Conspiracy Theory: From Social Security to Club Gitmo – Guest Post
December 14, 2009 by admncc
Before we get started with this Guest Post, don’t forget to enter our contest for an American Express gift card. All you need to do is comment on my last post to be entered. Now for my normal Guest Post introduction… Here at The Constant Complainer, in addition to my own posts, readers can submit Guest Posts on topics they’d like to complain about. Neo Con Don is back with a rant about terrorists, trials and Guantanamo Bay. And if politics isn’t your thing, that’s OK – it’s not mine either (I’ll be back tomorrow). But for those of you looking forward to the debate; enjoy and without further adieu, here’s Don…
When I say conspiracy theorists, I’m not referring to the morons that think Obama is hiding his true birth, or the ones that think the federal gov’t planned 9/11. Both ideas are absurd. I’m referring to those who look at a situation or a pattern of behavior and visualize thing years down the road. In the late 30’s there were groups of people who were against the social security act because they believed it would eventually affect every worker by stealing nearly 10% of their money to pay for a retirement of poverty. They wanted a guarantee that the age requirement would rise as life expectancy rose so the income percentage that was taken out of every paycheck would stay very low (1 or 2 %) and few would ever need to cash in on the “old-age insurance” as it was described. Today, it’s actually almost 13% of your income up to just over $100,000 that is taken leaving most people unable to save for a retirement that goes beyond the poverty check sent by the federal gov’t. It seems that the conspiracy theorists who were against social security because they thought it would lead to too much dependence of the gov’t and determine elections were absolutely right. So if the “conspiracy theorists” were correct about the intentions and results of social security, is it possible for them to be right about the future of our judicial system? Let’s take a look.
Before John Adams became the second President of the United States, he was an accomplished lawyer. He was one of our most important founders who showed the world that the colonies were ready to stand on their own because of their reverence to the rule of law. In 1770, John Adams defended British troops for firing on Massachusetts colonists, and the troops were found “Not Guilty.” This event is known as the Boston Massacre. Americans believe, above all else, that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men.
Today, conspiracy theorists believe that President Obama is going to stain the good works of John Adams and set a standard where if you do not agree with the administration, you will not have the rule of law on your side to protect you. For those of you who were not told the truth about our gov’t and our founding documents, I’ll sum it up like this. The Constitution is designed to protect you from the gov’t. Our founders believed (correctly) that gov’t is evil and oppressive. The Constitution keeps our governors from imposing tyranny. The second amendment reminds them that if they become tyrants, we will defend our freedom and liberty. Liberty can’t exist until the gov’t is afraid of the people.
So here we are today. Obama is going to bring some of the Club Gitmo terrorists to New York to be tried in a Federal Court. The conservatives who believe in the rule of law are very concerned because the terrorists will likely be afforded the discovery process, and agency secrets could become public. Additionally, the terrorists were never read their Miranda rights upon their arrest, so another question arises…How can these people get a fair trial? The Attorney General of the United States has assured us that the terrorists will receive a fair trial. He also stated that if these terrorists are somehow found “not guilty,” or the case is thrown out because of process failure, that they will not be set free. So, just looking at the rule of law, we must ask ourselves “how is that a fair trial?” The bottom line is this…the terrorists should not be afforded constitutional rights because they are not citizens. Military tribunals will work fine for them, they can be hanged, and we’ll call it a day….BUT, the conspiracy theorists believe it goes farther.
Just imagine that the terrorists swamp the system and are either found not guilty, get off on a technicality, or there is a hung jury (most likely)…the Attorney General promises they will not be set free. Doesn’t this set a precedent? Maybe.
Let’s imagine a few years from now the US has a tyrannical health care bill illegally requiring each citizen to purchase health insurance. Additionally, suppose a cap and trade bill is also passed along with a bill requiring each American worker to join a union even if they don’t want to. Odds are that when these things happen, portions of a state (or an entire state) will attempt to secede from the union. The federal gov’t could then call the leaders of those movements “traitors”, and try them in the newly precedented federal court system where even if the “traitors” followed all constitutional protocol, they could still be imprisoned regardless of the constitutional protections they must be afforded. In other words, if WE THE PEOPLE demand our gov’t follows the constitution and we call them on it when they don’t, we could be tried and held without due process…or the “new due process” being created by the Obama Administration.
Does all of this sound crazy? It sure does. But let’s see how it sounds a year from now. Don’t forget, a year ago, trying the mastermind of 9/11 in a federal court in New York was laughable. Maybe, we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men….that is the definition of tyranny.
All Posts / Group Sharing / Guest Posts / Law and Order / Politics American Express Gift Cards / Blogging / Boston Massacre / Club Gitmo / Complaints / Conspiracy Theories / Constitution / Contests / Cuba / Fair Trials / Guantanamo Bay / Guest Posts / John Adams / Lawyers / Massachusetts / Miranda Rights / New York / Second Amendment / Social Security /