Monthly Archives: May 2013

I am told that respect should be extended to honourable men, for they would not be in their position of such power and authority were their integrity and honor not as great as their responsibility of their position. After all, are they not lauded on the covers of magazines, and from the rooftops across the air, and through the cable and internet lines all over the world?

Certainly, they claim that our constitution was ambitious, and gave far too little power to the government. They contend it was for their benefit that the constitution was founded, but it was too limited. Certainly, in this opinion, they are all honourable, for it is honourable to have opinion. These honourable gentlemen propose to bury the constitution, and I am here to laud their attempts.

After all, was the constitution ambitious, in fact? Certainly, ambition was in its goals and aims, and it proposed limits upon the powers of government, and laws upon the land which were to affect all. But these honourable men have seen fit to slay the constitution, and thus, we must bury it. The reservations of rights are as naught before their honour and the prestige and power of their position, and so, the honour must be greater than all reservations.

But who among us would weep for a reservation of rights from the powers of government, when faced with such honour and integrity of character? When they promised to rid us of extraordinary rendition, and to remove the yoke of the Patriot act, did they not move expeditiously to do so? Certainly, it would be a mark against them to be proven to have laid falsehood before the people, but yet, they are honourable, their friends the media tell us so!  Did they not expeditiously end Guantanmo bay, and move to bring home our troops?  Did they not refrain from uses of power on sovereign soil, amounting to acts of war?

Have they laid claim upon your persons and property, and claimed the effective power to imprison you? Certainly, honourable men would do not so. Could honourable men claim the power to kill without trial upon arbitrary personal whim? Could honourable men, extend beyond the law, and the basis of the law, to do things to which no man has a right?

No, certainly, honourable men could not. Yet these are the very restrictions they ask us to end, the power to effectively resist the acts done without law. Only the last few years, have the powers been brought to that end, and the constitution slain by those stained hands of those honourable gentlemen.

Do they claim the power to force you to purchase products you do not wish to own, or deprive you of property or protection by the stroke of a pen?  Certainly, the most open and transparent administration of all time must be honourable, and release emails and communications without hesitation, when challenged upon their much-vaunted honour?

While the media claims I must respect such honour, I want none of it.  If such be honour, then I’d be better off dishonorable and honest.  I’d be better off poor and free than taken care of, as a serf, for certainly the constitution has had no marring, no crimes to be worthy of its slaying, for its counsels have not been followed, its limits were transgressed by those very… honourable men.  The body lies bruised and broken before you, and before you is the hands who claim such honour as to break it.