While we have been conditioned that it is patriotic to accept a history that portrays our country in the best light possible, the real patriotism however, is looking at our history honestly and even critically, by doing so we will learn from those lessons, both from the successes and the failures it provides. It is shameful, and perhaps even dangerous, when we allow our history to be colored, misrepresented or manipulated to support ideologies, agendas, or causes. It is an absolute mistake to use patriotism as a factor in convincing the American People to choose a spirit of aggression and intolerance in policy making over than the traditional values found within our Constitution and the Founding Documents. If we are to profit from the errors of the last century in particular, then we would come away from our history lesson with a very clear understanding that the United States has strayed extremely far from its foundation and it has costs us dearly.

In viewing the history of the United States during the Twentieth Century, we can quickly see that it was a century characterized by numerous provocations and interventions; rarely did we contribute to widespread stabilization, but a generalized destabilization within nations and regions of the world. We rarely consider that our popular history seems to be written for our consumption, portraying a very righteous and amicable nation that has sought only justice for the nations of the world, a view that is totally contrary to the facts of history. It is impossible for us to justify our national aggression by stating it is a consistent philosophy while claiming to maintain a peaceful influence in the world. Such aggression is an anomaly of our traditional American character. Indeed, such aggressive intervention has proven to be a defect in our modern national character, one that is in a vital need of correction by returning to our foundational Constitutional philosophy.

In general, the American psyche, both politically and socially, has been distorted to such a degree that it now reveals a lack of tolerance and respect for the rights of other nations, all the while promoting our own version of self-righteousness wrapped up in a façade of Red, White and Blue. Such distortions are far from the reality of Patriotism upon which this nation was founded. We cannot expunge our own national history through palpable evasions or distortions of the truth while maintaining that by doing so we are defending our nation. Nor can we claim to uphold our patriotism by such contortions in our history; such mental gymnastics are little more than a contradiction to all reason and indeed to the meaning of patriotism itself. Until we openly confess our political sins of the past can we prevent their repetition in the future.

Our national militarism has naturally lends itself to national expansionism and, in ways we rarely consider, to that of the glorification of executive monarchism. We have seen the Machiavellian philosophy take root in this country over the past 40 years, a philosophy that teaches that the State and its ability to render its power unabated is the real source of all happiness and security. It feeds upon the doctrinal plea that by strengthening the reach of the State it can, through the medium of militarism, provide for the necessary security of the People by spreading its particular ideological agenda and making the world safe for democracy. That philosophy however, ignores the primary source of our national security by subjecting our nation to the consequential dangers that such militaristic interventions entail.

The most important factor, one that is often overlooked in this Machiavellian ideology, is that the greatest source of national defense can be found by remaining entanglement free. This Machiavellian indoctrination over the last 109 years has effectively been ingrained, not only in the mind of the political apparatus, but also in the minds of the People to the point that the government has been granted an unlimited license to proceed without the restraint of the People's consent. I feel that eventually reality will force a rejection of the Machiavellian ideology and the maxims that have blinded our national conscience to the point that we can no longer rationally see the options provided to us by the wisdom of the Founders. The Machiavellian Shibboleth should be considered an obsolete doctrine, dangerous in its application and perverse in the tenets of Jingoism that now dominates this current Administration and grips large portions of the American attitude. We must disavow such national war fetishes and the demands of imperialistic traits that not only fail to deliver real security but actually decreases our national safety.

In our seemingly persistent denial of our own imperialism, we are simply being untrue to ourselves and through such denials we turn our backs upon those tenets that our Founding Statesmen ascribed, for our benefit, to this Great Nation of Liberty and Justice. When our politicians lay claim to a peaceful disposition while promoting the cry for intervention, they not only betray our national conscience, but deceive the People with such contradictions of traditional national principles.

Our history has been filled with threats, threats to our way of life, threats to our very existence and while we must be diligent in meeting all direct and immediate threats with a strong rational response, we should avoid the tendency to face such issues with a charge of reactionary emotionalism. Reactionary decision-making leads to little in the way of constructive measures and usually only opens us up to an increase of potentially dangerous threats. In our nature we are afforded the ability to either look at our actions based upon reason or based upon fear. Upon reason, we shall always find a sense of rational decisions combined with responsible actions that ultimately benefit us as individuals and as a nation however, if we are given over to irrational fears then our actions risk betraying our overall security through reckless actions both domestically and on the foreign stage. We would do well to consider that our actions are connected to events from times past and will always tie future consequences to the present.

A policy of interventionism is usually accompanied by a swell of national pride, promoted, as it were, by the State and its corporate sponsors, who are always the beneficiaries of such polices. It is rarely considered that a poor and potentially dangerous doctrine or policy, when consistently applied, will eventually embed itself deeply into the national character and influence that character in ways that will ultimately decrease all periphery vision, giving rise to unreasonable fears and trepidations that tend to blind us to other possible considerations. There has never, in all our history, been such a poorly defined doctrine as that we currently are witnessing with regards to our foreign policy. Its broad application has no real focal point, no perceivable goals and few effectual results that can be declared as successful in providing this country actual defense. The proverbial "can of worms" has been opened regarding our foreign policy and with that open "can" the "night crawlers" are finding their way into our domestic policies, creeping into areas that have always been held as sacrosanct to our traditional Constitutional values.

The common thread to all threats, throughout our history, has been the utilization of the fear, and the use of that fear is exploited by the government to increase its own grasp of domestic powers or to expand its global reach. Militarism is developed and defined specifically by tyrannical aspects within governments to support their own arbitrary authority and by designing such predatory ambitions the scope of government power is extended, usually pressed upon weak and relatively defenseless nations that have no real defense against facing such overwhelming force. The primary driving ambition is, besides power, the control over vastly rich resources within certain regions. These resources are touted as essential to our national security interests and the rights of another nations' sovereignty appear to be rarely enough deter our government push toward intervention to pursue such national interests.

Interventionist militarism has always promoted and utilized the development of pseudo-patriotism in the hearts and minds of the people to the point that they believe the push of military might is not only necessary, but, more times than not, it is portrayed as a noble cause. Rarely is there the consideration that such actions are not only used to maintain and grow the institutions of militarism, but that they are usually inimical to our own security. Of course, it is always in the interests of the Militarists to win the conflict, but even when a conflict is won the consequences of even victory are rarely considered.

The entry of America into World War I is a perfect example of the effects of militarism on a country. Prior to our entry, both sides of the conflict had almost exhausted themselves to the point of suing for peace, but with the entry of America the war was extended and the results of the war changed the power-structure around the world. Additionally, our entry and the victory that followed set the stage for several events that not only promoted a domestic extension of our government’s authority, but also created events that would ultimately lead to the rise of Hitler and therefore WWII. Had America not entered WWI, both sides of the conflict would have settled for peace, Germany would have never faced the severe and shameful terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The economic drain of ruining reparations on Germany and the decades of national impotency would later give rise to the extremism of National Socialism and the disaster of WWII. This government rarely appears to take into consideration the consequences of its actions, its policies, and its interventions, if it would then not only would the world be a very different place, but our country would be a vastly different one then we see today. It would be far more secure, far more prosperous and far more respected.

Perhaps one of the most damaging results of our entry into the WWI was on the domestic front. The government created a truly massive propaganda machine called the CPI [Committee on Public Information] for the sole purpose of beating the drums of war, whipping the American public into an almost total acceptance of militaristic interventionism and repression of all dissent contrary to the war effort.

Those propaganda methods were extremely effective and they are still employed today by the government when seeking support for its militaristic agenda. The primary method utilized was fear and hate; fear of the enemy combined with hate, all epitomized by an inordinate demonization. The methods of the CPI portrayed Germans as the most dangerous enemy this country had ever faced, a threat to our way of life, depraved, brutal barbarians, intent of the destruction of our democracy and all freedom loving people around the world. Stories of atrocities and potential atrocities were common-place; the intent was to stimulate a national self-righteousness and complete indignation toward the enemy, it was very effective and produced the desired results within the minds of the people thereby making them pliable to the militaristic cause of the government. The CPI propaganda arm of the government had no qualms about the distortion of the truth or outright subversion of the truth and blatant lies utilized for the greater good of the cause and the expansion of American military might.

"So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about which the public is to hate. A handy rule for arousing hate, is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man." Lasswell-CPI

Obviously, it worked so well that it has continued to be used to this day. It is not hard to find the exact wording today as was utilized during WWI and WWII in describing the enemy and the potential extreme threat that enemy represents to our way of life. It also appears that the American people remain equally as sensitive to such methods today as they were nearly 100 years ago during the Wilson Administration. In such efforts, the government needs hatred to fuel its war machine and it is extremely skilled in presentations crafted to elicit those darker emotions among the People, all for the cause, the government’s cause, whether justified or not.

After WWI, the CPI remained a very useful tool of the government, but instead of war, it used the same methods against potential political opposition, to enhance factions and special interest that government sought partnerships with in order to gain a far more powerful position on the domestic front. It became government policy to use such tools to mold American public opinion to fit the views and requirements of the State.

The use of Militarism, and the propaganda tools used to support it, is contrary to the goals once espoused by this country and the traditions upon which it was founded. It is impossible for the traditional institutions of this country to continue if such tactics continue to influence and direct public opinion based upon certain agendas which may not always be exposed to the general public but are sold to them as an absolute necessity for our survival as a nation when in fact that may not be the case. Unless we are willing to not only maintain our Rights and defend our Liberties, we will lose them to a systematic distortion of truth created to generate a particular agenda contrary to our real national interests and the traditional Constitutional form of government.

“The abuse of official powers and thirst for dishonest gain are now so common that they cease to shock.”—Edward Bates-Lincoln’s Attorney General.

Of course, along with Militarism abroad comes an increase of political repression at home. Any government that gravitates toward Militarism tends to also move toward a Police State, especially when there is the advantage of an external threat or a potential internal threat. The two go hand-in-hand and rarely can Militarism be found without the backing of a degree of domestic oppression. It is also not unusual within such a mentality of such extreme views that those who promote it are ultimately gripped with the same fear it seeks to propagate. We have seen the shift in this country since the events of 9/11; it has been a drastic move toward dangerously irrational reactionary thought.

We have lost much to those who seek an agenda other than those upon which this country was founded and yet there remains a strong tie, and even a yearning that now compels the People to return to the traditions instituted by our Founders. The message of revolutionary Freedom will not be silenced in this country, it may be battered, oppressed and dissent may even be criminalized, but the Cry of Liberty will continue to grow louder and the Cause of Freedom will prevail AT ANY COST!

In Liberty,

Republicae-Seditionist

POSTED BY REPUBLICAE AT 10:46 PM 2 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST

The Ease of Power

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison

Indeed that is exactly what we have seen in this country is a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. Because of the use of such arbitrary interpretation and therefore application, I think we should not be surprised when someone like Bush overtly trespasses against the Constitution. The Constitution’s standing in this country has been neutralized by a variety of political philosophies, the least of these are those who advocate original intent based upon a Christianized view of the founding of this country. Others have simply sought to render it so flexible that it no longer retains the viability of protection that they claim to support. These factions fail to see the meanings behind the principles, those both philosophical and practical. The principles, upon which the Constitution was structured, in a real sense, are neither totally static nor dynamic, but both and are essential to good government and to the pursuit of happiness by the people.

This country has not seen such a critical a time in our political concerns as we now face and it is primarily due to the fact that we have allowed various political ideologies to arbitrarily interpret the Constitution to fit their particular ideological points of view. Today, our country not only stands before a period of extremes, but dangerous extremes that could, with ease, erase what we have always considered as particularly and essentially the American guarantee of the individual’s claim to Liberty. Instead of a country filled with free people, who assert their dignity through Liberty, we have become subjected to the will of a government that sets its own parameters of its reach and authority through the arbitrary interpretation and application of law. Principles are no longer considered inviolate, but are subject to the political whims of the day, whether those whims are Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Conservative or any other political ideology. Today we happen to be witness to the “living Constitution” as the Neo-Conservatives view it; tomorrow we might be witness to another group and their interpretation. Therein is the danger of such an arbitrary interpretation.

When any political ideology or philosophy extends an arbitrary utility over a Constitutional principle, it does so at its own peril. I say that because, as we see with the Bush Administration, it is then easy for any group to take liberties with those principles and thus affect one or more sections of an opposing party or interest. Once the door is open to accept and approve the arbitrary interpretation and application of the Constitution, and then it becomes much easier for abuse to ensue. If the principles found within the Constitution are not foundational to both government and the People, then those principles will always be usurped, abused or denied. When the principles of the Constitution are no longer viewed as essential and therefore open to any interpretation, then they provide no protection from potential abuse by those of any political agenda.

One amazing fact is that the various political ideologies always seem to support some degree of Constitutional stretch when it follows their own particular political agenda, but when an opposing agenda stretches beyond the bounds of the Constitution there is an uproar and condemnation. It was easy for the Republicans; for instance, to condemn the Clinton Administration over its Constitutional abuses but not its own abuses now that Bush is in office. Likewise, the cry from the Democrats is equally as adamant when a Republican abuses those powers and reaches beyond the Constitution in one way or another when those breaches are contrary to their own agenda. The government seeks the ease of power and yet the Constitution was created to make it cumbersome to govern, thereby removing the potential for both consolidation of powers and the abuse of such powers. Checks and balances are extremely cumbersome, viewed as outdated and inapplicable in our day and age, is it any wonder that the view of foundational and inviolate principles is looked upon with such disdain? It is symptomatic of all centralized governments to seek power for it eases its ability to rule, a fact that history bears out to be true.

When we allow a very relative interpretation and application of Constitutional principles to prevail then not only will power seek the level of its own expression, but, in every case, the People will end up being the ones to eventually suffer the consequences of such relativity. Government bureaucrat’s prize relativity, for it removes restraints regarding the application of government statute over the principles designed to constrain such powers.

This government cannot do anything unless we cede it the power to do so, that includes the abridgement of our Rights. The Bush Administration is only following a path that was already well beaten when it came to power. Granted, it has extended its power beyond anything seen since the Wilson Administration, but never the less, it is far from being an action beyond precedent.

Political decentralization, a key structure found within the Constitution, is interwoven with the ideals of Individual Liberty. While it is the responsibility of the individual to place demands upon government for the appropriate execution of the Rights that foster such Liberty, it is not without precedent for any government, limited or not, to usurp and consolidate power to the bereft of the individual. Today we are witness to a vast number of powerful interests, both social and economic, manipulating government to the benefit of their particular agendas, all done, of course, under the carefully crafted guise of democratic freedom. People have always clamored over the promises of politics rather than the reality of politics and politicians are all too eager to oblige such inclinations of the People thus gaining their allegiance and support. The political reality of the day however, is far too disturbing to be spoken by the majority of politicians today; it is simply not palatable to the electorate.

Currently we are asked to “voluntarily” relinquish a great many of our Rights, in one degree or another, for the sake of security. It is not the first time the government has made such requests, doubtless it will not be the last, but we must remember what we do when we allow such license to government. When extra-Constitutional license is ceded to government, the government will always willingly accept for it is in the nature of government to govern more by force than by consent.

It is easy to see that the decline of Classical Liberalism in our society is mirrored by an increased power and centralization of The State as it takes advantage of the decline of citizen action and influence. The philosophy of Classical Liberalism that once prevailed in this country has been silent for far too long and thankfully it is experiencing a revival of sorts, partly out of necessity and partly out of the utter disgust with the quandary that passes as government in this country.

Until the People openly oppose all attempts to evade Constitutional Order then we will all continue to be in jeopardy from those who have shown no qualms at its usurpation at the expense of the People. Unless we oppose all efforts to abridge our Rights and Liberties by any government, political party or ideology then we will continue down the road where our Rights are totally contingent upon the winds of political expediency. If the People take those vital principles for granted or if we continue to excuse them as outdated or ineffectual for our time, even though they were specifically designed to protect all of us, then why should we be surprised when the government takes advantage of our own complacency as we readily cede such power and grant such license to those are only too willing to accept a power with far less restraint then is ordered by the Constitution.

POSTED BY REPUBLICAE AT 11:26 PM 0 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST

The Voluntary Act Of A Reflective Union Of States

Once again I want to bring up the superior system of the Republic in respects to the equal application of the Rights of all Citizens. The erosion of this extremely important principle from the governance of this country has been devastating to the cause of the individual, no matter what race, creed or gender.

Those who seek majoritarian rule have transformed us into a national society and that fact has, in essence, crippled the proper and equitable functions of the Republic. The Constitution was not given by the assent of individuals that composed a nation, but as individuals that composed the independent and very distinct States in which they held citizenship. The States, based upon the authority of the People, then assented to the ratification of the Constitution as being federal in nature and not national. There is a very distinct and important difference that directly effects the not only the legislative process, but the application of law relating to the Right of the People and how the government functions.

It is rare that we refer to ourselves as citizens of the individual State Republics; it was once the only reference to citizenship within this country. The reason for that was that this country was not viewed as a nation state, but a nation of States united under a federal system and not a national one. The thought of being a national citizen was contrary to the entire Republican ideal and for good reason; the federal government was only a reflection of the States and the authority the citizens invested, through the States, to the federal government. The People always acted as citizens of their respective States and not as citizens under the auspices of an aggregate national government.

The Founders, well aware of the tendency of majoritarianism, intentionally placed walls of separation within this Republican system and for a very good reason. They knew that if the Constitutional transaction were to work properly, it would not, could not be regarded as forming one nation, but a federal union of States. They knew that if such a national system were to be placed above that of the federal union of States then the will of the majority would gradually bind the minority within society.

Yes, I am aware that there will be those who will relate this to the catch phrase “States Rights”, and will dutifully denigrate any suggestion that we return to a system that allowed the States such authority and powers, yet there is nothing more Constitutional then doing just that. I make no apologies whatsoever for such a stance, for I know that it is one of the primary factors in saving this country from the terminal illness it now faces under the increasingly dangerous usurpations of the so-called federal government. While the Founders instituted attributes to the government that are national in nature, such as those relating to foreign relations, treaties, and interstate commerce; those attributes were extremely limited and were delegated to the federal government but not innately expressed.

The Founders never adopted principles that remotely resemble the system that we now allow ourselves to be subjected to in this country. It was clear that the Framers of the Constitution always considered each State to be a sovereign body, composed of sovereign individuals, independent of all other States and bound only by the voluntary act of a reflective union of States. The Constitution established this union of States federally, not nationally. I will not, at this time, delve into the various actions and acts that have transformed this federal union of States into a National Union, but suffice to say, it has had the exact effects foreseen by Our Founders. They pegged the results of such a transition exactly and indeed their fears have become a reality in this country.

The Founders were extremely wise in their delegation of powers, the system of elections that provided for the House of Representatives severed a national attribute because the their powers are derived directly from the People who are proportionally represented. On the other hand, the Senate [although no longer due to the 17th Amendment], served a federal attribute because it derives its powers from the State Republics and indirectly from the People. It was an incredible system that functioned to protect the People not only against the possible abuse of powers by the government, but from the possible threat of majoritarianism.

Federal powers were limited to a defined sphere of influence because the Founders realized the propensity of power to corrupt those who hold power. It is readily easy to see that they were correct in their assumptions and had this country remained a Republic, such corruption would find a rather difficult expression due to all the checks and balances embedded within the system. At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, the Founders placed the dependency of the federal government on the States rather than the States being dependent upon the federal government. Ultimately however, both the federal and the State governments were to be dependent on the People and their consent to be governed.

While the federal government was fitted with a multiple layer of checks and balances, so too the States were placed under an equally powerful system of checks and balances. The interconnectivity of the system balanced the system and kept the respective powers and authorities in check. As the federal government was to reflect the States, so too was the States to reflect the districts, counties and local governments. Each layer of governmental processes reflected the consent and will of the People and in that reflection there was a high degree of restraint placed on each level of government. Those facts are extremely important if the application of law is meted out with justice and equality.

The possibility of ambitious encroachments by either the States or the federal governments would be inhibited by the opposition of either level of government, not to mention the possibility of the vocal opposition of the People. The Constitution did not combine powers in a way that would lead to an accumulation powers that would pose a danger to the Liberty and Rights of the People. They were very precise in purpose to decrease, although not eliminate, the possibility of such consolidation.

The Founders took particular note of the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu in the formation of this system of government. Indeed, the Baron stated: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body there can be no liberty because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.” He was, of course, right in his assumptions and we see such combined powers in play today as the various branches of our government either relinquish powers or their powers are usurped by another branch. Likewise, the powers and authorities of the States have been trumped by the increased powers of the federal government.

I will refrain from going into the various delegations of powers found within the Constitution, but suffice to say that the Founders thought of just about everything regarding the proper uses of powers and authorities within the system. Perhaps it is once again time to place our trust in a system that proved far wiser then the fading credibility of our present government; once again we should hearken to the voice of wisdom when it comes to the proper role of government in this country.