It is not strange that the greatest nation on earth is facing nihilism—the destruction of the very philosophy of what it is as a nation—by the most innocuous of ideas, bipartisanship!
Many will disagree. It is not bipartisanship that is our enemy; it is the foundations of this nation, what we stand for that is the problem, why we are failing.
Interesting hypothesis, but in reality, if we measure this nation today is there any verification it could possibly be?
Let’s look at the facts as they exist. The — now right here, we run into a problem. What is this nation? We began as a federation of independent colonies, united as states, creating a constitution…and more wondrous before that the ‘Articles of Confederation…giving limited powers and submitting those same limits to that central government calling this nation the ‘States united in America.
So that concept…perhaps the greatest form of government of society every conceived…was our genesis, our beginning. Who, who among us can say that nation, those ideals, that wonder, miracle has not as America’s greatest tyrant identified, ‘not perished from the earth?’
As anyone studies the course of history, one thing is clear. There is always opposition to whatever is proposed. Perhaps that is the sinew, the need for any society to preserve the liberty of man, we do not agree. There has never been any society anywhere known in the history of mankind that agreement, without argument, discussion, and reasoning was required—unless absolute destruction ended up as the result. From the known speculation of history, Sargon the Great, defeated foes creating an empire he required the sword, the law of the jungle—might over right—for one power to dominate another. Opposition, those not in agreement who were as much of the event as the event itself. The argument won with force, but the existence of disagreement created a choice of one over the other.
The Greek city-states, the concept of men of the community—those with the status of citizens—not universal suffrage—participated in the direction of government. It was not the unilateral agreement that led to choice, it was the opposition, and the antithesis of acknowledging and presenting the possible results of another course that led to…what they believed…were wiser decisions.
When this opposition is removed, what has history shown us is the result? In some cases, when the objective is world domination, we have the history of a time and in a place, been show it can succeed. Alexander the Great as a military force, conquered many peoples. The empire he created does not exist today. Is this not a question, something to identify that something was missing, something required, something identifiable that domination only works so long? What is missing that creates discourse leading to the dissolving of such societies? Were the people, not in agreement? Is this not confirmation that the opposition of some when not being subjugated will not last?
Each and every one of us have our own independence of thought. Resulting of course, that we, each and every individual, see and act toward the reality of life different. Some of us are a bit cynical, while others choose the path of compromise, acceptance, and conformity. Some easily agree, while others to nauseam can continually identify that errors exists, and it is only by accepting that the error is there, then agree. Some never see any errors, content in the world that man is god little (g) on earth, and as such comes up with such remarkable conclusions who could possible not accept the results?
Not a psychologist, not even a humanist, why this difference is, I’m completely without reason. That it does exist, I’m completely positive it does. For in my life, my life’s experiences both of these personalities I’ve known, and interacted with. Often wondering if the cynicism of my thinking isn’t the result of the environment of my youth. For in the family of my extension, the political positions were as polarizes as the difference between the planets North and South Pole.
As a youth, I could but listen, not knowing that the political parties, as the polarity of our earth, change polarity. Little knowing that the Republican Party was born on the wings of theft, while the Democratic Party had its genesis in the preservation of individual liberty, for in my youth that was not their position, as they had shifted and each become the other, to represent a different—and completely opposite—political spectrum.
As life continued and I learned, the realization that the nature of man, and his lust for power, was of greater interest to politicians than little things; like the preservation of this nation’s wonder. Perhaps this is the true danger of the idea of bipartisanship. For when man in power, especially political power, decide that by cooperation for their benefit, the hell with the country, that country is in deep trouble.
Is that the reason I’ve always been enamored with the design of the Articles of Confederation? Perhaps, for life has taught me, if you give government no power, government has no power. It is as the Iroquois Federation has understood, and applied with results, in their society. How long, we’ll never know. For their society had not the literacy of records, and the history of recording. How long did it last as the foundations for this nation, we know. A nation of individual liberty without the chains of slavery imposed by government existed from the ‘idealism’ of such, motivating those who fought to create this nation to join. Lasting from 1775, through the rebellion, through the beginning of this nation’s entry to wonder, until quashed and destroyed by the Wigs in their determination to use government to enslave this society as all other societies always were, and are to this day, in 1789 embracing the constitution.
We know the names of our snake oil salesmen that sold us this wonder. If any names stand out in infamy Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams will always be enshrined in the hall of effigy for this nation. While the opposition to what they did, the very men who were so instrumental in the creation of the constitution, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, missed the whole danger of what they—as Frankenstein’s monster—created. Even then, this worry, this problem with giving government power was so intrinsic in the American people it took the greatest sales job ever. It took the coercion of the impossibility…that something can come from nothing, as so many believe our universe is…to relive the debt of the states, and transfer it to the federal government, now that was true hallucination, to achieve man’s mental disengagement. Even then, the people, with this intrinsic innate foundations of reality, would not buy in, until the ultimate—do we have a deal for you—was added to the pot, the Bill of Rights. Even then, think about this, it took several years, much rejection and the coalition of indoctrination before ratified. Both Alexander Hamilton, who was as opposed to a nation of liberty equal to our current president, and John Jay, about at self-centered a narcissist as our current president on each side of James Madison, who was the third member of a convention of wolves as a sheep as they decided what to have for dinner, to succeed.
There is and always has been one major problem with the concept of ‘authorizing’ power without responsibility. The examples are many. The absolute un-American concept of corporations, rejected at the original constitutional conventions as it is obvious, forgotten when those as Hamilton and Jay blinded the citizens of this nation allowing consolidation of central authority and power, the inverse of the design of wonder of our creation.
The reason that so many, many who understood the fallacy of granting power, and then thinking it can be enumerated also recognized. Think of this simple acknowledgement made by Benjamin Franklin, ‘those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.’ Is there any more prophetic enlightenment than that? Can any among us not identify that if we use reality as the measurement, we have achieved this exact speculation, this hypothesis? Who, where, and how is even the concept of ‘liberty’ a part of the conversation today? If known, share, for the rest of us in this nation do not hear these words! We do not hear the windows being thrown open, the voices rising in unison, ‘I’m madder than hell and I’m not going to take it anymore’—and as Patrick Henry cry—‘give me liberty or give me death.’
Is not the cry we hear, give me, give me, give me, the only sound resonating among those who are citizens of this nation? This is so intrusive and caustic it is not only from the citizens, it is also from those who are not citizens…here illegally…demanding what is theirs from that same government. Is not the question, what is theirs?
We often forget the worry of man, such as Thomas Jefferson about government. In his first inaugural speech he said; ‘Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.’
Is it not somewhat ironic that the one we identify as the father of the Democratic Party has in the records of his lifetime been more of an inspiration to those of the current ‘Tea Party’ than any we can find in the empirical history of the Republican Party? Another anomaly that seems so bizarre and strange is that in the history of the Republican Party only two men stand out, and neither was the choice or the one that advanced the foundations of the Parties desires. One Warren Harding…who by the reality of reality my hypothesis was the first president eliminated by the very party he represented…who has the only ‘Award of Cincinnatus’ ever presented to a president, for he did all for the country, not himself and the party he represented…that reduced the size of government. That is about the most incomprehensible concept that is so foreign to this nation today it seems it has some impossibly of physics, preventing it, some barrier of existence, which will not allow such. A favorite son, as the Republican Party could not agree among himself what level of thief they could agree. Accepting a neutral, so neither group…for their own self-interest…of parasites gained advantage.
The other, strangely picked as the choice of the people. Think today, as the, could you visualize someone who loved this nation, its principles, its idealism, its philosophy as Ronald Regan being the choice of the Republican ‘PARTY?’ If so then you have a greater ability of a willing suspension of disbelief than even those who say they are Democrat and don’t realize their party is communist.
Think of that, two men, two Americans while the others nothing but shills, actors, politicians, those who do a sleigh of the hand, the tap dance, talk the talk, but never walk the walk have been elected for the ‘PARTY,’ not the nation.
Thomas Jefferson made some remarkable observations that were as if he could see the future, see this absolute debacle, this travesty our nation has become. ‘[It is a] happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrant.’ Is it not strange that it is the demagogue, the tyrant that has so often veered this nation’s course? The beginning of nation debt, the theft of the corporation of Alexander Hamilton, buying up the debt of American, financed off the backs of the people, and accepted by the soldier, those who gave their live in harm’s way, as payment. That because of the way it would be financed and repaid had been made worthless, much as our dollar today is being done by this present incompetent administration, where it was worth a ‘continental,’ as our dollar, devalued to worthless. Is it not strange that after buying up these worthless, as our current T-bills, at market value…then as the secretary of the treasury…after the mistake of accepting slavery of the constitution, deciding to pay back the debt not on market value, but on face value. Is it not interesting that those of the Hamilton, the Jays, all of those who had no problem with recreating all of the problems that had created the loss of liberty in other nation—national banks, centralized control of government…the constitution…national debt enslaving society for perpetuity. What did he do that was good for this nation? The answer all should know.
How did we get here, bipartisanship? Bipartisanship that the federal government, central banking, and all of the evils of intrusion into the wealth of this nation, by government, would be accepted to take the debt. Why did the Secretary of the Treasury take the debt? For he as a true tyrant, realized that if you control the money, you control the people. And we, the citizens of this nation have been paying for it ever since.
Did we pass the statement of Jefferson, when he declared, ‘we are a people capable of self-government, and worthy of it.’ Is the test finished, have we passed?
Perhaps we failed, and sadly, we didn’t learn. For the next tyrant, think of this political campaign and the consequences. A spokesman for tariffs, national banks, and railroads, with a promise: ‘Vote yourself a farm!’ Sounds like he read Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘as one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in.’ Is that not a sad epitaph for any nation? Throw in the complete destruction of not only the constitution, the idealism we are a republic form of government, and add a war, and I think you’d agree we had a tyrant.
It was the foundations destroyed—the bipartisanship of agreement—while dismissing and acquiescing not to this nation’s principles. This nation acquiesced to a government, accepting the bipartisanship that which is not, nor was not this nation’s ideals. This nation acquiesced to a government, accepting the bipartisanship of the diametric opposite of our philosophy, our mores, our morals. All of what we are not, nor were ever designed to be, all in the name of some illusion, some misconstruction of a false misconception of what this nation was ever to be.
It doesn’t end. It is a continuum, a miracle of how we become enveloped in actions lacking reason, all in the name of some irrational bipartisanship. Today in Texas, once again this compromising of irrational compromise again raised its ugly head. Today dealing with the problem of the ideologues with conviction of the inconceivable unproven and unverifiable concept, that something, our universe, came from nothing. In the clash with those who accept through faith that, something is required to create all there is and all there will ever be, reached a bipartisan compromise. The compromise, only those in education can be on the review for textbooks dealing with this question.
Does not that make you wonder about the creditability of whoever made this decision? I’ve met religious zealots in my journey of life, those that are fundamentalist in the Bible beyond anything I could ever conceive of accepting, but none of them, even the most off the top, over the cliff, and beyond reason can even come close to the indoctrination of falsehoods and lies perpetuated by the academic environment of our schools. Add to that the pseudo-science of being educated as an educator and you have the ultimate of an ideologue squared. I’ve never met anyone in academic education that even pretends they have any capacity to think. They are content that they have been indoctrinated, that they’ve learned, and in the pseudo-science world of academia, been given a piece of paper that confirms they know all. Who can challenge such verification? After all, talk to so many in our academic environment. Then you make your own decision. It would be as to say, in a school of tuna, we are only going to allow the swordfish, the power to decide anything about the tuna. Is not the self-interest of the academic employee more important to them, than truth or even the hypothesis of possibilities? How can we use this insanity of bipartisanship to reach any conclusion is beyond me.
Should not all questions be—as the oBOMBa health care fiasco should have been? No it is wrong, and as the opposition, we will not acquiesce. We will not make a version of the same disease, only our disease of society not yours. We will not stand silent; we will be in opposition, continually, never stop in our efforts to stop the mistake? Should that not be the opposition? How in the hell can anyone with any capacity of thought compromise on anything related to this irrational incomprehensible advancement of not our design, but communism, in this nation?
We need not bipartisanship. We need not just opposition. We as a nation for our survival need absolute rejection, non-ending rejection, and complete all-out effort against every policy, every idea, every action, which is in rejection of this nation’s design. We as the people, as Americans must first stand for the preservation of this nation—our culture, our ethnicity, our design of a nation of liberty—while preserving the protection of men are equal.
We should shudder; chills should go up our back whenever we hear anyone say we are bipartisan. For bipartisan means, we the political parties working together in agreement, can reduce the liberty destroy your form of government more than each one of us…the political parties…can do alone.