Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.
Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.
Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn’t be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.
There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.
A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.”
Gives me goose bumps every time I read it.
The founders of the US had a much clearer understanding of the intent of Constitutional law than we do now. Many, if not most, like those in England during the same period, could argue law with the intensity of any lawyer. As to the difference between civil law and common law, the people git very upset over a statement in Article III of the Constitution, declaring that SCOTUS would have appellate jurisdiction bot as to law and fact.
As Justice Story pointed out in his commentaries, “appellate” referred specifically to CIVIL LAW. This triggered instant warning bells, because the colonists had demanded, in the Declaration of Rights in 1774, that the common law was their birthright. One who called him/her self “A Democratic Federalist” correctly pointed out “The word ‘appeal’, if I understand it right, in its proper signification, includes the fact as well as the law, and precludes every idea of a trial by jury”.
In fact, the word “appellate” DID appy specifically to civil law which came from Europe and Rome.Justice Story declared that appellate jurisdiction as to law and fact applied only to maritime and admiralty courts, and those specific exceptions listed in Article III.
Recently in debates, moron Gingrich declared that 5th Amendment protections applied only to criminal law, not laws regarding combatants. In fact, the law is simple: ” nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law(common law)”. The only exemption under the 5th Ame ndment regardng war a nd military was the necessity of a grand jury.
We know that the emphasis was on state and not federal jurisdiction for two reasons, one which I quoted Madison earlier in “Federalist 47”, and the fact that national defense depended on STATE MILITIAS, not a standing federal army. Actions against the federal government, therefore, were to be judged by due process, wich was reserved to the states. The model for such actions of war and treason was established in “United States vs Aaron Burr”.
I also know from study of origins of the 5th Amendment that the right against self incrimination, as SCOTUS recognized in “Miranda v Arizona”, can be traced to biblical origins. In fact, it was Talmudic law when Jesus was allegedly tried for crimes. (See Leonard Levy’s Pultzer Prize winning book, “Origins of the Fifth Aendment”)