Crazy though that the politicians who are screaming the most for progressive changes (Obama, Clinton, and McCain) all want to either fast-track our country into socialism/communism or escalate the same course of mindless warfares. Death (the war) and taxes (universal health care and other socialistic trends) -- there is no "change" going on, it's politics as usual. The "right" and "left" are simply characterizing different symptoms of the same disease.

Marx would certainly agree with you Waffler. Actually, he would absolutely agree with you considering his 1st, 3rd, and 8th planks.

Wikipedia, eh? lol. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth," and thanks to "wikiality" (thank you Colbert) the Wafflers of the world can live in their own delusional bubble of "truthiness". www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=72347 - 45k -

Well said, Archer.

Political government is an arbitrary entity that retains a monopoly on the legal use and exercise of force. The only appropriate use of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the individual. Could such protection of life, liberty, or property be considered "humane" or within the bounds of "humanitarianism"? Sure. As J Carlton and Mike have both described, just because something is defined as being humane doesn't, however, make it so. Some of the greatest atrocities and infringements on liberty and freedom have came from an overzealous majority or a vile despot in the name of "humanitarianism." It has been said the most feared words liberty can hear are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Agreed.

Beware lest we forget the foundational principles upon which our country was built, and apply the new philosophical dogmas that are so readily present in our educational systems and public thoughts.

True statement, but very ironic considering the source.

I couldn't have said it better, thank God for our Republic!

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!"

In political science we can measure the evolution of societies and their growth/decay levels. We can measure what is called the "democratization" of countries as they topple authoritarian regimes, and the whys and hows of who is involved. Historical philosophers (such as Machiavelli) have devised many mechanisms and have shown many models of differing society's growth and decay. What we learn from such models is that, if left alone, societies have taken themselves out of their own problems. It is hard to face the reality of human degradation in the world around us, but to remain the non-interfering "moral example" (for lack of a better term) for freedom has historically been the greatest tool at a country's disposal to exemplify liberty, freedom, and self-government. Should there have been a hypothetical entity that would have stepped in to save the early Colonies from the oppressive British regime in the late 1600's, America would not have had sufficient time to evolve to accept such self-accountable documents as the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights that it did in the late 1700's. It took time for the American people to become so oppressed as to evolve their perception to accept personal responsibility in independence. In our fast-tracked world we want immediate results and forget that societal evolution sometimes takes hundreds of years. This is why Iraq has been slow going: the people that grew up under tyrannical regimes, and have associated to themselves to what political scientists call "learned helplessness," do not have the perception necessary to be self-governing. While Iraqis have, at times, shown extraordinary leaps into "democratization," they have eventually regressed back into their own sectarian societies. The United States stepped in to "save" these people before their society was mentally capable of self-government; their society had not evolved to that place to support that paradigm. This does not mean that the Iraqis cannot one day shift perceptions to become fully self-independent, but, just like the process our own country had to go through, every country that seeks to throw off tyrannical authority must go through an evolution in perception in being capable of sustaining a self-government system. Current models show that once a society has been left alone to evolve, the democratization that takes place actually sticks; whereas countries that are not allowed to evolve regress back to their totalitarian/military regimes. It would be more unjust to interfere with a people who are not ready for self-government, because they do not have the perception to sustain a new self-accountable system of government. Human fatalities would be the greatest accomplishment of such a "favor." Saddam was accused of torturing many people, and killing approximately 100,000; however, because of this 5 year war, Iraqi casualties now top nearly 700,000 dead and over 600,000 severely wounded (approximately 300,000 of those fatalities are directly linked to U.S. bullets, missiles, and bombs). Our "favor" to Iraq has cost them over 200,000 more lives in 5 years than what Saddam committed over 20 years (and we're still not done). The escalation of soldiers have not served to help the education of the Iraqis toward self-government, but to push out the terrorist (Al Qaeda) forces that have only since found a home in Iraq since 2003. The devolution of Iraq is all but certain, as we see that there are no real answers to the sectarian differences. Iraq, even if they maintain their "democratic" processes, will most likely revert back to militaristic/over-zealous religious leaders. The Iraqi society was not allowed to evolve; hence they will revert back to old patterns of learned behavior. To maintain the wanted results, the United States must remain in Iraq indefinitely-- or until the unspecified amount of time that the society will evolve and become capable of self-government in the face of sectarian violence. In the meantime, the United States presence in the Middle East will spurn hatred and make terrorist recruiting much easier. George Washington, as a self-educated philosopher of war and history, knew concerning the woes of entangling alliances and nation building. Had we been true to our foundations, we wouldn't even be in this bothersome skirmish in Iraq.

Said well. The changes, perceptions, and etymology of society do not change all at once. Occasionally, drastic occurrences will fast-track new thoughts, outcomes, ideas, words, meanings, or actions. The Bush Doctrine (preemption), for instance, would have been quite difficult to push through in 8 years (considering his election platform of a humble foreign policy and no nation building) without 9/11. This is why it is important to know and remember our foundations. Natural pressures alone do not govern the affairs of nations; choices play a majority's role in determining the course of history. Just because we've arrived at a certain location doesn't mean we were destined to.

The Constitution WAS written by men appointed by the states to be ambassadors to the convention. The charge given them by the state, as ambassadors, was to reevaluate and make changes to the Articles of Confederation. Well, they reevaluated and changed the Articles right out of existence by creating the Constitution. A simple look at history shows that the delegates (ambassadors) were not sent directly from the people... the people did not have a vote to charge these representatives with a particular duty; the states gave these representatives this charge. This does not, however, establish a rule of elitists. The colonies considered themselves states long before the Constitution was created; in fact, it was because of this strong sense of statehood that it took so long for the constitution to even be ratified. Americans today have a little different understanding of statehood than does the rest of the world (or our founders did). Most Americans perceive a state to be more along the lines of a province or subservient geographic area. A state, however, is defined as a specified geographic area with a political and sovereign politically governing body. The key word here is "sovereign." Each state, during the ratification of the Constitution, considered itself as sovereign and separate from each other state as currently Great Britain does from Japan. Before the Constitution, varying states even had their own currency! Each ambassador was appointed to the conference by the state to represent that state in what was considered an international affair. The collection of states under a single system of government is called "federalism," wherein each state freely agrees to delegate certain characteristics of its sovereignty to a higher power. So, as an example, consider if this were done today: If Germany were to enter into supranational federalism with France or Italy, wouldn't Germany want to make sure that its citizens would be protected against the vested interests of France or Italy in such a federalist alliance? If France and Italy wanted to implement an economic model that would destroy Germany's ability to produce its natural resources, wouldn't you think there should be a provision that would allow Germany to veto such a bill, even though it was in the minority in this federalist alliance? Or, what if Germany and France wanted to pass federalist legislation that would directly incapacitate the ability of the individuals in Italy to make a living; wouldn't you think there should be a power provided to veto such a bill, even though Italy was in the minority? Is it just to destroy the livelihood of Italy because Germany and France thought it was a good idea for their own economy? Democracy says, "no, there should be no exceptions, it's majority rule all of the time, absolutely." A Republic (as established by the founders of the Constitution (Article 4, Section 4)), agrees that it is not justifiable for France or Germany to pass legislation that would directly injure the individuals in Italy, or that France and Italy could pass legislation that would harm Germany's economy in production. This does not set up an "elitist" society, but a justifiable society that rules on the will of the majority while also protecting the rights of the minority. The ambassadors of the states to the federalist society are called "Senators" in our Constitution; however, the authors of the Constitution also thought it necessary to also carry the voice of the people to the federalist level; hence, they created the "House of Representatives," that was chosen directly by the people. This is clearly obvious when you study the "great compromise" of the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution originally arranged for the President to be elected by varied means other than by direct vote of the people. The power, in every way, still rested within the people themselves, because the people voted for their state representatives that in turn also voted for the Senate and the President. This dualistic nature of the legislative branch made it possible for issues pertaining to the state (the Senate) to be checked by the voice of the people themselves (the House of Representatives). If the people didn't like what the federalist Senate was doing, then they're warn their local representatives that they better vote for some other federal state ambassador (Senator) or come the next election they would be voted out themselves. The power, in everyway, always came back to the people. This order of a Republic, however, made the checks and balances stronger and protected the rights of the individuals and the states from the onslaught of the federalist system. A Republic gives the states the right to opt out of federal legislation that would harm its citizens. In a democracy, the states would not be capable of backing out of such federalist legislation as the REAL I.D.; however, we can clearly see that many states ARE opting out of the REAL I.D. legislation passed by the federal majority, because state legislatures and governors consider such federal laws to be against their state sovereignty and their citizens "inalienable rights." So, no, "the Republic enthusiasts" here do not believe that we should be ruled by "an elitist few men and we should stay with government by an elitist few men," neither do we find anything wrong with the sovereign states having the ability of sending ambassadors to represent them in international affairs. Democracies look to the majority rule, with no exception, anytime. Republics look to the majority rule, with a few exceptions, sometimes. If a federalist law infringes upon the sovereignty of the states or the inalienable rights of the people, then the federal government has no ability act--regardless of what the ruling majority desires. Democracies give no such mercy to the sovereignty of the states or the inalienable rights of the people. Both Republics and Democracies have many things in common (rule of the people, for instance), but the basic fundamental premise of each are nearly diametric (protection of the individual (republic), or the oppression of the majority in whatever it decides anytime (democracy)).

It's easy to blame the big-bad corporations for life woes, just as it's easy to blame the big-bad government for life's woes as well. Politics, business, and banking all play an equal part. These entities couldn't get away with what they have unless there was a close and unseen relationship between them. People like to blame Wal-Mart for killing the little guy, but they fail to see many of the reasons Wal-Mart has become so powerful. The government has given Wal-Mart subsidies for many of its products and property tax exemption for the land they're built on. There are inherent problems to a "free-market," but the problems we're seeing nowadays is not a result of a free-market.

Waffler, the "Republic enthusiasts" here believe no such thing. Your statement proves your continued ignorance.

Interesting story concerning Nathan Rothschild. His network of information traveled faster than did the government's, which gave him one day pre-advanced knowledge to the outcome of Napoleon's Waterloo. Eyes turned to him as the stock market opened the day after Waterloo. Everyone looked to him as the information giver to the outcome of the battle: Should Napoleon have won, the stocks would drop -- if the English won, then the stock market would be secure. As he took his seat over-looking the stock market, his only word was "sell". This supposedly informed all the stock traders that the war had been lost and that everyone should get out while they still could. We know, however, that Napoleon lost Waterloo and that England's interest were secure; however, after the vast majority of stocks had been sold that morning, Nathan Rothschild then stood up and told his representatives to then buy back everything that had been sold that day for scraps of what the going rate was earlier that morning. Because he received the information concerning Waterloo merely one day before the government, Nathan Rothschild was able to purchase the vast majority of England's stocks. This wasn't the only time something like this has happened; things like this have been going on for the last 200 years.

This is not a battle of semantics; it's a battle of entire philosophical thought, ideas, and paradigms. Why the differentiations between monarchies and dictatorships? Why the differentiation between oligarchies and autocracies? Why the differentiation between democracies and republics? Words are the means to meaning, and without them entire ideas are lost within a societal paradigm. Thomas Moore argued this point as he was sentenced to death for not taking a mere vow -- while those around him clamored for him to sputter a few nonsensical words to save his life, he knew the importance of words and what they meant. He gave his life for words, and sealed his legacy as an honest man. Sadly, as is so readily present our society, words are no longer important. Could this be a direct correlation to why men like Thomas Moore do not exist anymore?

It was "fringe guys like Browne" who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and included within the Constitution only ONE guarantee, "a Republican form of government" (U.S. Constitution: Article IV, Section 4).

We have lost the philosophy, etymology, and perception of our founders, and have willingly done so in the name of natural progression. Why is it so important to understand and study the ancients? By understanding where we have been we more fully comprehend who we are and where we are going. The greatest thinkers of history did not reject their ancients, but understood them for who they were and progressed their ideas. Every man can think and reason, but only a wise man will seek to understand his past for what it WAS, not what he wished it to be. Sadly, many did not understand and did not progress the ancients, but ignorantly passed on false ideologies guised under the names of the most powerful thinkers of historical record--and they did so in the name of "progression". It is a historic sign of a failing society when the people falsely and intentionally redefine their foundations to contort and justify their latest ideas, unproven philosophies, and state actions. How can a people be jealous of their liberty when the very word has become so convoluted in society that few people really knew what it means? When a word can "mean different things to different people" then the word itself is useless. It has been said that words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen -- the enunciation of truth.

Let all things be done by the voice of the people, in agency AND limit to each individual right as granted by the Creator! Transparency is a thing of the past, unless we are willing to do more than talk and post blogs about it.

As I have said before, thank God the founders gave us a Republic, built on these natural and inalienable laws -- laws that the majority can never take away -- laws that were given to each and every individual by their "Creator" -- laws that have proven historically invaluable in many cultures and times in maintaining individual rights and protection! Damn democracy and its anarchical/socialist philosophies! Long live the Republic!

Waffler, get an education. When the colonies came together to form the United States, the common knowledge and law was that each formed state would be its own separate and sovereign entity -- exactly in the same way we consider Germany and France and England to be separate sovereign entities. When discussing federalism, the founders understood that each state was its own sovereign entity that needed "Ambassadors" to represent the sovereignty of the state to the small federal alliance in matters of state that effected the state directly. At the same time, they understood that the people should also be represented at the federal level -- hence the reason for the House of Representatives! It's not hard, Waffler, to understand these things, you just have to pick up a history book and start reading! Each state entered the union of states on the agreement that they could leave at anytime (because they were their own sovereign entity!) -- the "war between the states" (aka: the Civil War) changed this with the establishment of the 14th Amendment! This isn't a conspiracy Waffler, this is plain, simple, straight-forward 3rd grade American history! Your model for democracy would be laughed at by any professor of political science or any amateur historian -- both of which you obviously are not! Do you realize that democratization doesn't even measure the civil rights or liberties of a state? In fact, Civil Rights and liberty are purposefully excluded from the index! You know why? Because there are no Civil Rights or liberties in a democracy! You know why? Because democracy is merely majority rule! Whatever the majority can give to you on one day, they can take away from you on the next -- where in this model for democracy can you elucidate ANY inalienable rights? Do you know HOW the UN measures democracy around the world? There are two factors that they look for: (1) Contestation and (2) Participation. Contestation is nearly synonymous with competition -- for a majority to really vote, it needs to have more than one person to vote for to make voting legit. Participation means that fully qualified individuals can vote at regular intervals... There are regular political journals that you can read this stuff on! Pay to have an account at JSTOR and educate yourself!

Very well said. It is estimated that 9/11 only cost approx. $150,000 to accomplish. That's probably the most influential $150k that has ever been spent. The idea that terrorists will gain and unleash WMDs is overwhelming accepted within the political science departments as a facade and scare tactic. This is because terrorists can produce just as much fear by spending $200 for a bomb jacket and a free suicide bomber to kill 200 people, as they can to spend $200k for a low-grade WMD that will kill the exact same amount of people and create the exact same amount of fear. Hmmm... $200 vs $200,000 to create the exact same results? I wonder what the terrorists will stick with?

In a democracy, 10 people can legally gang up on 1 person to do whatever they want to that person. Any "laws" that are derived out of a democracy are derived from those 10 people. In a democracy, those 10 men define and tell that 1 person what his rights, liberties, and freedoms are. Since these rights, liberties, and freedoms come from those 10 men-- that means that tomorrow, those 10 men can take those rights, liberties, and freedoms away. There is no REAL protection of the individual in a democracy. This violates the premise of "inalienable rights." There are no inalienable rights in a democracy, because in a democracy the majority can vote away/alienate any rights that they gave the individual. Those 10 men can legally rape, pillage, plunder, beat, or murder that 1 man in a democracy, and it's okay. After all, the majority said it was okay, and in a democracy they are right. Democracy is one of the purest forms of anarchy, and the foundation for socialism/communism. In a purely democratic system (direct or representative), businesses would be at the whim of the employees. 10 employees of the business would be able to vote out the owner, and take over the business. This would make all businesses entities of the employees--it would turn all all business into direct-public entities. You can argue the rightness or wrongness of such a system, but such system of direct-public entities (as taken OVER by the people) is the basis of socialism/communism. Democracies really are "mob" rule. The reason most people don't see this is because they're still enamored and dependent on a Republican form of government (the philosophy, not the party), because they believe that the majority cannot violate their inalienable rights. People don't look down the corridor of time to see the fatal outcome of their choices, nor do they look to see the historic outcomes of past democracies. People still largely believe in the rights of the individual and that there are things that even in a system where the voice of the people define the laws, the majority cannot do certain things to oppress the individual. This is not a democratic paradigm, but a Republican perception. People are not ready yet to give up their individuality for the onslaught of what the majority is willing to give them. Our rights are individually inalienable-- I do not have my rights because the majority says I do, I have them because I'm "endowed by [my] Creator with certain inalienable rights" and that AMONG these rights are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The majority did not give these rights to me, my Creator did. Democracies are vile foundations that quickly lead to totalitarian and tyrannical government. Thank God our founders were wise enough to give us a Republican form of Government.

Yet another example how our Republic has been destroyed, wherein we see that the powerful few have taken control and the individual sovereign's (the people's) inalienable right has been usurped. Such is the frailty of democracy--when the majority becomes too lazy or ignorant to pay attention to what's going on in their government, such principles and ideas will be lost out of the thoughts and perceptions of the people.