Obama promised change.  This may be the only campaign promise he is able to fulfill.  But change to what? What has changed or is changing?

The conversation is what has changed and is being changed, and through the new conversation, a change in political philosophy is occurring. Through this new philosophy, a change in opinion and policy is occurring, and through opinion and policy, a change in law, and through this change in law, a change in the reality in which we live.

What we are not being told is that our acceptance of this reality is dependent on a choice we make to consent to it or not.   Many believe there is no choice, but there is always a choice.

The reality in which we each live is a choice determined by the conversation in which we engage. If Obama distracts us from our conversation about fundamental American principles, he wins.  If we distract those seduced by Obama's conversation, we win. If we engage Obama in his conversation, we lose.  If Obama engages us in our conversation he loses.

But who is "we?"  Who am I? It is possible that I am just like you.

I am nobody particularly special.  I am a common Joe, a blue collar enterprenuer, but more importantly one of the American People who, like you, loves my Freedom.

To be successful, here is the conversation to which I suggest we consent, the reality in which we must choose to agree to trump Obama's conversation: Truth. 

"And what is the truth," you ask?  "My truth, your truth, who's truth?"  Why not rather ask, "my perception, your perception, who's perception?"  If we reduce truth to being a mere perspective, these questions are germain; but if we distinguish the truth as being an absolute, like 1 + 1 = 2, we take Truth out of the realm of the arbitrary relative obscure, and into the state of reality where it belongs.

What is truth?  Let's simplify it by saying, something happens. I witness it.  What happened is what happened. What I perceived about what happened is merely my impression about the facts I saw.  My impression about what I saw is merely my point of view, my "story" about what happened. Although one could say that what one saw was true, the truth is that everything one sees is prejudiced by the perceptions one believes about one's self, and the world within which they live.

Reducing our respective realities to this simple framework, we can find agreement in that all of us live our lives within the framework of the respective stories coloring the truths about our life and the lives of those around us. Our reality, the world in which we live, is therefore merely a construct of the sum total of our perspectives, a complex labyrinth of our own making, a matrix of our mind controlled by the perspectives we hold about truth.

"You've been living in a dream world Neo."

Mix and stir this concept with the truth that each of us live in a world with others, each of whom lives in a labyrinth they consider reality.  Is it any wonder we aren't getting along? Particularly if each of us holds that the perspective we each believe in is true, that our belief system is the right one, and for the world to be a better place, everyone simply needs to agree with us!

Having laid this foundation, let's now look through the Supreme Court's perspective about law.

An "unconstitutional law," like "hot ice," is an impossibiity, an oxymoron. Such an act is void "ab initio" i.e. the moment it is signed into "law."

The void ab initio doctrine received its classic formulation in  Norton v. Shelby Co.:  "An unconstitutional act is not a law;  it confers no rights;  it imposes no duties;  it affords no protection, it creates no office;  it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."  118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1125, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886).  See also Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) ("An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.  An offense created by it is not a crime.  A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.").

Truth or perspective?  The United States of America, as well as the governments of the 50 States are created and established by a constitution.  A constitution is analogous to a power of attorney or agency.  For the purpose of the relationship, the people are sovereign, the government their agent.  The constitution both grants power and limits power granted.  

Truth or Perspective? State constitutions, unlike the constitution for the United States of America, grant to lawmakers the plenary power to make law.  In other words, the state constitutions grant absolute power to lawmakers to determine what is and isn't reality, while the Federal constitution grants limited power to the United States, and further restricts that power by the first ten articles in amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. The tenth amendment provides that all power not granted by the constitution or prohibited by it to the states, is retained by the States or the People.

Truth or Perspective?  In the States, the restraining factors on the power of government are: 1) the power must be inherent in the people to begin with (no agent may do what the principal himself could not do; and 2) the people have retained to themselves certain rights, the boundaries of which the government may not transgress.  When the government makes and enforces a law it does not possess power to make and enforce, the exercise is void.  But  the exercise of power must be challenged as void.  The burden of proof is on the challenger.

Truth or Perspective?  All American governments are established consistent with the principles of the Public Policy declared in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the presumption exists in favor of the American People with respect to all acts of their government  that the purpose of government is to secure the certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, and that should laws be passed destructive to this end, the people have a right to alter or abolish the government. Regardless whether the people abolish government or not, any unconstitutional act of government is illegitimate and the people have a duty to withdraw their consent to that act, as provided by the maxim of law providing that the lesser power is included in the greater.

Truth or Perspective?  Contemporary political philosophies are shaped by the perceived needs and wants of the policy makers.  But should political philosophy be shaped by law, or law by political philosophy? In America today, laws are passed by necessity, that the end justifies the means, and these laws are  shaping our conversation, our philosophy. For example, the Patriot act, though unconstitutional in its scope, is "necessary" notwithstanding fundamental Union Policy to the contrary.  Necessity has always been the tool of tyrants to forge the shackles of despotism.

Truth or Perspective? This is America, and Union Policy cannot lawfully be overridden by despotism in the name of necessity, for in America government is established for one purpose: To secure the unalienable rights endowed in all by the Creator.  Should government become destructive to this end, the government ceases to be government and the people have a right to abolish it and begin again.  To secure the sanctity of this right, those who laid the cornerstone of Union Policy specifically stated that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the form of government to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute despotism, the people have a right, a duty to throw off the government and to provide new guards for the future security. "

Truth or Perspective?  There can be only one dominate political philosophy in America, one true conversation, one dominant reality, because every government act inconsistent with the fundamental Union Policy is subject to righteous overthrow.  That one policy is this:  The Creator endowed each man and woman with certain unalienable rights.  Government is established to secure those rights.  Chief among those rights are Liberty and use of property.  Is my exercise of Liberty dangerous?  Absolutely! I might hurt someone if I am free to exercise my Liberty.  I might damage someone if I use my property.  Such is the risk of Freedom! And if America were truly Free, America would be a very dangerous place to live, as there would be very little security! But do security and freedom ever dwell simultaneously in the same place?