I've been defending the Usa a lot lately, as well as investigating its cultural anthropology and philosophy, etc. One of the things I'm just starting to understand is that during the enlightenment, there were two competing ideologies that influenced the evolution of human consciousness and hence, human nature and civilization.
On one side, the realists insist that there is an objective reality that exists, thoroughly independent of the observer. One the other side, the post contemporary philosophy proposes that reality is subjective and that the observers perspective is all there is. The realists say that natural reality and all of its diverse Components have an essence, in and of themselves. Post modernists believe that we generate reality, and our plan is the fundamental principle of reality.
Federalist Papers
Now, I haven't read, The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, but I understand that it proposes that if every person does what is best for their own self, it will produce the most wealth. I have read the Federalist Papers and many other stories about the history and philosophy of the United States.
coarse Wealth
So, on the one hand we have this plan that is self centered, by definition, and another idea that is more submissive and adaptable. One ideology claims to generate reality, the other accepts reality. Both of these philosophies have influenced the evolution of western civilization.
I'm without fail a realists. However, I do believe that there is truth in both ideas. For example, the Computer I'm writing this story on both exists independent of my perception of it and is created by human creativity.
I believe that there is an significant human being, created by Almighty God, and that creative free time is an possible attribute of that human nature.
Now, the question becomes, are individual human rights more leading than our common wealth, or vice versa? I suggest that we can and should transform the self interest and competition possible in western philosophy and civilization, into self improvement and cooperation.
Yes, western civilization is the richest civilization in history. At least up until now. However, it has attained that prosperity at a very great cost, especially for citizen surface of western civilization. Any civilization that is based on the Darwinian ideology of survival of the fittest is barbaric. Yes, Darwin's ideas about natural history are fairly accurate. However, relative to the animal kingdom of life on earth, civilized human beings are a detach and definite kingdom of life on earth.
Cooperation, assistance and unity in diversity are distinctive traits possible in human nature. Yes, I know that animals cooperate, but not to the extent that humans do. The rule of law is the variation between wild animals and civilized human beings. That's the part that western civilization got right.
However, they didn't thoroughly eliminate the barbaric struggle for leadership and benefit over other people, thinking that competition is an possible attribute of human nature.
This story would be incomplete without referring to the influence of religion in human nature. I believe that Almighty God is the Source of most of the major religions on earth, and that the religions are the customary source of the rule of law. Our civil laws are secondary effects of the moral values and spiritual principles taught in the divine study revealed in the Religion of God.
This divine study teaches us, not so much that our natural instincts are evil, but that we should regulate the expression of our natural instincts with the rule of law, revealed by Almighty God. Different cultures have used Different stories to interpret this spirituality possible in human nature, but they all teach it in one way or another.
While I am saying that western civilization is not sustainable, I am not saying it is wrong or evil. Quite the contrary, the American revolution was essentially a civil rights movement, and the great republic of the west, its citizen and its government, have done more to strengthen the cause of human rights than any other nation or citizen in history.
At the time of the American revolution the philosophy and governance of the United States was a giant leap send in the strengthen of human affairs. Now, the imperfection possible in the principles are becoming increasingly unsustainable. American businessmen have run roughshod over the world cheaper and alienated most of the world citizen against the Usa.
I'm not saying the Usa is all wrong. I'm saying that allowing the most aggressive and selfish individuals to strengthen and lead our citizen is not fair and it is not sustainable. That idea is an old and obsolete ideology, good noteworthy to the Assyrian Empire or Babylon, than 21st century human civilization.
The American Indians had a very victorious and sustainable communist culture. Karl Marx and the Soviet Union gave communism a bad name, by the way. By communism, I do not mean the state owns the means of production. I believe God owns heaven and earth and every person and all things in them. individual human rights and our common wealth need to be properly balanced. Secret asset needs to be protected.
What I am writing about is transforming the culture that essentially glorifies bullying, self interest and competition, into a culture that has a cheap balance of individual human rights, our local community welfare and the universal common wealth of all citizen anywhere on earth.
This idea that I'm right and if you have a Different understanding of the truth than I do, then you are wrong, is a half truth. And all the conflict and contention is destroying our peace and prosperity. Sure, it has produced unprecedented wealth for a small minority of the people, at the cost of the majority of the people.
We, the citizen of earth, have a right and responsibility to heighten this situation. I do not claim to have all the answers. This is just an record in an ongoing conversation as far as I'm concerned. We, the citizen of earth, not any individual or group of human beings, need to accomplish this improvement of human nature, this more exquisite union.
coarse WealthEvidence that America is a republic not a democracy! Video Clips. Duration : 10.52 Mins.
This is only a 1 / 4 of the great documentary created by the John Birch Society. And 'John McManus and has much in America as a republic, democracy does not say. Make sure enough time to get all 4 parts of this document to be displayed on the website of John Birch Society. This is part 2 & 3 Part 1, points to our heritage and why the founders of what may take us do not have a democracy. Part 4 sets out clearly the differences between capitalism andSocialism / Communism. The United States is not a democracy, it is a Republic, I am sure that most have never learned this in school (if attending a private school or parochial )...... James Madison (Father of the Constitution) wrote in the Federalist Papers, "democracies are spectacles of turbulence and conflicts never, ever been found incompatible with personal security or property rights, and are generally more than one species in their lives when they were force in the death. "Alexander Hamilton said: "We're a republican government True freedom is never found in despotism or the extremes of democracy" .. Samuel Adams (signer of the Declaration of Independence, said: "Democracy never lasts long once the waste discharges, and murders itself." He knew the founders of the democracy of the ancient Greeks, some of the wildest excesses of government produced conceivable Democrats in Congress (at the time .. and the White House) do their best to convince Americanswe have a ...
To the unhappy chagrin of the saavy Ivy League pundits who, over the last 60 years, have fashioned straight through their verbose sophistic comment and political sway the hardly constitutional tradition of the Office of the U.S President (comprising the ruling sway and authority of "appointed" federal bureaucrats as opposed to one elected chief executive) narrative 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States still reads, as it did when first ratified by the 13 primary states, "The menagerial Power shall be vested in (only) a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected..."
Sadly, the last U.S. President who, for a time, indeed took this literal text of the U.S. Constitution to heart was Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President following the birth of the American republic in 1789. "The buck stops at my desk," insisted give-em hell Harry, when he thorough the burden of the office after the sudden death of Fdr. Yet, the finally grave mistake that Truman made during his time in the White House was willing and quite un-constitutional yielding, in 1948, of almost all of his, and only his, elected menagerial authority, under the Constitution, to congressional fiat in the wake of the 1947 National security Act, wherein a vicious, almost fascist, covert intelligence organization, the Central intelligence group was organized and placed under the direct operational operate of the U.S. Military (the Pentagon) to indeed check the authority of the U.S. President. In essence, the National security Act gave the Cia the power to render an unequivocal 'no' to any order issued by a standing U.S. President that the Cia deemed as inappropriate. And the subsequent creation of the National security Agency, in 1952, expanded, even more so, the national and international jurisdictions of the intelligence society to unilaterally implement its own standards of law above the constitutional authority of the President and, especially, the communal will of the American electorate. Case in point, the blatant refusal of the Cia to back down and cancel its operations when President Trumen, in 1953, refused to go along with planned doing Ajax, the covert U.S./British overthrow, or coup, of the democratically elected government of Iran, and installment of the Shah as its tyrannical pro-American ruler. Instead of cancelling its preparations for the coup in 1952, the duplicitous group kept all things intact for the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President, whom the Cia knew it could rely on to put a de facto stamp of approval on the unconstitutional operation. The same basic thing occurred with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and, most probably, the horrendous tragedies of 9/11. If any of this is doubted by of my readers, I encourage them to read the entire texts of the 1947 National security Act and the 1952 National security group Act, and their legislative histories, in increasing to the histories of the aforementioned debacles.
Federalist Papers
Those convoluted post-Second World War congressional acts probably, at that time in history, went as unread, and blindly passed, by the great majority of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives as were the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Federal support Act of 1913, the National rescue Act of 1933, and the Patriot Act of 2001. These congressional acts were, as Thomas Jefferson said specifically about the Alien and Sedition Acts, as constitutional as a golden calf in the United States Senate. So, after the un-officially official demotion of the U.S. President straight through the National security Act of 1947, with its quasi-legal creation of the "Office of the President," (comprising a National security Advisor, a White house Chief of Staff, and seven-or-more appointed "officers" in increasing to the primary cabinet secretaries), menagerial decisions, in the compulsion of federal laws, were no longer rendered expressly by the elected President, but, rather, by the menagerial officers appointed to resolve procedure for the President. Though the President would publicly announce such decisions, and lead the nation to believe that he had made the decisions in an attempt to faithfully inflict the laws passed by Congress, the decisions were 'actually' made by a go for circle of specially appointed handlers, with the President having already agreed to abide by their will. This process is much distinct from that of the menagerial decision process prior to 1947, where the President, alone, made menagerial decisions. Even though there were Presidents who illegitimately, and unconstitutionally, used their power for corrupt purposes, the authority to wield menagerial power officially resided in the "one" elected chief menagerial and a group of cabinet advisors contribution their opinions about procedure to the President. What Colonel Edward House was, secretly and unofficially, to President Woodrow Wilson, Karl Rove and Condilezza Rice were, by extra-constitutional interpretation endorsed by U.S. Consummate Court ruling, to George W. Bush. David Axlerod, Rahm Emanuel, and, who knows how many more appointed pundits, constitute the same type of decision mantra for Barack Obama. The American communal are led to believe otherwise, but it's basically the same for every Presidential administration.
The Us menagerial branch - Constitutional Mandate, History, Obama, and Beyond
Popular movies would have you believe that Presidents, such as John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crissis, made final decisions by themselves in regard to the deployment of Military force against other nation-states, such as Cuba. But the National security Act of 1947 set the historical precedent for a group of "smart" advisors to resolve the permissible procedure to follow, and for the President to voice that procedure as his decision. Unfortunately, this is hardly true. Though the appointed have more power than the elected, there are safe bet issues which should never be thought about only by the menagerial branch. As I have opined before in other essays, procedure affecting the overall security of the citizen of the United States, such as a decision to wage nuclear war, should never be decided only by the President," but by a vote-in-council between the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) comprising the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Consummate Court. Instead of appointed pundits determining the thorough communal procedure to follow, when crucial decisions must be made, a deciding vote of three of these four constitutionally designated leaders would properly resolve the permissible procedure of federal communal policy. Similarly, the President, or the "Office of the U.S. President" should not be allowed by Congress to originate de jure wars straight through police actions. Nonetheless, since Congress was basically responsible for the creation of the "Office of the President," straight through the duct of the National security Act of 1947, the swaying legislative clout of a few very qualified senators and representatives has, since that time, been the force behind the terrible things that have happened to moderately shred our popular Constitution.
Who would want to easily admit to the American nation that such a drastic deviation from the text of the U.S. Constitution has indeed been an thorough procedure of the United States Government since shortly after the Second World War? Especially after a newly elected President has placed his hand on a Bible and sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the same Constitution of the United States that that same elected leader is committed to subversively undermining. Who would want to confess to the citizen that it's all indeed a farce?
Take, for instance, Barack Obama, who, since being elected, has followed suit in the further disparagement of the U.S. Constitution by systematically seeking to expand wide federal power over matters reserved specifically to the states by virtue of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, such as schooling and condition care; and has sorely disgraced the American republic by bowing to a foreign head of state (the King of Saudia Arabia). Moreover, Obama has sought to use the Federal support Act and its unconstitutional creation, the Fed, in order to bail-out the private banking cartel, created by the Federal support Act, with billions of tax dollars. He has done his best to corollary the example of old inept Presidents by endorsing the spending of billions of tax dollars every month that the republic does not have, in order to perpetuate U.S. sway over foreign matters which are indeed none of the nation's concern, such as the proliferation of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which, in all probability, were created as a corollary of the federal orchestration of the atrocities that occurred on 9/11. To top things off, Mr. Obama has personally spent nearly 2 million dollars in legal fees, of contributed campaign money, to keep out of the American public's purview his long-form birth certificate and other records which might show him not to be a natural born citizen of the United States, and, therefore, an interloper and false president. Obama would like to see the United States republic become like the Federal Republic of Germany, with total operate emanating from a central government. He would like to see the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abrogated by a new constitutional convention, which would place all of the states under the direct operate of the federal government, thereby manufacture the institutions originally placed by the Framers under the dominion of the states, such as communal education, under federal control. If Obama is a constitutional scholar, as he claims to be, his scholarship only extends to the history, and Machiavellian techniques, of perverting the sacred document for purposes of usurpation of menagerial and legislative power. I doubt either Obama has a fraction of the knowledge possessed by Woodrow Wilson, who, regretfully, was intimidated into signing the Federal support Act of 1913 into law. After signing it, he stated that he might have done so to the detriment of the nation.
Being Democrat, Republican, or Independent, conservative or liberal, has currently nothing at all to do with being a dedicated American wanting federal and state government based upon the preservation of the sacred system contained in the U.S. Constitution. Abraham Lincoln, the, supposedly, kind President/dictator during the American Civil War, once quipped that, if a small majority of a diverse electorate of citizen can be convinced that a principle of government is right, even if it is dead wrong and corrupt, the corrupt principle can be lorded over the whole citizen with impunity. This was how the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and its equal clause, were ratified, which, in essence, began the evisceration of the 10th Amendment. It seems today that most supposedly educated citizen in the American republic go about their daily activities mental that, merely because they have the apparent relaxation to buy gas at over-3 dollars per gallon, to get in their cars and drive across the country as far as their money will permit, and to buy the basic necessities of life (food, shelter, and clothing) at prices 500-or-more percent above what they were in 1950, they are getting the advantage of a government and a political economy run by the electorate. Back in 1912, a U.S. Senator by the name of Nelson A. Aldrich, who was responsible for authoring the text of the Federal support Act of 1913, while secreted away with a few other conspirators on an island off the Georgia coast during 1910, made a statement just after the Fra's duct that was recorded by only a few citizen who were listening close adequate to hear it. He said smugly, "It's a great victory for the bankers who will advantage gainfully from the tax money used over time to grease the wheels of finance slowed by mistakes in capital judgment. What is even greater is that taxpayers will be made to look forward to compliance their money for our purposes."
A wise someone once said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. This bit of coarse sense makes even more sense when you correlate the trillions of dollars that have been collected straight through the federal earnings tax since 1913 with the current national debt and the inflation that has been wrought straight through the Federal support system since the elimination of the gold thorough in the 1950s, and silver coinage in the 1970s. Federal earnings taxation has done nothing more, since 1913, than destroy the balance of finance in this country by manufacture a very few wealthy citizen even more wealthy, and millions of poor and struggling citizens even poorer and more struggling. As I have said before, inflation only occurs when a unit of exchange is devalued, and presently, the American dollar is worth less than 30 cents, or a fraction of the worth of a dollar in 1945. This inflationary value is, in and of itself, politically contrived, but, for some innane reason, most Americans under the age of 40 think that what they are buying is worth what they are paying. And these supposedly educated citizen know nothing about the true history of the fall of the American dollar. Just after the turn of the 20th Century, a few pragmatic Machiavellian politicians and bankers, like J.P. Morgan, envisioned a federal system where the states would be controlled straight through money in Case,granted by the federal government straight through an unapportioned federal earnings tax. The taxpayers would be conditioned to finance a military-industrial complicated geared to imperial international dominion of other nation-states and would look forward to bailing out the federally contrived capitalists who would always gain lucratively from federal investments.
Allowing Mr. Obama to continue the schedule at one time developed by George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, while in the guise of Democratic Party politics, will be furthering the destruction of the American republic and its glorious Constitution. Maybe it's time to listen much more closely to the wisdom espoused by congressional leaders such as U.S. Rep. (Tx) Ron Paul, who has a standing resolution in the House of Representatives to abolish the Federal support system and to reinstate the gold thorough by restoring to the U.S. Congress its narrative 1, Section 8 power to coin money and to resolve its value. I would much rather hear an active U.S. citizen asserting the textual constitutional requirement that a President is required to be a natural born citizen of the U.S, than one spouting that a woman has a constitutional right to have, or not have, an abortion. For there are millions of literate Americans who have never read the U.S. Constitution and don't have any idea what their constitutional rights comprise. It is this prevailing ignorance of constitutional fact and law that is allowing Obama, and the many like him, to do their dirty work on the fabric of American government. It is good to remember that fascism does not have to be exerted from the extremism of conservative, or right-wing, political Military in order for its effect, the abrogation of human freedom, to be experienced. A denial of relaxation can as indeed be felt straight through greatest liberalism, in applying greatest federal constraint where it should not be applied. I, like Henry David Thoreau, believe that under the type of system espoused by the Framers, and defended by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay in the "Federalist Papers," the federal government is best when it governs least, or as the U.S. Constitution directs it to govern.
In summation, I like to think about the response of the great Benjamin Franklin to a lady who curiously greeted him after he emerged from the Constitutional custom that had produced the U.S. Constitution. "What have you made in there," she asked. To her question, Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
The Us menagerial branch - Constitutional Mandate, History, Obama, and BeyondThomas L. Pangle on the Federalist Papers Tube. Duration : 1.23 Mins.
Thomas L. Pangle, Joe R. Long Chair in Democratic Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, discusses the Federalist Papers with the George Mason University Law & Economics Center.
Great Deal : Date Created :Apr 22, 2011 06:03:06
