A Nation, Founded on LIES, Part Five
author: M. Grant
An article proving that the Fifth Amendment is a lie.
The following is the fifth in a series of polemical essays devoted to proving that "god given rights" are only rhetorical contrivances created by man, and are in reality nothing but lies. Judging from historical precedent, it is plainly evident that American citizens have no inalienable, god given rights at all and they never did. Further, the only rights people have ever had anywhere, at any time in history, are rights that they take by force, and maintain by employing further force when necessary.
In a departure from preceding essays, this particular installment will be written in a more traditional fashion, sans expletives. I recently received a missive on my public email address where the correspondent stated that what I was relating is, in his opinion, too important to lace with foul language, ribald remarks and racial epithets. Having considered the message over several days, I found that I agree with his observation.
Therefore, for the remainder of these polemics I shall refrain from using "colorful" language; exceptions being future essays or rants unrelated to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. However, I will continue to refer to politicians and their police enforcers by employing somewhat "uncomplimentary" descriptions, as follows: aloof, elitist scoundrels, jackbooted thugs, amoral meretricians, badged privateers, soft palmed, mendacious gangsters, hypocrites, duly-sworn pirates, megalomaniacs, trigger-happy sadists, and so forth. In addition, earlier articles related to the Bill of Rights will be edited for "offensive" content, revised and presented separately on another blog, as an "updated, sanitized version" of the original essays. The original articles, as written, will be preserved here for reference and continuity.
Over the past four installments, the reader has learned via historical example that they do not have freedom of belief, speech or association; they do not have the right to keep and bear arms, nor do they have the right to prevent troops from being quartered in their homes, neither do they have the right to be secure in their homes, properties and papers. The reader has also learned that for most of the history of this nation, the Bill of Rights did not even apply to the States, and now only certain rights do apply to the States, in limited circumstances. Further, even when they do apply, cunning rhetorical machinations are employed by the State's well-paid shysters to thwart the citizen/victim from exercising their "rights" in the pursuit of justice. In other words, if they want you, they will get you, in any way and every way they can, your "god given rights" notwithstanding.
Again, it is asserted that James Madison, author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was either a very naive, well intentioned, intelligent man, or a very shrewd, capable, intelligent man; that determination will be left for the reader to decide.
I now present the text of the Fifth Amendment for the reader, verbatim:
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
On the surface, the above Amendment seems to be a cogent statement, though the text is a blatant example of a run-on sentence with too many semicolons. A caveat is very apparent as well, which will be elaborated on shortly. The text of the Fifth Amendment will now be dissected and analyzed for the reader. After presentation, each section will be refuted, using historical judicial precedent, and proven for the lies that they are.
Beginning the analysis, the first two sections of the Fifth Amendment will be contrasted against each other: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,".
The above statement seems quite reasonable, though when contrasted with the next section, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" one can see how ridiculously easy it is to completely negate the first section by using the second section, by employing "interpretive" legerdemain, dependent on the given situation.
Focusing on the text of the second section, when contrasted against the first section, it all depends on whether one is a member of the "land or naval forces" (armed forces) or the "Militia" (state armed forces, like the present day National Guard), "when in actual service in time of War or public danger". In such situations, the first section obviously does not apply at all, and is rendered meaningless, as in examples of "summary judgement", via Military Law, which always applies to those individuals serving in the armed forces, even in times of peace.
That noted, historical precedent also shows that it is simple to arbitrarily classify a civilian citizen as a "sympathizer", an "armed combatant" or a "spy" in a "time of War" or "public danger", and to summarily judge and sentence the civilian accused via military law. So much for civilian citizens having the right not to be "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise "infamous crime", e.g., murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, brigandage, pillaging, or plundering, as a "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" no longer applies in such situations; you can be held, summarily convicted, shot, and interred within minutes, all without the benefit of a "Grand Jury".
Further, what exactly constitutes a "war"? An invasion? Armed insurrection? A foreign war on the other side of the planet? A riot? A street corner fistfight? What exactly constitutes "public danger"? An earthquake? A hurricane? A tornado? A bonfire? A drunken party of noisy revelers on New Year's Eve? It all depends on how those in authority arbitrarily define a given situation, and in such cases, the first section of the Fifth Amendment becomes even more worthless than the moldy parchment it was written on. Further, all of it goes out the window if "martial law" is declared, which authorities can and will resort to implementing if their agenda is even remotely threatened.
One would suppose if no wars are going on, or no public danger is evident, that the first section may in fact apply in some cases, provided that the Fifth Amendment is recognized by authorities as "incorporated" against the States and the Federal Government. History has shown that those in power are out to jealously protect and further their own interests, period. Conversely, they couldn't care less about the interests of accused citizens, guilty or not; they have unlimited resources as well, and the overwhelming majority of citizens do not.
Moving on to the third section: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" On the surface, this statement seems to be ironclad - if the authorities were honest men and not the cunning, amoral rhetoricians of today. Employing historical precedent, the above statement can be easily demolished by using contemporary judicial edicts over the past two decades, for example, Alex Blueford of Arkansas, cited in a link below. Presented further down in the list of links is the case of Terry Lynn Nichols, of Oklahoma City bombing infamy; this man tried twice for "capital or otherwise other infamous crimes" by cunning prosecutors legally splitting hairs with regard to the plainly contrived concept of "separate sovereignties" regarding the United States Federal and State governments. Other notable cases proving the above section from the Fifth Amendment is a lie are members of various police forces having been tried by the Federal Government for the same offenses, albeit cunningly disguised as "civil rights violations", e.g., BART policeman Johannes Mehserle, who killed Oscar Grant for no discernible reason, and the four murderous, NOLA jackbooted thugs of the Danziger Bridge debacle.
Immediately below are links to earlier articles I wrote and posted with regard to police brutality. They are provided for reference, with the titles sanitized in accordance with my pledge to not employ "offensive" language in this piece. Warning - the articles themselves are NOT sanitized:
BART policeman Johannes Mehserle kills Oscar Grant
NOPD policemen kill unarmed, innocent people on Danziger Bridge
Here are several links, proving the above highlighted statement in the preceding paragraph as a lie, the Double Jeopardy Wikipedia link is given for reference:
link to www.huffingtonpost.com
link to www.washingtonpost.com
The below links illustrate and explain contemporary legalistic legerdemain with regard to "Independent or Separate Sovereigns" and "Double Jeopardy".
link to www.tlgattorneys.com
link to articles.chicagotribune.com
link to uscivilliberties.org
The fourth section will be noted next: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," There are several examples of this statement being violated by both the State and Federal Governments, but opposers of such a stance will attempt to split hairs as well, stating that some examples are "civil" cases, e.g., the IRS, as such the above statement does not apply. In a sense they are correct - none of it truly applies at all, as the Fifth Amendment is nothing but contrived mendaciousness for credulous, easily duped ignoramuses anyway.
Here is an article which easily explains the utterly absurd SCOTUS decision in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010), regarding "self incrimination" presented above:
link to www.ibtimes.com
This article gives the background of the above fatuous SCOTUS decision in the case of Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013), also regarding "self incrimination:
Evidence from historical precedent plainly proves that the Fifth Amendment means very little in reality, if anything at all. This is especially apparent when nine arrogant, soft-palmed, wealthy, elitist rhetoricians, shrouded in ridiculous robes, can simply bang a gavel and blithely state that you have no such right and that you never did. That, reader, is EXACTLY how it works; so much for your "inalienable, god given rights"; the concept is not only untenable, based on the above adjudicated cases, but utterly obtuse to anyone capable of critical thinking.
Facts are facts - throughout history, the race of man gives man rights. Rights are not given by a god, nor are the rights that man gives man "inalienable". Man can, and does, take them away, via legislation, judicial edict, or martial law - god, if such a creature exists, has nothing at all to do with it. At best, our rights are privileges at best, and during the past three decades, have been referred to by government shysters as "privileges"; simply watch old C-SPAN videos for verification.
Here are selected articles regarding your risible Fifth Amendment "right" against self incrimination, as applied to the IRS:
link to www.taxattorneycpablog.com
In addition, the very act of being legally required to file tax returns with the legally sanctioned protection racket known as the IRS is forcing one to give testimony against oneself, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment - but I suppose that's another story. You are legally required to PAY THEM from the fruits of YOUR LABORS, receiving NOTHING in return, or "something bad" will happen to you, like fines and PRISON. Al Capone couldn't have figured out a better racket. The aloof, condescending, elitist criminals running the United States don't care about you at all - they are out to bilk, enslave and control you, so they can maintain their power over you.
The fifth section is simply ludicrous: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". Tell that meaningless sophistry to the police, who mow innocent people down everyday, from every walk of life, killing them on the street, in vehicles, and even in their own homes.
Links to classic cases illustrating the above section as nothing but a lie are easily available, and have been referred to in my earlier essays as well:
Yes, I shall beat these thoroughly dead horses until they disarticulate from the relentless assault - considering that so many of the supposed "rights" of the above victims were deliberately ignored by the megalomanical tyrants and their jackbooted enforcers running this moribund nation.
Here's a few more, both cases have been referred to in earlier polemical essays:
I wager it is safe to say the above individuals were deprived of life, liberty and property, without due process of law. There are HUNDREDS of other victims of the sadistic, badged pirates called police, slaughtering innocent citizens in the "name of the law":
link to www.policestateusa.com
link to www.alternet.org
Yeah, I know - the police make "mistakes" - and then they LIE about their actions, and often get away with it. Further, their victims are DEAD, and there is no recovering from that.
The sixth section is now presented: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The authorities have gotten around this section using a ridiculously easy method: "Civil Forfeiture". You see, "civil" cases are not covered by the Fifth Amendment. All the soft palmed scoundrels have to do is to have their enforcers, badged, jackbooted, duly sworn pirates, declare you a "drug dealer", or a child molester, or perhaps a terrorist, without ANY EVIDENCE, and then they can "legally" steal your money, seize your bank accounts, take your house and car, and leave you utterly DESTITUTE, without "compensation" for your losses.
Here are links to several cases, proving that the United States Federal and State governments, using their enforcers, the police, can steal any of your property, for no legitimate reason at all, and there is nothing that you can do about it at all.
Here is a convenient link to the "rules" that our elected gangsters and their enforcers use to legally steal your property:
Even the mendacious, verminous, megalomanical jackanapes in the White House has gotten into the act of legalized thievery, with an Executive Order plainly stating that HE and his minions can steal YOUR PROPERTY, and any other property that he can lay his scurvy paws on, in the name of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
link to www.whitehouse.gov
link to www.examiner.com
link to www.shtfplan.com
Aside from easily proving the last section of the Fifth Amendment as the lie that it is, there is also a not-so-hidden reason for the explosion of asset forfeitures within the United States - the Federal Government and the States are virtually bankrupt, with the elected criminals now resorting to STEALING from their own citizens to fund their agenda of POWER for themselves and CONTROL over the people as serfs in a fiefdom. Eventually, the entire corrupt system, rotten from top to bottom, will collapse, igniting a vicious insurrection that will destroy whatever is left of the United States, in a blood-drenched revolt that will make the French and Bolshevik Revolutions look like amateurish skirmishes. Those who have nothing left to lose have everything to win, and it will take only a small part of the populace to achieve that aim.
Coming to the end of this polemical essay, after dissection, analysis, and refutation of each section by employing citations contradicting accepted beliefs, I submit that the entire text of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a tissue of mendacity, or quite plainly, a LIE. I have employed documents from the United States government to prove this - having used their own words AGAINST THEM.
Some may not like what I have written, but I don't care about that; I never have and I never will. I invite any reader, from accredited Constitutional Scholar, to jingoistic cretin, to refute what I contend, using the same method of historical precedent, citation of adjudicated cases, and explanation of cited cases, to prove me wrong.
Stay tuned for the next installment, when I destroy the Sixth Amendment, and prove it for the lie that it is.