There seems to be a well-coordinated effort to attack this citizenry from every side, not only to rob us of our liberties (and money), but also to divide us so that there is little hope that we will ever find enough common ground to turn things around. Until "we the pawns" understand the enemy that is undermining our liberties, there really is no hope of finding cooperation between current political thoughts in this country.

::::::::

(Article changed on September 23, 2013 at 20:27)

(Article changed on September 22, 2013 at 14:09)

If you are at all interested in this article by its title, then you likely have been following the downward trend of the United States of America and the associated civil liberties that came with the birth of this nation.  There seems to be a well-coordinated effort to attack this citizenry from every side, not only to rob us of our liberties (and money), but also to divide us so that there is little hope that we will ever find enough common ground to turn things around.  Until "we the pawns" understand the enemy that is undermining our liberties, there really is no hope of finding cooperation between current political thoughts in this country.  The negative attitudes exchanged from all sides are overwhelmingly disheartening.  I have friends on multiple sides of the political spectrum, and the hatred exhibited in postings and forwarded graphics only serves to cement the "divide and conquer" strategy to which we find ourselves being subjected.
 

Appreciating what we do have

In the matter of protecting our rights, I am a proponent of working with what exists--namely, the Constitution--as, in our present circumstances, this would be more likely to ensure the protection of the rights that previous generations have enjoyed.   I am acutely aware that many have little to no respect for the Constitution any longer and often believe that hopes and appeals to it are useless in today's world (see here and here).   Hopefully, my small contribution here will help to minimize the damage such negative opinions of the Constitution may have propagated among the populace. 

I might first remind you that the framers were not totally happy with the Constitution as signed, either.   I suppose we should not chide anyone for that belief today, but what of an alternative?   Some have suggested either replacing the Constitution with something totally different, creating a new constitution, or completely overhauling the existing one.   We have been seeing tremendous pressure on the dollar both from large, failed corporations and from their government cronies, who have been providing them with bail-outs using our monetary resources and labor, all on top of the efforts to destroy our rights (probably a coordinated assault--deep politics at work).   But consider what kind of influence the "banksters" (as we have come to define them, thus far) would likely have in such a process.   Today, we see their undeniable influence in both the legislative and executive branches, so it is doubtful we would ever be able to prevent them from influencing a convention.   Predicted result:   By allowing any major change in the foundation of our government, we would likely lose much more than we would gain as a people.  

Coordinated efforts, as I interpret them, to make the U.S. and its people into an expendable or inconsequential entity have been utilizing subtle steps to reach that point.  The idea of the freedoms represented by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, along with a nation that recognizes (or used to recognize) inalienable rights just does not sit right with super-elites that seek total control.  They see it as their calling to be our managers.  One of the best ways I have heard it expressed was in a movie: A Face in the Crowd, which was a major event of Andy Griffith's career.  He played the part of a country drifter who finds himself thrust into the national spotlight because of his humorous talents.  Enter an influential elitist who sees the potential to sway the masses through the television appearances of Griffith's character.  Leading up to his desire to use Griffith in this way, he states, "[M]y study of history has convinced me that in every strong society from the Egyptians on, the masses had to be guided with a strong hand by a responsible elite" (spoken by the character General Haynesworth).

Let's take a look at how elites manipulate our view of the Constitution to help their goal of eliminating it.   This will be presented from the viewpoint of an amateur (myself) against the wise and learned experts that the elite enlist to slyly move public opinion against the Constitution.   I like amateur interpretations better because the Constitution was written for the common man and was meant to be understood by him.   About a year ago, I had the chance to attend a Constitution Day event at a local Purdue campus given by Professor Frank J. Colucci, who stated that he thought it dangerous to leave the Constitution only to courts, judges and lawyers, and that the document was never meant to be complicated.     He quoted Chief Justice John Marshall in speaking of the lack of legalese in the Constitution, and that if it had been wordy in that way, it "could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public" (taken from McCulloch v. Maryland ).  Professor Colucci further commented that Constitutional arguments--whatever their basis in legal reasoning, rhetoric, and precedent--ought to be accessible to the public.
 

Expert manipulation of our views of the Constitution

Expert opinion (A):   Source--National Archives and Records Administration, Assertion--"When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights."

Amateur opinion:   Virginia 's Declaration of Rights was written in 1776, whereas when Virginia ratified the Constitution in 1788, they submitted a list of suggested rights to be included in a bill of rights along with the official ratification document.   From a perusal of the language of both the 1776 Declaration and the 1788 proposals, we see considerable language from the newer document that made it into the Bill of Rights, but which was never included in the earlier 1776 Declaration.   Therefore, the National Archives err in asserting that Madison was more influenced by the older document, thereby ignoring the more important language he actually took from the newer thoughts gleaned from the experience of the American Revolution.   The omission has the effect of changing the history of how our Bill of Rights came to us.  

Examples:

1) "that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others", which made it into our current First Amendment as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The 1776 Declaration had no such language.

2) "freedom of speech" stated in the 1788 proposal, which phrase does not appear in the 1776 Declaration (it only included "freedom of the press").

3) Our current Third Amendment, re: housing of soldiers in time of peace, is exclusive to the 1788 proposal; no mention whatsoever in the 1776 Declaration.

4) From our Fourth Amendment, re: no unreasonable searches, etc., the following familiar words and phrases are exclusively from the newer 1788 Virginia proposals and not mentioned in the 1776 Declaration:   "right," "to be secure," "unreasonable searches and seizures," "oath or affirmation," "describing the place."

5) From our Sixth Amendment, re: our rights in criminal prosecutions, the essential word "Counsel" (as in, "to have the assistance of Counsel") was used in the 1788 proposal, but not in the 1776 Declaration.

6) From the Seventh Amendment, re: trial by jury, the newer 1788 proposal declares it to be a citizen right (no outright statement that it is a "right" in the 1776 Declaration).

Also from an amateur perspective, let me point out some differences in language between the 1776 Declaration (composed within the first year or so of the American Revolution) to language used after the lessons learned from the Revolution.   As I previously mentioned, our current Third Amendment was not even mentioned in any degree in the earlier Declaration, and it was likely as a result of the war on our own soil that caused our progenitors to contemplate such a provision.

Additionally--and this is a big issue today--from our Second Amendment, the phrase (which is offset by commas and reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms") that gets everyone stirred up was exclusive to the composition of the 1788 proposal after the experience of the Revolution.   It was rendered by the Virginia ratification convention thusly, in 1788:   "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;"--note the semi-colon--"that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence ( sic ) of a free State.   That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."   In the 1776 Declaration, during the first months of the war, the phrases "well regulated militia" and "safe defence ( sic ) of a free state" was the main terminology.   Again, the experience of the war indicated the importance of these changes and additions.

Conclusion:   The experts here (meaning those contributing to the article from the National Archives) hold back the details that help us understand the true source of many of the key words that exist in the Bill of Rights.   The Library of Congress website was not much help in understanding the true source, either, but at least they had links to the 1788 Virginia proposals.   What Madison obviously drew from the newer document became what is best known today to be associated with the Bill of Rights.   The omission or misrepresentation from the National Archives and Records Administration and the Library of Congress is at a minimum a significant oversight, and at worst a purposeful attempt at re-writing our early history.

Expert opinion (B):   Source--Former Senator Richard Lugar, Former Representative Mike Pence (currently governor of Indiana), Assertion--"Bloggers" probably would not be considered journalists, and only bloggers actually engaged in gathering news would be considered journalists, respectively, under the then-proposed Free Flow of Information Act.

Amateur opinion:   The 1788 Virginia proposal stated it in this language:  "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments;"--again, note the semi-colon--"but the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated."   Both sources of news and opinion were intended to be protected, but the big difference from today is that the press used to be for guarding our interests, whereas now it consists of huge corporate-controlled entities; the only intense interest they take in us is getting our money (through advertisements, subscriptions, etc.) and in promulgating the propaganda of corporate/government elites.   More than ever, it is up to the people to publish opinions, news, and facts to give us back that independent, truthful reporting that previous generations enjoyed.   We need to hang on to that right with both hands, using any means at our disposal.   To try to take this right away from us is just another attempt to keep us under control. 

Expert opinion (C):   Source--Various corporate media and product production companies, Assertion--Their copyrights and patents are subject to long holding times and renewals by acts of Congress.

Amateur opinion:   During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a committee was created to address the language and style of the Constitution.   Though good for brevity, some of the original intent was lost in the process.   A good example is some of the language of the first Article, eighth section, of the Constitution, namely, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."   Originally, the language was recorded in two separate parts/paragraphs: "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time" and "to secure to the inventors of useful machines and implements the benefits thereof for a limited time."   The word 'time' was in the singular in the original language and was only made plural after the phrases were joined together in the same section by the Committee of Style (to indicate two types of individuals to be protected, authors and inventors).   The practice of extending copyrights and patents was never an intended privilege of Congress, but has been taken as such because of attempts to be brief in expression.   The intent was that things would fall into the public domain much sooner than has been practiced, but because billions of dollars are at stake in such matters, these things are desired by the elite to remain either unknown to the people or totally disbelieved.  

Constitution flag flying at author's home by Steve Osborn

Defending the Constitution of the United States

A few years back I had the opportunity to hear a federal DC Circuit judge give an address in front of a small group of people before opening the floor for questions.  At the time, Bush II was going crazy with "Signing Statements" asserting that the US would not enforce certain things that he (Bush) objected to, thus basically creating his own line-item veto.  I recited a portion of the citizenship oath to the judge for newly naturalized citizens, "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and posited that since new citizens had to take this oath, that it follows that the oath must inure to all natural-born citizens when they are born.   Therefore, since we have a citizen obligation to defend the Constitution, would not that give us sufficient legal "standing" to challenge things like Bush's Signing Statements (i.e. in a court of law)?   He immediately answered, "No," but then went silent for a few seconds, just staring at me (as though the thought-wheels were turning), and then he said, "But that's interesting."

From a strictly amateur perspective, we have a duty to defend the Constitution just as much as any elected official, soldier, law enforcement person, or other individual so-swears to do.   It is time we started insisting that our legislators start both following the Constitution and actively working at their checks-and-balances responsibilities to rein in the abuses of the Executive Branch.
 

A word about Martial Law

Rumors are repeating that we are about to be saddled with martial law from some catastrophic event soon to hit.   Again, let me take the amateur position about this.   The Constitution makes no provisions for suspending itself.   Congress cannot do it, the president cannot, the military cannot, and the judiciary cannot.   It also has no provisions for anyone to enact martial law.   The Constitution contains some components of martial law, but with restrictions of their use.   The military, for instance, can assist in enforcing existing law; it is not a law unto itself.   A military leader cannot legally (under the Constitution) declare that such-and-such are now laws and that anyone breaking such declarations will be held accountable to the military; it just is not provided for in the Constitution.

For anyone concerned about Romans 13 in the Bible, just remember that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; not the military, not the president, not Congress, etc.   Religious leaders that may have undergone training to the contrary by government agencies should prepare to defend the Constitution, at least by refusing to be involved in anything that remotely takes away the rights of the people.   True, when staring down the barrel of a Howitzer, it may be difficult to remember the Constitution; but if there is truly strength in numbers in such a situation, then remember that you at least have the Constitution on your side, and thousands of American lives have been lost defending those freedoms with all that they had to give.

Our liberties and Constitutional (and inalienable) rights are NOT for sale.   We have the inalienable right to self-government, free from the interference of elites that would take away those privileges.   Regardless of which of our rights may be important to you--and some of those other rights important to others that you may not care so much about--we have to find some common ground to make a stand or we could all be in the same sad state of affairs in the not-too-distant future: hungry, broke, and without a suitable shelter of our own choosing.

Authors Bio:

Steve Osborn has worked in technical areas of the wireless industry for over 30 years and is a past congressional candidate. He began personal research in 1980 of American political assassinations, and testified to the Assassinations Records Review Board at their Dallas, Texas hearing. He resides in the state of Indiana.