PDA

View Full Version : A Constitutional Federal Republic




PatriotG
05-19-2008, 08:32 AM
A Constitutional Federal Republic (http://www.restoretherepublic.org/?p=156)

God is the ultimate mathematician. When he created the universe it was not a haphazard affair, or the illogical meandering of a micro-managing maniac. He created a set of rules by which this very complex existence can function without His intervention on every level. It is logical. It is pure genius.

We live in an existence that follows pattern, upon pattern derived from logical equations. Years of research developing complex formulas have led us to find out aspects of the universe that we could not have imagined.

When ‘the People’ of this country created the Bill of Rights, it was set out as a manifesto of logic, which prevents the state from intrusions on those most precious of inalienable rights. It is an enumeration of rights that would secure the blessings of a government ‘of the People,’ and not that of the state.

The body text of the Constitution is a charter for laying out the Republic, and stating the specific powers ‘the People’ have granted to the government. The powers granted to three branches of government are few, and they are not subject to interpretation, as most seem to believe. The fact that in 1787 there were no automobiles does not suggest that the right to travel freely should be regulated by the government today. The fact that the Flintlock was the most modern firearm at that time, does not suggest that our Founding Fathers could not see advancement in weaponry that should force us to give up the right to secure a free state by bearing arms.

Mathematics is logic posted in numbers from which the same calculation consistently produces the same results, and so to was it meant for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Article 1, Section 8, contains 18 clauses of powers so granted to the government. If you would like to find out what the governments power is with regard to the Coining of money you will go to Clause 5. You will not go to Clause 8, or the ‘General Welfare’ statement. You will go to the clause that has been there since the inception. It is logical.

If you want to know what powers are bestowed upon the government with regard to the freedom of speech you will go to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights; “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” If you were to look for any power concerning the restriction of that freedom in Article 1, Section 8 you would draw the same null every time you look there. And again ‘General Welfare’ does not imply, suggest, or mean, in any form that some mysterious power to restrict free speech, be it compelling or otherwise, exists.

Congress is restricted from making such laws, but what of the President, and the states you ask? Try as I may, I cannot find in the mere 3,500 words of the Constitution the power granted for presidential decrees that would pass as law, or for the states to disregard the supreme law of the land, and denigrate any precious inalienable rights.

What you will find in Article VI, Clause 2 pertaining to any power grab by some branch of government is this; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

And then to remind us all that our representatives are bound by the tenet’s of the Constitution Article VI, Clause 3 states; “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”

Some would attempt to explain that the government has a ‘compelling interest’ to regulate certain inalienable rights. I say hogwash. Where would the logic be to enumerating prohibitions on the federal government, but allowing free reign to interpret anything with abstract words such as compelling, or living? But wait, we are talking logic, which appears to be a subject long since forgotten when speaking of rights.

The Constitution does make us guarantees that appear to be insurmountable when applying logic, but easily countermanded when a ‘compelling interest’ is used as a trump card. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states; “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” What ‘compelling interest’ might the government have not to carry out such a forthright assignment?

And then Section 4 states; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

It is not a complex task to understand that the thought at the inception of this nation was to restrict the powers of government, be it federal or local. If I as a citizen of any state have the right to voice my opinion on the deplorable state of the government, where does the government find its enumerated power to squelch that right?

So in reading the Constitution, and those of the states, there must be a beneficial relationship to each other that has been prescribed by its authors, and then ratified by ‘the People.’ One does not write a contract that benefits others then pen another to completely discredit his position in the same context. It would be completely illogical in one instance to create then destroy the identical right, but political motivations, ignorance, and greed tend not to conform to reasoning.

This is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Despite the ignorant ramblings of media talking heads, and the shrill cries of every would-be dictator from the local mayor to the president, this is not a democracy, nor a representative republic. Neither you, nor I have the right to intrude upon the lives of our fellow citizen. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing school system. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing banking system. And we cannot, and should never consider imposing upon them a judicial system that has completely turned its back on the Constitution.

This was meant to be a form of government, without government, as it was formerly known, but rather a system through which the people would control all aspects of their own being. My ‘general welfare’ and that of my family is my concern. While I may need help from time to time I depend on my ingenuity, and in dire need the good will of my neighbor and other members of the family so well healed.

When we ask of the government any function not so enumerated we have called for an intrusion of some right, be it spelled out or implied by the needs of nature, and the human condition.

A Constitutional Federal Republic is not a representative republic in the common thinking. We send our representatives to congress, or to the state legislature, to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the Constitution. That is to say unless you can find a tenet under which a proposed legislation is presented it is your duty, and oath of office, to oppose that bill.

It is clearly stated in the writings of our Founding Fathers leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, and recognized as the basic tenet of law by the Supreme Court. In Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442, the Court stated, “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.”

Some might be convinced that there is no difference between a representative republic and a Constitutional Federal Republic, but they are wrong. Who does your elected official represent? Is he interested in your rights, or mine? Your interests, or mine? I vote for my representative based on his knowledge of the Constitution, and his willingness to defend it, even at the cost of his position. He/She, whoever typically has only one interest at heart; placating the majority so that they can be labeled incumbent.

A representative of the people should have but one light to be guided by, and that is the rule of law, and all law in our country originates in the Constitution. You cannot be a representative of all the people if you choose sides with the majority, and therein is the prescription for a representative republic.

So, when I hear someone proclaim that the government has failed, I am led to just one conclusion, we Citizens of the United States have failed in our responsibility to understand what form of government was established.

The government has failed in none of its endeavors. It has managed to use the ‘General Welfare’ statement as a tool to extract the wealth of the nation by creating agencies and benefits that could not be reconciled using either the Constitution, or basic math.

It is the ‘compelling interest’ line that has been used in order to infringe on the most fundamental of rights. It has placed us into wars without proper congressional authority. It has encumbered us with licensing schemes under which the government can confiscate our property. And foremost, it has convinced the vast majority that this government allows any form of democracy.

I seek no rights, privileges or benefits from my neighbor other than that he respects my right to live as I choose, as long as I do not cause him or her any personal harm. If we believe this is a democracy we are free to impose our will, and stupidity, to the point that we jeopardize all our freedoms, and certainly the integrity of the overall structure.

The government thrives as it has moved us from a Constitutional Federal Republic to the abhorrent form of democracy. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

In Federalist 10, James Madison also warned us that, “In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

As we go forward into the 21st Century it is with dire need that we must return to that form of government that was logically set out at the birth of the nation. We have no choice, but to live by the rules that were established upon the bedrock of liberty.

Do we have so little respect for our Forbearers, and so little regard for our posterity as to stand idly by as the government successfully infringes upon each and every right held so precious as to be purchased at the price of blood?

Are we so blinded by our own ambitions, and foibles, as to not be able to see the burden that we place on the backs of our children by adhering to the notions, and they are nothing more than notions, that this is some form of government that was completely repugnant to the authors of the Constitution?

It is time to dust off the history books, re-educate our children and ourselves. Any other road would be a journey to the destruction of this Constitutional Federal Republic.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-19-2008, 01:22 PM
A Constitutional Federal Republic (http://www.restoretherepublic.org/?p=156)

God is the ultimate mathematician. When he created the universe it was not a haphazard affair, or the illogical meandering of a micro-managing maniac. He created a set of rules by which this very complex existence can function without His intervention on every level. It is logical. It is pure genius.

What is that metaphysical rule that the math reduces down to? The ideal of establishing self evident and inalienable truths is a theory based on a metaphysical science. Today's modern science in comparison uses theory. As American citizens, we should work to establish the science which supports the best government in the world rather than establishing the science which is most modern. In opposition to us and our government, this modern science today sits itself arrogantly from our national dinner table at its very own high table in an international community.


We live in an existence that follows pattern, upon pattern derived from logical equations. Years of research developing complex formulas have led us to find out aspects of the universe that we could not have imagined.

What is that metaphysical pattern?


When ‘the People’ of this country created the Bill of Rights, it was set out as a manifesto of logic, which prevents the state from intrusions on those most precious of inalienable rights. It is an enumeration of rights that would secure the blessings of a government ‘of the People,’ and not that of the state.

Logic would have us sit peacefully together. Such types of systems are celebrated today by African Americans as they existed peacefully as primitive caste systems in Africa before the advent of the modern slave trade. While there did exist wars between competing primitive caste sysems in Africa, no one felt ill at ease when made to sit at different master and slave dinner tables.
The idea of establishing a positive government where master and slave sit at the same dinner table creates volatility. This relationship remains under a constant pressure to erode back into the tyranny of the primitive caste systems where a master class had little concern for the thirst of its slave class.


The body text of the Constitution is a charter for laying out the Republic, and stating the specific powers ‘the People’ have granted to the government. The powers granted to three branches of government are few, and they are not subject to interpretation, as most seem to believe. The fact that in 1787 there were no automobiles does not suggest that the right to travel freely should be regulated by the government today. The fact that the Flintlock was the most modern firearm at that time, does not suggest that our Founding Fathers could not see advancement in weaponry that should force us to give up the right to secure a free state by bearing arms.

The informal legal precedent of the Constitution is driven by the formal message in the Declaration of Independence regarding our seperation from the king's tyranny. Any actions of tyranny by the king proved that he wasn't sitting at the same dinner as us. This action of tyranny cancelled out any sovereign authority the king had over us in regards to the Holy authority he was "ordained" with in the book of Romans in the bible.
As a result, we created a new king to sit with us at a new table.


Mathematics is logic posted in numbers from which the same calculation consistently produces the same results, and so to was it meant for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This isn't true actually. The only concrete truths or laws are the self evident and the inalienable ones. The Constitution itself is dynamic in that it is actually informal in comparison to the more formal document of the Declaration of Independence. Of course, a lawyering law maker would argue that these truths have no legal precedence but legality in itself has no purpose other than it is rightfully or wrongfully qualified by a qualifier as a precedent law. This amounts to THE POWER OF TYRRANY.
Our founding fathers argued that the power in self evident and inalienable truths supercede the power of tyranny.


Article 1, Section 8, contains 18 clauses of powers so granted to the government. If you would like to find out what the governments power is with regard to the Coining of money you will go to Clause 5. You will not go to Clause 8, or the ‘General Welfare’ statement. You will go to the clause that has been there since the inception. It is logical.

We can't guarantee our rights by concentrating on them because it isn't possible to hit an apple in a tree with an arrow by aiming at the apple itself. This will only cause us to fall short of our aim. Our rights are not there for the sake of our rights after all. We have these rights to preserve a higher Civil Purpose which is to keep every American master and slave ideally sitting at the same dinner table.


If you want to know what powers are bestowed upon the government with regard to the freedom of speech you will go to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights; “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” If you were to look for any power concerning the restriction of that freedom in Article 1, Section 8 you would draw the same null every time you look there. And again ‘General Welfare’ does not imply, suggest, or mean, in any form that some mysterious power to restrict free speech, be it compelling or otherwise, exists.

The power exists in the truths which are self evident and inalienable. When these truths are used to power our Constitutional government, there are no interpretations. An interpretation is an argument which challenges a self evident truth after all. It isn't possible to bring arguments against self evident and inalienable truths because such truths are timeless in that they reduce as John Locke argued to be inalienably written as the very conscience of the human soul -- natural rights. Come on now. Don't you see that it is against our nature to want to sit a master class and a slave class at a single table devoid of tyranny?


Congress is restricted from making such laws, but what of the President, and the states you ask? Try as I may, I cannot find in the mere 3,500 words of the Constitution the power granted for presidential decrees that would pass as law, or for the states to disregard the supreme law of the land, and denigrate any precious inalienable rights.

The President (the new king) , the Congress and the Supreme Court are supposed to be sitting as at the same dinner table as safeguards for us. In other words, what is it that the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court do to keep us sitting as both master and slave at the same dinner table? They do very little nowadays to insure this Civil Purpse. In fact, one would say that they have lost the vision of our founding fathers.


What you will find in Article VI, Clause 2 pertaining to any power grab by some branch of government is this; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Please note the words "bound thereby." In regards to he constitutionality of law, any writing within the informal, dynamic U.S. Constitution becomes a Declaration of Tyranny without its submission to the self evident and inalienable Civil Purpose in the Declaration of Independence.


And then to remind us all that our representatives are bound by the tenet’s of the Constitution Article VI, Clause 3 states; “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”

Once again, bound to the dinner table with us. To establish a single dinner table without evidence of tyranny was the reason we gave for seperating from the king's ordainedment as God's very sovereign authority over us.


Some would attempt to explain that the government has a ‘compelling interest’ to regulate certain inalienable rights. I say hogwash. Where would the logic be to enumerating prohibitions on the federal government, but allowing free reign to interpret anything with abstract words such as compelling, or living? But wait, we are talking logic, which appears to be a subject long since forgotten when speaking of rights.

Logic is a process which breeds peace and unemotion. Our "positive" constitutional government creates a metaphorical dinner table where people bicker a lot of times while becoming quite emotional in the process. The king and the untouchable at the table, the 2 extremes of the spectrum, would have bitterness in their stomachs while having to tolerate each other. As the king would be bound to suffer this bitterness at the table, the untouchable member would be freed as incouragement for him or her to come and join in with this bitterness.


The Constitution does make us guarantees that appear to be insurmountable when applying logic, but easily countermanded when a ‘compelling interest’ is used as a trump card. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states; “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” What ‘compelling interest’ might the government have not to carry out such a forthright assignment?

Our system is not logical. Positive governments are not logical in that they don't bring peace. Once again, the words written into the informal Constitution become a Declaration of Tyranny without the use of the greater power expressed in the self evident and inalienable truths of the more formal Declaration of Independence.


And then Section 4 states; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

We aren't divided into tyrannies but divided up for the express purpose of resisting tyranny. This means we all still sit at the same dinner table even though we are divided. For example: The African American master class still sits with the African American slave class; the state of Texas master class still sits with the Texas slave class; the city of Cleveland's master class still sits with the city of Cleveland's slave class and so on. The glory of the American system isn't that it sits every citizen at the same table as classless. The glory in its system is how it attempts to bind the king to remain while it frees the uncomely untouchable to come to the table.


It is not a complex task to understand that the thought at the inception of this nation was to restrict the powers of government, be it federal or local. If I as a citizen of any state have the right to voice my opinion on the deplorable state of the government, where does the government find its enumerated power to squelch that right?

Change for the sake of change is no better than no change at all. Without the purpose of a blue sky to aim at, we attempt to hit the apple in the tree by aiming at the apple itself. This will always leave us falling short of our aim.
In other words, we don't voice our opinions for the sake of voicing our opinions. We are given the right to voice our opinions for the purpose of freeing the uncomely untouchable member to sit with us at the same dinner table that the king is likewise bound to remain with us. If this idea creates bitterness in your belly, well congratulations. This means you are thinking like a responsible American.


So in reading the Constitution, and those of the states, there must be a beneficial relationship to each other that has been prescribed by its authors, and then ratified by ‘the People.’ One does not write a contract that benefits others then pen another to completely discredit his position in the same context. It would be completely illogical in one instance to create then destroy the identical right, but political motivations, ignorance, and greed tend not to conform to reasoning.

The Constitution is not concrete but the self evident and inalienable truths are. In fact, the Constitution cannot operate without the creation of measures by the necessary evil of legal precedents. These necessary measures for the practical operation of our Constitution become the same legal precedents which later smother the people's Civil Purpose. In order to reestablish and reconsecrate the Civil Purpose of the people, the self evident and inalienable truths must be elevated become the power over the necessary evil of tyranny.
Once again, the Civil Purpose is to sit every American citizen at a single table devoid of tyranny.


This is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Despite the ignorant ramblings of media talking heads, and the shrill cries of every would-be dictator from the local mayor to the president, this is not a democracy, nor a representative republic. Neither you, nor I have the right to intrude upon the lives of our fellow citizen. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing school system. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing banking system. And we cannot, and should never consider imposing upon them a judicial system that has completely turned its back on the Constitution.

The regulation of liberty should take precedence over the ideal of individual liberty itself for the express purpose of sitting every American ideally at the same dinner table. In other words, the king needs to be bound while the discouraged untouchable member needs freedom to come.


This was meant to be a form of government, without government, as it was formerly known, but rather a system through which the people would control all aspects of their own being. My ‘general welfare’ and that of my family is my concern. While I may need help from time to time I depend on my ingenuity, and in dire need the good will of my neighbor and other members of the family so well healed.

The workings of inequity to divide up the dinner table can be more damaging to the Civil Purpose in the Constitution than the lack of the works necessary to set it up and maintain it. If the dispensation of contentment by the quenching of thirst is not gratifying enough to produce the necessary responsibilities from the people, then we need to just overturn the table so we can go back to a slave class serving a master one.


When we ask of the government any function not so enumerated we have called for an intrusion of some right, be it spelled out or implied by the needs of nature, and the human condition.

Without the blue sky of Civil Purpose, we remain blind in dark legal precedents. We then fall short of our aim when attempting to govern ourselves. This in turn makes us less than ideal human beings who, over time, take on the psychological characteristics of criminals. We are then isolated from the dinner table as untouchables by both master and slave alike.
Is it any wonder then that the dark untouchable in our society has graduated him and herself towards the table from first being that of a slave, then that of a prisoner, to, finally, that of a person who tends to take on the psychological characteristics of a criminal?


A Constitutional Federal Republic is not a representative republic in the common thinking. We send our representatives to congress, or to the state legislature, to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the Constitution. That is to say unless you can find a tenet under which a proposed legislation is presented it is your duty, and oath of office, to oppose that bill.

We, as representatives of the people, aren't bound to law by the power of tyranny but by the enlightened power of the self evident and inalienable truths.


It is clearly stated in the writings of our Founding Fathers leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, and recognized as the basic tenet of law by the Supreme Court. In Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442, the Court stated, “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.”

Our Civil Purpose has no legal precedence backing it up outside of the self evident and inalienable truths. So, the Supreme Court has 2 choices. It can either hold legal precedents over Civil Purpose, which in itself has no purpose other than they are made rightfully or wrongfully legitimate as the law; or, it can hold our Civil Purpose -- the self evident and inalienable truths -- as the real power over our Constitution.


Some might be convinced that there is no difference between a representative republic and a Constitutional Federal Republic, but they are wrong. Who does your elected official represent? Is he interested in your rights, or mine? Your interests, or mine? I vote for my representative based on his knowledge of the Constitution, and his willingness to defend it, even at the cost of his position. He/She, whoever typically has only one interest at heart; placating the majority so that they can be labeled incumbent.

It is necessary to hire expert presidents, law makers and judges in regards to the darkened legal precedents. We can hire inexperienced citizens as our president, law makers and judges in regards to the enlightened Civil Purpose in the Constitution.


A representative of the people should have but one light to be guided by, and that is the rule of law, and all law in our country originates in the Constitution. You cannot be a representative of all the people if you choose sides with the majority, and therein is the prescription for a representative republic.

Remember the Obama rule: Change for the sake of change is no better than no change at all. So, law for the sake of law is no better than no laws. The legal precedents of change and law are meaningless without the Civil Purpose.
Civil Purpose: To ideally sit every American citizen at a single table devoid of tyranny. This Civil Purpose regulates liberty at times by binding the bright face of the great king while granting freedom to the dark face of the uncomely untouchable.


So, when I hear someone proclaim that the government has failed, I am led to just one conclusion, we Citizens of the United States have failed in our responsibility to understand what form of government was established.

We established a "positive" constitutional government to dispense the Civil Purpose to every American citizen.


The government has failed in none of its endeavors. It has managed to use the ‘General Welfare’ statement as a tool to extract the wealth of the nation by creating agencies and benefits that could not be reconciled using either the Constitution, or basic math.

When all the wealth on the metaphorical dinner table ends up on the banker's plate, our government should deliberately scoop it up off his or her plate to be dispensed onto the lessor plates. Even the king sitting at the table is bound to abide by this authority because, well, under the rule of the spatula, this is just the way authority is dispensed at a dinner table devoid of tyranny.


It is the ‘compelling interest’ line that has been used in order to infringe on the most fundamental of rights. It has placed us into wars without proper congressional authority. It has encumbered us with licensing schemes under which the government can confiscate our property. And foremost, it has convinced the vast majority that this government allows any form of democracy.

We should only go to war to over turn any table of authority which does not bind the bright face of the king to sit at the same table with the dark faces of its uncomely untouchables.


I seek no rights, privileges or benefits from my neighbor other than that he respects my right to live as I choose, as long as I do not cause him or her any personal harm. If we believe this is a democracy we are free to impose our will, and stupidity, to the point that we jeopardize all our freedoms, and certainly the integrity of the overall structure.

There are truths which are self evident against all challenges even to the degree that they reduce inalienably to the conscience of the souls of both friend and foe. These truths are indisputable meaning they are held true beyond any legal, scientific, epistemoligical, philosophical or any argument for that matter.


The government thrives as it has moved us from a Constitutional Federal Republic to the abhorrent form of democracy. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

Aim for a Constitutional Federal Republic instead of our Civil Purpose and we will fall short of reaching a Constitutional Federal Republic. Our falling short isn't caused by actions perpetuated by flesh and blood tyrants but as a result of an erosion towards tyranny caused by principalities and powers. In other words, we are just being irresponsible.


In Federalist 10, James Madison also warned us that, “In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

While the natural bitterness in the belly of the untouchable will naturally lead him or her to desire to sit a long distance from the king's table, the master class itself sitting at the king's table will naturally neglect the thirst of those sitting at the servant or slave's table. This disorderly negligence amounts to tyranny because it feeds the discontented servants only the secondary importance of sustenance -- this amounts to doing what is required for being responsible -- over that of the primary importance of quenching the thirst -- this amounts to what needs to be done for the sake of their happy beings.


As we go forward into the 21st Century it is with dire need that we must return to that form of government that was logically set out at the birth of the nation. We have no choice, but to live by the rules that were established upon the bedrock of liberty.

Our government is not logical. I tolerate the king and obey his rules not because he is the king but because he is made to ideally sit at the same table as the untouchable brother and sister are freed to come and sit at.


Do we have so little respect for our Forbearers, and so little regard for our posterity as to stand idly by as the government successfully infringes upon each and every right held so precious as to be purchased at the price of blood?

Never blame the people.


Are we so blinded by our own ambitions, and foibles, as to not be able to see the burden that we place on the backs of our children by adhering to the notions, and they are nothing more than notions, that this is some form of government that was completely repugnant to the authors of the Constitution?

According to legal precedent and the tyranny of law, our children aren't considered because they do not exist. According to the timeless Civil Purpose in the Constitution -- one which supercedes all past traditions and future occurences -- the self evident and inalienable truth written on the conscience of our souls will be the same truth written on theirs. This truth binds the master and frees the slave to sit at the same table.


It is time to dust off the history books, re-educate our children and ourselves. Any other road would be a journey to the destruction of this Constitutional Federal Republic.

We don't educate our children for the sole purpose of making them smarter but for the purpose of making them happier. Rather than reeducate culture, which is what the Kmer Rouge tried to do to its citizens in Cambodia, we should try to diseducate our children from a new, absurd culture which holds that the pagan culture of the "white man" is no different from the Formal-Culture our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution. This Formal-Culture is not to be worn by us as any material garment like how we cook our beans differently or when we should wear our hats in the house or not but is an unreachable halo we should adorn ourselves with. This idealistic halo of self evident and inaliable truths is what distinguishes us from the more primitive Mexican and Canadian cultures. This is why we draw borders between us and them. We should even go so far as to consider their forms of government as poisonous to ours.