Mine eyes have seen the glory...

Yes, yet another bit of commentary by me at Hot Air (on the Ted Cruz victory) that I'm recycling into a post.  More thoughts on this at some future time, but that will be more a summation of past posts and outlooks.  This is just a short, sweetened condensed version.  Anyone having read my works over the years will know exactly where I'm coming from and all standard non-fixing of spelling, syntax, etc. is in place:

Do note that Ted Cruz didn’t win because of MONEY.

He won because of commitment from individuals to support his campaign and to mail envelopes, place phone calls, and talk up his campaign with friends, co-workers and other like minded people. The stars of the Senate, Sarah Palin and the rest of the ‘leaders’ are only ‘leaders’ in the sense that the abolitionist movement had ‘leaders’: the movement set the tone, tenor and direction and a few were able to voice it better and help spur it on, but they in no way led the movement, itself.

This is the horrifying part to the two parties and the elite establishment. What the Tea Parties have done is coalesce, create leaderless organizations that are distributed, grass-roots and committed in a way that saves the most time to get the most results for the input given. Outspending a candidate isn’t going to change commitment for those who have had to go through the gauntlet of fire by the MFM and the simpatico elite establishment. You may not get a political ‘leader’ on the other side of that, but you do get an individual and a movement that is purified by fire in the crucible. Bring on more fire, pour it on, and the movement gets stronger as it winnows out the extras, those things that don’t fit and begins to concentrate on the pure beliefs of those involved. Then you reach out to those elements that remain unpurified, incorporate them and welcome THEM to the crucible. Not all will be allies, not all will be able to take the heat but the best from them will step forth to join with the larger movement.

In 2009 Statehouses started to change hands and not just into Republican hands but to those following the Tea Party – the beliefs of those elected were getting scrutiny and a number will be melted out by the fire.

By 2010 Scott Brown was a shot across the bow, followed up by many salvos against the elite establishment. This was not about winning elections, but to start the purification process on the elite politicians in the Republican party to start melting their power base away from the inside. You couldn’t win all those races, but you could win enough to prove the point and to establish the marker of the future.

In 2011 more Statehouses started to shift, and this was not just to Republicans but to an organized grass-roots that sought no leaders and, instead, welcomed spokesmen. By joining with other organizations and finding out what fit from them since the self-organization began, these other organizations found out that some of what is good from them gets incorporated into the larger movement, but that the movement is independent of them.

That gets you 2012 where a coalescing can get behind Ted Cruz and others, while Senators and Club for Growth now find itself against a FreedomWorks candidate in a run-off… spokesmen and ‘leaders’ are not blindly followed, and good citizens willing to risk the fire of derision and hatred spewed at them for their positions on smaller government and greater personal liberty get backed.

This is the horror to the elite establishment in both parties and the Left as a whole: the more they attack the more people come to understand those that they oppose and find them to be friends and neighbors with common-sense attitudes and simple involvement and understanding in politics that the complex fails on high, and the simple succeeds on low. Now Freedom Works reaches out to other Nations, Japan, Australia, Serbia, Israel, Italy, Greece, even into China to support those who see the rights of man as individual and personal liberty and freedom as the greatest force for good for all mankind. We will not always agree with our friends in other Nations and the venues they must choose for themselves: but we can reach out to support them in what they do.

This works.

Tyrants of the world, behold! The word of freedom and liberty with self-governance is now being whispered in the darkest corners of tyranny. And this time we vow never, ever, to forget these lessons and why freedom and liberty are the basis for the common good amongst men. The Tea Party was just the first ray of light on the horizon… soon the vast number of rays shall show the source of them and the powerful will tremble in fear.

ajacksonian on August 2, 2012 at 7:22 AM

Yes, there is something larger than just Ted Cruz, the Tea Parties and the other list of usual suspects trotted out by the MFM going on.  The establishment that they wished to yoke mankind to is falling apart because it just doesn't work.  Something that does work is already in place with each and every individual on the planet who comes to realize that they are the greatest moral actors on Earth because they are here, now, to exercise their free will to the betterment of themselves and their fellow man.

Tyrants shall tremble.

Dictators shall fall.

And the dross of tyranny will once again meet freedom and liberty unleashed not just in America, but everywhere as we uphold the promise and understanding of our Founders.  All men are, indeed, created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable, rights – that amongst those are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness which we call Fortune.

This is the job handed to you, to me, and to each and every person on the planet.

RIP Andrew Breitbart

RIP Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Collapsed walking near his home, survived by a wife and four young children.

My condolences to the family, friends, co-workers and those who loved this Happy Warrior.

That, my son, THAT was a man.

The symptoms

On 22 DEC 2011, USA Today's Richard Wolf took a look at the demographics of people leaving both political parties.

WASHINGTON – More than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow.

A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.

The trend is acute in states that are key to next year's presidential race. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Democrats' registration is down by 800,000 and Republicans' by 350,000. Independents have gained 325,000.

First off, when people are fleeing both parties it can be said that they are not fleeing the parties but the two party system.  This vaunted concept touted for so long in the United States that a two party system will always find the best means to represent the population (and stifle third parties by undercutting them) is something that should gain allegiance, not lose it, if it worked.  A strong political system is one that individuals see as something they should invest time and energy with participation and understanding of issues local and national so as to be informed to get representation in government.  Yet just the opposite is happening.

I will repost my commentary from Hot Air on the topic with all the caveats of not doing any spell checking, syntax checking, etc.  I will, however, boldface a few key points:

If the two party system is such a hot thing, then why are people fleeing it?

At the lowest level, which is the precinct level, both parties have had problems getting any organization together due to lack of party members. Some precincts are no-shows in State party organizations, others are hollow core precincts with just enough members to get a representative and still others have enough members but not enough interested members to actually care about the lowest level of retail politics. This is how the Tea Party got so quickly into the Republican apparatus: if there had been more members at the precinct level, then the establishment could have held back State level changes. Instead a few States have slowly ousted the old Republican party elites (FL comes to mind, but NH, OH, NV and other State level organizations are also changing over).

This will not stem the tide, however, as the two party system isn’t delivering the necessary governance and meaningful interaction at the lowest level of the parties. Instead both parties have concentrated for decades at the highest level (federal offices) and began to use the State level as just a training area, not as a place to learn effective governance. By shifting more power into fewer hands over decades, the two parties are killing off their roots: people fleeing isn’t a cause of the problem, it is a symptom.

What this means is that the two major parties will become less stable as the number of viable precincts decline. At some point the elites will seek to agglomerate precincts to try and keep any viable structure going, but that will only make the problem worse, not better.

Representative democracy to run a republic requires participation by citizens who are knowledgeable about the issues of the day and willing to make informed choices not at the federal level, but the local level. By putting so much interference of the local level from the federal level via regulations, the two parties (each in the belief that they are addressing ‘national problems’) are destroying the representative democracy required to run a republic. Without strong local say in local affairs, citizens are becoming fed up with the two parties that are now causing the problems at the local level through cronyism, earmarks, favoritism and utilizing non-democratic means (ie. the bureaucracy) to impose power from the top down at the local level.

This system does not work and the rise of the independent charts the course of how badly the two parties are doing. So does turn-out for non-Presidential elections but even the Presidential elections are now suffering: Barack Obama got 52% of the vote, yes, but the voter participation rate hovers at 50%, making a plurality of those who can vote (and a tiny plurality) the deciders in the election. That means that Obama got about 26% of the voting age population to vote for him. How bad is that? Consider the NSDAP in Germany having over 80% turnout and getting about 40% of the vote, meaning it gets in with over 30% of the voting age population voting for it in MULTIPARTY ELECTIONS. That is how woebegone this lovely two party system is: it can’t generate up a plurality that the Nazi’s got in Weimar Germany.

If you want more participation at the local level, then it is at that level that small government conservatism must START and begin addressing the federal over-reach of the last century. Start arguing about every federal program, every federal intrusion, every form, and work with others to fight bureaucratic decisions and go to court over them. You won’t win every one, no, but even a small fraction for things like energy, transportation, and intellectual property can make a huge difference. Once the federal government is shown to be incompetent, officious, overly bureaucratic and incapable of doing ANY of its jobs, things will start to change. Not from the top, but the bottom. Unfortunately that will mean our beloved two parties will hit the shredder, too. They are made for the 19th century, not the 21st. Figure out how to form new, virtual parties that also give link-up and connectivity at the local level and create some brand, new form of politics no one has ever seen before.

Don’t leave it up to the parties: they are stuck on stupid.

Only you can do this. If you dare.

ajacksonian on December 23, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Now the fun part comes just a bit after this with the disqualification of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich in the VA Primaries.  It would be very easy to see this as the disease, itself, but it is only another symptom and it is related to the above.  It is very easy to see the shenanigans, infighting, word changing in laws, etc. as the disease, but it isn't that at all.  That stuff is a symptom, as well.  How can you tell if this is a symptom or a disease?  Ask yourself if there was a simple remedy that could have been done, and if so, how would that be performed?

Back again to Hot Air (I am more a commenter than blogger these days) because the above problem is also related to this:

Too bad the Republican district and precincts couldn’t have lent a hand over the summer, huh?

You know ask all the candidates if they would like to have tables at a pancake breakfast or picnic or buffet luncheon in the districts, so that everyone pays a nominal fee for the meal and probably a speaker of some sort to talk about federalism or the constitution… and the candidates could pay a bit more for tables to get people to sign up for the qualification papers.

Geez, wouldn’t a real party that attracte enough people to actually have a functioning sub-State system be a grand thing? Why they could certainly help out by making sure that only party members sign up because they would be, after all, LOCAL.

Maybe there will, someday, be a party that actually concentrates on the local politics FIRST and gets active participation to help change government from the BOTTOM UP so that these higher level figures would have an easier time of it. Because, right now, that sort of party is missing and the gaping hole where it should be has this political label of ‘Independent’. Maybe, someday, these campaigns might just ask for HELP instead of trying to be a one-man-band of electioneering and reinventing the wheel every four years.

ajacksonian on December 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM

If political parties are made to help organize individuals and are, indeed, created so as to offer a suite of options and opportunities for political governance, then the objective of the party is to help ensure the greatest opportunities for diverse opinion at the lowest level of the party.  Which is to say that the lowest party level is the one responsible for helping to ensure a lively and appealing climate so that political dialogue within the party can flourish and that is performed by helping candidates get organized when they may not have the necessary experience to do so at locales that are diverse when running for a Nation-wide office (or State-wide office at either State or federal level).

They symptom of people leaving the parties, the symptom of candidates being unable to get signatures at the lowest level are to that disease known as irrelevance.  The two parties are not offering solutions at this point, only more of the same old cronyism, and neither party has any interest in breaking up the system to get more ideas and candidates into the system but, indeed, to begin excluding them not from third parties but within their own parties.  The centralization of power that has been seen at the federal level is part and parcel of what has been going on inside the two parties for decades.  It doesn't come from nowhere, but from the arthritic and calcifying two party system.

If we had a vibrant two party system we would have shouting matches, fistfights and many other indecorous events in our representative bodies because ideas and values would be seen as worth fighting for and not compromising over.  When everything is up for compromise, then no values are being represented except that of getting to the 'deal' to be seen as 'doing something', even if it breaks with principles that are strongly held within the party.  Representative democracy is not supposed to be about having a 'working system' that slides along ever so easily, but about having a system that does not get in the way of the populace having a hard debate over just what it is the government is supposed to be representing.  If the government represented values, principles and ideals it would be hotly debated over, fought over, and reduced in size as hated departments and programs were ended by the one side or the other winning a debate in the population over it, and in any event changes via elections would see severe diminishment in power so as to keep venues for lively debate open inside the Nation.  When everyone in government agrees for more government and then utilize the power of the taxpayer purse and writing laws to ensure that the way of those governing is then secured, then civil discourse from the body politic is gagged, bound and thrown in the cellar because that is the end of those seeking to sequester power from the people in unelected bureaucracy.

What is coming next is what I've outlined for The Jacksonian Party: the distributed, networked, locally affiliated, open platform adherence party that actually represents what its members want and is willing to have open and civil discussion about it via the new media.  This won't come easily, but the powers in the background are now enabling the people to leave the two party system and what will come will be the Dawn of a New Era.  Those running the old era will try to take civilization down with it via promises it cannot keep and by telling the people across this entire planet that they are not worth having around and will not, in any way, see that self-evident rights and liberty are in the individual.  They are the establishment within the two parties in the US, the elite in Europe, Russia, China, and the self-destructive Radical Islamists who seek to remake the world and have no understanding of what they are going to get in return.  None of the elites understands this world either as individuals or as loosely associated groups: they are operating under the old style 'elites must suppress/repress/rule the mass of individuals'.

They are trying to stop the New Era from happening by destroying economies, civil discourse, and capitalism.

If they succeed the death toll to that success will be fully 2/3 of the population of this planet as nothing else that has been tried in the way of any of the 'isms' works like capitalism does.  When results are leveled to be equal, no one sees any reason to succeed via their liberty and what you get from that is not an advancement of culture but a decline into anomie and then, soon, barbarism.  Fanatically backed religious ideologies will be hit even harder as the hand of the Gods of the Copybook Headings will hit them even harder as families begin to die of starvation because the much hated materialist goals of capitalism to do social goods via enhancing liberty means they wish to kill of the very people that allow them to survive by getting them low cost food on a global basis.  When the food isn't delivered and you can't smite those distant lands because the transportation system has imploded then, as night follows day, you take it out on those who are local to you.  Which makes the problem worse, yes, but the kill-off at least means that the food goes a bit further for a short time.

The misguided belief that government can, nay must, regulate everything everyone does from dawn to dusk is not only asinine on its face but unworkable due to the extreme high cost of overhead of implementing and running it.  That is the lesson from 'regulating' everything from housing to sunshine: it doesn't work.  And as the bureaucracy is isolated from political discourse and yet is wholly infested by political idealogues of the 'we must do something to justify our pay, therefore we must have more power and people in the bureaucracy', it is a prime factor and symptom of the disease.  The disease, itself, is: tyranny.

Everywhere you turn is a symptom and they are bemoaned.

The disease is tyrannical government utilizing any tool it can get its hands on to enforce social isolation, to repress speech and thought and to otherwise destroy the very society that creates government.  Tyranny is government gone cancerous on the body of the population, and unless it is removed or given such harsh therapy as to kill the mass of the cancer off, society will not survive.

Nor will government in its cancerous form, it will implode from having no society that supports it.

That is what is happening in the US and globally: no one supports this cancerous system and want it gone.

What comes next can either be a polite ushering out of cancerous government by restricting it harshly and understanding the 'good things' it is handing out is poison to the morals, ethics and spirit of individuals, or we will see a Dark Age and Iron Times.  The choice is YOURS believe it or not.  It isn't in other people's hands unless you hand your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to other people so as to enslave yourself.  If you don't like the government and the system it has created then change or abolish it in a civil way, as that is your right, duty and obligation not just to yourself but your fellow man.

THAT is your Christmas Present, delivered when you were born to you.

If you've lost track of it, I suggest you hunt around the house and find it.

Perhaps it is under all the discarded wrappings?

Best not throw out the gift of liberty with the trash, because you just might need it in the very near future... which is already here, in case that has been missed.

Grand Bargain

Americans are, without a doubt, the most generous people on the planet.  For our own citizens we wish equality under the law, long life and prosperity.  For those abroad we wish no animus, to have good relations with all Nations, and to ensure that we are a brother within the family of Nations seeking lawful conduct amongst Nations to the benefit of all mankind.  To protect the former from the latter we institute governments amongst men, and those governments are to look after the welfare of their own Nations and peoples.  Without the orderly conduct amongst Nations we can have no security nor prosperity at home, and when our equality at home is at doubt we find ourselves unable to work with our fellow Nations to reach order as our biases drive us to ill-conceived conclusions about the equality of all mankind.

Government is not our savior, not our personal security blanket and we recognize that the law must be equal for rich and poor, young and old, sick and healthy, and favor none so that we may all be assured of the regularity of process, procedure and acknowledge that unequal outcomes are ever the result of the institutions of man as our given equality through life is not the same as equality of talent, ability, will or skill.  No law can make us equal in those things, that is the nature of Nature, not just of man.  Thus it is incumbent upon each of us, as individuals, to ensure the fairness of our deeds and lend the helping hand to our fellow citizens either directly or through our charitable institutions so that as individuals we may falter, but as a Nation we may succeed.  We expect our fellow man to give as he can, not through the coercion of government, but through the great boon of giving directly of his or her own time and wealth, which are the benefits of liberty, freedom and equality.  None are denigrated for working, all are praised for thrift, and we adore those who give to charity to benefit the poor, needy, sick, and elderly for that is the upholding of ourselves and our society in so doing.  We cannot promise that all will end their lives equally, save that, once dead, they all shall be equal once more.  In life the measure of a man or woman is not wealth, nor fame, nor ownership of goods or property, but how much they can give to their fellow man without fear, without recrimination and without force applied to them.  This applies to all citizens of all stature and none are to feel the coercion of others, but only of their own good will and conscience.

These things are not the venue of government and government is ill-suited to do these things for us.  It is a tool of statecraft, of management of National and regional affairs where the needs of society, not of men, are to be addressed.  Their good is to ensure the safety of all from predators of all types, to address those that would harm us, to upkeep our common lands, and to serve as the punisher for those who cross our common good.  Thus it is given the power to utilize our personal negative liberties to the benefit of all, through the oversight of society and to be kept within bounds so as not to impoverish the people, as a whole, by trying to uplift them in parts.  When government can uplift the elderly and not the children or middle-aged, we are impoverished as it steps into our lives to remove our liberty to do good on our own and replaces it with the expectation of provisioning with the strings of government attached.  The only strings that come with charity are those that we place upon ourselves, those that come with government come with the strings of the punisher attached.  Disagree to the strings and you are punished.  That is not either good nor evil, it is the nature of government at all times, in all places, in all States of mankind.  Find the loving State and you find the servile people obedient to the will of the few.  No matter how sweet and good the help of government sounds, when it is only applied to the few, it divides society and makes it the plaything of our common government, which is a poor end for all involved.

As Americans we are not a perfect people, but we have a perfect calling.  That calling is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via the happenstance of our life and our abilities.  We can admit to mistakes, admit to failure, and admit to ourselves that no matter how good a service is, that when it is directed by government to the few so as to indenture them to government to support those inside government, then we, as a people, have our liberty and pursuit of happiness put at peril by the powers of government to take our funds via taxation, restrict our liberty via law and put in place an unequal distribution of wealth so the well off are made poor and the poor have their liberty impoverished by the helping hand and ready boot of government. 

When in poverty, in pain, when in need our first recourse is not to government, not to the State nor Nation, but to our fellow citizens and the institutions we make to help each other.  Some are too prideful to take such help, it is admitted, and they are showing the extreme strength of character to never admit defeat, never admit the turn of fortune and we must respect them that as it is the greatest statement they can make: they will never be a drain upon our common reserves or love, but will only seek to contribute to it until their dying day even if that be in wretched health and poverty.  To those who admit that changes in fortune, in health, in circumstances are beyond them, we open our doors, our wallets and found great places where we can donate our very time and life to helping them.  Always and ever that greatest of institutions is that which allows us to make Nations and is our first recourse: our families.  When in hard times our families pull together, open doors to family members to give shelter, aid and loving care, while helping them to find means to sustain themselves once more.  From there we go to religious organizations who open their doors to the wretched of the earth needing to breathe free and gain sustenance of spirit as well as body.  We, as a people, found charitable hospitals, schools, and reach out into the community to seek help as well as give it, so that volunteer firemen and rescue squads stand at the ready from those who have other work now putting their lives at risk for all in the community.  There is always good work to be had, paid and unpaid, and while all may not lead to happiness directly, their circumstances may give the happenstance in which one's liberty may allow them to prosper.

Thus the ills we have created over the past 100 years and more come home to roost in government now feeling it can dictate good sense to the people, ignore its duties given to it, and impoverish us all to meet well wishing ends of equality of outcome.  Our parents and grandparents did not listen to good sense, did not exercise vigilance over government and did not see their fellow citizens as worthwhile agents of society and came to believe that government represented a way to achieve loving ends through bureaucratic means.  Burdening the future with debt to meet their over-appetite for good ends, we now come to the end of the good ends and find the bill mounting daily.  America was not debt free when it was born, as a Nation, and we repaid our debts to France and other supporters so as to be free of it.  That happened under President Jackson and lasted not long at all.  That original debt put our Nation at peril, caused the government under the Articles of Confederation to become shaky and find a way to reconstitute a better government that would either change it or replace it.  Even with the latter the debt was retained, and paid off.  We shall do so this time and admit to our wrongs while agreeing to work off our debt gathered through ill-conceived notions of what government can do and what it should do,  and recognize that the latter cannot make itself into the former no matter how much we wish it so.

In our bargain our goals to rid ourselves of what government can't do, retain what it must do, and differentiate between the two must be aimed not towards good ends but regularized means in which none benefit unfairly from government making unequal law.

The points are as follows:

1) One equal tax rate for all.  Those that are poor must pay something to our common good, even if it is a pittance compared to those above poverty.  No one gains the benefits of government without taxation and payment into it.  At the poverty line the full force of government taxation comes into effect regardless of race, creed, skin color, religion, locale or any other factor.  If you are a citizen making above that amount, you pay taxes at the rate all citizens pay them.  Income tax is a horrible way to collect taxes, and we would be better served by having the States collect our taxes through means more local to us.  To effect that permanently, Amendment XVI must be removed from the Constitution, and as we have seen Congress is not to be trusted with this power.  The only exemption in this is via the SSA payback, and when that is used up, the individual pays taxes on all funds they get through employment.  All other taxes are removed from collections (ex. Capital Gains Taxes, the 'Death Tax', and so on).

2) As Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid eat up all revenue to the federal government, and all other things including the servicing of existing debt is paid for by new debt, they must end.  Those getting SSA may continue to do so.  Those who are not will be given the opportunity to take off the supposed 'investment' in their retirement from their federal taxes.  In addition the FICA tax disappears.  Medicare and Medicaid are not suited to federal venues, thus the funds for these two programs should be added together, divided in half, apportioned via block grants to the States proportionally and then phased out over 5 years.  At the end of 5 years the federal government will no longer fund health care for any but our veterans.  As those taking SSA will dwindle in the century after enacting this, that burden decreases.  In the mean time individuals get the greatest tax cut ever seen in modern times with not only FICA no longer removed from pay, but the ability to utilize past payments to negate current taxes putting full paychecks into the hands of our fellow citizens.  As the burden of overhead for these systems vanishes from all companies, they, too, will gain from no longer having to collect and account for these funds and will no longer serve as the ersatz tax collectors of the government.

3) The first and second items require an extreme austerity budget.  Thus while the State Department is funded, no overseas moneys will be available for anything.  The Department of Defense, being a necessary part of our security, will remain, but have much of its civilian workforce cut.  All Senior Executive posts throughout the federal government are abolished and the civil service will need to find able executives via the existing workforce, and that will make the entire civil service structure accountable to the Executive and Legislative branches directly.  The areas of US Coast Guard, US Geological Survey and Parks Departments remain, all else at Dept. of Interior goes.  Those areas within the Commerce Department associated with the US Mint and tax collection remain, all else goes.  The following are privatized by putting one share of stock out to each US citizen: Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, Sallie Mae, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and any other corporation or organ created to serve as a funds intermediary or directing organization on the US economy.  This does not include the Departments of Energy, Agriculture or EPA which are abolished.  Indeed, anything not explicitly stated within the US Constitution as a necessary organ of government is abolished.  Thus the General Accounting Office is necessary for the oversight of lands and goods held by the federal government, and the US Printing Office is not and will go.  The list of what the federal government MUST do, like secure the borders, will no longer be confused with nice things it should do, like have a Small Business Administration: the necessary for enumerated functions is kept, that which is not, is removed.

4)  Sunsetting all laws, regulations, codes and federal actions on the final digit year they were enacted.  Thus a law put in on 1913 comes up for renewal on any year ending with a 3.  All existing laws must pass both Houses of Congress and be re-signed by the President, no exceptions.  The citizenry shall have at least 2 years notice and input into all these items, which INCLUDES those proposed above.  If, after 10 years without such agencies and organizations there is a compelling need to put them back in place, the citizenry can say so.

5)  As (4) nullifies the size of Congress set in 1911, which had nullified all previous size changes via proportion, the Maximum House comes into being the year after the year that ends with a 1 in it if no other action is taken.  That is the Constitutionally largest House of Representatives at 1 Representative per 30,000 citizens.  Be advised that this will create a House of over 9,000 members.  It is suggested that the problem with 'corruption' in Congress is not due to the amount of money, but too few representatives to chase after it.  As representation increases, the ability of money to sway elections and representatives decreases inversely to the size of the House.  Also at 1:30,000 all seats will see demographic changes between each census and, frequently, between elections and thus come to represent the ever changing and moving face of the American people.  There is much good that comes from 9,000 politicians at each others throats.

 

How would the US government look without an Dept. of Health and Human Services?  Without a Dept. of Agriculture?  Without an EPA?  Would businesses run wild? 

Examine all the supplemental laws at the State level that have been put in place to enforce similar federal mandates and then ask why we need two laws on the books when only one is suited by region and locality?  Many are the laws that we duplicate, which means that our States stand ever ready to protect the environment at the local and regional level and willing to work with other States for larger compacts.  Before the EPA that is how it was done, even if somewhat corruptly it was better to disperse corruption amongst competing States that must come to agreement rather than in the faceless federal bureaucracy which is an advocate only for itself.  And it has grown during good times and lean times, and we feel that expense especially during the lean when the bloat of government becomes a drain to all American citizens.

We have created structures that tried to ignore demographics, and now we are eaten alive by them in a fiscal manner and see our liberty draining with those funds to the government.

We can help the poor, the elderly, the sick, the infirm and those that have lost jobs.

That does not start at the federal government, the cause for such woes in many areas, but at home with the family.  Then to neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and States.  We pay dearly for burdensome overhead when we cannot sustain it, and that ever happens when our good wishes for our fellow man are replaced with distrust of his charity and the unfounded belief that government can be charitable.  That is not the purpose nor function of it, and when put in that role it is the least, worst and most costly way to deal with any problem... strange we seek it out first, instead of appealing to our fellow man to help create something better amongst ourselves.

And that is the grandest part of the bargain.

Believing in each other as capable individuals, no matter our circumstances, and placing our faith in each other again, and back to our families, first.  Do not ask what government can do for you nor what you can do for government, but what you know is right to your fellow citizens to help and aid him, directly.

Your Faith will guide you.

Your Hope will sustain you.

Your Charity will build a better society.

Our greatest liberty is that FROM government, not TO government as that latter is the path to Tyranny.

Fantasy outlook and destinations

The following is a personal commentary piece of The Jacksonian Party.

The Progressive movement is embodied in one futuristic television show that gained a wide, deep and enthusiastic following for the better part of two decades after the show's demise.  And it was not the darker program of The Prisoner that I go over in this piece.  No the program I am thinking about cast itself to looking at the farther future, beyond all the wars and problems of its era and at one where mankind would finally unite and truly see Martin Luther King's dream where it was the content of one's character that you are judged by, not the color of your skin.  It projected a world in which peace is finally established for all mankind.  The program was

Star Trek and it projected a form of Kennedy forward-looking Progressivism that was not an instant hit, but gained a fanatical following and created one of the first of the fan-based systems of support for its followers.  You remember them:

You remember those folks, right?  Steadfast crew able to represent the very highest of values in the galaxy, namely the Federation's, and actually willing to fight and die for basic liberties and freedom as concepts.  And not just verbal sparring, fighting and dying on one's own argument, either.  But the real thing.

This Captain epitomized the spirit of adventure, going into the unknown, of being the youngest Captain in the Fleet, and tended not to let his good sense get over-ruled by bureaucratic dictates like the Prime Directive.  Rules were made to be broken, after all... but still it was upheld as the very meaning of a non-interventionist policy even if it only applied to thriving, growing societies, and not like the people caught under the spell of Vaal.

And to think we have had people complain about the primitiveness of the Command Line Interface for computers!  Just try to reprogram that one with that interface!  Lots of luck, I tellya.

The series also had going for it stand-ins for our Cold War adversaries: Klingons for the USSR and Romulans for the Chinese, plus assorted other races filling out the roster of places we really didn't want to think about in our real world.  Like how Ehrlich was saying overpopulation was a dire problem and that we would all end up shoulder to shoulder in the non-revolutionary way just like...

... the Gideonites.  They not only have a longer life span but, apparently, abolished all communicable diseases.

Probably by government edict.

This was a Star Trek that you could actually sink your teeth into during the Cold War: it had a bright futuristic outlook, gleaming modernity, peace and happiness on Earth that we never get to see, tradesmen plying their ways on private space craft, miners, alien races that were not all just bumpy forehead people, and actual conflict.  Plus credits just the same as cash and the common cold.  With that we could understand how that universe worked.

Jump ahead to Next Gen.

By the 1980's Gene Roddenberry had 'matured' in his Progressive outlooks and the show reflected that:

This Enterprise, the latest and greatest of starships, would have so much space on board that there would be entire families to risk in exploring the unknown.  Yes, exploring the dangerous unknown is so safe that entire families volunteer for it!

The Captain had a First Officer that would NOT take a promotion to further his career as he had a nice, safe job along with all the families and didn't want something hazardous like, say, being the captain of a Destroyer or Light Cruiser.

And in this extension of the previous universe, when the Klingon Empire faces collapse due to its main dilithium source planet blowing up, the entire Federation steps in to save this thriving culture that should be left to its own devices as stated by the Prime Directive!  You no longer need a mere captain for that as the entire Federation is willing to give up the Prime Directive for Political Expediency.  Lovely, no?

You can see from the images that while the Federation has, more or less, conquered the common cold, male pattern baldness still remains.  This captain is unable to tell the navigator where to head to and says, most royally, that he should 'Make it so'.  From captain of a mighty starship with firm direction to some minor aristocrat delegating where the ship should actually set course to winding up with a junior officer.  Hey!  I'm all for pushing responsibility downwards and such, but the actual direction of a starship really should come from something more than 'Make it so', no?

Actually fighting and dying for your beliefs and way of doing things?  That was banished until after the death of Gene Roddenberry.  Even then the guiding team behind Star Trek really didn't have a clue as to what made their universe run and Majel Barrett Roddenberry really didn't help much in that regard.  Scripts that actually required conflict on an on-going basis were doled out to non-premier programs like DS-9 and Voyager.  The disconnect between ST:TOS and ST:TNG was hard and went far beyond the fact the first three seasons were, basically, reprises of ST:TOS but with a prettier ship.

So families in exploratory vessels, captains who can't captain, first officers not looking for promotion, minor expediency as judged by military officers being replaced by political expediency of government... yeah there were a lot of changes in ST:TNG that make little to no sense whatsoever.  And all done in a single generation of the Fleet (with Sulu and Chekov representing the youngest of the previous generation with some overlap with Picard as the youngest of the Next Gen) which does not speak well to keeping tradition in a military organization as that is one of the greatest strengths of a military organization is understanding past conflicts, learning from those who came before you and upholding their traditions of service and loyalty.  We had some minor sense of that in ST:TOS and in the first movie with the historical timeline of ships named Enterprise... but that feeling is gone by Next Gen.

Plus in a single generation they went from people who actually made money, or credits...

... like that rascal... and a crew that knew what a credit was worth as you could purchase...

... goods of great value.  That has degenerated to...

... poker played with chips that represented... nothing.

This universe had gotten clean, antiseptic and represented the highest of Progressive values by doing away with money, conflict, danger and, generally, anything that could drive a plot.  In Star Trek all of this has been abolished, and you don't want to offend your enemies and, in fact, need to save them when disaster befalls them.  Like the Klingons.  So you have to invent newer and nastier foes that you can't really deal with to get any 'drama'.

For all their dark attire and nasty implants are these...

... centrally ruled drones who have their wishes over-ridden by their leader really so different than what the Federation Council did to over-ride the Prime Directive to help sustain an oppressive, repressive and totalitarian Empire?  That is being unwilling to see change happen, to try and sustain an order that can't continue, to perpetuate an eternal stasis and precedence of order that can no longer even be held in fiction.  Star Fleet gets so over-extended that when it has to actually fight the Cardassians/Dominion it has to ask for help from the Romulans and Klingons.  From Empires.  Would they really help out a Federation that actually stuck to its credos, laws and methods, and thusly remained in opposition to them?  Or is this the case of fellow totalitarians helping out their brother Empire so as to preserve their own domains from threat of change to their status quo and, perhaps, get a leg up on this competitor?

So what do you get when you don't oppose thugs or totalitarian regimes, can't abide by the rule of law at the highest of all levels, and reduce your people to having no ability to gain from their work and put them into a position of barter when they meet up with anyone 'less advanced'?  Does that get you to a nice, gleaming, everybody is happy future?  Applied NOW does that allow you to uphold the law in all circumstances, or to let it decay?

Does it get you pretty, gleaming, anti-septic starships?

Or does it get you something like this...

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Of course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

A party by any other name

An analysis piece of The Jacksonian Party.

I rarely do retrospective pieces, although I link heavily to past works it is to save time and energy of repeating viewpoints I have previously stated.  Thus one of the first of the Party Papers I wrote dealt with how to form The Jacksonian Party, the party of one man, each and every one of us.  Since then a new way of looking at politics has arrived in the Tea Party movement and it might be worth doing some comparison and contrasting between what I expounded and what has come about.  So I will bring up the points I postulated for The Jacksonian Party and see if the Tea Party has any points of contact.

I will summarize the points in my preface:

1)  There is no party hierarchy.  This is an apt description of the Tea Party.

2)  There is no formal party structure.  This is an apt description of the Tea Party.  There is local structure but it is self-created.

3)  It is a party of Networks.  The Tea Party does this extremely well across MySpace, Facebook, Friendster and on-the-fly contacts to organize and counter-organize against those supporting government expansion.  It is truly amazing.

4)   It is a party that holds common agreement and the support of differences in ideas.  That, too, is a good description of the Tea Party in all its local organizations and yet coming together for massive rallies to express common ideals.

5)  The existing two party system resists the entrance of a new party or force in politics.  In general this is true at the start back in FEB 2009, and the Tea Party faced stiff resistance.

6)  Overcome resistance with networking.  And that is the process the Tea Party is in by examining the current two parties and finding their weaknesses at the local level and working to start changing BOTH of them.  In places like OH this is at the lowest organizing level where 1/4 to 1/3 of both parties have NO local organizers.  Networks have also played a part in supporting candidacies that may have seemed quixotic, and yet became a force to be dealt with (Doug Hoffman in NY and Scott Brown in MA).

7)  Honor and respect your fellow citizens.  All organizations have fringe sections, but those fringes do not define the main movement and so that is with the Tea Party movement that respectfully disagrees with its opponents but does not vilify them.

8)  Examine the structures of government that have been built up and see if they make any sense today.  This is not about 'managing' a huge and expanding government, but in cutting it back.  The Tea Party movement has some parts taking that up but the tenor of the mood is one that reflects a dialogue towards smaller government.  A WaPo/ABC poll finds 58% now supporting a smaller government, as does Rasmussen.  Rasmussen Reports also has the stunning poll that 63% of Americans feel that it would be best if Congress were not re-elected.  A recent NYT/CBS poll also finds that Americans would like a smaller government with fewer services.  The idea of 'Taxed Enough Already' is that government is to live within its means and if that means service cuts, then so be it.

9)  Abolishing those aspects of government that are ruling our lives, not governing for the Nation as a whole.  While part of (8) this is separate and a discussion that is only now taking place in the States and not from the Tea Party venue.  Utah is joining Montana in confronting the federal government over gun rights, and Wyoming looks to be set to join in this as well.  I previously reported to this in my Signposts article and is representative of the NRA's longstanding work for individual rights for arms.  Here there is a confluence of two streams of thought that are supporting each other: less federal government and State sovereignty.  Thus it is an expected part of The Jacksonian Party and may yet become a part of the Tea Party.

10)  Leanest possible government.  The Tea Party movement is starting in the fiscal conservative realm but not the traditional 'manage growth' concept which is Progressive.  It is unclear if the Tea Parties, in whole or in part, will take up this conception.

11)  Ethics for those elected from the party or its movement.  The Tea Party does not have that as part of its make-up, but does expect results from those it helps to elect.  The Jacksonian Party has an ethics platform in conception amenable to local conditions.

12)  Networking to use simple concepts that get complex results so as to effect change for liberty and freedom.  The Tea Party has that with taxation and government spending and has done a good job of explaining that on the many-to-many basis.  This changes politics laterally, across the board, not vertically in a power structure.

13)  An expectation of valid reasons that can easily be explained why government must take on more duties than it is given.  The Tea Parties have been strengthened by the 'health care' imbroglio which has demonstrated that the political elite cannot do this: simply explain why government must do more.  As more power is pushed by the elite and the old two party structure, so the Tea Party gains strength.  This is a core part of the Tea Party system.

14) The recognition that the Preamble to the Constitution is not a part of government but a statement by the People.  Such as the Tea Party is an embodiment of the concepts presented in the Preamble, but has not been explicitly stated as such by the movement as a whole.

After the preface I go into speculative ways to form up a party, and as they were speculative are overtaken by events.  In general there are some major agreement points between the Tea Party and The Jacksonian Party conception, such as wide-open acceptance for common views, and divergence such as personally stating what you uphold or do not uphold and why.  It was a good exercise at the time to see how the basis for a new party could be made, and adheres to the preface ideals.

In broad view there are a large number of points in congruence between my early outline of The Jacksonian Party and the currently growing Tea Party.  Items 1-3 are the organizational basis for this movement and are in hard common agreement as this is the utilization of modern technology and communications to promulgate discourse. 

Items 4-6 were expected problems and they have shown up as expected for any new movement or party.

Item 7 is apparent and congruent between my outline and what is being done by the Tea Parties.

Items 8 and 9 have underpinnings in longer standing movements, such as the NRA and personal conceptions of protecting liberty, but the discourse that has started due to the Tea Parties is now making the once unthinkable, States and people pushing back against federal power, a slowly growing force to be reckoned with.  This is a process, not an end in and of itself.

Items 10 and 11 are not part of where the Tea Parties are, but not outside the possibility of becoming a part of them at some future point in time.

Items 12 and 13 are part of the overall conception and a growing solid point between my prior conception and the way the Tea Parties have grown.

Item 14 is a clear statement of the Preamble that is currently being lived by those in the Tea Party who wish to put forth that the rights of man are of man and are leant to government.  Not bestowed by government upon man.  As such there may be an explicit stating of that at some future point in time to re-affirm personal liberty and freedom as underpinnings of the Tea Party movement.

I am not at all surprised by the way the Tea Party movement has grown, and has been within what I would expect given the Guiding Principles of Jacksonianism.

The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 4 - The Perfection of Imperfection

The United States has a founding upon two things: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. The first is a Preceptual Guideline on what man, as individuals, get in life and what their empowerment means for Government. Those Guidelines lead to the understanding that Government is not handed down from on high, but instituted amongst men, by men so as to address the actual world of mankind. To safeguard the Rights of Man, Governments are instituted by the consent of the Governed thus leading to a society that does not seek its rights *from* Government but, instead, grants minimal rights *to* Government to fulfill its responsibilities to the Governed. When such Governments no longer abide by that, it is the just and due Right of the People to change or abolish such Government and formulate new governance.

Between the Declaration and the Constitution came the Articles of Confederation, which only loosely associated the States and provided no centrality of understanding amongst them. Each State had major burdens and very little basis to actually uphold those burdens and the People were impoverished by that formulation. Those five long years between the formal end of the Revolution and the standing up of the New Nation were rife with rebellion, protest and repression via imprisonment and seizures of land. Those same founders that agreed to the Declaration of Independence and then agreed that the time was upon them to form new governance so that a more Just and Equitable system could be established.

To more clearly state these things: the Founders of the United States had tried and *failed* in their first attempt to form a New Nation. They had wanted this loose association to work, so as to let States have wide freedom and leeway and not put a repressive Government in place. Instead they had created something that impoverished the People, concentrated authority to the few in the State seats of power, and the system was giving rise to the possibility of a Second Revolution. Every single signer of the Declaration who then went on to sign the Constitution recognized that they, personally, had failed in outlook and creation and must try to make something that would actually uphold their ideals and yet not repress the People. The United States was formed on a look to perfect goals, but the imperfection of man led to first time failure.

The outlook stated in the Declaration would not allow for long-term failure as, to do that, the very foundation of Liberty and Freedom for Individuals would be *lost*. A Second Revolution would most likely turn reactionary towards the original Revolutionaries and the society to be born out of that would be harsh, authoritarian and repressive. As many of the Founders had worked the land or been huntsmen and woodsmen, trekking through uncharted wilderness, they recognized an ancient axiom of survival: Don't Stop.

When lost in the wilderness, with only the most basic of bearings or even an *idea* of what the right way to go actually is, you follow up on that grimly and with determination. You do not 'stop to think it through' as that leads to doubt and wavering of willpower to survive. A brief respite to continue on is one thing, but to sit and stop and try to think if you are 'doing the right thing' is deadly, as it leads to the idea that one can, in actuality, think their way out of the wilderness. Soon long minutes turn into hours, and then night approaches and you have done *nothing* to find shelter or build a fire or find food. You are starving using your energy to think instead of move onwards. In the modern era, if there is any hope that anyone will remember where you went and you came in a vehicle, it is usually safer to stay with that vehicle than go onwards until all other options run out. When confronted by no outside help and dangerous animals roaming, one moves to stay alive so as to be hard to track while you work slowly, continually towards a *goal*. When you plan for rest, you *plan* for it, and ensure that you have found shelter, succor and sustenance. Then at first light you are up and moving once more.

By having had the Articles of Confederation the Founders recognized that the other axiom of motion for survival also held true: Move in *any* direction, even the *wrong* direction as that will give you perspective and then show you the right way to go. The Articles were the wrong path to Nation for the young United States. It would not give an equitable society nor justice nor ensure Freedom and Liberty. That is when you stop, re-assess and then step out in a different way heading towards the goal of success. The next step may not be perfect or lead to perfection, but it is towards that Goal and much, much better than where you were headed, which was deadly. Thus the Founders had set their Goal, stopped what they were doing and checked their bearings and realized they had not gone in the right direction towards their goal. The Goal, then, was simply to make something that would outlast them and give Freedom and Liberty a chance to take root and let something better come from their work.

Given the long perspective of history, we are divorced from the pain they had surely felt in realizing that they had not crafted well on their first attempt at things. They wanted time to see if things could work out and when it was apparent that they would not only *not* work out but things were headed in the opposite direction of the Goals, they came forth to try again. The Goal was worth the humility of admitting that they were wrong and worth the re-commitment to the Goal that had been set as a firm fixture. So many of their countrymen had died for this, a Nation was still in chaos and ruin needing to be built and the enforced poverty that the States put upon the People were making that goal of having a Nation seem to drift further and further away.

It was not a 'given' that the United States would survive and the track record for democracy had been, until then, quite abysmal. It was assumed the inherent difficulties in democracy would be the undermining of it, and that the People would turn to rabble and vote themselves all sorts of goodies until things went bankrupt. By attempting to address those ills, America was striving to put something a bit different together that just might hold together for awhile. After the problems with the Articles this was no sure thing in 1786 Annapolis Convention that called for a 1787 Philadelphia Convention to straighten things out. The Shaysite Rebellion of that Winter brought out just how near collapse the entire enterprise was and Washington, himself, was moved enough to go to it so as to try and head off a final defeat that would have destroyed all he had worked for during the years of fighting in the Revolution.

Coming together in 1787 was a profound happening in America as those that had fought the Revolution for 7 long years now had to face the fact that the Government they first made would not meet their dreams after 5 years. They understood that to attempt to remake their work they would need to change their views and themselves so as to create a firmer foundation for lasting Government. After the harsh payment in the lives of those lost, some 10% of their countrymen dead by the Revolution and 15% fled to the Crown, America was destitute of people, of money and increasingly lacking in cohesion. The Revolutionaries had followed their original view and moved from cooperation amongst themselves as States within a Nation to their States alone. The Nation had no basis without commonality and the commonality of loss was still being paid for and dearly on the backs of the land owners, the farmers and the poor. The Goal fought for starting in 1775 and established by the Revolution was coming so undone by 1787 that all the cost was put at peril. There would be no Liberty or Freedom in America because there would be no America.

To those familiar with the great story themes, this is one that sticks out time and again across Peoples and across time: having found a dream and held it, that dream became lost again. Odysseus was the man to turn to for direction until that direction was tempest tossed and yet he won through by re-dedication to come home to hearth and wife and to end his long travels once and for all. Moses sought after the place of homeland for his people to espy it, yet while away the Israelites were called upon for so much work that they had lost the meaning of what it was to be Jewish, and brought his people forth to hard circumstances to recover what they had lost so they would be worthy of a home. Robert the Bruce would see his people lost and need travel far to re-find the will to lead his people to be a people and embrace who they were via their traditions. Jesus of Nazareth learned the meaning of the society and then spent time in the desert once he recognized that it would be lost unless something was done, and then returned with a re-dedication and re-commitment to his people so that their understanding could spread and be sustained by new outlook. To win through for a People, they must lose so that they understand the meaning of what it is they have. And then dedicate themselves to it, anew.

None are so low as those facing that humility of loss, of having failed and of having all they understand brought into question.

And none are so found as those that realize that they stand for their People to be a People, to be different, to be special and to leave a mark that will last longer than their short span on Earth. None so lost as Odysseus from home and wife seeking to regain it; as Moses coming home and finding his People slowly losing what it means to be a People separate from Egypt; from Robert the Bruce returning home to fight the good fight to assert that the old way is the way of his People and could not be denied; and of Jesus coming from the desert and trials and tribulations and learning to speak in a new way to his People so as to give the basis to revitalize society... revitalize the world.

That was America in 1787: it had won its ideals and then was faced with those same things being lost because the idealistic form of Government would not work and would lose all that was fought for and won. Washington left Mount Vernon because his hard work was put in jeopardy because what he had fought for was not working. Others would return with those who had fought and survived in the Revolution and understood the dear price of being a People apart from others. A People not beholden to Crown, to King, to Government and they would damn well not lose the meaning of their lives because of the monetary price attached to the fight they had won. To bring unity they must describe that unity and make a Government that was United in more than word, but in deed. If they could not find a basis for that unity amongst themselves, then all who depended upon them would fail and fall back to chaos and tyranny.

The review of what they had said was important in the Declaration of Independence told them that the Rights of Man to be Individual is only sustained by the Government created in Common to serve All of the People. And those same People must come together to be a Nation so that a Government could be established. Without the Nation, Government would be mere fiction and no longer represent the will of the People, only itself. That is what they had fought *against* and would not allow to happen again. The review of the Declaration had told them the path and that path may end in Government, but the Government, itself was not an end in and of itself. It was a means for the People to come together and give common expression to their will. For Man to have Just Government by the Consent of the People, the society must have a Nation that and that Nation bow to being an artifact of that common will. To have Rights for Individuals needs more than Government: it requires commonality in commitment and understanding via the Society the People create.

In making the Constitution the People drafting it were well aware of the frailty of Representative Democracy and of Republics. Putting those two together was thought to be an invitation to mob rule and destruction of society to that mob. By layering representation into the structure in multiple ways and having it work at cross-check and balance, the Will of the People could find both voice and stability in Government. The drafters were also too well aware of the tendency for Government to move to tyranny and despotism, and did their best to ensure that not only would Rights be upheld but that the entire social compact laid down in the Constitution would be understood so that Rights would not put Liberty at peril. Attempting to use Government to suppress the Rights of People had proven to be awful and led to some of the bloodiest religious wars ever seen heretofore. That had to be negated by creating something that was in Common and would not speak against religion of any type, but for the Rights of Man to *have* religious beliefs not controlled by the State. The other had proven not to work and was negated by the enforcement of that basic right for the People. That said each State within the Union had separate outlook while coming together and those States would need to decide on such things in common with their People so long as the commonality of All of the People was not put in jeopardy. The right to speak out and put forth ideas, both for good and ill, was upheld so that the People may decide freely on the ideas and ideals that would govern them and their society. That held in common could not endanger that, less the road to authoritarian rule be started. The right to keep and bear arms so that the People and their States may protect themselves not only separately but in common with the Union was upheld and could not be infringed by the Government. Time and again basic rights are stated and upheld for Individuals so that they have especial protection against those seeking tyranny.

Even further those that drafted the Constitution put forth that those rights not specifically granted to Government to govern, were the sole realm of the States and the People. The fount and founding of Rights was not gracious Government, but good People who agree to have their rights and respect those of others. In doing all these things the drafters also recognized one other part of their failure: anything they made would need to be reviewed and amended as times changed so that this framework of governance could have continued meaning over time. Thus the right of the People to Amend the Constitution or call together a new Convention is sacrosanct and the ONLY way the Constitution may be changed. No matter how high their ideals, the realization that to make this something for the People was to make it amenable and amendable to them and by them. They had not been handed engraved stone tablets from on high, but only parchment and ink in the hands of man.

And they knew that their work would cause a long-term problem in the form of slavery. The Declaration nearly shattered the Southern Colonies from the rebellion due to its wording on the Rights of Man. That was papered over and that 'fight would be put off to another day'. Coming together with the agricultural South having high trade and the North being in poverty due to taxation, the Constitution again put that fight off so that there might be a chance for a Nation to reconcile this question about Universality of Rights and slavery. The Constitution was flawed because of that and that would be recognized and agonized over for decades until the day of reckoning arrived. The drafters of the Constitution stepped back from that abyss which would shatter the young Nation and send brother against brother, when they had still not recovered from the Revolution. So Amending and Convention were added so that hoped for wiser generations could finally resolve this question.

In that the Society that was built failed and in an awful manner that would see over 600,000 Americans dead and wounded. Casualties to our inability to come to common terms as a Society and a People, until brother was set against brother and the Nation set back once more. That nearly shattered the Nation completely and nearly undid the work of 1787 and of 1776. We did not find perfection then, nor now and we are still reminded of that by the Founders who drafted the language of the Constitution. We are not enjoined as a People to perfection but to make a 'more perfect Union'. To stand by our society, our Nation and strive to make it better in common for all of the People. And our National symbol of Liberty reminds us of the lacks in ourselves: The Liberty Bell is cracked, though its tone is still so sweet.

As a People we come together to bridge those cracks, and find that there are far more of them than we had ever imagined or can imagine. That sustainment of Liberty is vital to the Nation and, over two centuries and more, others have heard the sweet tone from that cracked bell and yearn for Liberty and Freedom to have a free society. America has always safeguarded Her own Liberty and Freedom first, and extended the hand of Friendship for those yearning to be free. Men and women have volunteered from this Nation to teach, work and fight for Liberty in far off lands, far removed from the Shores of the Land of the Free. Missionaries went forth not only to teach their version of the Gospel, and there were a plethora of teachings to be sure, but their very presence spoke of the commitment to Liberty and Freedom and the Land that sustained it. The People who invested themselves so much in their belief of it that they took their lives in their hands to spread their beliefs, and doing that spread the word of Liberty. Be it preacher, teacher, ditch digger or soldier overseas those Free People from America have demonstrated by their presence that not only is Liberty worth having, but worth spreading. Americans, in doing this, lead by example so that others may see what it means to be a Free Individual exercising their Rights to their Responsibilities.

It is this simple exercise of People doing according to their beliefs and recognizing that they have consequences that bespeaks of America. It is not in the words, though they give common form and transmission to ideas and ideals, but the actually placing oneself where they can do as they see fit and damn the consequences because it is the *right thing to do* that spreads Liberty and Freedom. Americans do not place themselves above other Peoples and reach out to them so as to help them from poverty, from disease, from ignorance and from tyranny. And so many that have extended that hand have died from those that wish never to see the dawning of Freedom in their lands. Scholars, doctors, teachers, priests, soldiers and just ordinary folks out to explore the world come what may have all paid a price year in and year out to practice Freedom and make it whole.

When that clarion call to Nation was given in 1776, those who called realized that the price to pay would not end in one war. The Revolution was the start of a very, very long conflict that would go on for generations. Go on for centuries. They gave that call because they saw that the Price in blood was far outweighed by having Liberty and Freedom so that something better could be built by Free Individuals. They paid a far steeper toll than at any time since the Revolution and that has proven to be the smallest of down payments on keeping this dream of Universal Freedom for Mankind alive. That is what America was called to do and harshly reminded by our own bloody faults through time that we are damned imperfect and should not once nor ever take on airs of sainthood or of perfection. Those that have decried the lack of perfection by society are lauded when they are able to reconcile the perfect with the merely human. Those that stick to their perfect beliefs and die for them are admired, but also looked at quizzically for they have not tried to make a more perfect Union between themselves and society, but attempted to remake society into something it can never be: Perfect.

If America falls short of Perfection it is because it strives for that and will never achieve it, but recognizes the struggle is worth the achievement that can be won. The Declaration was not a call to realistic goals but for unrealistic and noble goals of Universality of Rights and People to have Societies that would Govern them in accordance to their wishes. The Constitution was the realistic foundation for common governance and to have that Government be in common and yet never to infringe upon society nor individuals lest it become despotic. That framework limits Government because the People see it as something necessary for survival and to have a common vision. It is not meant to assure a good life, but ensure that a good life can be led. It is not created to protect the outlook of diversity but the diversity of outlook necessary to a vibrant society. Government is safeguard against tyranny not a guarantee against it.

That sole guarantee is held in common by those who call themselves: We the People.