Pledge of Allegiance

Pledge of Allegiance

Here are excerpts from an essay on the new torture legislation and how it affects people who claim that the government has engaged in conspiracies (such as 9/11):

"I have learned the entire history of the U.S., both good and bad. I have learned of her honorable and selfless actions. I have also learned about her brutally deceitful and murderous actions, including the frequent use by our government of false flag terror.

But even after learning of all of the deceit and murder committed by our government, I still have strong positive feelings for the United States. My forefathers fought and died for liberty. My ancestors struggled to deliver a nation ruled by laws and justice, instead of by the whims of men. My people gave their blood, sweat and tears to throw off the yoke of the British monarchy and to defeat the ambitions of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito in World War II.

And so – even after the Iraq war, and the destruction of New Orleans, and the spying and torture scandals, and the vote fraud, and 9/11 and all of the other false flag attacks carried out by by the government over the years - I am willing to pledge my allegiance to the United States of America. Because - as sick and twisted and amoral as she may have become in recent years - I still hold out hope that we may again decide to get back to the great work at hand, the “grand experiment” of self-government and democracy.


I call on all Americans to pledge their allegiance to the Constitution, but not to the usurpers and pretenders who are hell-bent on destroying it.

I also remind the good and honorable people in the military remember -- especially those in leadership positions and also those who come from military families -- that they have sworn an oath to protect and defend the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I pray that they remember that they have sworn their allegiance to the ideals of the Constitutional form of government which their ancestors fought so hard - and, in many cases, made the ultimate sacrifice - to defend. If those who never served a day in the military - the people who got us into the messes in Vietnam and Iraq, who have destroyed the reputation of the U.S., and who have created many more terrorists than they have killed - are calling on you to do something which will fundamentally weaken the security of the United States, such as invading a foreign country which has not attacked the U.S. first, or helping to carry out a false flag attack on Americans, then you must decide whether such act is contrary to your solemn oaths. If you decide that it is, then you must act appropriately.

Similarly, if you are asked to torture an American citizen solely because he or she is criticizing the current administration or its policies or working for liberty and justice, you must ask yourself whether you wish to be a good little soldier "just following orders", like the Nazi police did.

If you think I'm being overly-dramatic, please note that the newly-passed torture law states:

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

According to a Yale law professor, "The [torture] legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

And according to the New York Times, the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

Given that the White House's "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters, just about anyone who says that 2 or more people within the Bush administration have done anything wrong could conceivably be labelled an enemy combatant.

It is time for all of us, civilian and military, to remember that our pledge of allegiance, our sworn oath, is to the Constitution, and not to the Commander in Chief and his compadres. The Commander in Chief is only legitimate to the extent that he follows the Constitution. His orders must be disobeyed to the extent that they are contrary to the Constitution, and certainly if they will undermine the security and defense of the country in the short or long-run. And when the President has breached his allegiance and duty to the United States, when he is acting like a domestic enemy of the Constitution, then he should be given about as much legitimacy as Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein would be given if they ran for President of the United States of America.

It is time to remember the pledge of allegiance, and to reflect on its true meaning. And then to act to uphold our pledge and sworn oath, and to save the United States of American from its so-called leaders."

Read the whole essay.

Our Country 'tis of Thee...

.....sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing;
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside let freedom ring!

2. My native country, thee,
land of the noble free, thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
thy woods and templed hills;
my heart with rapture thrills, like that above.

3. Let music swell the breeze,
and ring from all the trees sweet freedom's song;
let mortal tongues awake;
let all that breathe partake;
let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.

4. Our fathers' God, to thee,
author of liberty, to thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom's holy light;
protect us by thy might, great God, our King.

Most American's carry the above sentiments in their hearts, and WILL NOT give them up, no matter what. Many will fight to the last to bring this country back from the brink, and closer to the ideals GW speaks about.

Thank you for your inspirational blog, GW.


Where do I sign up? Do you have a voluntary draft? And what kind of taxes are you asking for? Can I keep my pump action BB gun? I'm sure we can negotiate when you're in office.

The essence of patriotism is lost in modern culture, as dissent comes to be characterized as futile, counter-productive, and even embarrassing. I resonate very strongly with your comments about knowing that your patriotism is founded in something strong, despite your awareness of our challenge to live up to those ideals.

People are too quick to call us pessimists, and we are too quick to feel pessimistic. Screw pessimism. I'm not moving anywhere. We've got a country to take back. People working with dark political issues must find optimism in community and social action. But screw optimism too, the sacrifice of patriots that have fallen in battle for my freedoms, demand my respect and duty in exercizing and defending those freedoms, regardless of whether or not this makes me happy. Citizenship is not passive nor necessarily convenient.

In the future we will be recognized for our committment to those ideals that founded this country. In the mean time, let's kick some mainstream ass, in a figurative sense of course.

International Truth Movement


Anti-federalist Opposition

General comments following the Convention were that the Framers had gone too far. “The natural Course of Power is to make the many Slaves to the few.” Another objected to the Constitution because “the bulk of the people can have nothing to say to it. The government is not a government of the people.” The “men of Fortune” would not feel for the “Common People.” An “aristocratical tyranny” would arise, in which “the great will struggle for power, honor and wealth, the poor become a prey to avarice, insolence, and oppression.” Even John Quincy Adams would write in his diary that the Constitution was “calculated to increase the influence, power and wealth of those who have any already.” In South Carolina, when the “backcountry” learned of ratification, “the people had a Coffin painted black, which borne in funeral procession, was solemnly buried, as an emblem of the dissolution and internment of publick Liberty....”

More specifically, anti-federalists felt that the House of Representatives had been made too weak and should control the legislative process as well as the executive and complained that it was now nothing but an “assistant Aristocratical Branch.” They thought that the President had been given too much power, that “he” was an elective king “vested with power dangerous to a free people” and that the electoral college was “an aristocratic junto.” They complained that the general structure seemed “to verge too much toward the British plan,” that the relation between the Senate and President looked too much like a king and a House of Lords, that it equaled an oligarchy, and that the House was nothing but a “pretended concession to democracy.”

They believed that “In a free Government there never will be Need of standing Armies,” that the Framers appropriated both the “powers of the purse and sword” because they “knew this was not a free government,” and that “By far the greater part of the different nations, who have fallen from the glorious state of liberty, owe their ruin to standing armies.”

And we find that criticisms of the Constitution were explicit with regard to its failure to respect democracy, although the term was used to mean a variety of political systems. Frequently anti-federalists said that they preferred a “democratick” system to an “aristocratick” and that the Constitution did not erect a “Democratick or Republican,” government where democracy was generally defined as a political system that gave space to “the great body of the people, the middle and lower classes,” as contrasted with “the few men of wealth and abilities” who comprised the “natural aristocracy.”21

It is interesting to note that our own complaints of an “imperial presidency,” that we feel powerless and that our votes do not count, that the “military-industrial complex” has too much power, that government seems distant and far away, or that corporations seem to dominate all aspects of our lives echo the complaints heard 200 years ago. It is not surprising. After all, it is still the same system, and in so many important respects the debate surrounding the adopting of the Constitution underlies contemporary class and racial divisions as well as debates over militarism, the environment, secret governments, and the spiritual well-being of our country.

Remember Which Side They

Remember Which Side They Were On

It is important to understand that the Framers were the political ancestors, not of people like Ben Linder, but of people like Lee Iacocca. The Framers struggled with and defeated the Ben Linders of 1787. The Framers, contrary to popular myth, came from a very narrow and elite strata of society which feared and distrusted common people. It is not coincidental that Lee Iacocca is thought of as a presidential candidate while Ben Linder is tracked down and murdered by agents of the government of the United States. The life of Iacocca gives expression to the vision of empire and privilege expressed by most of the Framers. Linder's life gave expression to a kind of love and generosity which threatens and subverts the way of life the Framers established. The tension between the visions expressed by the life work of Iacocca and of Linder frames the conflicts of our age and is a tension that is made necessary by the Constitution.

David Viscott has written that because our energy is limited, “it's wasteful to use it in any way except in the pursuit of the truth,” otherwise “we end up trying to justify what's simply not true.” And when we work to support a lie, especially if we are unaware of doing it, “it becomes increasingly difficult to tell what's real” and that “to give up the lie seems like losing a part of ourselves.”6 Are we capable of confronting the reality of who we are, of not avoiding the pain of that confrontation, and of speaking the truth of that pain in order to get free from the myths and half-truths which make us prisoners of a distorted reality?

It's important to remember

It's important to remember that the majority of the population at the time opposed the Madison-Hamilton junta which created the US Consitution. The Bill of Rights was forced upon the founders via the Whiskey Rebellion. the constitutional convetion itself was in reponse to a rebellion by farmer's getting screwed by the oligarchy. You think you know better than the men who lived during that era? They rightly predicted that "the constitution" was just a mechanism for the rich to enslave the populace, creating a strong, centralized government. As John J said: "The people who own the country ought to govern it". Well, surprise surprise, we have Iran Contra and 911. That's what happens when you put a filthy rich minority in power. George Washington liked to have his men whipped for disobedience. He was scum.

Time to give up the illussions, kiddies. The stuff they tought you in school is pap.

By all means then, D...

...write us a better Constitution, and I for one will read it with interest.

It's very easy to trash. Certainly, histroy is full of examples of imperfections in even the "best" of men. But that takes nothing away from the fact that we should all strive to live principled lives, and to the best of my knowledge, the Constitution and Bill of Rights represent that ideal well... no matter how imperfect the path was to their creation.