Re: CounterPunch Piece

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: CounterPunch piece and Anti-Kerry Picket

Nice article in CounterPunch. I write for them myself from time to time.
Please send this to anyone who might be interested in the Boston area who might be interested.


John V. Walsh, MD
Professor of Physiology
University of Massachusetts Medical School



----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Remedy is not that complicated.

Look, we the people are being abused by our government. It's not minor abuse or incidental, but gross abuses of the worst kind (packed prisons with the CO' s themselves stating that 30% to 50% of the people in prison don't belong here, covert spying the citizens, torture of those detained (kidnapped), and the list goes on) . This country, if not the government is close to downfall from mismanagement. This is obvious to those who are paying attention. You are very articulate about these matters and capable of discussing them using clear reasoning. So I want you to listen to what I have to say and correct me if you see any substantial flaws in my reasoning. Being petty is not constructive criticism.

I don't want to speculate as to the "intent" of the people who constructed our Fed. Constitution. We can however make rather reliable judgments about this "agreement" between the people and those who are chosen among the people to make the decisions that solve our problems and provide for our needs. This agreement was made by people who ran from the abuses of the governments of other nations as well as those who came here looking for fortunes. This social mix constructed this agreement. Since this agreement starts out "In order to form a more perfect union" we may take that to mean a "more perfect union" between those who rule and those who are ruled. A "more perfect" way to rule. Now those looking for wealth and power will say "more perfect" means more profitable for us who rule. Those looking for relief from government abuses, will say "more perfect" means no abuse by those who rule. Well, the next phrase says, "establish justice". Bingo. That one principle confirms that more "perfect means" to limit the actions of government. It does not mean more "profitable for us who rule". "Establish Justice" means to place limits, restrictions on the methods and goals, convictions (laws), and the policies of those who rule. You must establish Justice (the principle of Justice was recognized and articulated 500 years before Christianity developed to be "you shall not have what belongs to others nor be deprived of your own") in all our institutions. The Preamble goes on to add other duties and responsibilities of those who rule: insure domestic tranquility, (that means peace, which is consistent with the principle of Justice, which if established, necessarily renders peace as its product), provide for the common defense, (at that time in history we can take that to mean that we will fight off any invaders, or those who attempt to overthrow our government, or occupy our lands), "promote the general welfare", (to establish financial and social policies that promote the well being of all in general, since those who rule receive money from all), and "to secure the blessings" (free to live your life by your own convictions as long as you do not harm others in the living of it, "of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", (that again is consistent with the meaning of Justice, which was to be free of the abuse of the convictions of those who rule, for to violate the principle of justice in your relations with others is to arouse hatred in them. This may be demonstrated very easily. Any 8th grader recognizes that.
This agreement looks well constructed to me. Who would not agree to be ruled under these restrictioned conditions placed on anyone who has consented to be placed under the authority of another? No one. So what has gone so wrong that we are in the state we are in today, which is close to a dictatorial police state?

Well, by some legal, greedy, pernicious cleverness our legal leaders back then decided to hoodwink (take advantage of their ignorance) the populace by changing the definition of the principle of justice. They decided to offer two definitions of the principle of Justice: the what they call the "legal" definition of Justice which is actually the dictators definition of Justice, "obey me" without qualifications. Just "obey me" or else. This undermined the entire agreement. The actual recognized definition of Justice was called the "moral" definition of Justice which was not to be enforced, only recommended and pretended and claimed to be enforced. The establishment and enforcement of that erroneous definition of Justice has gotten us to where we are today. The recommended definition has been abandoned, not established and enforced. The justification for the enforcement of the "legal" definition of Justice is supported by the falsehood that "our legislators convictions (laws without restrictions), are to guide the state, that's why they were "chosen by the people)"".

Well, if my assumptions are correct, how may the people enforce the principles of their agreement onto those who rule, so the rulers are prohibited, restricted from passing unjust laws and persuing unjust social policies? Well, that is to be the function of the Supreme Court, not to interpret the meaning of our agreement, for that is clear, but rather to set the guidelines for our legislature and our executive branch to adhere to the restrictions placed by the people in our agreement with them on those who rule, and to strike down, in the interests of peace and justice, any law or policy that violates the principles stated in this agreement. That is the duty and responsibility of the Supreme Court to the people, to maintain compliance with this agreement by those who are chosen to rule.

Yes, if the members of the Supreme Court are corrupted by power and greed and allow gross violations of this agreement by the Congress or the Executive branch, down we go. It's a human institution, but keeping an eye on 9 is much easier than 550.

This is our failure in ruling ourselves. We let them hoodwink us into a fiction that allows those who rule to enslave us and take over 2 trillion a year off us and spend it as they please. Those who came here for fortune and power took over.

This false definition (the alleged "legal" one) of the principle of Justice must be clearly refuted so the people may understand how they are being decieved and which allows the abuses that are so rampant, and fatal, to us today.

Now you have spent some serious years studying all this and should be able to correct or amend or clearify or agree with all this. I look forward to your reply.

You may post this if you wish.

My best: Patrick Wilson