posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:44 PM
While there are many here who are evidently aware of the nature of this resolution; I disagree with the idea that it is either meaningless, or lacks
While it is true (considering the maxim "The winners write history") that this may be overlooked in future times, I find it unlikely that such will
be the case.
Essentially, there is a growing awareness, in both public and private areas, that the Federal Government has been undergoing an increasingly rapid
evolution. Much more rapidly than the citizens of the nation can possibly keep up with, lacking true representation and leadership in vital
institutions we complacently considered as reliable. This fact leads to several key matters of vital significance to the common citizen. There are a
number of factors in play, and also a number of troubling possibilities that must be addressed in regards to the changes we, the actual "states"
that comprise the union are experiencing.
If you will indulge my opinion, please read on;
I have no doubt that the United States of America constructed its conceptual 'collective' governance with a clear mandate towards this basic aim:
Never diminish freedom, minimize the centralization of authority, ensure the governed consent to the governance, unswervingly uphold the power of
redress, and earnestly represent and protect the sovereignty of our union against all who would impose their agenda above that of the people of our
This is not the direction in which the Federal government seems to be heading.
Lincoln struggled to maintain the Union largely because he believed in the truth behind the axiom "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
His goal to maintain the union was fundamentally focused on forging compromise and providing adequate interstate relations, despite the political
environment which seemed bent on 'control'. Imagine that. Even then, Mr. Lincoln struggled with office seekers and petty political rivalries which
all centered around the usual exploitation of resources and who was going to get the 'profit' from it. Personally, I think his efforts to install a
new currency (the greenback) was instrumental in the muddling of his objectives, and perhaps could have had something to do with his eventual murder.
But that is a topic for another thread.
Comparing those days to these seems a stretch. Romantic, but a stretch nevertheless.
What some state legislators seem to be doing is 'reminding' the Federal government that it is not IN CHARGE of anything. They are there to SERVE.
They seem to be signaling that there is a visible and tangible disconnect between the Constitutional nature of our Republic and the federal machinery
setting up shop in our nation. There seems to be a misunderstanding, commonly held, and repeatedly propagated by some agents of ignorance, that the
Federal government "IS THE LAW," when clearly, this is NOT the case, nor had it ever been so intended.
The question of how this happens, is where the details of our despair live.
At most, the federal government is "the keeper of the law the States have developed", not the "law" itself.
Our problem seems to have become increasingly exacerbated as 'career politicians' with 'classist' attitudes and a collectively inflated sense of
'entitlement' became entrenched within the District of Columbia. A social culture evolved, some might contend was cultivated by 'private'
interests, which literally glorified politicians into celebrity stature, and created a 'show business' like atmosphere around their lives.
Once removed from the 'common' people - it became easy to attract them into a shift of ideological stance. Essentially the public servants'
commitment to the oath of Constitutional loyalty was usurped by one of loyalty to a 'profession' or 'class.' This brought about a general
posture of collectively (nearly conspiratorially) building the Federal Government (Senate, House, Exec, and Judicial) into an "enterprise" which was
devoted to the prospect of centralizing controlling power over ALL states as subordinate entities. It bears repeating that this had never been
intended by the framers or the American people.
Economic power provided the means to reach this goal. Once established those in the business of profit were well-situated to begin an increasingly
effective means to reshape what it means to be a politician. In today's environment it appears that the culmination of any politician's career is
corporate leadership. The more influential and effective a politician is in furthering the financial success of a corporation, the more likely it is
he or she will be secured by his benefactors.
However, the plan has several weak spots, most notably in the area of controlling the numerous State-level government officials. The means to
consolidate loyalty from them comes through the power of the support of political parties. Hence the downfall of the honorable political party
affiliation, now reduced to a club membership, with money being the driving factor to one's position in the order. Not necessarily how much you have,
but how much you can attract.
This decay of the hold our collective principles have on our political caste is increasing rapidly for a simple reason. People are starting to see
(or at least suspect) that their is a shadow play in progress.
As the Federal government continues to extend its reach and authority, State sovereignty (such as it is) is in dire danger of vanishing completely.
This may be an inevitability, although I suspect that resistance is NOT futile.
We never wanted kings and queens and barons to populate our leadership. So now we see that it is slowly being reforged into a different kind of
proto-feudal form; one where economic serfdom is evident, and dissent is viewed as 'illness' or 'aberrant.'
We need the states to recognize this fact; we need the Governor's and local elected officials to be alerted, if only to ensure that they understand
that the the citizens are not the dull-witted cattle they require us to be. We require diligent attention and oversight of our politicians. Such
things must be codified and noted. Therefore New Hampshire is doing the right thing. It is not done with an expectation of change, but one of
Political partisanship is not the answer, violence is not the answer. Simple understanding and recognition will suffice to stop this trend. We now
know that at least in NH, someone is paying attention. More to follow....
[edit on 13-2-2009 by Maxmars]