Sounds like a typical backwoods politician who goes to Washington and finds out what government, federal law, and the legislative history of our country is all about. Remember when George Wallace wanted to throw all of the briefcases into the Potomac. So what's new?

If we don't have government of the world by the people of the world we will have government of the world by SOME of the people of the world, aka corporations, conglomerates, multi-nationals, Wal-Mart. Have y'all never heard of Mergers and Acquisitions. If such things are good for business then why is it not good for people at large.

PS: Yeah that's what we need on this site Controversy! Life and smile Mike.

I am not trying to teach or debate the Bible Warren. The Mark of the Beast as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the failure of mankind to follow the Commandments of God as listed in the Decalogue. You can google them and read it all for yourself. This is all documented in books such as "From Sabbath to Sunday". Every one has a new theory on 666. Martin Luther (the original) had one in 1400-1500 whenever he was extant and the Seventh-day Adventists have had one since their inception in about 1840. Warren have you never seen the picture of a scotchman golfing with the caption about sinning on the sabbath? For Prsbyterina Scots that is Sunday. Many Christians call Sunday the Christian Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventists call this argument "Tjhe Great Controversy".

I like to hear that you are smiling and laughing Mike. Warren JFK said " On earth God's work must be done by man.". I am not saying that that is true, I am saying that that is what JFK said. So far though I do believe it is true at least until God shows up.

The true mark is earned by those who willfully disobey God's 4th commandment to "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" that being the Seventh-day of the week Saturday. Ask any Seventh-day Adventist. And they can prove it from the Bible, Otherwise in our free society people appear to love cashlessness. I know I do. I can travel anywhere and get money out of machines for a relatively small fee while my income and expenses are automatically paid. No one has to accept cashlessness, you are free to get mugged anytime.

So what is new? Most all religions preach the concept of unity under their banner. Bringing all minds into unity with the Supreme. Is not that what the Christian Right and Evangelicals are all about? What the old earth needs is an invasion from space and we all will opt for one world government immediately.

Between the lines the Telegraph is saying that people cooperating in ever higher levels of organization (Whitehall, Westminister, Brussels) is a detriment to our freedom. By Brussels I assume they mean the common market and/or Nato. The English or many of them were notoriously anti-common market. Most Europeans I believe love the new freedoms they have first by operation of Nato and then the freedom of movement of people and goods throughout the common market. America knew the joys and benefits of a continental market for 200 years.

PS: Most of the other cultures referenced above are trying to follow in our foot steps as fast as they can. Their criticsims of our society is possibly just born of jealousy.

Policy wonks and power brokers (establishment) and big money have an ongoing communication with the public at large who vote on individuals for public office. It is a two way street. I thought Archer was calling this set up socialism above. If I misread him I apologize. Public financing of Presidential Elections would appear to remove the Establishment (at least the big money) from the process. The Supreme Court says that being able to throw around big money is "free speech". I will be the last to disagree that peope try to influence people all the time as in advertising etcetera. Some cultures have constanly found fault with our Madison Avenue mass consumer culture. Same mentality spills over to the Political Establishments of all persuasions. Can't stop it; not if you wish us to remain a free and democratic society.

Warren Lincoln said and I paraphrase, "Politics (getting elected) is the art of raising an issue and then defending it or attacking it, which ever the case may be, for the sake of getting elected". If one wants to be a policy maker he must first get into the establishment via politics. Politics and the establishment are always in flux in a democracy. If we are able to understand Adam Smith's invisible hand in the economic and capitalistic market place why cannot we begin to grasp the invisible hand that shapes thought, opinions and ultimately policy in our country. We are all part of it even on this site by the sharing of our view points. If sharing our viewpoints and having discussions with each other from all walks of life and coming to agreement or disagreement is called socialism by some that is sad and just unfortunate. Viva our republican democracy.

Ben we were told just the other day by Mike and Logan that the writers of the constitution were not representatives of the people but representatives of the "states", in other words of the establishment at that time. "Natual law" as I demonstrated earlier is what ever those in power wish to claim it to be. The British monarchy and its adherents saw it as the natural order of things. "Natural law" is similar to the phrase "common sense". That phrase is a convention generally used to get ones own way. When you want someone to do something or understand something the way that you do just tell them "It is common sense." The reason for polls and surveys which are taken in a scientific and statistically correct way is to find out what people believe rather than just saying people believe this or that because it is "common sense" from one persons perspective. I suggest many folks like the establishment when they think it comports with their views such as the colonial state appointed Constitutional Assembly.

Democracy at its best. Have patience. Republican southern strategy starting with Nixon, the Christian right, the gays, the right to lifers etcetera. The politicians have to appeal to all and in some extent manipulate the countervaling forces in order to lead. Some have said leadership is finding out which way the crowd is going (polls) and then get in front of them. Once you are in front you may also be able to turn the crowd this way or that way a little bit. This is all good, this is DEMOCRACY at its' best. When done right it is in effect public opinion running the country.

Ruling class is what politics is all about. Many of us can be part of ruling classes in our own home towns, counties etcetera. Most of us sit around and complain about the "ruling class" for instance that runs the school system but do not get involved. Mike is right unfortunately. According to some on this site our founders established a government based on "natural law". Heck we had just revolted a few years earlier to overthrow the government of "natural law". The argument of the English tyrannt was that it was a governiment of "natual law" the divine right of Kings etcetera. If America is now a government or constitution of "natual law" I say the revolution was in vain and it is time to revolt again and establish a true republican government "of, by, and for the people" not by "natural law" nor by a limited establishment which some say is what the founders were.

I juist finished touring the Palo Alto Battlefield Warren and Logan. The Americans (Texans) who had fought to the death at the Alamo 10 years earlier showed up at Palo Alto near Brownsville with much superior canon. The approx 3000 Mexicans left hurriedly after losing about 100 men. If you add up revolutionary battles, the Alamo, Palo Alto, Bellau Woods I think you will find American fighting men have alwasy believed whether or not anyone on thsi site still believes or not. The latest battle in this list I think is Fallujah. There have been incidences of Republican populism and now we have Huckabee. Huckabee emphasis the common man. Sorry you think that is socialism Warren.

American federalization loyalty and admiration started before Lincoln. It was significantly enhanced by the Mexican War. Americans have been well organized and in that war the Mexicans were not, they gave lip service to their central government and thus were easily defeated. Republican party populism dejavue.

Lord give us the ability to see and know the difference.

The Constitution just like the Bible are two words that are thrown around and hallowed and bragged on but are seldom opened, read and lived by. Mike is correct that "we roared like Lions". American fighting men still do, because unlike some of us they still believe.

Warren you are so mean spirited towards your fellow man. If that is what you think about your neighbors what has actually made you so special that you are different than them. Democracy takes faith and yes the "mob" (I think it is used as insult here and not very intelligently) may sway the pendulum back and forth and ideas and policy may seem to vacillate but there are some safeguards against that. We have been having this discussion for a long time. Logan and Mike, two stalwarts of the word and supposed system of Republic have admitted several posts ago that the USA is a democracy at least at the present time, if not in there opinion meant to be that way. It took them a long time to even admit that. I believe historically that a Republic and a Democracy are the same thing. The difference they wish to make it appears to me is that they wish to place slogans or natural laws over the heads of the people. Not unlike Totalitarian Governments, read Animal Farm. Now there are some slogans or natural laws I ascribe to: LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. But I ask you this fundamental question if a body of free people wish to change something, pass a law etcetera but are then told to look up at the slogan or natural law which some dead and gone folks put there (Like Lenin and Stalin) and are told "these things cannot be changed" are these folks truly FREE. I think not. I will take democracy every time, and contrary to your feeling the pendulum may swing in ways that you might even like on occasion Warren.

Ben a republican form of government is any government that is not a monarchy, check any dictionary. The word today is basically a throw away word, it is meaningless in describing the way that a people go about the business of governing themselves. Thus Cuba, and North Korea are dictatorship Republics, China is a one party dictatorship Republic. France is a representative democratic Republic. Al Qaida wishes to establish Islamic Republics throughout the Muslim world. Ben what is the benefit of throwing this word around. You would be better to explain exactly what it is you desire your government or a "correct" or "ideal" republican government to be. In the 1780's I believe most of the world took the term to mean as Lincoln said 87 years later, "a government of, by and for the people". Yes books are good for us to read. But we should be able to syncretize, digest and make the knowledge ours rather than just regurgitating propaganda.

Logan you have taken on an agenda that is a house of cards. In order to keep the house from falling you tell have truths. The Constitutional Assembly may have been totally appointed by some strong man in any given state or in all of the states but once in Philadelphia the debate, compromises and votes were done by majority rule. Now the Constitution once ratified allowed each state to have two senators and a number of reprsentatives based on the population within that state, free men and indentured servants , counted man for man, and slaves to be counted as 3/5 ths of a man. So obviously if the state had no popoulation in had no representatives. If it only had trees and a governor yes it could have two senators so in that sense the "state" trees and land could have a presence in the Senate. When the country acquired territory the Federal Government appointed territroial governors. When the territroy gained sufficient population it could then form a state and have reprsentatives. It could not be a state until it had people nor have reprsentatives or senators until it had people, thus a "state" cannot have reprsentation if it does not have people. You seem to have read a lot of philosophy have you ever studied logic.

Logan you da waffler. States can not have representatives only people can. So called republican government rammed down the throats of the people should be overthrown where ever it is encountered. Any one like the Islamic Republic types or any other republic type that wants to enforce its God given dictums on the peoples should be weill should be something.

Logan did our founding fathers (now it seems we only have fondling fathers) put in this system that refer by rule of a majority vote or did it just fall out of the sky. Do you get my point. This is a fundamental question. Did the Constitution come into being by the operation of some beneficent minority or by the majority vote of the American People in Congress Assembled. I think the answer is unambiguous and I await your reponse.

I only disagree Archer that gold and silver are real money. They are no more real than sea shells. Only a social consensus and conventional wisdom that they are valuable make them worth while. Thus any mechanism that facilitates the transfer of real value (land, food, shelter, clothing, labor) is as good as the next. Maybe gold and silver are optimal in this process but they are no more "real" money than anything else.

Good Archer and I think your rationale has to include the fact that the several governments of these states, their communities and the nation are voulutary associates of at least 51% or 50.1% of the people who have the right but not necessarily a very heavy mandate to run things the way they want them to be run always being sensitive of the 49.9% who may turn on them at any time.