Here's To American Constitutional Conservatism: Not The British Variety!

(Edited)

As the New Year approaches on a new decade in a new millenium, the political landscape in the United States has fundamentally changed, of that there is no doubt.

The outrage of the American people on the continuing interventionist War in Iraq in the name of a nebulous War on Terror post 9-11 is now in its ninth year under the Obama Adminstration, continuing the Bush agendas and a "new" Congress that fundamentally hasn't changed in its support and loyalty to agendas that fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution, other than obscure the issues using partisan politics in order to gain votes at election times, and then basically continue the status quo.

The word "conservative" has been bantered about, and a plethora now of "liberty" websites can now be found on the web, again in order to obscure the agendas here and provide mainly a forum for Americans outraged with a tone deaf and rogue Administration and Congress to hear their voice.

However, more and more these sites appear to be forums for venting and organized protesting by professional protest organizers holding symposiums and conventions, with paid speakers and trinkets for commercial purposes.

Using these conventions and such in order merely to gain funding from Uncle Sam as "educational" institutions, with even disclosures that ban any "free speech" or even hint of taking legal measures as provided in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in order to remove those now in office thorough legal or Constitutional means - i.e., filing the proper lawsuits and/or criminal complaints charging those members with treason, and calling for their arrest by the public's peace "officer" in charge of such matters in the Halls of Congress as intended by the founders, the Sargeant at Arms acting on warrants - "citizens' arrest" warrants were also the 'common law" measures in days gone by before political correctness was the order of the day.

Or at least one or two of those "misrepresentative" individuals on the Hill also doing so, and filing formal charges also dictated by his oath of office, and his duty to be an advocate for the Constitution before political party, or special interest backer.

Nor do most of these afford truly any free speech with respect to also discussing true revolution and overthrow of those in Washington per the original American revolution although radical even in their time, unfortunately was their last resort and method after all though peaceful methods can also be used enmasse for an outraged public in writing petitions foregoing political correctness for actual truth - but these groups appear to be fronted and organized using the same marketing techniques as that claimed "conservative" television media source, Fox TV.

Using a lawyer or other "authority" figure for its ownership and registrar, and usually a younger blond woman as their "techie" or second in command.

Like pairing Bill O'Reilly with Meghan Kelly, or the "bring out the lawyers" type reporting of a Nancy Grace trying cases now in the media prior to even charges being filed, or using "leaks" from police or other fringe "sources" in order to sway the public now in a great many high profile criminal cases now in this country, or as can be found on the local FOX affiliated networks for their news teams.

Which is, after all, well known to be owned by a British Conservative if such a "label" is used for its political postures and positions by and large, not a U.S. Conservative one at all, Rupert Murdoch.

Use of the word "libertarian" also describes a few of the positions contained on this and many claimed "conservative" station commentators, unfortunately a libertarian is actually fundamentally just as "liberal" in Constitutional construction as the far, far left insofar as most of their positions and align more with anarchy with calls for deregulation or "privatization" of vital publicly funded U.S. industry monoplies, global corporate entities and governmental functions.

Such as support for the privatization of U.S. and state prisons, public untility companies and the airlines which have progressively occurred. Now affording foreign governments even to own controlling shares of some of America's nuclear generators in the process.

How can you have true airline security protecting American lives, when foreign governments now own controlling shares of some of those regional and national airlines, not simply internationally ones?

Wonder why so many of these "terrorism" attacks now throughout the world have only been recent occurrences?

Globalization, and erasing of national sovereignties does tend to place each and every nation at greater risk of using "merged" economic tools as the weapons of those that wish to push their political agendas, or redress their grievances on a massive scale against civilian targets not simply military - because it get far greater press nowadays. Mostly from those "global" media sources hungry to sensationize each and every incident of loss of life - with now more and more spins and reporting ad infinitum.

Remember, the 9-11 tragedy was broadcast and reported for over seven full days replaying over and over again the attack on the second tower (with full camera crews there less than an hour after the first attack, in the financial district at that, during rush hour New York traffic?

Are those targeted by the "mainstream" two political party focused as "conspiracy" theorist so far off in some of their analysis as to how far fetched and unusual some of the details of that event are now in hindsight with all the film that is now available, and shock and rage of the "post traumatic stress symdrome" American public now somewhat receding enough to get through to any American with half a brain that there are some rather disturbing questions STILL surrounding that incident contrary to "official" reports?

While 9-11 and its attacks were "claimed" by an extremist Muslim groups, now it appears with the global unrest now going on, on a different scale, how many disturbed people during hunts for high profile crimes in the past in this country have claimed responsibility simply for the media attention alone?

Or with the media now being used by the government as a tool for national security in order to also now target and terrorize the American people themselves with their "watch lists" and "political ideology" profiles, even using the Bill of Rights "unalienable" (God-given rights) to somehow justify believing your average American believing in those inherent rights now and outraged at the progressive striping of them after an internal attack actually by foreigners (and the shoe bomber was also British, remember) "terorists" to be "watched."

Seems to me this is a case of the extremists in Washington now attempting to pull rank on the citizenry as tyrants, not representatives of the people but their "stakeholders" and global corporations most of all, corporations that actually have no allegiance at this point to any country whatsoever - with the U.S. media a primary global corporate entity at this point, with its foreign subsidiaries, and correspondents.

British conservatism still acknowledges the "sovereign" (monarch or in this instance, Washington and the President) as the source of all true power, any and all representations to the contrary, or somehow has now focused on calling for the states to file petitions and resolutions "reasserting" state sovereignty throughout the nation, although the 10th Amendment actually speaks for itself and needs no further "resolves."

This is something the British Conservative wouldn't understand in thedifferences between "their" conservatism, and "ours" since there are no "states" really in Britain, simply "subjects" of the realm.

And actually, in prior the 9th Amendment actually supercedes the 10th, affording the American people actually sovereignty from both federal and state government, outside their proscribed Constitutional duties and functions under both the U.S., and each state's Constitution(s).

"Res Ipsa Loquitor" is the standard under over 700 years of common law precedent in actually the powers and duties given to the judiciary in Constitutional interpretation in America as based in its "Republican" form of government, with the government actually subservient to the people with respect especially to those Bill of Rights protections included which are quite different than Britains. "The thing as it is written and speaks."

This provision, however, is not acknowledged either by the British Conservative networks, although select judicial decisions have been disputed - nor as with the AIG bailout, even mentioning the "foreign" nature of that British based corporation to begin with, rather simply disputing the "bail out" of a select insurance provider at the cost of the American people.

Not its illegality under the U.S. Constitution in even entertaining "billing" the American people for a non-U.S. domiciled global corporation - based, of course, in Britain, although apparently "run" by an American, operating out of the British Mayfair office.

Huh? Who sits on its Board? Primarily, the British, of course. With Americans influence diluted by the composition of its Board.

An American Conservative recognizes that the War in '76 was as much about "taxation without representation" as it was about unlawful taxation for a globally produced product that was given a "monopoly" by the sovereign, demanding that the U.S. colonials pay for an inferior product, and then an "extra" fee by the sovereign for so providing.

It was a public/private partnership that the colonials had no "voice" whatsoever in its "monopoly" over something so cherished by them as the freedom to select the type and brand of tea they wished to drink, or a number of other products that the East India Company was given "sovereign rights" to with respect to the U.S. market.

Sort of like some of our global and U.S. Fortune 500 corporations, and enforced taxation now for auto insurance and the pending health care deform bills.

Forced taxation and "exclusivity" now in "associations" of these large major manufactures, financial service providers, and even home builders, without any real recourse nor regulation for the citizenry absent huge, expensive, and cost prohibited now litigation for any "breaches," and with respect to mandatory auto insurance, transfer of a governmental power (settlement of property claims and disputes) to a third party without by the consent of the governed, or effective legislation and regulatory powers over them protecting the people from "corporate" abuse.

Just think what the new health care deform bill will be like insofar as costs and the smoke and mirrors that will go on with this new public/private partnership being entered into between the sovereign and the health care providers that will be on those "approved" lists insofar as denied claims, or excessive increases in premium amounts - since there is absolutely no provision for any regulatory agency charged with oversight, or fines or penalties levied against those insurance providers - simply the people once again.

British Conservatives believe in removing even the minimal in many cases existing regulation at both the federal and state levels in the name of "freedom" for those global and national concerns, a position which is diametrically opposed to the positions of those "Indians" that boarded that ship in Boston Harbor those many years ago.


And also support the War on Terror as a "just war" and redress of the attacks of 9-11, no matter how far afield at this point it has gone from the "just war" and "defensive" war provisions in the U.S. Constitution itself.

They are also the onces that support curtailing immigration from the South using whatever "state" methods work - including barricades and blockades within metropolitan city limits and using "search and seizure" methods without either warrants, or again within neighborhoods and communities - and not simply at state, county or federal boundaries and borders.

In other words, British Conservatives believe that the "end justifies the means," and that the states do not have any obligation to adhere to the Bill of Rights with respect to recognizing that in so doing, you are violating also legal American citizens with such methods and creating actually war zone conditions within city neighborhoods and civil unrest by those very methods.

Destroying communities, supporting unjust wars, and offering and supporting global monopolies of vital U.S. industries, real estate and land, and America's very infrastructure is not at all "conservative" nor "American" even for the "greater good," which is actually communism and socialism - but global socialism and communism, not even national socialism and communism.

It is British sovereignty with the "government" and "sovereign" above the people, and actually more aligned with global communism at its core.

Or a British form of "government" and takeover of America, only this time from the inside, since many of the banks which actually fund and "underwrite" those debt notes issued by the Federal Reserve are European, mainly British, banks. And even those in the U.S. with heavy European and British connections also such as Goldman Sachs, and Lehrmann Brothers - two that were recipients of "bailout" monies.

Such beliefs quite obviously spread on BOTH sides of the now fabricated and "false" two party system.

Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, said it best years ago, one who was branded a "war monger" during Viet Nam due to political party propaganda, but actually made these quotes, and voted his "conscience" as an American conservative:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. pg 15. The Conscience of A Conservative (1960)

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.

Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

I told Johnson and old colleagues on Capitol Hill that we had two clear choices. Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within a year, or pull out all our troops and come home.


Here's to the return of true American sovereignty and Constitutional Conservatism in 2010, and return to Constitutional government, "of the people, by the people, for the people," and not special interests, or global socialism!

And an understanding of the true meaning and motivations of that Boston Tea party so long ago!

Freedom from "global" foreign influence, ownership or control.