From the November 2004 Idaho Observer:

An American Insurgency

If you haven't already, give yourself a crash-course in the science of mind control. Many books (including government publications) have been written on mind control. Much material is available free for the downloading from the Internet. After passing Mind Control 101 to your satisfaction, contemplate the word "insurgent" as it is repeated over and over ad nauseam in connection with Iraqis who have chosen to defend their homes and cities from foreign invaders calling themselves liberators.

by Hari Heath

There is a war on. We are led to believe that it is a war on terror, evil doers, or other malevolent factors that threaten our society. But the real war, is a war for your mind.

Our mental conditioning, promoted by government players and their partners in the dominant media, has led many to believe that our troops in Iraq are fighting "insurgents." The term "insurgent," like "conspiracy theorist," "anti-government extremist," and "terrorist" has been repeated over and over again until such misleading notions became set in the public's mass mind. The use of such terms is intended to demonize adversaries and subvert reality .

This is a sophisticated process, in the original sense of the word. It is interesting that the meaning of sophisticated, has itself become sophisticated. How so?

My dictionary's first and second definition of "sophisticate" defines our modern, common use of the term: "1: to change from being natural, simple, artless, etc. to being artificial, worldly-wise, urbane, etc. 2: to bring to a more developed, complex, or refined form, technique, level, etc."

Our modern thinking follows these definitions, but the third and fourth definitions reach closer to the roots of the word: "3: [Now Rare] to make impure by mixture or adulteration 4: [Archaic] to corrupt or mislead."

The "now rare or archaic" root meanings come from the sophists and sophistry: Sophist "1: in ancient Greece, any group of teachers of rhetoric, politics, philosophy, etc., some of whom were notorious for their clever, specious arguments 2: any person practicing clever, specious reasoning." Sophistry "unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning."

Sophisticated has become sophisticated, in its original sense, because we have been mislead to an alternate and contrary meaning. The definition has been corrupted so we believe that "unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning" is "worldly-wise, complex or refined."

And the same type of unsound or misleading reasoning has recently been applied to the term "insurgent." The media is inundating us with references to the Iraqis fighting U.S. troops as insurgents. It has become a media mantra. But what is an "insurgent" and who are the real "insurgents?"

Insurgency defined

My dictionary defines "insurgency" as: "the quality, state, or fact of being insurgent," and "insurgent" as: "rising up against established authority; a person engaged in insurgent activity."

Let's back up a moment and review a few facts. Saddam Hussein was the established authority in Iraq prior to the first Gulf War. In fact, the CIA helped to establish him as such an authority decades ago. After the first Gulf War we left him in power as the established authority. Like so many established authorities throughout human history, he has thoroughly abused that authority, committing many atrocities against his own people and neighboring countries. These facts tend to verify that, for better or worse, Saddam Hussein's regime was in fact the established authority in Iraq.

Then, on the pretense that Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction actually existed and were an imminent threat, a "coalition of the willing" conducted a "pre-emptive strike" on the sovereign state of Iraq. Who were the real insurgents?

Now, after "liberating" Iraq, at the cost of the now admitted 100,000 civilian casualties, this coalition of the willing is waging an all-out attack against the "insurgents" in Fallujah.

Also labeled "fundamentalist" and "extremist" to further demonize them, who are these "insurgents?" Why are they fighting against their "liberators?"

Are the U.S. government forces and their allies really liberators, or a coalition of those willing to engage in offensive belligerency by defying the protocols of international law and national sovereignty, and, dare I say it, the United Nations' authority? .

In a real sense of the word, the coalition forces are the "insurgents" who have risen up against established authority and toppled it. And those rogue coalition members are seeking to make their insurrection permanent, under the guise of democracy, by establishing their interim puppet government and its subsequent permanent regime.

If a foreign invading force occupied our country, captured or killed our leaders like they were nothing more than faces on a deck of cards, murdered 100,000 of our citizens, destroyed the infrastructures of our society, leveled our homes, put us in prison and tortured us, defiled our religions and sought to convert our culture to theirs, would we fight back? And, if it is a right, even a duty of people to defend their homeland from foreign invaders and occupiers, how can we call them "insurgents?" My how "sophisticated" we have become!

Sovereign authority

The coalition atrocities in Iraq are horrible and, in the face of ample evidence of being commenced under false pretenses, they are also without excuse. But let's look closer to home. If an insurgency is "the quality, state, or fact of being insurgent," and insurgents are people engaged in the act of "rising up against established authority," what is the definition of "established authority?" The Magna Charta of 1215 began an era in western history where the authority and rights of the people themselves began to be recognized. In 1690, John Locke's Two Treatises on Government recognized and popularized the notion of government organized by the people themselves.

This wave of thinking grew and became the basis of the American colonial and national governments. The 1776 Declaration of Independence declared:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The sovereign authority of the people is also declared in the Idaho Constitution: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary."

The founding documents of our nation and state have never been fully realized or adhered to. In fact, like the treaties made with the Native American nations, they have consistently been broken and disregarded. But their existence in our history compels the recognition of certain facts:

· The people are the sovereign authority of this or any nation;

· The Constitution, however disregarded it may be, is still the established lawful authority in our nation;

· The Constitutions grant and limit the lawful powers of governmental authority and;

· Those who rise up against the established authority of the Constitutions are committing an act of insurgency or insurrection.

The war on/for your mind is all about manufacturing your consent-altering your perceptions and beliefs so you will accept government's insurgency against the lawful authority of the Constitutions.

Remember "consent of the governed?" When we consent to the unlawful usurpations of those posing as our government, we consent to be governed by what ever they legitimize, no matter how unlawful.

The homeland insurgency

The list of constitutional transgressions and usurpations by the federal government is endless. One should bear in mind the prime directive to government from the Tenth Article of the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The established authority of the Federal Constitution grants the federal government approximately 20 to 40 subjects upon which it can exercise its lawful powers. But the insurgents in Congress believe they can legislate on any subject whatsoever. And the executive and administrative branches further the insurgency with rules, regulations and executive orders.

The judicial insurgents legislate from the bench, contort the justice system into a constitutionally unrecognizable hulk and insulate themselves from responsibility with a self-declared cloak of immunity.

Time to plow?

For those with a heart and a mind still capable of moral vision, our circumstances are dire. Many of our fellow citizens are entrapped in the virtual reality that has been spun by the forces of those who desire to enslave them; many are now prisoners in the war waged on their minds.

Randy Weaver's grandfather told him, "government is like a garden. It needs a little weeding from time to time." There hasn't been enough proper weeding for a long time. And the noxious weeds have taken over so thoroughly that we cannot garden any more. It's time to plow it under.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the great declaration: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpation's, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

An American resurgency?

My dictionary offers another definition: "resurgent, rising or tending to rise again; resurging-resurgence."

We are ripe for an American resurgency. It's time to return to the lawful authority upon which our nation was founded and terminate the insurgency surrounding us. Here's a few pending reality motivators to get you in a "resurgent" mood.

* The post 9-11 horrors like the PATRIOT Act will be superseded by the next wave of insurgent congressional edicts as the newly elected by Diebold president "spends his capital" in a now Republican-dominated Congress.

* Our sons and daughters will be inducted by a "National Service Act" to replace the insurgent coalition forces, which will eventually return from their training mission in Fallujah and find gainful employment in a police state near you.

* They will be asking for "your papers please" after the national ID card legislation passes. Failure to comply will get you a ride on a special train to Guantanamo USA.

* For the compliant masses, the virtual economy will continue to prosper. Our make-believe world of finance is perpetuated by the perpetually faithful. It will be made easier to believe in when the new MONDEX chip puts cashless commerce under your skin.

Had enough? This is only the beginning of our future, if an American resurgency doesn't stop the insurgents who are occupying our government. But the resurgent options are few, and not suited to the well-developed preferences of the comfortably complacent citizenry.

The courts are closed to justice and accountability. The election process has been subverted. Congress is worse than deaf. The president is leading the insurgency and the media is cheering it along.

There appears to be only two paths left for the resurgent fire to blaze. Violence, which the Second Amendment reserves as the people's right for a remedy to tyranny, or secession, which, at some point, may result in violence by "authorities" who seek to assert themselves.

The violent path, at best, creates temporary change and vacancies that other "insurgents" may be hesitant to fill.

Secession, at this stage of the game will be a major challenge. The virtual reality of the insurgents' ruse permeates the world we live in. Seceding individually, beyond what one is capable of accomplishing in his own mind, is a near impossibility without a collective secessionist movement to move into.

Ultimately, given the nature of those who occupy our current government, we will likely be forced into a position similar to the so-called and misnamed "insurgents" in Iraq-we must fight. And that leaves the question of when.

Do we fight when we have no options left and an enemy breaking down our doors, with perhaps few means remaining to defend ourselves? Or do we leave our comfort stations and defend our sovereign principles and nation now, while we still have the effective means to do so?

The crossroads are near. We can follow down the well paved path of the Bush-led insurgency against our national trust, or we can fire up a resurgency. It's your move.