- by Alan Adaschik

Dear Jerry:

It was a pleasure visiting this past weekend. However, our discussion following breakfast left me concerned and as a result I am compelled to put my thoughts in writing. Please understand that I do not feel this way because you disagreed with me. As a student of philosophy, I know many people will disagree on any given topic and to take issue with this is foolishness. However, your position from my perspective amounted to a denial of the truth. I believe our government denies the truth in a similar manner and it is the implications associated with this state of affairs that leaves me concerned.

There are no direct consequences associated with citizens denying the truth. However, this is not the case when government officials do so because it means they are concealing the reasons behind their actions and operating from self-serving hidden agendas. With the exception of matters concerning National security, no public servant or elected official has the right to hide the reasons why they have chosen an official course of action. Furthermore, when government officials deny the truth, lying and deceiving becomes acceptable and a prime imperative of government. This state of affairs gives government officials a vested interest in keeping citizens as ignorant as possible about matters that concern them. This is why, in America today, most citizens know very little of our heritage and Nation’s history.

Our discussion focused upon a single topic; does our government routinely violate our Constitution? Before proceeding, several issues that arose during our discussion need to be addressed.

You asked by whose authority and by what right do I have to make judgments about matters of constitutionality. From my perspective, it is shocking that an American would ask a question like this. In concert with other citizens, I own our Constitution and being its owner, I have a fundamental right to read it, study it, and pass judgment upon the actions of government according to its precepts. Our government has no claim of ownership to our Constitution. As citizens, it belongs to us alone. We wrote it, imposed its provisions on our government, and passed it on to posterity. Unfortunately, while all of the forgoing is self-evident and should be true, you do have a point because the government we presently live under has wrongfully assumed the authority to change how we are governed without our permission and worse, taken steps to separate “we the people” from our constitution. By so doing, they have denied us our inalienable rights of self-determination and the right to petition government for the redress of grievances.

Our discussion ended with you stating that you disagreed with me and we should “agree to disagree”. Under any other circumstances I would accept this as being the gentlemanly thing to do. However, considering the importance of the matter under discussion, it is not possible for me to be so understanding. If you are right and I am wrong, there are no consequences associated with agreeing with your proposal. However, if I am right, there are grave consequences for this Nation and its people. Therefore, from my perspective, agreeing to disagree about the issue under discussion means that we ignore our present state of affairs and by so doing, agree to live under corruption, deception, and tyranny. Therefore, I do not agree to disagree and challenge you or anyone else, especially those in government, to sit down with pen in hand and properly respond to the points and arguments I am making in this letter. While you enjoy the luxury of ignoring my challenge, in a Republic, government officials have a duty and obligation to intelligently respond to issues raised about how they behave and how we are governed. This is the essence of accountability and without it, our Republic is dead and we are subjugated.

In our discussion, you postured that I was being nit-picking with words and seemed to think that this was a valid response to my arguments. It should be self-evident that this is not the case. The Constitution is nothing more than a collection of words. However, it is the meaning and intent of those words that make it such an important document. Therefore, to be “nit-picking” with the verbiage of our Constitution is necessary and a virtue. To accuse someone of “nit-picking” when discussing constitutional issues is tantamount to saying, I have no intelligent response to what you are saying and I am going to think I am right no matter what you say; end of discussion. The proper thing to do when impasses like this occur is to stop and reach agreement as to the meaning of the words in question, and then proceed on common ground.

The truth is not something that should be trifled with and this is especially true for government officials. Unfortunately, those who lead us talk of “Spin Doctors” like being one is a legitimate calling or profession. As a result, putting a “spin” on known facts or situations is considered to be normal and acceptable in politics. This kind of convoluted thinking has turned knowing the truth into an exercise in futility and it is the key that opened Pandora’s Box for this Nation. Spin Doctors acknowledge that a fact is something that is true. However, they refuse to accept that there are two kinds of facts; observed facts and inferred facts. Observed facts, also called known facts, are those discerned by one or more of the five senses. Inferred facts cannot be seen directly, but are arrived at by logically extrapolating from a set of known or given facts. An inferred fact is just as true as a known fact provided all of the supporting facts are true and the reasoning and logic used to discern them is valid.

A “Spin Doctor” while acknowledging the validity of observed facts, uses them to arrive at a preconceived conclusion through the use of faulty reasoning and logic. The average voter, being uneducated and ready to accept almost any feel good explanation, easily falls victim to this kind of intellectual chicanery. Those who lead us are masters at this game and have given it a special name. They call it “democracy”. However, the use of this word is inappropriate to describe what is really going on. Forgive me for being nit-picking, but the word that best describes how we are led is “demagoguery”. However, for reasons that should be obvious, this word is shunned because it doesn’t have the right “spin” to it.

Within the above framework and understandings, I believe our government routinely and as a matter of policy violates our Constitution and this can be easily be proven to any reasonable person willing to examine the facts with an unbiased eye. Furthermore, despite your opinion on these matters, unless you or someone else can demonstrate where I am wrong in fact, reason, or logic, then the truths established are universal and independent of whether or not other people agree with them. Of course, everyone has the right to disagree if they choose, but I strongly object to those who do so arbitrarily and then insult my intelligence by expecting me to accept their unsubstantiated disagreement as being as valid or on par with my position. Only a spin doctor, politician, or someone with an ax to grind would so posture.

This having been said, I offer the following for consideration:

• Fact: Amendment II of our constitution states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

• Fact: “Infringed” in the context within which it is used means that the right to bear arms will not be inhibited, reduced, or violated in any way.

• Fact: Hand grenades, bazookas, machine guns, nuclear warheads, chemical and biological weapons, etc. are arms prohibited to citizens by our government.

• Conclusion: The government’s prohibitions of the above armaments are incompatible with and repugnant to Amendment II of our Constitution.

If the above facts are true, then logic dictates that the conclusion reached is also true. Furthermore, if the conclusion reached is true, it is a fact. This having been established, it can also be stated with certainty that our government routinely operates in violation to Amendment II of our constitution because of two other know facts; it has prohibited the arms listed for many years and has no intention of amending our Constitution to make these prohibitions legal. This last conclusion, based on the two new facts and the previous conclusion, is inescapable and cannot be dismissed by saying I have an ax to grind, I am nit-picking words, I don’t know what I am talking about, I have no right to discuss such things, or the prohibition of such armaments makes sense, so this invalidates my arguments. The prohibition of such weapons does make sense, but this does not in any way modify, mitigate, or invalidate the conclusions reached. While it is true that people hold the right to deny them if they choose, but if they do without proper justification, they are being unreasonable, and in denial for reasons that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

I fully recognize that the prohibition of the arms in question is reasonable, desirable, and necessary. As citizens, we truly have much to fear from other citizens owning such weapons. However, this being the case, ample justification exists to amend our Constitution to accommodate this reality. The real issue here is why hasn’t this been done? Our Founding Fathers held that we should be fearful of any government that would legislate something contrary to constitutional provision without first amending the Constitution. Why? Because a Constitution is the highest law of the land and if government can violate one provision, then it holds the power to violate all provisions, rendering the Constitution dysfunctional for the primary purpose for which it was written. This truth is not lost upon those who lead us and this is why they have ignored the amendment process in certain instances. They desire absolute and total control over us and our Constitution stands in the way of achieving these ends.

Article I, Section 8, of our constitution states that, “Congress shall have the Power to regulate commerce with foreign nations” and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for the Execution of this power”. The GATT accords state that, “The WTO creates laws that govern international trade between its members”. Paragraph 4, of the GATT accord also states that, “Each member (of the WTO) shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided (for) in the annexed Agreements.” Based upon these facts, the proof that GATT is unconstitutional follows:

• Fact: Congress is empowered by our Constitution to enact laws that regulate trade with foreign nations.

• Fact: The WTO is empowered by the GATT Accord to establish laws that regulate trade between member nations.

• Fact: By joining the WTO, Congress agreed to change our laws so they are in agreement with those established by the WTO, both now and in the future.

These are the givens and from them it should be clear that while Congress still retains Authority to pass laws regulating trade with foreign Nations, it can only do so when they are in agreement with the laws established by the WTO. From this it follows that:

• All laws passed by Congress regulating trade with foreign nations are subject to review and approval by the WTO, at the WTO’s discretion.

• The final authority in regard to laws passed by Congress to regulate trade with foreign nations is the WTO and not our Supreme Court.

Therefore, the enactment of GATT and our resulting participation in the WTO, as members, is unconstitutional for three reasons:

1. It is repugnant to Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution which gives Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. If, as is the case, Congress has subordinated and/or assigned part of this power to someone else, then it no longer retains this power for itself and this is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to subordinate and/or assign any of its power to someone else even if we can reverse this decision or quit the WTO at some time in the future.

2. It is repugnant to Amendment X, which reads. “The powers not delegated to the United States (government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Therefore, the Constitution prohibits Congress from assuming or exercising any power not specifically provided to it within the Constitution (more on Amendment X later). When Congress subordinated and/or assigned some of its powers to the WTO, it assumed the authority to do this in violation of Amendment X.

3. It is repugnant to Article III, Section 2, which reads, “The judicial Power (of the Supreme Court) shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” By pre-agreeing to ensure that all our laws will conform to those of the WTO, Congress has precluded Supreme Court authority over the laws in question and thereby abrogated the constitutionally provided powers of the Supreme Court. Our present situation is such that if the Supreme Court ruled that a conforming law to GATT was unconstitutional, this ruling would violate the GATT accord subjecting the United States to WTO approved sanctions by its member nations. How supreme is our Supreme Court if a higher authority can penalize the United States for not following its rulings irrespective of how our Supreme Court rules?

Finally, the clearest example of a constitutional provision that is routinely violated by Congress involves Amendment X, introduced above. The Founding Fathers, to a man, wished to limit the scope and power of our federal government. Toward this end they included Amendment X in our Constitution which simply means that if the Federal Government passes any law or takes any action not specifically provided for elsewhere in the Constitution, then that law or action violates Amendment X and is unconstitutional. Therefore, all that is necessary to conclusively prove that our government, as a matter of routine practice violates provisions of our Constitution, is to demonstrate that it routinely does things not authorized anywhere in it. Toward this end I offer Social Security, the Interstate Highway System, The National Park System, OSHA, FEMA, the FCC, HUD, the EPA, the FDA, the EEOC, foreign aid, welfare, aid to education, the minimum wage, income tax, etc., etc., and etc. ad infinitum.

None of the above Federal Agencies, programs, or activities, no matter how well intended, good, and/or necessary for us as a people, are provided for anywhere in the Constitution and were instituted by usurpation in violation of Amendment X. Furthermore, most members of Congress and the Supreme Court, being lawyers, know this is the case, but have no problem posturing otherwise. They lie to us or “spin” the truth to maintain appearances of propriety and legitimacy. This is shocking, but it is not hard to understand in consideration of the fact that their first act as a Congressman or Supreme Court Justice, is to violate their oath of office by swearing to preserve a Constitution which they intend to routinely violate. I apologize for being nit-picking with words here, but “preservation”, to them, means that they jam the Constitution in a Mason Jar, seal it with wax, and put it on the shelf only to be considered again if it suits their purposes.

In this letter, I believe I have offered proof that our government operates in routine violation of our Constitution. Furthermore, if what I have established is true, then it is also true that we live under and swear allegiance to an illegitimate and corrupt government. This having been established, it is incumbent upon those who lead to demonstrate that this is not the case by demonstrating where I have erred in fact, reason, or logic. They should not enjoy the luxury of ignoring such serious allegations, but ignore them they will for two reasons; they have no valid rebuttal to my arguments and they know there are no consequences associated with ignoring me because most citizens, out of ignorance and apathy, accept this kind of behavior from our elected representatives. Furthermore, to ensure that a concerned citizen will not be able to force attention to these issues through our Nation’s judicial system, rulings therein, have made it impossible for anyone to obtain a court ruling on these matters.

I do not want to live in a nation where the government routinely violates its constitution; I do not want to live in a nation where government officials and members of its judicial system, violate their oath of office the moment it is taken; I do not want to live in a nation where everyone Pledges Allegiance to a non-existent form government; I do not want to live in a nation where the government decides how it will govern without the consent of those who are governed; I do not want to live in a nation where elected officials can arbitrarily ignore the legitimate concerns of citizens; and finally, I do not want to live in a nation where government officials, have embraced lying to citizens as their prime imperative. Furthermore, I do not believe our success as a nation and the present state of our economic well-being came about because those who lead us do all of these things. I also do not believe those who lead us have to continue doing these things in order to ensure our future security and economic well being. In fact, I believe the opposite to be the case and we are presently being led down the path of reduced security and eventual economic collapse.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. As an ex-Naval Officer, Fighter Pilot, and former public servant, I loath to believe the things I do about our government, but my loathing is not a reason to deny the truth. I cannot bury my head in the sand and hide from it like many of us choose to do. I also cannot stand at the side of the road and declare the emperor regally clothed when he is as naked as a Jay Bird. I understand why many of my fellow Americans do these things. But what I cannot understand is how any American, knowing the truth, can ignore these issues or worse, actually conspire against their fellow Americans by willfully acting to preserve the status quo. Finally, I cannot understand how anyone cannot see the dreadful consequences that inevitably arise out of being governed in this manner, especially when these consequences are presently unfolding before us.

P.S. - God is love, but more important, He is the truth. When the truth is denied, God is denied and those so doing have embraced a theology of evil.

P.S.P.S. - Political Science is a discipline that discerns acceptable courses of action from sound governing principles, constitutional considerations, and prevailing political realities. We never hear much about Political Science any more and courses on the subject have all but disappeared from our educational institutions. This is because Political Science is being replaced by Spin Science. Spin Science is the art of convincing others to believe what you yourself know is not true. Political Science and Spin Science are incompatible with each other. This is why the demise of one coincides with the rise of the other. As free and independent people which discipline is more important to us? The answer to this question should be obvious and being obvious, what does this say about the kind of “democracy” we live under and about the direction in which our Nation is heading?