Whistleblower

Interrogative Imperative Institute

Who Goes There? Friend or Foe?

The Issue

Some people claim that whistleblowers are individuals who are concerned about: fairness, integrity, justice, honesty, transparency, society, rights, democracy, truth, and sovereignty for the people. Government authorities, however, argue that whistleblowers are criminal, selfish, treasonous, ego-driven, publicity seeking troublemakers who are jeopardizing national security as well as violating the principle that democracy is best served when secrets are preserved and the people are kept ignorant about what is being done through the process of governing. Where does the truth lie?



The Grand Deception

The American form of government is supposed to be rooted in republican principles. Such principles were derived from, and shaped by, a moral philosophy that was promoted during the Enlightenment. At the heart of this Enlightenment philosophy is a belief which requires the process of government to be run as a moral enterprise. In other words, rather than governement officials acting in ways that are arbitrary and intended to serve the interests of the government rather than the interests of citizens, repbulicanism indicated that government officials must abide by certain moral principles such as: honesty, objectivity, fairness, truth, nobility, keeping promises, charitability, transparency, tolerance, service to the public, and not being a judge in one's own affair.

The foregoing outline of republicanism is integral to the United States Constitution. Indeed, the principle of republican moral philsophy was enshrined in the American form of government through Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitutiion. That portion of the document stipulates that the federal government guarantees the states, and, therefore, the people, a republican form of government ... a form of government which does not violate the moral principles of republicanism.

To operate in accordance with Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, a government cannot be a judge in its own affair. Among other things this means that governments (whether federal or state) do not get to be the final arbiters of what is in the best interests of democracy or promoting the sovereignty of the people, and this includes the Supreme Court (both federal and state) since the judiciary constitutes one of the three branches of centralized government.

For several hundred years (in fact from practically the beginning of the founding of the American Republic), both federal and state governments have sought to render Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution relatively invisible and irrelevant to the process of governance. And, yet -- and this is precisely why Article IV, Section 4 has been rendered obscure by the federal and state governments -- this portion of the Constituion is, probably, the most fundamental principle set forth in that document becuase it was intended to allay the fears of the people that government would become tyrannical, but through a guaranteed, Constitutionally enshrined promise, the people would find assurance that the process of government would not be oppressive or tyrannical and, instead, would operate in accordance with the moral requirements of republicanism.




Bait and Switch

Centralized government in the United States has been conducting a sleight-of-hand routine before the American public from almost the very beginning of the founding of our experiment in democracy. However, this form of governmental prestidigitaton has been picking up steam over the last one hundred years as the sorcerers of governance seek to induce the public to believe that protecting 'national interests' or 'national security' is the same thing as protecting the sovereignty of the citizens, and this illusion is assisted by misdirecting people's attention away from the moral requirements of republicanism -- which, in the present case, means that the government does not have the right to determine what is, and is not, in the best interests of citizen sovereignty. Invoking the terms: "national interests" and "state security" is about protecting governments, not the people, although governments have done their best to try to deceive people and induce people to believe that there is no difference between "national interests" and citizen sovereignty.

Governments don't like whistleblowers because, in essence, such individuals remind us all that sovereignty is the right of the people and is not derived from, or a gift, of the government. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution indicates that whistleblowers have the right to be heard by the people beyond the horizons, and outside of the framework, of a legal set of processes which tend to serve the interests of central government but does not necessarily serve the sovereign interests of citizens.

Whistleblowers perform a public service to the cause of citizen sovereignty, often at great personal risk. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution not only encourages those kinds of selfless acts, but guarantees that the government must let those acts take place quite indepedently of what the government believes to be the case and quite free of criminal prosecution. Indeed, every prosecution of a whistleblower constitutes a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution and, as such, represents an unconstitutional act on the part of the government.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution is the 'supreme law of the land'. It takes precedence over every other aspect of the Constitution because it is the only guarantee which appears in that document. To seek to deny the requirements of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution not only renders the rest of the Constitution meaningless, but it seeks to suppress the principles of republican moral philosophy in which the American form of democracy is supposedly rooted.




From time to time (roughly speaking -- very roughly -- every two to three weeks), new video and/or audio presentations will appear on this page. These postings are intended to lend support to, and provide exposure for, the testimony of those individuals who are known as 'whistleblowers' and who are patriots, not criminals.




The following video presents an interview with Julia Davis, an anti-terrorism/immigration expert who was accused of being a domestic terrorist (and for a time jailed but subsequently exhonerated) while serving as a Customs and Border Protection Officer at the San Ysidro Port of Entry (the busiest land crossing port in the United States) simply for doing her job, and in the process, exposing serious flaws in the manner in which applications are handled with respect to individuals who are arriving from countries that have possible links with terrorist activities.









Copyrighted 2003-2017, Interrogative Imperative Institute, Brewer, Maine, 04402