Saturday, May 12, 2007

The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 6 - The Limits of Our Creation

Mankind and humanity are imperfect and those things we create for governance are likewise imperfect. By not being omniscient, all powerful and eternal, mankind creates things that are a bit longer lasting than individuals but as inherently flawed as those individuals who make them. Thus there are boundaries to these things in space and time that are definable as beginnings and limits of exercise while existing. One has liberty and freedom inside this Nation State known as the United States of America, but even here those have limits that we place upon such things. By common agreement we create laws that can satisfy most and let a daily life be led unhindered by government and oversight. As Free Individuals that is a right we have made within this thing known as the United States of America. Those rights have limits of accountability between and amongst us inside the Nation and the Nation, itself, has accountability to similar agreements known as Treaties between Nation States. We further put limits of accountability due to the lifespan of our being and our creations: in the first case the physical accountable end-points of our life as understood in common and that of companies or corporations or other non-physical entities made to sustain ideas and outlook that we, as individuals, create.

As we have failed from the Founding of this Nation to achieve perfection, so we are enjoined to seek the 'more perfect Union' amongst ourselves and understand that differences need to be worked out amongst individuals until common understanding is achieved. This requires that as those self same individuals we will have different outlook on morals and ethics from others, and that those outlooks may not be compatible with the wider society. This means that there is freedom to those differences and application and that individuals are held to the more common standard while being able to persuade others for these differences. This is a process we call 'Civilization'. This process of 'Civilization' breaks down when perfect limits are espoused to reach perfect goals and then impose those upon imperfect People. As the famous quip goes: 'We have the freedom to pursue happiness, but heaven help you if you *catch it*.'

Previous writings of mine have looked at these limits and I will attempt to summarize those viewpoints with some of the very basic limits that life and the unknown world impose upon us and some ways to go forward so as to strive to be 'more perfect' and persuade others in the Union that coming to terms and being 'more perfect' in that Union is better than where we are now. This requires that the dichotomy of Hegelian viewpoint be recognized as limited in scope and outlook and that there are far more than 'two sides' to any argument. By settling into Marxist based logic and reasoning the limits of it have been taken up by those who take sides in said arguments. This outlook adheres to no side, but towards some form of reasonable outlook that has basis in our common understanding of ourselves, our creations, and our limits. Such outlooks can fail, but then the process is to step up and find something 'more perfect' or to step back and say 'what the hell is wrong with this?'

Thus, to anger the most possible at one time that is what I will set out to do and describe the limits of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the cost in liberty, life and happiness if we seek the perfect *now*. I do not eschew perfect goals, but I do eschew reaching them in the near future without building up the society and agreement necessary to sustain them. That is the work we set ourselves as Citizens and those who fall under We the People. This is done in conjunction with the actual responsibilities that have been set out to us as Individuals.

The thing people have been looking for to try and find what the actual responsibilities of individuals *are* in this Nation State called the United States of America is the very first sentence of that untitled document called the Constitution. That is one set of picky folks that have to actually name what a document is in the opening sentence and *not* put a title on the damned thing! And for good reason, as it is ONLY the Constitution once We the People set out what we are going to do. That Preamble to the Constitution describes not what we hand to government to do, but what We the People do in forming government. We take responsibility to have government do these following things and then put limits on that government even before it is constituted so that We have absolute responsibility for its actions. That is what it means to be Free in this Nation State that is called the United States of America. In decrying poor governing and lack of good governance by the people chosen, it is also recognized that it is We the People who have chosen poorly in finding these representatives for us in government. Yes, the majority of people who go into a voting booth make bad decisions! Pretty hard to quibble with that as Congress, in particular, has been derided as: lackluster, lazy, obstinate, moronic, corrupt and defeatist. And that doesn't even get us to 1876! Really, more humorists and editorial cartoons of that first century need to be reprinted and understood: the inability of Individuals to choose good representatives is manifest. The ultimate responsibility for that entire lineage of poor choices, poor decision making, poor outlook, and poor law making rests wholly and completely upon those mentioned in the first sentence of the Constitution. The individual who stares back at you every morning in mirror reflection: you.

With that as a given and that our ability as a People to pick good government is piss poor, we must rely upon the actual structure of the Constitution to uphold our rights and liberties, even when imbeciles are put in charge of law making, law enactment, law enforcement and law adjudication. Then you get a jury of your peers who are *just* as imbecilic as each of *us* are for choosing such poor Individuals for government. What We the People do, however, is place our reliance on this system known as 'Due Process of Law'. That is the actual set of evidence gathered, sorting of facts and fiction and then presuming innocence and having to prove guilt before coming to some Just conclusion. Through all of that innocents still get put on death row or given otherwise lengthy sentences for circumstantial evidence. That is a direct and harsh reflection of *ourselves* mirrored in society: this is a system that needs to be 'more perfect' but is imperfectable at its origin because We the People made it.

Imagine a Nation Founded on red tape!

That is the United States of America.

This process actually does come to more or less Just ends as witness the low number of innocents who are proven out to *be* innocent after conviction. As our means to improve how we analyze evidence increases, the ability to re-examine cases and open up doubt increase, but so does our ability to utilize such tools and methods to remove doubt likewise open up. Just ends, then, become 'more perfect' over time but are, still, inherently imperfectable due to our limitations as Individuals being merely human and mortal. Flip that lens around to the other end of things and we get this lovely debate, or is it stalemate, of opinions on this thing known as 'abortion'. On the one side we get the 'pro-choice' freedom loving folks who point out that Individuals already born have their full Constitutional rights and the other 'pro-life' side pointing out that it looks pretty damned human and is human. Two glaciers meeting have never exerted so much pressure against each other and gotten to so little end than this 'debate' between positions in this lovely little fiasco. At this point it looks like the 'two sides' now expend money on just the debate continuing than in actually doing this thing known as examining the issue and reconciling things so that something a bit better comes from it. Can such a solution be found that lets both sides 'win' but still gets society some 'domestic Tranquility'? Well, not if you only listen and don't think a bit.

In the wilderness if you stop to 'think your way out of the wilderness' you end up staying in one place, doing nothing, while the daylight flees and things get chilly and you get cold and starve even faster. That is exactly where this bi-polar abortion disorder is in the body politic: wanting a 'perfect solution'. So sorry, this is the land of 'Due Process', imperfect law and We the People held accountable to things. You can't actually reach perfection and arguing about reaching either perfection ends up with much heat and little light happening and you sitting right there in the wilderness cold, chilly and darkness descending upon you. That said a less-than perfect, less-than pleasing and yet fully upholdable 'Due Process' direction can be found that pleases no one, exactly, but might get some of this 'domestic Tranquility' back while we seek 'a more perfect Union'. Seems the two sides forgot those things some time ago...

In looking at Freedoms, Rights and the People I started looking at the actual framework of the issues involved and then a whole lot more in When do your rights start? Now in this I do *not* try to figure out when someone is or is not a human but *when* there is a passing point *into* Citizenship. Now why did I do that? Because it is imperfect, of course! Far, far less than ideal but... it does head towards the common ideal of Citizenship and upholding all rights and all responsibilities. Citizenship is a damned important thing in this Nation and the Supreme Court has created a two-tier system of 'Due Process' that actually violates the outlook of the Constitution for one form of justice for All of the People. Here is what it boils down to:

1) The SCOTUS has put a 'viability test' on when an abortion may be performed,
2) What does 'viability' measure? It measures the ability to be sustained outside of the mother or host.
3) What happens when an Individual is outside the mother or host and sustainable? They are 'born'.
4) Being born of Citizens of the United States within a State of the United States or within limits set externally by Congress for such things under its Immigration and Naturalization powers makes one a Citizen.
Short, sweet and to the point: viability is a measure of Citizenship.

Yes, very reductio ad absurdum and all of that, but it does point out the thing about working with imperfect law: one can use its imperfection to achieve things that locking horns forevermore will not do. And in this extremely imperfect ruling the SCOTUS has now set up a 'two tier' system upon fetuses based on positional sustainability outside the mother or host. If a fetus is born prematurely, it gets full Citizenship Rights and coverage. At that exact same gestation point for another fetus going through normal gestation that is NOT the case. Say, that just can't be right, can it? Imperfect law, imperfect ruling leading to a non-Due Process procedure for Equal Protection. Pure idiocy, when you come right down to it. If a 'viability' test is put in place then the requirement, since it is viability to become a Citizen is being measured, then ALL such fetuses at that same point in gestation should get Equal Coverage and Due Process under the Law.

Painful, isn't it?

Enacting State-based legislation on that would *then* require *proof* that a fetus was not in the viability stage and appropriate developmental buffer zone to afford protections to unequal development due to circumstances beyond control of mother or fetus. Under this regime one can, indeed, get an abortion, but only with *proof* that the fetus was not in the gestational viability period. What that then requires is *record keeping* of sexual activity! Yes, more Red Tape! Sworn affidavits, medical exam and post-abortion exam to determine status would then be *required* so that anyone that LIES about their history in this regard can be prosecuted for murder. On the other side society, at that point in time, must afford full minor citizenship rights to such children who are gestating normally and ensure that these new Citizens are properly tracked and accounted for until their full 'birth date' or emergence from the mother or host. This infringes upon no existing set of Rights and applies responsibility to sexual activity because of its paramount importance to Citizenship. And various doctors can be appointed by the State to perform dual exams upon an individual that did NOT keep such records, and then they would attest to gestational period and abortion made available for the non-viable fetus.

This provides full rights to the unborn at the point of viability. Anything *else* then gets one looking at 'when does life begin' which really isn't a question society is set up to deal with. What society *is* set up to deal with is when an individual becomes a Citizen, so using that is not only perfectly reasonable, but then sets new standards of conduct and accountability for sexually mature individuals. That knife cuts across *both sides* of the debate as it is neutral to the debate and looks to uphold society and *not* find some sort of perfect solution. Totalitarian governments are very good at perfect solutions and their eponymous 'Final Solution'. Really, if life 'begins at conception' then it is not the abortion clinics that are mass murder facilities but In Vitro Fertilization clinics that have large numbers of fertilized eggs from generally infertile couples that need to destroy such after a period of time as they become non-viable for *anything* after a couple of years in the deep freeze. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed via that route and yet I see very little protesting around those places for doing so. Somehow that 'perfect' viewpoint needs to be adjusted to the actual, real world of a common society held by the overwhelming majority of Citizens.

What can be done, however, is to find better ways to sustain premature infants, identify better ways to identify developmental stages of gestating fetuses, and afford a bit better help to expectant mothers or hosts so as to get children that are better cared for, generally healthy and, perhaps, have some early intervention for treatment of genetic illnesses and deformities. If all the money that had been funneled into this glacially locked 'debate' had been put to something *useful* for the commonly held public society, then we might have fewer premature births, a better understanding of genetic disease and pre-born deformities and actually hold life to be a bit more sacred than we do now as an entire society.

So with that it is now time to anger other vast swaths of the Public!

To do *that* I will look at this idea of the Nation State as a container for internal systems, for its own people, and its external accountability to other Nation States via diplomacy and warfare. With this the Left and the Right serve as equally good targets in their strange views on Human Rights, Human Liberty, and the Sovereignty of the Nation State. Of course these are all imperfect constructs made and developed by the hand of man, but they work better than anything else that has ever been put forth. So it is time for the wild joyride of giving equal affront to all sorts of strange sensibilities so that we can come to understand what it means to *have* a Nation State. And here there are, indeed, limits on the Nation State both in time and in spacial coordinates that are referenced to the center of mass of Rock 3 from the Star Sol, named Earth by its more or less sentient inhabitants. As I looked at this before in Where exactly are your rights?, this entire Nation State limits concept does have actual hard and fast limits upon it in the physical way, not the grandiose forms that so many try to put this in.

Simply put the territorial limits, with more or less agreed-upon extensions for 'territorial waters' and Extra-Territorial Enclaves (aka. Embassies) use those outline limits and then extend those downwards towards the center of mass of the planet. Thus these planes extend upward in radiating fashion until they hit the surface and then extend out to the limits of the atmosphere where they end. Nation States have: top, bottom and sides and are a 'container'. While these are mental constructs, they are also the agreed-upon constructs that serve as limitation boundaries for Peoples and are agreed by their governments as actual things to be respected. This sort of thing has been going on for awhile, but got codified a bit better after the 30 years war ended in 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia established the Nation State as separate entity from the Roman Catholic Church. The religious implications of that I went over on Keeping faith so that faith may be kept, but the upshot of *that* is that Nations may have National religious outlook but *must* afford Individuals the Right to freedom of worship of their religion of choice. This is what I would term: A Conservative Value Engendered By The Judeo-Christian Ethos. It shortens down to: keep your nosy Government out of my religious outlook. I particularly like that as it does, indeed, create Freedom and Liberty, while all these other splendid ideas for what a Nation should do with respect to religion do not.

With that splendid concept fought over with millions dead to it, developed the bloody history of Nation States which were incrementally less bad than the religious wars before them. As Nations began to realize that they couldn't look to the Church for what to do in the affairs of their Nation, particularly if the leadership changed religious affiliation, the movement of politics to a lower level happened. Instead of the Pontiff and Cardinals and Archbishops and such, it was all put on Emperors, Kings, Princes, Dukes and the such like to figure it out for themselves. File this under in the drawer labeled: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. These various secular authorities were soon learning the ropes and instigating more hatred that would now be based on National outlook and the People in their Nation and *not* upon religion, by and large, although there are folks trying to drag the whole kit 'n caboodle back to the pre-17th century and get those lovely 20% death tolls of then on a global basis. By the efforts of 'Good Christian Leaders' who were often none of those things, this idea of 'Diplomacy' and 'Treaties' evolved to fit the Nation State framework in which Nations did this strange thing of *not* going to a religious or clerical authority to hand down edicts on Nations, but held each other accountable as Nations directly! Soon mere squabbles that an ex-communication or three could have handled and started up a long lasting religious war that would go on for decades now boiled down to an immediate conflict that might just last mere years and see an exchange in provinces or movement of border or some such.

This is known as: Progress.

With that the territorial limits of Nation States were slowly brought into being and they *evolved* as wars changed things, Peoples moved around and mere ethnic conflicts rose to that of National status. And some of those did, in actuality, come to some settlement, while others have festered on for more than a few centuries and some date back 6,000 years or so, particularly in Asia. Ask Koreans of their opinion of Chinese, Chinese their opinion of Vietnamese and then go in reverse order and you will get families citing oral and written history going back that far to show who was right and who was wrong and why the squabbles continue unabated along with hard feelings. Makes the folks in the Balkans 'Johnny-come-latelies' in this sort of thing, really. While parts of Africa, particularly in the Ethiopia region, also have similar long-lasting ethnic outlook and strife. By offering order and regularity to such squabbles, Nation States afforded separateness of governance and outlook which would entrench some of these things and dislodge others. This arrangement was extended via Treaty to include things that Nations held each other accountable for on the High Seas, which never stopped those that disagreed with them. Still doesn't as that is not possible in the container system of Nation States.

What is important, however, is that *inside* the Nation State government type was no longer dependent upon outside forces, by and large. Peoples inside Nations had separate outlook from their neighbors and could institute any sort of government they could put up with. Often that was Despotic, Tyrannical, Authoritarian, or Strongman Rule. Still they were *our* despots, not *yours* and *yours* were far worse than *ours*. Those Nations that did *not* provide freedom of religious worship to its People, however, were seen as truly Barbaric. But you can't do much about that to make them hold to being a Nation State, externally, while internal to the Nation State system the entire idea of 'Nation' started to change. Individuals within Nations came to the realization that no matter who the Leader was, it was the common folks who got the dirty end of the stick and that needed to change. In fits and starts the pry bar of lesser authorities with internal power began to wedge some openings into what was and was not acceptable in the way of internal rule and order. In most of southern Europe this would take awhile, but in the northern climes this would leapfrog all over the place because of their Peoples.

Although Greece is pointed to as the sole birthplace of democracy, the folks way up north had their own kind that was not derived from Greek outlook and principles. Theirs was more based on the community level having Leaders that do this thing known as 'lead' and are 'held accountable' for their leading. Many of the Kings of those northern Nations understood, often fatally, that their power did *not* extend beyond the consent of the governed. The basis for Leading was by common assent and when that got lost, so did one's power if not one's life. This was a direct 'clash of civilizations' that grew out of the end of the Roman Empire and Nordic folks, generically, going all over the place in search of trade and, when folks didn't want to trade, simply taking what they wanted from those pesky foreigners. Back home, however, the ruling of the Thing for the village and then on upwards to the larger Thing for what would be Nations, led towards accountable internal rule. One of the worst punishments was not immediate death, nor the grisly things they did to foreigners, but was simply to expel an individual and let them know there was a price on their head *inside* town and later Nation. The price was on the head, not the rest of the body.

This set of ideas would suffuse outwards into the Germanies, British Isles, Northern France and other places less hospitable to chilly climates. In England, generically, and the Scots and Irish this would cross with standard clan based laws and meld into a form of Common Law to which All are held accountable. While still ruled upon locally, the idea passed upwards into the Nobility that extending voice to the peasantry was necessary as revolts were often putting Nobles lives at danger. That basic trust that the Leader would look out for the safety of the People and be held accountable to them mixed with the southerly forms of democracy to amalgamate into something new: democracy with Common Law holding All accountable. This developed within the framework concept of Nation States to become modern democracy in its varied forms we now see today. Unlike religious totalitarian concepts of warfare, National warfare allowed for ideas to shift and be tested upon unwilling subjects who would then either change and accept them or revolt against them. Warfare and Peoples shifting slowly over time set up Nation States to test out new ideas of government of which one was democracy. And the only place that democracy can take place and still *have* accountability by accepted National governments is within the Nation State itself. Outside placement of rule has often been seen as Imperialistic, Tyrannical and Overbearing for all the fact it opens up new avenues of insight. Larger organizations than local Nation State governments have proven not to work and have been discarded as Authoritarian and Tyrannical in outlook and scope as there is no accountability process to keep it in check. If you can't lawfully place a price on someone's head for breaking the Commonality of Law, then you have rule of the Tyrant not of the Law.

Sacrosanct to National rule is National Sovereignty in which the Nation acts as Sovereign actor for the Peoples of the Nation. This, too, is a check against unaccountable rule and has often led to warfare or revolutions when the Sovereignty is broken either externally or internally. The basis of accountability of Nations to each other is the direct correspondent of the accountability of Leaders to the People and their Law. This is a prime area for concern as many Individuals no longer wish to recognize the Sovereignty of Nation States and, thusly, do not realize that this system offers both protection and accountability that higher forms of governance do not have. The latest going over was in International lawlessness begins at home with you, which slowly boils down from the equivalence of accountability of Treaties all the way to that of agreements between Individuals as friends. The way the People of the United States set out to ensure that this Sovereignty was not abused nor diluted, was to make accountable government inside the Union at the Federal level, through checks and balances, and then to put superior checks and balances out to the States and the People to recall those that did not act in accordance with the wishes of the People. Final and absolute authority on all things rests with the Will of the People, and government may not choose to give powers granted to them to any other body or institution. Federal government was made as the Highest Accountable Power in the Nation and there are None higher than that. And as friends keep and abide by agreements with other friends, so it is expected that very same thing to happen between Our Government and that of other Nations. And when friends let us down we like to know *why* and that is part and parcel of International Relations and Reciprocity between Nation States: explain why agreements are violated and be held accountable to their activities.

Up to the era of WWI this was the commonly acknowledged and understood view of where Rights were afforded (within Nations), what could be afforded for foreigners (by Treaty and internal outlook), and what was necessary to keep the system going (abide by Treaties and be held accountable for actions that violated them). And even in later times, all concepts of Universal Human Rights are stated and understood to adhere to just this conception with *no* higher authority power than the Nation State. And so the crux of those wishing to support an ideal of 'Universal Human Rights' come smack dab into the fact that no power will enforce such rights nor be held accountable to People. That is because the Rights are *not* handed down from Government but are a realization by Individuals that they are Free. That is what the United States is based upon and the statements for that Universality is a recognition that Peoples must find it within themselves to adhere to themselves as Free People and make Government accountable to them. This is horrifically at odds with those who want to destroy Nation States using the Universality of Human Rights as a reason to dis-establish the Nation State and the framework of Nation States.

In 1917 the President of the United States did *not* ask for Declaration of War against all those Powers arrayed against the Allies, but was particular and choosy in that. Even though it is common to treat Allied Nations that have gone to War as one entity for being held accountable, President Wilson did not do that much to the vexation of Congress and the Allies. Many in Congress, including ex-President Teddy Roosevelt, had pleaded with Wilson to ask for full Declaration of the Powers that were arrayed to Germany. Instead a different view on warfare was put forth by the President who ran on an Isolationist platform. The warnings by Congress, including ex-President Roosevelt were not heeded: that by not taking full part in the War the US would be unable to affect the Peace outcome. The idea of what the Union was, in that era, was being radically altered from 1909-19 and the decision by President Wilson to not ask for War against the Ottoman Empire was one that would change the character of outlook by the United States on Foreign Policy and on its outlook on what Freedom and Liberty *are*. That policy was two-fold and each of those have morphed over time into undemocratic outlooks that threaten the survival of the Nation State and democracy. The first idea is that Trade trumped Warfare and that Trade would change the Middle East for the better. The second was that International Institutions could provide a pathway to Peace between Nations. President Wilson's firmer outlook on ethnically aligning Nation States in the Middle East to their Peoples was not taken seriously as the US had not been a full partner in the War and the fully victorious powers did not set much of a place at the adult table for partners that did not act like responsible adults. From these three things there would be hell to pay in the ensuing decades.

Previously I have gone over these forms in distributed articles as they engender three major outlooks derived from these ideals of an Isolationist President. The easiest is Transnational Progressivism, which is the malignant outgrowth of international ideals gone awry with Tyrants and Despots getting equal say at international meetings to that of democracies. I went over it as part of the stumbling blocks in the Peace in the Middle East - The Checklist article, and further reading on by John Fonte on the subject can be found here and here. The basic outline of Transnational Progressivism have been fairly outlined and are as follows:
Groups are what matter, not people. You are "Black" or "Christian" or "Mexican" or "Afghan" or "Sunni", you are not yourself. You also don't get to choose your group; it's inherent in what you were when you were born. Someone else will categorize you into your group, and you will become a number, a body to count to decide how important that group is. And your group won't change during your lifetime.

The goal of fairness is equality of result, not equality of opportunity. It isn't important to let individuals fulfill their potential and express their dreams, what's important is to make groups have power and representation in all things proportional to their numbers in the population. Fairness is for groups, not for individuals. The ideally fair system is based on quotas, not on merit, because that permits proper precise allocation of results.

Being a victim is politically significant. It's not merely a plea for help or something to be pitied; it's actually a status that grants extra political power. "Victimhood" isn't a cult, it's a valid political evaluation. Groups which are victims should be granted disproportionately more influence and representation, at the expense of the historic "dominant" culture.

Assimilation is evil. Immigrants must remain what they were before they arrived here, and should be treated that way. Our system must adapt to them, rather than expecting them to adapt to us (even if they want to). The migration of people across national borders is a way to ultimately erase the significance of those borders by diluting national identity in the destination country.

An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn't require elections at all. A "winner take all" system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchise minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power.

National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations.
These are the fundamental points of the world view of Transnational Progressivism and they formulate a top-down, elite ruled and anti-democratic viewpoint on the world. The goal is to remove the Nation State as a separate identifier and discriminator and remove Sovereignty from Nations and invest it in a Higher Authority above Nations. This is a direct descendant of President Wilson's ideas for a League of Nations and UN, but taken to the point where the actual internal governance type of a Nation no longer matters and power derives from governmental authority and not from the People. This is turning the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution on their heads if not scrapping them entirely as governing concepts amongst the affairs of mankind. Some of these derive from International Socialism and Communism, like the equality of result in all things, while many are wholly made up of a 'One World' ideal that has no basis in outlook of governments. Through the use of group-affiliation, the power of Individuals is *removed* as a concept in which power derives from the governed. By seeking to make international institutions as a legitimate way to handle Nation to Nation problems, the Wilsonian ideal has slowly morphed to those purporting that it is the ONLY way for legitimacy of handling problems and that Reciprocity and Accountability of Nation TO Nation no longer applies.

One of the most destructive manifestations of this has been the 'Sanctuary' movements of cities and municipalities actually no longer adhering to the Laws of the Land in the US and not enforcing the commonality of that law. In my article on this, Sanctuary Cities and Secession from the Union, I point out that each of the major powers function Articles of the Constitution are being broken by these municipalities and that in previous generations this was known as: secession. San Francisco has come the closest to actually stating this via its elected officials, and the point being driven home is that there is no respect for the commonality of law nor adherence to it nor to respecting the Sovereignty of the Nation and its agreed upon structure in the Constitution. Citing the 'Universal Rights' concept does no good whatsoever, as I examined in the framework of Treaties between Nations in Terrorist breaking with civilization. Terrorism is a case on this, but they have also broken the general 'Universal Human Rights' concept by not adhering to its Nation State basis and that is exactly what individuals entering the Nation illegally are doing. Those that give aid and succor and jobs to such are eroding the Union and working against the foundations of Due Process of Law. In the end the Rights problem is not in illegals getting rights but in the Rights of the Citizens to have a Sovereign Nation be lost and the Nation right along with it.

Transnational Terrorists are a second outgrowth of the Wilsonian misaligned views, and this comes from the negative of not having more ethnically aligned States in the Middle East post-WWI and the utilization of Transnational Progressivist ideology in words, but with a view towards a different ruling Elite. They are further supported by the Transnational Capitalists, described later, and the abundance of unaccountable weapons for trade and sale globally at cheap cost. The view of al Qaeda in its doctrinal outlook is to exploit the Transnational weakening of the Nation State to start breaking Nation States down with warfare and civil unrest. Their document is The Management of Savagery, which I give overview of here. Lee Harris previously gave insight to al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology which, in outlook if not in form, drives many terrorist groups globally not just the Islamic Radicalist types.

The generalized outlook is to assert Islam as an overarching view and utilize ethnic and other differences within Nations so as to fracture Nations and allow for those parts more aligned to al Qaeda to be subverted. Once done the exploited people and their territory serve as a basis for enlarged attacks outwards, spreading religion and ideology with an aim towards a Global Islamic State. While there are many fantastical views within that outlook, and it has sustainability problems, what it does do is cause further terror and death that spreads each time it is not confronted. While being a tiny minority within Islam, this ideology serves as a basis for subverting much of the rest of Islam and installing Dictatorship over those areas that succumb to it. That is the direct and stated goal of al Qaeda: use ethnic tensions to empower specific groups, subvert those groups when they win, expand attacks against Nation States and continue this process until all Nation States have given up or been so heavily fractured that they can no longer resist the forces of Islam becoming united under al Qaeda. Iran is also looking to do something very similar to this, and the disagreements are more along the line of final Leadership basis and Religious control. Communists and Capitalists that utilize terrorism are just as amenable to that basic formula, although offering different Totalitarian end States.

The third part of this is the Transnational Capitalist. Here John Fonte has offered this article: American Conservativism Meets Globalization: The Challenges from the Transnational Left and Transnational Right. In that he looks at the destructive views of Transnationalism utilized by Capitalists to seek out illegal aliens for labor. With this he gives view on three main areas: "(1) global migration or immigration, (2) global trade, and (3) regionalization, specifically North American integration". I find it interesting that he reiterates the concept that is most misaligned in his look at the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill from last year and the support it garnered from the Wall Street Journal, which he quotes from as follows:
"Our own view is that a philosophy of 'free markets and free people' includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting their labor, which is a basic human right."
This is very close to what so many on the Capitalist Right have been purporting for years if not decades at this point although they go a bit beyond that to purport that 'free markets make people free'. He then goes on to rightly point out that contracting between Nations *must* use the Nation to Nation channels of established Treaty for the migration of individuals. My article on The 20% victory is something called defeat, looks into this on both sides of the political spectrum which has only two sides, a very strange idea for a 'spectrum', and point out that Man is not an 'economical unit' but a Human Being. As such the Rights of Man rely upon the enforceable framework of laws to ensure those rights. The #1 most basic *Right* is to associate in discriminatory ways so as to find people compatible with you. When you get a large number of them you form together to make something called: A Nation. By violating the Sovereignty of that Nation those within it have their Individuality diminished and the ability of that Nation to ensure Rights broken. Jeffersonians should look to the Declaration on that as the ability to gather together and form Nation is paramount to being a People even *before* religion. The ability to say who you will and will not associate with and have that respected is a fundamental basis for ANY Nation State. With this 'Right to Contract' deal International Law is then made by foreigners with companies and no longer by the Sovereign Nations involved. That means immigration policy is left up to Tyson's Food, Wal Mart, and various farmers using Federal funds to grow crops and then hire illegals to pick them. Who chose THEM to be the ones setting immigration policy for the Nation?

Transnational Capitalists also seek regulation of trade between Nations via unaccountable international bodies, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO, however, is not limited to Nation States to hear complaints about Nations and is open to a wide gamut of Non-Governmental Organizations, many of them on the environmental and Progressivist side of things, working to further destabilize the legitimacy of Nation to Nation reciprocity without interference from non-Nation State actors. It is this gamut of 'social activism', 'environmental activism' and non-accountable ruling body attached to the WTO that makes it dangerous to National outlook on what is and is not acceptable or accountable trade between Nations. This is a Power only granted to the U. S. Congress by its People and only amenable to Treaties which are ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Those are the actual functions of those Federal powers and may not be delegated nor signed over to any other organization as they are a grant of Power from the People, not held by Government. Trade, in particular, is something that has been a place where Congress has its most power and the infringement of the regularization of Foreign Trade via Treaty is amenable only to ruling status in the U. S., not to a Foreign or Transnational hearing or court system.

With Transnationalism, as seen with the Progressivists, comes the de-linking of National Sovereignty from the People of a Nation. The Capitalist side also is seeking this via the system of Regionalization to break down border barriers and reduce the Sovereignty of Nations particularly in North America. Here the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America is cited by Mr. Fonte as troublesome in the extreme as its objectives are those to remove oversight of the movement of individuals across borders, change all security and customs regulations to one single set stretching from Mexico to Canada, 'formalize' the transnational labor force, and create institutions to "promote North American integration". Sounds very Leftist, and yet the current Administration has sent Cabinet level officers to this set of meetings: Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Michael Chertoff. These meetings established the North American Competitiveness Council which is overseen *not* by a government body but the US Chamber of Commerce. Here, again, who elected the US Chamber of Commerce to set trade, immigration, naturalization and foreign policy for the Union in North America?

Finally this Transnational Capitalism, like its Progressivist counterparts, seeks to remove assimilation as the standard for Immigration and, indeed, remove any especial affinity for the Nation State by its People. The 'harmonizing' process is to change the cultures of all three Nations into one, single culture. Indeed, individuals who will *not* forswear their Mexican Citizenship are finding home inside America and even being elected to positions in government. This is something that is directly contrary to the Oath taken by an individual to become a Citizen and calls into question the allegiance and direction of such Individuals who have a goal of diluting culture and National Sovereignty as something that is openly stated. And that is, at bedrock, what makes a Nation State separate and different: the primary right of individuals to come together and form association that excludes others in the conception of Nation State. The US, Canada and Mexico are three different cultures at basis, with different histories and outlook, and yet the Transnational Capitalists wish to 'harmonize' culture so that there is no distinction IN culture in North America. That is a blatant attempt to remove that which makes the Nations separate and accountable entities and is a removal of special and separate histories of People to have and hold as their own.

Transnationalism is known by its older name, where the populace serves an Elite ruling class, and it does not matter if that class be Progressivist, Terrorist or Capitalist, the name remains just the same: Empire.

The Transnational ideology was born in the Middle East in 1917.

And the repercussions of it on Freedom and Liberty for all of Humanity now are felt with the cold breath of Empire wanting to rule over Mankind and not seek the consent of the Governed. No Empire ever formed has ruled with consent of the Governed and has always limited the rights of the population to what the ruling power thought it should be. This long and hard struggle to cooperative distinctiveness is to enrich all of mankind and respect differences so that we may have a plethora of outlooks to handle the future. It is not a perfect world that is made from that, but one that can be made 'more perfect' over time.

Do you remember earlier my outlook on other things, like abortion and such? How would you feel if you had no say in that as the 'harmonization process' would reflect that of how some committee viewed 'North American' ideal? How about school standards? Health care? Gun ownership? Drug use? Your ability to have someone local you can elect to a school board, instead of having a board appointed by an oversight body? How about your religion? Your freedom of speech? These are the things that need to be 'harmonized' across North America. And much, much more.

Transnationalism seeks utter perfection by removing what makes Peoples and Nations different and special.

And only Tyranny achieves that as a government type as it is perfectible.


Lady Hawk said...

Dear Mr. Ajax:
Your articles increase my IQ by 50 points! What a terrific intellect you have. Although voters (and jurors) truly make wrong choices, please explain your view on why we do not have a better calibre of candidate choices to choose from. I was mesmorized by your Constitutional arguments against murder of citizens in vitro, and your theory on the history of transnational progressivism. I plan to research President Wilson to learn more about what you said.
Thank you.

A Jacksonian said...

Dear Lady Hawk,

My thanks! I am glad you got something from it, and you may want to try out Michael Oren's book Power, Faith and Fantasy... it does a good job on the Middle East for what America has seen there, and it was the description of the Wilson era policy there and reactions to it that made connections to the same philosophy going on to this day.

Now as to the questions... which I am far from the best to answer them...

Why don't we have a better class of candidate choices?

We don't have better candidate choices because we, via our Representatives (generically speaking) have disallowed free-play of ideas in the political realm in the US. The two party dichotomy *without* a third party that has minoritarian, but firm affiliation has meant that the co-opting of programmatic results of such organizations into the main parties has not carried the underlying structure that brought them to the forefront with them. Socialism, in particular, but also the 19th century Progressivist movement, offered what they thought were good *ends* but their route to getting them was not also picked up. Some of that is just co-opting a 'good idea' to gain marginally more popularity on the part of the two parties, but the shearing of the underlying ideals that made those ends, meant that there was no good fit of those ends to existing government. The Progressivists were able to get Amendments into the Constitution to make government run more efficiently, but they missed the point of democratic government having to be inefficient to represent a multitude of thoughts that are the People.

The Federal side of this made things worse by setting the size of the House of Representatives to be 'manageable' when the Founders had clearly envisioned just the opposite: a raucous place where there was maximum interplay of ideas and the Senate would serve as a buffer to them.

We lack diversity of outlook because the Citizen serving their Nation has been grossly limited to the Armed Forces and the small sliver that could actually get into politics. Part of the 1:30k Amendment is to reverse that, make the House a true place for the voice of the People, and remove it as a political sanctuary to a mere *job* of serving one's fellow Citizens and the Nation.

We limit the diversity at that end by raising the barrier to entry so that only the rich, well connected or rabble-rousers can get *any say*. That is NOT what the House was meant to be. The two parties raise further barrier to entry by dominating the States due to that Federal connectivity, and make third party entrance very, very difficult by requiring broad base support for minoritarian positions.

Shearing off the ability to have Citizen representation and have a basis for minority platform that can be heard we then get the slow movement to a bipolar political view and outlook. That has not helped this Nation even while making Government 'manageable' and 'efficient' it is no longer vital and reflecting the People. At this point I see the 'debates' between the two parties as so disconnected from the People, that they no longer know how to define the "center" between them because it is not between them, but someplace else they cannot define.

My in vitro argument is, of course, reductio ad absurdum on that point, but it is the full extension of that conception of 'life begins at fertilization'. We are heading into an era where helping to ameliorate or abate some genetic defects via pre-natal care will not only be possible but common. The 'debate' has made it difficult to put forth that common ground as basis for working out a compromise as it has wasted time, energy, emotions and put a fracture into the Nation where none need be. The States are Sovereign for determining Citizenship at birth and giving it proper and full definition. It is Common Law that holds for 'birthright citizenship' not Federal law as Congress is not given that power. When I hear about things like 'anchor babies', all I can say is: the States have compelling reason to define Citizenship as child born of two Citizens within their State. The States also have the right to demand proper creation of laws within their domains so as to not give a dual Due Process view that is currently in place with regards to gestation and abortion. Throw in a buffer zone of a week or so for reasonable developmental differences and ensuring sanctity of being a Citizen and offer full Due Process to those reaching such maturity. As technology gets better, that window moves *down* in the gestation cycle. If we come to understand how new life grows, develops, matures and gestates then we come to understand how to sustain it better. That could have been done decades ago and we would have a society that upholds the sanctity of life by understanding it and appreciating it better than we do now. For all that we have heard and all the money spent, even a fraction of that put towards that goal with a long term ultimate objective slowly changes social viewpoint on the procedure.

That is a completely utilitarian view not based on religious outlook, but on attempting to understand what it means to be a Citizen and support Citizenship from beginning to end. I don't get hot and bothered over the moral question for society, but the ethics of it for oneself and how one fits in society is extremely troubling as *neither* side wishes to address it. That demeans life in whole, not just sanctity at the beginning, but our finding place and understanding it as Citizens within society.

On Wilsonianism - The an wanted the US to be isolated from WWI and ran on that platform. He wanted some lovely set of international bodies to oversee things. He wanted just Nations to reflect the ethnic diversity of the Middle East.

He would *not* commit to war fully.

We are left with the bad aspects of the things he wanted because of that. The excuses used to do *nothing* now are heard on Right and Left as further excuses to *do nothing*. The Ottoman Empire and the Middle East are the proof of the vacuity of those ideals... we are left with unjust international institutions, unjust Nations in the Middle East, and deeper threat of loss of liberty not only there but globally because of that.

The price, then, to step into war exhausted Europe and the Middle East would have been high, but the US was left with a million man Army in Europe *alone* with plenty of food and war material there... something tells me that Roosevelt and the others knew the strength of America better than the Isolationists did. Supporting ethnic alignment of people to Nations, Nationalism, education, justice and freedom of worship... all of those could be done with the US as *full partner* to Britain and France. We would have committed fully to 'fight for democracy'. We did not... and the last echoes of Isolation now ring from the Left that will not stand for democracy and freedom and they will not recognize that the world is too small for Isolationism.

It is a tough world out there.

Best we remember we are Free People and address it. For it has addressed us in the only form it understands: death and tyranny.