When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of formal academic experience! Thatís a high school diploma plus 14 years of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a more perfect Union," thatís exactly what they meant!
A MOUSE IN BENíS POCKET
[from Joshua Mouse's Notes On the Constitutional Convention]
A cabal of businessmen, mostly Free Masons, met in secret sessions. They were charged, as their respective credentials stated, to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They soon adopted a different, more sinister agenda.
In their public capacity, authorized by the Legislatures of several independent States "to amend or revise the Articles of Confederation"; they were obligated to Convene in Public.
But Secret Societies, by definition and necessity, meet in secret. As for business or commercial negotiations, especially those which involve trade secrets: the historical Maxim is that itís nobody elseís business. The fact that the Free Press and the general public were barred from the Convention, raised many hackles and suspicions. Patrick Henry, from his vantage point outside the bar, in Virginia, thought he smelt a rat.
The year was 1787. The place: Philadelphiaís State House. Security was tight. A pundit was heard to exclaim: "Nary a mouse could breech the guard." But one did. His name was Joshua. His notes read (in pertinent part) as follows:
JUNE 23, 1787, 2 Oíclock P.M. -- The argument between Mason and Hamilton wearied the Master, who called a recess.
B. Franklin, G. Washington and A. Hamilton retired to the table near my post, discretely distant from the others. Grasping fast my notepad, I scurried into the generous pocket of Franklinís coat to better hear, while taking repast of crumbs his careless valet had missed on last cleaning.
GW: To continue the conversation began over dinner last night: of this I am certain: to indenture the common herd to serve us like our black slaves, will require their tacit consent. We must therefore devise an instrument that they will unanimously misperceive to be in their best interests, over our own. It must appear to be not only for them, but more importantly, deriving from, of and by the common people, while the ultimate power is reserved to us.
AH: (Addressing Franklin): The proposition of our friend and lodge Brother, George, deserves our most profound scrutiny and assistance. If General Washingtonís martial talents are excelled by others, it is his experience and expertise in Agriculture; and especially in the management, breeding, and domestication of black human animals.
BF: Gentlemen, we have long had before us a model of a contract such as George advocates. Back in Ď34, when I was a young printer, I published Andersonís Constitutions; which established the formal, written government for the fraternity of Free Masons. Surely you have both studied it as you have progressed through the Degrees.
Recall its Article 10, which permits even probates of each Lodge to merge their opinions with the majority, to be addressed to their Master. Not, mind you, that the Master need act on the instructions of the lowly. And consider Article 39, which provides for secret election of the Grand Master and other officers; with its appearance that Power lies with the majority; but is silent about the provocateurs who mingle with it, fomenting the consensus of opinion.
In combination, the Articles of Andersonís Constitutions establishes a government which superficially appears to be of, by and for the general Lodge membership, but which in their legal language make all meaningful power to reside in the hands of the Ruling Elite.
Andersonís is an exemplary model for accomplishing what George proposes; that is: drawing the labor of all inhabitants, of every race -- with the exception of ourselves and our posterity-- into a condition of tacitly-consensual servitude; to be human resources for our eternal Agri-Business.
(Old Ben pushed a soiled handkerchief into my sanctuary. The discussion continued for several more minutes; but muffled to my ear).
I scampered from Franklinís coat as the threesome arose, and resumed my post near the woodpile.
A. Hamilton received permission to address the Convention. "Gentlemen," he began, "I propose a new form of government; a proposal which will end our impasse and which, I predict, will garner the unanimous approval of the governed..."
THE NEW STATES OF AMERICA
Constitutionalists are Constitutionalists because they are confused. All it takes for one to become a fervent Anti-Constitutionalist is A BRIEF MOMENT OF CLARITY. This may be that moment!
The typical Constitutionalist adheres religiously to the false tenet that the Constitution provided for a continuing government for those thirteen sovereign States which comprised the Union under the Articles of Confederation. In other words, the Doctrine alleges that upon ratification of the Constitution, those 13 States came into the more perfect Union, lock, stock and barrel.
In fact, only the NAMES of those 13 States were admitted into the more perfect Union! After the new, different Union was established with the admission of the first 13 names, the perpetual Union between the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation, continued to exist. Neither the boundaries, sovereignty nor jurisdiction of any of the Original States was altered or abolished. And they exist today. Perpetuity is much longer than 200 years!
The first 13 names to enter the more perfect Union were each admitted under authority of Article IV, Section 3, of that Sacred Writ; that Corporate Commercial Charter to which so many fools pledge their lives and honor: the Constitution for the United States of America. It states:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of another (perpetual Union) State; nor any (new) State be formed by the Junction of two or more (new) States, or parts of (new) States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the (new) States concerned as well as of the Congress."
We, the People, those 39 inventors of the more perfect Union, lacked authority to act on the Sovereign States of the Confederation. Therefore, each reference they made to "any State or States," referred only to their New States ó to names or Statuses. The Original States, under the Articles of Confederation, remained intact and sovereign; associated in an unique perpetual Union.
By the explicit terms of the Charter (at Article IV, Section 3, above), no new Name or Status (State) admitted into the more perfect Union, could bring with it any jurisdiction (power and authority) of any perpetual Union State.
Article IV, Section 3, provides that new States "may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." The Unanimous Order of the Convention, issued simultaneous with the signing of the proposed Constitution, provided that the Congress and President be selected and installed BEFORE the terms of the Constitution, including the admission of any States, would be executed.
Before approving admission of new names or statuses (States) into nominal, inferior membership; the "Chairman" (President) and ďBoard of DirectorsĒ who were charged with enacting the bylaws (the Congress), must be installed.
All new members, names, statuses (States), beginning with the first 13, were admitted only by approval of the pre-installed Congress.
The "United States of America" under the commercial Constitution is a clever forgery, which appropriates not only the names of lawful States in perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation, but even the name of that pre-existing Union, itself!
The Constitution is a gigantic fraud, perpetrated upon generations of trusting and gullible inhabitants of North America. It doesnít benefit me; and it doesnít benefit YOU, unless you are a direct descendant of one of the 39 Fleecing Fathers. It is fit only for docile and domesticated herd animals who do not object to being bred, harnessed and milked for the profit of a privileged few.
I have recorded here only one of the deceitful webs woven in that commercial charter. There are many, many more. To ferret them out for yourself you need only read the Constitution literally; as all legal instruments must be interpreted.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY
[Why Otherwise Intelligent People Slavishly Support a Constitution They Donít Understand.]
At first glance, the impartial scientific observer discovers in the Constitution what appear to be gross inconsistencies in Language and grammar. But on closer inspection he finds they are not inconsistencies or typos after all, but are in fact evidence of an underlying sinister nature and intent.
To offer up only one of dozens of examples, many of which have even more grave implications than our instant sample:
Article VI, Section 2, mentions "the Laws of the United States," providing that they shall constitute one-third of "the supreme Law of the Land." Thatís pretty heavy stuff, with no room for ambiguity! But Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, mentions different Laws which, not being the Laws of the United States, are deemed inferior. Those inferior Laws are the Laws which the Militia may be called forth to execute. They are "the Laws of the Union."
The Apologist for the Constitution and its authors, the Fleecing Fathers, will allege that those giant, highly-educated minds used the United States and the Union interchangeably, and that they mean one and the same thing. THEY DONíT! In fact, "the United States" and "the Union," as legal entities, are as different as black and white or night and day! They are not literally the same. And in the context of history, they are as dissimilar as a real person and an artificial person.
If the Apologist is wrong and the literal language of the Constitution is the Legal Reality, what are the implications, beyond confusing the Hell out of millions of somnambulistic Americans? Consider this:
While Article I identifies the purpose of the Militia (plural) as being to execute the (inferior) Laws of the Union, and the unanimously misconstrued Second Amendment defines the purpose of the Militia as being necessary to the security of a free State; what does that say about "the United States" and its supreme Laws? BINGO! Of Course! ó "the United States" is an UN-FREE STATE, and pre-existing States of the Union (that unique, perpetual legal entity under the preexisting Articles of Confederation) and the Laws thereof, are the free States which the Militia is charged with defending.
As these words are written the confused members of the many upstart "Citizen Militia" (respectively singular) have not yet been slaughtered or taken as prisoners by the Armed Forces of the United States. (Time will correct that nonfeasance). To a man, the members of self-appointed Militia pledge their very lives to the defense and support of the Constitution... not to the defense of the lawful perpetual Union, and to the execution of its Laws. No sane and fully-informed Man would consider supporting a constitution that is unfit for, and designed to "kill," the natural, inborn freedom of Men and Women. What psychological imperatives drive people to commit their minds and bodies to such delusions? The following analogy should suffice to get the point across: A certain child acts like a perfect angel at home; well-mannered, ingratiating, studious and seemingly empathetic. But when out of his motherís line of vision, he is a budding sociopath. He steals from cons and manipulates everyone in his destructive path. He is the veritable Bad Seed. To the casual observer, he is a classic schizophrenic; a split or dual personality. But in fact his real personality is sociopathic. The personality he presents to his mother is superficial, merely an appearance.
Mother isnít completely stupid. She sees inconsistencies between her childís at-home and away personas. There are the unexplained fruits of them that appear in the childís room. There are the "hateful rumors" of mutilation of small animals, spread by neighbors.
But Mother ignores the "inconsistencies," and gives the benefit of the doubt to her sweet, precocious child. After all SHE is Good. She knows that. And therefore, her child, however poorly she understands his nature, must also be Good. He is, after all, a child that derives of her, by her and in the universal view, for the Mother. Protecting, supporting and defending her offspring (like supporting a misunderstood constitution) is an emotional necessity having nothing to do with reason and logic.
Itís one thing, and as excusable as it is understandable, to permit oneís emotion to rule in matters concerning his progeny. But where legal instruments are concerned, which can result in our death, deprivation, imprisonment or other restraints on our birthrights to Liberty; we dare not suspend our reason, logic, common sense and capacity for CRITICAL ANALYSIS!
Editorís Comments: In regarding the pretended "perpetual Union" created by the so-called "Articles of Confederation" as lawful, Mr. Hazel makes a serious error. As Lysander Spooner effectively indicated in 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,' all supposed "constitutions" are instruments of fraud and deception. This applies as much to the pretended "Articles of Confederation" as it applies to the falsely-called "U.S. Constitution."
The spinners of all supposed "constitutions" are spiders spinning webs of illusion, delusion, and hallucination!