HAMILTON: MOLE FOR THE CROWN?

Alexander Hamilton, Mole for The Crown?

I think that history is very clear on the impact of Hamilton on both advocating and then subverting the federal constitution. It was well understood as the essential frame of the federal argument would be built upon strict enumeration of the powers to be granted to authority by the new constitution. Both the Federalists and the Antifederalist in back and forth dialog hashed this principle out long before the convention took place in Philadelphia.

Hamilton's grand betrayal struck at this very root of remaining true to the strict boundary of the law, the very foundation upon which all other principles are stacked, buy arguing in the very first capacity he had under the new Constitution, this spurious concept of “implied powers”. A huge and gaping wound put to the rule of law by administrative caveat.

Like a cancer this spread through time to consume the entire basis for legitimate law by this federal body still referring to itself as “government”. Practical politicians are loath to admit their actions are ultra vires. However any sane reading of the Constitution will make this very clear.

This patently ultra vires concept of “implied powers” reconstructing the strict enumeration established in the Constitution, finally reached apogee in the 1960s in the assertion of total “executive privilege' espoused in the fictional account given in the Rogers Memo of the so-called “history” of this “implied power”. [See: Raul Berger, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: A CONSTITUTIONAL MYTH] This bogus authority, now combined with the equally bogus assertion of Executive War Powers becomes the epitaph of the now buried constitutional republic. [See; Louis Fisher, EXECUTIVE WAR POWERS]

Such machinations as these issues derive from, go deeper than the popular myths surrounding them. They do not manifest by mere 'blunder' as would seem the case from the lollipop history perspective. Such twisted intrigue is, nevertheless not a necessary ingredient in identifying the clear and obvious disparagement of constitutional law.

What is more to the point is the distraction of the public mind through social engineering. The disparities between law and the activities of governing bodies is a bright and shining beacon that can only be missed by mass delusion. The law and the application of policy is at obvious odds.

The United States does not have a mere political problem, it has a mass psychological problem.
Hysterical psychosis on a pandemic scale. Unfortunately these issues cannot be resolved by simple reason and dialog. Reason has been torn asunder by deep traumatic emotional conditioning. What is before the nation is an occult induction as dark as any black mass. This technological black mass is in process 24/7, radiating out from the beacons of mass media, establishing ritualized regimentation of the mass mind.

As has been illustrated, like the meme of the butterfly batting its wings somewhere in South America, compounding in synchronicities and creating a Hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico; the initial coup d' grace of Hamilton has bloomed full force as the current panoptic maximum security state.

Ostensible the principle is plainly stated, but once the power is in place it is a simple thing to pervert the cover story used to promote it. Well, you know...it's the matter of “interpretation” now.
The rule of man is in this idea of “interpretation”. Some are so slick at this slight of tongue that they will restate something you just said, and tell you that's what you really mean.

Eventually we end up with the utterly insane Orwellian nonsense of, “we had to destroy the village to save the village”...actual military commentary from the Vietnam War. It's okay, really, it's okay to say that because, you know those hippies were all just a bunch of Commies with their “Peace and Love” crap. And of course we can “prove that” because 'Gunner Joe' really did have real names on that list in his pocket and Murrow was a CFR Commie shill just like Hiss.

So, there is only these two sides, choose one—take it or leave it? This is what caps off all this bullshit, door number 1, or door number 2, as if life was a game show format. These wanky wolverines with their “2 Party system”. It's Hegelian dialectical bullshit of course. Where does it describe this two party system in the Constitution?

No no no, don't stop me, I have heard this argument; “Yea, I've read the Constitution, I understand the Two Party system of the United States”...WTF? How do these people make it out the door in the morning with their left and right shoe laces tied together? And so your askin' yourself...'yea but what about Hamilton, I thought this was about Hamilton??

No, this is NOT a history lesson about Hamilton...this is about cause and effect. The moral being don't judge a book by it's cover, don't be sucked in by headlines, don't spit in the wind, and stop going along to get along—everybody knows that is nowhere.

It's not what I've actually said. It's what I have “implied”...get it?

\\ll// 8/2/10