The Plague of Societal Hypocrisy 

Antonio Vacci ©1994

The Scriptures indicate there is only one escape. To escape, one must speak loud and clear against the abuses of his age that he not yoke to evil. One must withhold support from wicked men who do wicked acts. He must turn from those who speak lies but whose pretext is peace and safety. When God says, "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" the instruction is that every cause has an effect. One wrongly placed step admits another, to no good end. Ignorance and silence admit no righteous path.

Consider the Freedom of Education heard of so much. Are people really free to educate? If children do not show up for school, may they be arrested for truancy? If the ‘child' never shows up, may it be taken from the ‘parents' and be put in a different home of ‘foster', "educated" there? And if other education is allowed, is it not true that government decides the curriculum? Are people unilaterally free to decide of what to educate their children? Being both are equally imposed as theory can children be taught Creation rather than Evolution? Once privately taught, is the youngster able to get a job free from government approval? The answers are no, no, and no, even though the government imposes unknown methods using unknown material while admitting inferior performance in all sectors. Additionally, the government now claims Creation and Evolution are equally only a ‘Theory', but bans Creation as a subject. So what true effect is the cause called Freedom of Education?

Consider taxes. Can people simply inform the government they do not want to or cannot pay this year? When property taxes come due, can anyone send in a letter giving notice they are going to be free as the Constitution provides?

Yes, people can and upon very lawful ground, but their house will be taken before long and given to someone else who will pay, despite the purported Constitutional Guarantees against such a taking. But as some will see later in this article no thing is "private" under the Constitution.

What is meant by the term ‘a free country'?    Are each of the people included?

What is meant by human rights?                   Must there be a trade of higher Rights for these lesser privilege?

What are the true Cause and Effect?              Can people really ever know?

Well, try this example of so-called 'liberty'--Freedom of Speech. If one is in prison and having every minute of his day designed for him and if one is in a slave labor camp on 'work furlough' for his master's (the state) benefit and both have freedom to speak whatever they want, are they free? In following, if people are provided by government manipulated policy an economy that requires the bulk of society able, barely, to feed themselves, living from paycheck to paycheck, how is freedom of speech being free? People do not exercise or know to exercise economic freedom, if that is possible any longer. Therefore Freedom of Speech merely means one can make any manner of utterance he wants and nothing more. Freedom of Speech does not guarantee relief from other servitude, such as ‘toe the line' and produce for the Master.

In The Protocols this illusion is exquisitely put, "All these so-called 'people's rights' can never really exist except in the thin vapor of an idea. An idea which can never be realized in practical life. What does a common laborer, bowed down under his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life, care if talkers get the right to babble and journalists get the right to scribble any nonsense right beside really genuine issues? The intention is once the common man can gain nothing from the constitution except a few pitiful crumbs which are flung to him from government's table in order to get him to vote for what government dictates--of men placed in power--he is governments servant." By this statement and prevailing condition, are Any so burdened capable of identifying cause and effect? Can those burdened truly identify freedom if under intellectual and economic bondage? In this disingenuous 'free state', doesn't society actually live in The State of Hypocrisy?

As to how a constitution may be "legally" usurped and reduced to "a few pitiful crumbs" under which people are further controlled, the answer lies in what constitutes a national emergency. The Black's Law Dictionary definition is quite revealing:

"A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war."" Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732. [emphasis supplied]

Not overlooked by those drafting the United States Constitution was the possible need to address national emergencies. The document contains certain provisions indicating that its signatories conceived of the possibility that some guarantees of personal liberties may, in the national interest, require suspension.

Article 1, Section 9 states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, . . . " This grants the citizen the freedom from imprisonment or detention without due process. The proviso, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety require it" indicates the necessity to provide for some contingencies to that security. This proviso carries the possibility for abuse. No document of liberty, however, could possibly proscribe all potential for misuse of those liberties without actually eliminating them in the process. It has been said that "communism is nothing more than democracy with all potential for abuse legislated out".  Does "America" toe that party line?

It is important to note that according to the "War and Emergency Powers Act" the United States has legally been under a state of national emergency since its enactment in 1933. The enactment has never been repealed, thus leaving the president with instant powers to avoid the Constitution. Most legal scholars and legislators who have studied the matter concur that the War and Emergency Powers Act has, in reality, suspended the Constitution since the moment the act was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The actual suspension of those constitutional rights awaits only the impetus of any national emergency requiring it.

In 1933 a U.S. Congressman entered the following statement into the Congressional Record:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the same....the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead."

The introduction to Senate Report 93-549, entered into the Congressional Record forty years later in 1973 states:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule....For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have from, at least, the Civil War, in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

Following the introduction, the report's opening statement goes on to say:

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

And from March 9, 1933, Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, states:

"The ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government. i.e., law amounting to mere user, and must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

As a result of the Executive Orders listed above, in concert with the War and Emergency Powers Act, there exists within the United States a government within a government. It is hidden, covert in nature, and does not further recognize the U.S. Constitution or its constraints. It functions as a totalitarian regime. It is a government dictated through presidential Executive Orders to be executed by federal agencies administered by non-elected officials under no duty of Oath. People live under this tyranny today in 'districts' administered through corporate, not constitutional, administrative committee called county Board.

The slow motion decay of constitutional rights was foreseen by the Founding Fathers. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison once wrote, "I believe there are more instances of abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations...."

The Constitution of the United States of America, once the hub of American law and freedoms, has been moved to the position of the hubcap. It has become merely an ornamental relic that serves no real function other than that of making the American people feel as if the document still matters to those who govern. When driven hard this ornament shall surely be thrown off.

Once Law is abandoned, as has happened today, no objective basis remains with which to adjudge those ‘only following orders'. Without an objective basis, no longer can there be criminal intent. Without criminal intent those violating objective Law cannot be brought to justice and the atrocities once rectifiable become common place, unaccountably. When the accepted affirmative defense for wrong doing of any public official is, "I'm, just doing my job," no matter how unprincipled, imprudent, or amoral the act, the Constitution is rendered to "a few pitiful crumbs"; 'people's rights' are reduced to a "thin vapor of an idea" and social democratic fascism or abject anarchy through minority reigns.

Did people learn anything from Nuremberg? Apparently not, but, those who wrote the Protocols sure did; for ‘of the world', they obviously write the book. History repeats itself, but with the modification of the Material Evolutionist (M.E.). Those Social Organizing Brokers (S.O.B.s) figured out how to avoid creating cause, averting the consequence because people failed to"Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." What was intolerable at Nuremberg is liberally accepted; but yoked to that evil by silence people shall pay a price. The wage of sin being death, people are condemned as the laborer "who is bowed down under his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life" living upon a "thin vapor of an idea. An idea which can never be realized in practical life" that of 'people's rights'; this is the societal hypocrisy of living an illusion called 'Freedom of', without the fullness thereof. Is it any wonder why ‘society' is gone to Hell in a hand-basket?