Principles of Government Corrupted

Taking grandpa’s advice in regards to the principles of government, I began to research it further along the lines of what he said. I began by looking up the Articles of Confederation. As I was reading it, I realized what grandpa was trying to teach me that there was more in regards to the founding principles of government as our founding fathers saw it. With the reading of it, I began to write down the ideas I saw in it.

The first thing I noticed was the fact that government was still to play the same role as they always had. That is, the role of ruling over the people and that its role was never to be the servant of the people as some would like to claim. It is by fulfilling this singular role that governments serve the people best.

The next thing I noticed was the fact that they remained true to the concept of no taxation without representation. Only the states were represented in this new form of government. The states were to provide for the financial needs of this body of government not the people themselves.

In reading this document it became clear to me that it was the states not the people who created this federal government. It was the states that our founding fathers were representing not the people as some would have us believe. It also led me to the understanding, which grandpa confirmed, that the word people as used in our present Constitution had a double meaning.

We must remember one thing as grandpa was implying. Government is not an intangible entity of societies. Government is a very living entity. Government only has power and it can only be seen as a ruler of the people in terms of the people who are in the office of power. People rule over people and it is people who are ruled. It is only in this understanding that we can understand the need of government to be an entity of checks and balances. People are the ones that are corrupted by power not government per se.

People now days see government as the servant of the people. We can see this in the promises of politicians who seek to be elected to office. We can see it in the programs that those elected politicians have created. We can see it in the length of time that some politicians serve in office because of those promises.

One last thing I have learned from reading the Articles of Confederation. It was the fact that our founding fathers understood very well the corruptive nature of the power of government and its ability to abuse that power to rule over the people. We can see that they attempted to check that power by giving the people a means to control government.

What they could not have foresaw was the fact that the people would seize upon this newly acquired power and create an ideology that declares that all power is in the hands of the people. In other words, the people have been corrupted by the little power they were given. In some, that corruption is absolute.

The Articles of Confederation was this nation’s first Constitution and the Constitution we possess now was intended to create a more perfect union. It was intended to guarantee that the federal government was the subordinate government to the state governments. Constitutionally it still is but as we can see, in reality, it has become the dominant power.

The states and people have become dependent upon the federal government. This could only have resulted from a corrupt understanding and interpretation of our Constitution. This could only have happened by the possession of an ideology that was not consistent with the ideas behind the creation of the form of government that we were given.

Grandpa says that, in time, it will be the downfall of this nation also. Our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, is a document that very few people think of when thinking of this nation’s beginning. Yet, it reveals more of the thinking of what this country was meant to be than any other document. It was flawed yes, but the principles remained in the new Constitution. But those principles have been corrupted. Some politicians seek to corrupt them even more as seen by the promises they are making.

A tear fell down my cheek as I reread the beauty that was contained in the minds of those that founded this nation, a beauty lost by the greed of men.

Humor in Politics

Just thought I'd bring back memories of yesteryear and

put the Democratic race in perspective.

This was Bill's response to Hillary's Question.

Need i say any more of her qualifications?

Principles, the Foundation of Government

Grandpa was looking over my shoulder one evening as I was writing an essay on the computer about government for a final exam. As he was reading what I wrote he told me to stop writing and listen to him. This is what he had to say.

"Boy, before you can understand our Constitution you must first understand the principles of its conception. You cannot just look at what is written in the Constitution and say that it means this or that it means that. Doing this will inevitably result in a misunderstanding of the context of its inception.

Principles can be defined as those laws within us under which we live by as individuals. There are three documents that reveal the principles by which the federal government was meant to abide by while it existed. Those documents are the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation.

Within the Declaration of Independence, we find the principles of how a government should not treat the citizens over which it rules. Within it, we also find the power that the government is subordinate to by its declaration that it has no authority in certain issues. It is to be the right of that Power and that Power’s right alone to regulate. How that Power is defined, in being, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that government is to recognize that it is subordinate to that higher Power.

Most important though is the fact that it reveals and sets a precedent by which people can use to declare that a government is no longer worthy of its position in this society. It is a precedent that can be used to justify that each state has a right to secede from this union of states.

History has shown us that some states have tried to do that already. The fact that they failed in that attempt can only be called a mixed blessing. It can be declared though as a time that government failed to abide by the principles by which it was founded. Too many men died because of that failure to abide by the most basic principle of this union of states.

Each state of this union became a member of this union voluntarily and of its own free will. They did so on the trust that they would be treated or continue to be treated as sovereign states with the right of self-rule. The tenth amendment to the Constitution was supposed to have guaranteed this. The Civil war can be said to be a good example of what happens when men decide to rule rather then subordinating themselves unto the idea that principles and laws rule.

Now, granted, the idea of government abiding by these founding principles will lead to the recognition of permitting certain occurrences that will appear to be abhorrent in the eyes of the people. This is inevitable, as history has shown us. The fact that we have amended the Constitution as many times as we have is proof of this.

This fact though still does not justify deviation from those principles. It just demands that those people with the authority and power to solve this problem to do so in the manner as permitted by the Constitution. There is no doubt in my mind that over time more amendments will be added also.

So, when any issue comes before the Supreme Court or anyone seeking to make a determination of Constitutionality the ideas and principles found in the Declaration of Independence must always be considered as a relevant source. In my opinion, it should be the first source, not the Constitution that should be considered in any determination. For, within it we find the most basic principles of the rule of law. Those principles should never be taken lightly if we seek a government that respects the rights of the people."

When grandpa had finished I reread what I had written and started cussin’ under my breath as I deleted everything I had written so far. Grandpa just started chuckling as he got up and walked away.

The Wisdom of Children

We usually think of kids as people we need to teach but there are times when they show a wisdom far beyond the grasp of adult. I would like to share with you, each of my friends out there in cyberland, a few wise words, and i do mean wise, of what is in the head of our children. Maybe some of you have seen something like this before but the words may still bring a smile to your face and that is all I seek.

These are some of the answers given by the kids when asked the question of what they thought love was.
______________________________________
" When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You just know that your name is safe in their mouth." Billy-age 4
_______________________________________________
" Love is what makes you smile when you're tired." Terri-age 4
__________________________________________________
" Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen." Bobby-age 7
_________________________________________________
"If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate" Nikka- age 6
_____________________________________________________
"Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well." Tommy-age 6
_________________________________________
"Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day." Mary Ann-age 4
_____________________________________________
"You really shouldn't say 'I love you' unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget." Jessica-age 8
______________________________________
And if you don't think kids learn things just by watching their parents, just listen to these. It may make parents think twice about how they behave and treat each other. It may even help parents understand just how important it is to have a two parent home for these kids. But most important, it may help all of us to understand how kids see us as adults too and what they think it means to be an adult.

"Love is when you kiss all the time. Then when you get tired of kissing, you still want to be together and you talk more. My Mommy and Daddy are like that. They look gross when they kiss" Emily - age 8
_____________________________________________
"Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK." Danny - age 7
____________________________________________
"When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn't bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That's love." Rebecca- age 8
________________________________________________________
"During my piano recital, I was on a stage and I was scared. I looked at all the people watching me and saw my daddy waving and smiling. He was the only one doing that. I wasn't scared anymore." Cindy - age 8
_____________________________________________________
"My mommy loves me more than anybody You don't see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night." Clare - age 6
_________________________________________
"Love is when Mommy gives Daddy the best piece of chicken." Elaine-age 5
________________________________________________
"Love is when Mommy sees Daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is handsomer than Robert Redford." Chris - age 7
__________________________________________________
The last one I have to offer to show how much they learn from parents about love is a four year old child whose next door neighbor was an elderly gentleman who had recently lost his wife. Upon seeing the man cry, the little boy went into the old gentleman's yard, climbed onto his lap, and just sat there. When his Mother asked what he had said to the neighbor, the little boy said, "Nothing, I just helped him cry"

Honor by Dishonor

I’m going off my usual format for this post. I've got a gripe and a very big gripe too. It describes an issue that has gotten my blood to the boiling point. Take a good hard long look at the picture. Lovely girls aren't they? There is one problem.

THE GIRLS YOU SEE IN THE PICTURE ARE DEAD. THAT RIGHT, THEY ARE "D" "E" "A" "D". THEY DIED IN TEXAS. IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS AN "HONOR KILLING".

THAT'S RIGHT, A SO CALLED HONOR KILLING IN TEXAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

SINCE WHEN HAS IT BEEN CONSIDERED AN HONORABLE DEED TO BREAK THE LAWS OF THIS NATION?

SINCE WHEN HAVE WE, AS A NATION, ALLOWED MURDER TO BE CALLED AN HONORABLE ACT?

WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FOR THIS HEINIOUS CRIME?

THIS IS UNITED STATES NOT SOME MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY. IT IS CALLED A COUNTRY THAT PROMISES FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

IT IS NOT A COUNTRY THAT PROMISES HONOR REGAINED BY THE KILLING OF WOMEN AND LITTLE GIRLS.

WHY ARE PEOPLE SO QUIET ON THIS?

HAVE WE, AS A NATION, BECOME SO AFRAID OF HURTING SOMEONE’S FEELINGS THAT WE FORGET WHAT WE PROMISE THOSE THAT LOOK UP TO US AS A NATION?

HAVE WE BECOME SO INTIMIDATED BY A RELIGION THAT WE WILL NOT YELL OUT THAT WHAT THEY DO IN THE NAME OF ALLAH IS WRONG?

WE SURE WERE NOT AFRAID TO TELL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN WAS WRONG. WERE WE?

WHAT IS IT ABOUT ISLAM THAT WE WILL NOT TAKE THE SAME STANCE AGAINST ONE OF THEIR OWN?

AND IF THERE IS ANYONE THAT IS READING THIS AND DISAGREES, I REALLY DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK. YOUR POLITICALLY CORRECT ATTITUDE OR RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THOSE GIRLS WERE MURDERED. IT DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT IT WAS DONE OUT OF RELIGIOUS CONVICTION.

THE MURDER OF THOSE TWO GIRLS WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. IT IS TIME WE STOOD UP AND STARTED YELLING FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.

LOOK AT THE PICTURE BELOW.

THE MAN SITTING WITH THE TWO GIRLS, THEIR FATHER, SAID THAT THE GIRLS MUST DIE TO SAVE HIS HONOR.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT A MAN WHO SHOWS HIS LOVE FOR HIS DAUGHTERS BY KILLING THEM TO SAVE HIS HONOR.

LOOK DEEP, LOOK HARD. THEN GO TO DCAT'S AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS MAN

Laws of Prejudice

“Racism, boy, is the belief of making decisions about other people based upon the color of their skin. One thing about it though is the fact that it can apply to one’s self also. It is just as racist to justify making decisions about others based on your own color of skin.

While judging people based solely on the color of their skin may be morally wrong, it should not be seen as being legally wrong. This issue should be left up to society itself to solve. Laws addressing this issue and issues such as this are laws meant to manipulate the thoughts of the people. Freedom of thought is a right of the people and that includes immoral thoughts as well as moral thoughts.

One of the big problems with an issue as this is the fact it allows a false accusation of being racist when a person does not agree with someone purely on the fact of disagreement and nothing more. Another problem results in judging the motive of people when they act in contradiction of a perceived benefit of one of another color. In both of these situations, racism is seen in regards to the accuser. A lot of debate has been stifled as a direct result of accusations like this.

Now, the reason I said that it should not be legally wrong is because of our justice system as we set it up. We set up a justice system that declares that an accuser must prove that the accused broke the law. In theory, this would mean that the accused would not need to defend himself against any charges against him. In cases as these though, the accused must not only defend himself against the charges he must practically prove he was innocent of them. The reason being is that a lot of the evidence used against the accused is statistical evidence or theories that depend upon statistical evidence.

The problem with statistical evidence is that it relies on conclusionary facts rather than evidentiary facts. What this means is that they use statistical evidence to imply a conclusion about something other than what was being measured. Another problem with its use is that it ends up making a statement of probability rather than a statement of fact. Lastly, statistical evidence is best used for predicting a future event. It is a poor means to use to determine a present event or a past event.

More important than anything else in regards to the use of statistics is the fact that statistical evidence is based on what others have done not on what the accused has done. By doing so, you are prejudicing the verdict against the accused. That is not what our justice system is supposed to be all about.

Lastly, and this is only a personal opinion. I have to question the conclusion that prejudice and bias are strictly culturally learned. Culture may be an influence in regards to issue of prejudice or bias but I can’t ignore the genetic element of it either of self-survival. The reason of this is because where prejudice and bias is seen, there is a issue of trust and confidence at play at the same time.”

I just stared at grandpa as he finished and my only thought was “if what grandpa says is true then we are saying that with laws of this nature we are forcing people to trust someone else. Does the government have that right?”

New Link

As you will notice I have added a new link. I believe it is a site worth supporting. It is called "Muslims against Sharia". It is people like these that we need to stand up with and let them know that they are not alone. I know I will. I will be searching the blogs for others like this to show them my support of their cause.

A Nation Changed

Grandpa and I were listening to the radio one eve and an oldie but goodie from the 50’s came on and as it finished grandpa had this to say about it.

"You know, boy, upon thinking upon this era I’ve come to a very silly conclusion. I grant you that this is only a personal opinion and I have nothing to back it up. However, it was this era that our nation was in the beginning of the fulfillment of all of the promises that as a nation we made, a nation united as a people.

Color of skin was not a barrier during this era. It was a nation that was united in one thing, its music. It was an era where the teenager took the reins and drove this nation, even the world, to a different heartbeat. It was an era where the music touched the very soul of every teenager, black, white, and brown. It bowled over every obstacle placed in front of it.

The music of Rock and Roll did more than any law ever could do. It did more than the promises of any politician could even dream of making. Politicians make promises to solve problems. Rock and Roll made no promise; it just did it in its own way. It rocked the very foundations of this society of ours. It was music that drove this nation wild.

It was the teenager of that era that grew up and began many of the movements that have changed the political scene of today. It was the teenager of that era that grew up and exposed many of the sins of this nation to the world. However, I will admit the results of that rebellion can be called a mixed revue. We are a nation even more divided than it has ever been now, politically.

Is that division a good thing or bad thing I cannot say for only time will tell? Society will survive this division, this I know. Societies always survive even the worst of conditions though many individuals must suffer through that survival. It is what this nation will be once this division heals that bothers me the most.

Will we become a nation united through the emotion we feel towards those who must suffer or will we unite by the use of reason? The answer to this question will determine the outcome of this division. A people united by emotion will be a nation weakened by it. A nation united by reason will be stronger for it.

Rock and Roll showed that a nation could unite when people are left alone to solve its own problems. It was the unity that people found through the music that drove them to seek unity in other areas also. Rock and Roll showed that any barriers that divide a nation are just imaginary barriers and in reality do not exist.

It pointed out to me that when a society heals itself the outcome of it can be unifying. It also pointed out to me that when government tries to heal the wounds of society the outcome, at most, could only be mixed. In other words, laws may be seen as a faster solution to a problem but the slower solution of a change in attitude in the people is more unifying. Laws can change attitudes, of this I do not doubt. However, it can only change the attitude of a part of society not society itself.

But, like I said, boy, this is only an observation and I cannot defend this observation now."

"yes, grandpa" I uttered politely as I was listening to the next song that was playing.

Government and Principles

Dinner time was always a very special time of day for me. It was a time when grandpa had designated as time the family would discuss anything that might be on anyone's mind. I soon realized it was a also a time that could be used to get things off one's chest too. This way no one went to bed angry or bothered by what a member of the family did that day. After we had eaten and grandpa was sipping on his after dinner coffee I asked this,

"Grandpa, why is there so much argument about the meaning of the Constitution?"

His answer be this,

"The purpose and intent of any Constitution is to define the role of government in a society. Any form of government can be governed by a Constitution even if it were a dictatorial form of government. It should also define the role that the people have in regards to that government even if the people are to have no role in the government that rules over them.

There is one reason that I would give for having a Constitutional government. It is the fact that government by definition possesses all of the powers humanly possible of God with the exception of the power of creation. The primary difference being that God will not abuse that power. Governments will. It is a government without checks upon its power that lead to an abuse of that power.

There is one big problem though with having a Constitutional government, bias and prejudice. There is no third party to determine the constitutionality of any situation. Government reserves that role for itself. The recognition of bias is revealed by the fact there are two schools of thought regarding interpretation of a Constitution.

In recognition of these two schools of thought, there can be only one conclusion. It is that the Constitution will not be interpreted consistently over time in accordance to its intent and purpose of existence. That, to me, is the biggest flaw in the writing of Constitutions. If governments are to rule by laws rather than by men, then those laws must be consistent. This can not occur if a Constitution is not applied in a consistent manner. The need of consistency is found in the concept of precedence that is used when interpreting any Constitution or application of any law.

If men want to change the form of government that they be ruled by, that is fine. That is their right. The Constitution provides for that. It allows for it by the amendment process, which is the means to change it peacefully. It also provides the means by which it can be changed violently if necessary. The Civil war that our nation went through was an example of the attempt to do exactly that.

The Civil war be the best example of the need to have consistency in the interpretation of the Constitution. It could be argued those inconsistent viewpoints of the Constitution and the application of these differing viewpoints was the primary influence that brought on the war. It was the result of men violating the principles laid out for government as declared or implied within the Constitution.

This is called a compromise of principles. This is the direct result of making an issue so important that the principle of government takes a back seat to it. People are to live by principles not compromise them so that they might live. The life of a man is devalued when principles are compromised and when the life of one man is devalued so is the value of the society that he be a member.

So, boy, remember this. Be tolerant of the principles of others but never compromise your own."

I could only nod at this advice and say, "Yes, sir."

Music Videos

As you can see I added a new feature to my blog, a music video. I will be featuring certain artists on a continual basis. I hope you enjoy them. I would be pleased to hear your opinion about this new feature. And one more thing, I won't mind your getting up and dancing to them while they play. lol

War is Hell

Our teacher had given us an assignment last week. She asked us to be prepared to speak up in front of the class about anything we wished to speak on. So, I've spent the time preparing a speech with grandpa's help. When we had finished it grandpa surprised me by asking if I really believed all that I had written. I didn't know what to say in answer to his question and he did not press me on it. This is the speech I nervously gave when it was my turn;

"War is hell" is a famous quote and it has more truth in it than people want to believe. Victory and only victory is the goal of any nation that makes the decision to wage war against an enemy. If a nation goes to war without that intent and resolve, it should never have started it in the first place. Once a war has begun, a nation should be willing to pay all costs necessary to make victory the result. The enemy will.

There should be no exit plan prior to victory other than the acknowledgement of defeat. The lesson learned from Viet Nam should be that there is no peace with honor. Peace with honor is only doublespeak for acknowledging defeat as we have learned. It was a lesson better learned by our enemies than by some of the leaders of this nation. For with that lesson our enemies were given a lesson of how to defeat the most powerful nation in the world today. There are leaders of this country that have already given up and declared we have lost this war against an inferior force. Leaders should lead a nation to victory. They should be an inspiration for the people in regards to victory not defeat.

War is hell. What can be more hellish then to send men into battle knowing that some will not come home to their families? What can be more hellish then for a soldier to know he is sending a best friend home in a body bag? What can be more hellish then for a soldier to know that when he is being sent out on a mission that he may not come back alive?

The cost of war, what greater cost is there to send a man to battle in an effort to bring victory home only to find out that the people back home do not support his efforts? What greater cost is there than the cost of a single life given in that effort for victory when people will not allow his fellow troopers to come home in pride of victory? It demeans life itself. Moreover, the demeaning of life is the greatest of costs to a nation. Therefore, those who talk of the cost of war in dollars and cents have no idea of the real costs of a war is.

The cost of war is not determined by the loss of weapons and equipment. The costs of war cannot be determined by dollars and cents. It is determined by the loss of our fellow man only. The loss of equipment can be replaced. The loss of moneys can be recuperated. The loss of a man’s life cannot be replaced or recuperated. It is a permanent loss which no family, no friend, no son or daughter can bring back. Nevertheless, it was given and taken in the quest of victory not defeat.

A man need not be a military man to understand what war is. He can know the agony of defeat. For a part of him dies within as he sees his fellow man come home, head down, without the victory he fought so hard for. He, with tears flooding down his cheeks, can know the agony of defeat as he kneels at the grave of one so brave that he was willing to die for the victory. For it is for victory and nothing else, a man goes into battle for. It is for victory that a man spends time training for battle. It is for victory, not love of war, that a man will leave his family and go off to battle.

Deny a man his family but don’t deny him his quest for victory. Deny him shelter and a home cooked meal but don’t deny him the one thing he seeks, victory over the enemy. Deny him as you will, deny him of everything but leave him to fight for his goal. For victory was his promise when he left home and victory will be his if he is allowed to fight for it.

For he is Army, Air Force, Navy. He can be no less. He can give no more. Let him know his duty, let him know his honor and only victory over the enemy can achieve this. For it is by his duty he leaves home to fight. It is by his honor he will come home as a victor. He will know pride as he stands in front of his family and sees it glowing in their eyes. It will be then that he will know the fullness of the meaning behind being a trooper.

When I had finished I looked over to my teacher and for some reason I knew the answer to the question grandpa asked the night before. i then whispered,
"Yes, grandpa, I do believe it"

The Facts of Life

OK THIS PROVES IT.

ALL WOMEN ARE DUMB BLONDES WITHOUT A BRAIN

AND

ALL MEN ARE HEARTLESS WIFE BEATERS AND CHEATERS.

AGREED?

A Riddle I ask, The Answer I Beseech

It declares there be but One

though it has two natures

Can be seen as divided into three

Each of them independent yet inseperable?

It began from a group of 13 and has grown from there

The name of its first leader is known the world over

Its truths, believed, have passed the test of time

Those persons who abide in it are recognized as men of free will

It is best known for its list of 10 of what some could call commandments

Some would take the words of its foundation literally. Others would not

It promises justice to all

Men have died willingly in defense of it

More can be said of it but Time will only tell?

The answer be one yet the answer be two

If you know the answer and can tell me more

Add it to my riddle for prosterity to know.

Freedom means Individualism

Grandpa was asked to speak at local gathering that featured many prominant men of the area and these were the words he spoke,

"When this nation began, it was founded upon Individualism. It was not a nation started where people were divided up into groups. It was not started where one group of persons was meant to be seen as lords over another group. It began with the concept that there be but one group, the class of the people. Moreover, it began with the intent that a government should treat each member of that singular group as an equal.

While it was recognized that there were many individual groups, each different from the rest. Our nation was founded on the idea that no matter of the inequality of these groups each group was to be treated no differently than the rest of the groups. And these groups were called states. The Senate of U.S. Congress is proof of that. Each state is given equal representation though they are unequal in size and population, even natural resources.

The same goes with individual persons. Though they are unequal, the Constitution says nothing about the idea of creating equality amongst individuals of society. It says nothing about the equality of rights as so many advocate, only equality of treatment by their government.

There was no attempt on the part of the Constitution to create equality of the groups. There was no attempt to change the boundaries to make the states equal in size. There was no attempt to relocate persons from one state to another to make the states equal in population. There was no attempt to redistribute the proceeds of any natural resource so that it is equally shared.

There was no attempt on the part of the Constitution to create equality of persons. Each person was allowed to seek his own level within society. The creation of equality among men requires the government to see, perceive and divide society up into unequal groups before it can create equality. That is not the purpose and intent of its existence. Its purpose and intent is only to govern that society by laws not by feelings.

We are individuals. That is what we are first and foremost. Moreover, as individuals there is no one like us. We have no equal. Our skin color, our age, our gender, our religious beliefs, our nationality, they all are a part of our identity as an individual. Why do we allow just one of those attributes identify us? When we allow someone to identify us by just one attribute we become a member of a class of people within the class of people.

We are not a nation of white people, black people, brown people or yellow people. We are a nation of people. That is what the Constitutions says. That is just the way the Constitution requires that our government see us. Let Sociology divide our nation into classes if it wants. However, just because they do does not mean we should follow their example. In addition, the government is not allowed to if it follows the Constitution.

We are individuals. As individuals, we gathered in a pact that is called the Constitution. Moreover, the premise in that pact is freedom for the individual, not only of the person but also of the individual states. Freedom is the opportunity not only to succeed but also to fail. It is not just the opportunity to succeed. It guarantees nothing, except opportunity. It is out of freedom and individualism that we had a barn raising last week. And each of us went home with a feeling of accomplishment after we raised that barn.

There is no one that knows and appreciates what freedom means more than man who knows what it means to be enslaved. There is no one who knows and appreciates the idea of what being an individual means more than a man who was treated like one of a chattel of cattle. There is no one that knows the feeling of being in a yoke than one who wore one a great part of his life.

So, my people, let’s take the advice of such a man. Hear his words. Take them to heart. Teach them to your children. For no truer words were spoken, no lesson more valuable if one is to claim freedom. Heed them or know your own enslavement. They were spoken once before and they be repeated here. They be the words of one man and that man be Frederick Douglas.

'The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! ... your interference is doing him positive injury.' "

When grandpa finished his speech the deafening sound of silence came across the crowd. The reason for the silence, I don't know but I do know how proud I was of grandpa this day and as I looked at grandma I saw a tear rolling down her cheek.

The Soldier to be Honored

My pappy taught me principles and from this, I know a man.
My mammy taught me love and from this I know a family.
My friends I have and from this, I know my worth.
My country it be and from this I know I’m free.

My home may be under a tree, the river that flows my dinner be.
Freedom I have, I am what I be.
To honor those before me, to love those that be with me.
That be my purpose, that be only me.

In the past I’ve been, in the present I be.
‘Tis only the future that is left for me.
Life be as it is, I be what only I can be.
I beg for no more, I plead for no less.

I be but one, there be so very many.
I possess only myself, I belong to so many.
To each, I offer my hand, for a smile in return.
For what I am, for what I offer and it be so little.
But, in return, I receive the gift of the world.

The baby in my arms is the reason I be.
For the baby in my arms is the future to be.
For the baby in my arms yet to be free,
For the baby in my arms, a soldier I must be.

For it is for her that here I stay.

For it is for her, back home, my family awaits.

For it be for her, this baby fast asleep,

That I became a soldier, trained as one of the few.

The Rule of Governments

"Grandpa, my government book says we elect representatives but I have heard you say that we do not. You said we elect rulers. Which is it?"

"Yes, boy, I made the claim once in debate that we elect our rulers. Given the fact that we usually refer to them as representatives I better clarify the idea. Now, first of all, I will grant that when we speak of the word ruler the first thought is to think of a dictator or a monarch. And at one time, this thought would be true because all nations were headed by one of the two. It remains true even up to today in a big part of the world.

However, we must also add that rule of this kind was also forced rule in most cases if not all cases. Both, a monarch and a dictator ruled over the people by force. His word was law and it was his word that was enforced. Furthermore, at one time, it was even justified morally by declaring he had the divine right to rule. The people declared their allegiance to the king or dictator.

Now, just from this we can also add one more element, the form of government that existed. One was a dictatorial form of government while the other is a monarchial form of government. Another element that must be considered is the fact that a monarchial government is a dictatorial form of government but a dictatorial form of government is not a monarchial form of government

From this, we can see that the ruler of a nation can also be declared as synonymous with the government of a nation. They are one and the same thing. Now we can expand upon this concept by declaring that while a country may have a dictatorial government the form of government can be identified differently. Nazism, fascism, and communism are all forms of governments that are commonly known forms of government with dictators. We even have had republican form of governments with dictatorial rule. In addition, in each case the government was seen as being synonymous with the ruler. Reason; it was the dictator or monarch that did the actual governing of a nation.

It is people who rule and every government is made up of people filling the position as determined by the form of government installed. A government without people cannot exist, it cannot rule. People who rule constitute a government. A government enacts laws. A government enforces the laws it enacts. A government determines the legality of the laws. Moreover, the government of any state represents that state in all state transactions.

The Constitution gave the right to add amendments to governments. It is the government that has the power to declare and wage wars. The Armed Forces are under the control of the government. As for absolute power, the government has the right to declare martial law. Finally, it is persons who has the authority to exercise the powers of government.

Now, for those who believe that we live in a country without rulers does not our government possess all the same powers as a country that is governed by a ruler? So, if someone wants to say we do not elect our rulers they are going to have to come up with a definition of government that I have never heard of yet."

The definition of the word rule (verb) is the following;
Governing power or its possession or use; authority. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Exercise authority over; as of nations. (Hyperdictionary.)
Govern, reign(Thesaurus.com)

Does not those definitions describe the duties and power of our government? The only thing different from previous forms of government is the fact we took absolute power away from one man and divided it up among 545 men thus diminishing the power of any one man. The only power he actually possesses is the power that comes from being a member of a group of men. The group possesses the power and it is the same power as a monarch, absolute power. And that is what we call government, boy. And that is what each person should have on his mind as he is entering the voting booth."

I just sat there dumbfounded by the words grandpa was saying. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It seemed to be describing our government in a way that was totally foreign to what my teacher in school was saying.

Government behavior and Change

I found grandpa lying down by the old oak tree that seemed to have been planted in another age, another time. His head was cradled in his arms up against a worn spot of the trunk and his legs stretched out and crossed. He seemed deep in thought.

He looked up at me and with a smile he invited me to do the same. So, I laid down beside him cradling my head and crossing my legs to take in the warmth of the sun as it covered us in its warmth. After a few minutes of silence grandpa had this to say without any prompting by me as if giving voice to his thoughts;

"Rights, boy, are possessions. Whether those possessions are tangible or intangible, no one is allowed to take away those rights other than the giver of them. God is the ultimate giver of all rights. We can declare that because all rights fall under those categories which the Declaration of Independence declares as being God given; the right of life, the right of liberty, and the right of the opportunity for happiness.

Rights can also be defined as having the sole power and authority to make the decisions in regards that possession. In this light, we recognize the philosophical theory of free will. In recognition of this we can say that God not only gave us rights but that He also gave us the gift of free will to do with those rights as we choose.

Now, while the above may seem to declare that we, as individuals, have the right to do anything our heart desires and there are some who behave as if it were true, we must consider one more thing. In a perfect world that would be correct but we do not live in a state of existence where perfection exists. In a perfect world, a person would not abuse those rights as given him by God. In an imperfect world, it is inevitable that rights be abused if only because free will exists.

What I can’t understand is, if we have the attribute of free will then how can some who adhere to that philosophy declare that something else be the cause of someone’s behavior? When we declare that something else is the cause of one’s behavior we are declaring that the person had no choice of behavior other than how he did behave. A good example of this is the sociological theory that poverty is the cause of violent behavior. This be the primary excuse used to explain and even justify the behavior of some persons especially if that person is of a certain class of people.

Sociology by definition is the study of society and its effects upon the individual within that society. It is deemed a science. Now, most would disagree with the second part of my definition but they could not argue if the word individual was replaced by the phrase 'individual classes'. The reason I use individual is because how can something effect a class of people and not effect the individuals within that class? Besides, you can only measure the effects on a class by ascertaining the effects on the individuals in that class.

We have a form of government founded upon the principles of a philosophy of government. If that be true then the laws and the enforcement of those laws enacted by that government should abide by the philosophy by which is the foundation of that government. Yet, every day we find that it is the theories of that science we call Sociology that governmental decisions are based upon. Furthermore, those theories appear to be counter to the principles of the philosophy. We have replaced wisdom of man with supposedly knowledge of man.

Philosophy is the study of how to think good of your self. Sociology is the study of how to feel good of yourself. I have never been able to reconcile the two, Philosophy and Sociology. I have no more to say, boy, except to say socialism was founded upon a sociological theory. Karl Marx was best known as a sociologist. Even if we were to admit that his ideas were philosophical rather than sociological it still would mean a need to change the philosophy of this country, thus change our Constitution to fit that philosophy. And that is exactly what the concept of a "living Constitution" allows. Need I say more?"

I said nothing knowing that grandpa didn't really expect an answer to his question. My eyes closed lazily and fell asleep while the sun did its job of roasting the skin of my body to an even deeper shade of brown.