I believe I have located some possible answers to a few of the recent Topics as well as a few of the 'on going' topics here on ATS. Here they are
in an Ordered List.
All of what is written in the following examples, (1a, 2a, etc.), are taken from a site which is about British Politics, Past & Present. What each
of these topics illustrate is how the History of America has been changed peice by peice. Together all these individual theories collectively support
each other and point out what was/is the most likely cause. While reading each example you should notice that they fit Present Day America Exactly,
although they are in fact about British Politics. All links are at the end of the post.
1.) Why is 'Democracy' or 'Democratic' the key word being used in Politics?? (ie: Spreading Democracy in Iraq, America no longer viewed as a
1a.) We are constantly told that we live in a democracy and that our political system is "democratic" and that nations that do not match these
standards are classed as "undemocratic". D Robertson, writing in 1986, stated that :
"Democracy is the most valued
and also the vaguest
of political terms in the modern world."
Because of the realities of Direct Democracy
, few nations use it. Some states in New England, USA, do use it at a local level but the number of
people involved is manageable.
The voters in a Representative Democracy
, in stark comparison to Direct Democracy, pass on the responsibility of participating in law making to
an Official who, if successful within, could be re-elected by that constituency at the next general election.
2.) What is the meaning of 'Rights vs. Priviledges' 'Citizen vs. Sovereign' and why there is a difference in 'America Now vs. Then' with regards
to 'Civil/Equal/Human/etc. Rights'??
2a.) Natural Rights
- Part of the American Declaration of Independence states : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". Only an individual could volunteer to give up these
rights - no-one else could forcibly limit them.
Such beliefs put a strict limit on the ability of those in power to curtail these rights.
Natural rights were seen as consisting of: equal rights, government by consent, individual personal liberty, responsible government, limited
- These rights are not always maintained
, they set a benchmark by which all political systems can be measured.
- A written or codified constitution effectively sets out the rights citizens have
and they are legally guaranteed. Also
called Legal Rights.
- Citizenship is a concept whereby a citizen is an individual who is fully recognised by a state as being a member of that state.
Citizenship, which is a legal concept, grants individuals who have some sort of legal status within a state, certain rights, and they are expected
to perform certain duties
"the citizen should be understood in the first instance not as a type of personÖbut as a position in the set of formal relationships defined by
A good citizen: obeys the law, pays taxes, respects those who have been handed authority by the people. The balance between these rights and duties
varies from state to state and from time to time.
- One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. Self-governing;
3.) Why are so many members of Government giving Resignations regardless of their party membership or position either 'For or Against' the current
Administration??(I'm just begining to look into this as a Theory.)
(Answered together with #4.)
4.) Why Kerry and the Democratic Party made no attempt at questioning this election results & quickly concented to the Victory of Bush, even with
claims of Voter Fraud, Tampered Machines, etc.??(I'm just begining to look into this as a Theory.)
3a. & 4a.) The Rules of The Cabinet of British Politics
- All Cabinet members are referred to as Right Honorable.
(Taken from the Organization of American States website
The Honourable George W. Bush - President
His Excellency John Maisto - Ambassador, Permanent Representative
- Each minister is head of a branch of government for which he/she is responsible. Within that branch, he/she is advised by senior civil
servants...and can be seen as part of the executive of government.
- If things go badly in that department, a number of things could happen:
a.) You could be sacked
(but this might call into question the Prime Ministerís aptitude for appointing ministers in the first place.)
b.) You could be part of a Cabinet reshuffle
c.) You could resign
d.) You could sit out any problems and wait for them to blow over
or be surpassed by another issue in another department.
- A resignation speech in the House (a convention for departing ministers) usually states that they are putting the party above their own personal
beliefs and that any errors made by that minister were not deliberate or an attempt to deceive Parliament. (The same excuse that is Always used.)
- As a unit, the Cabinet is expected to give public support to government policy even if privately they did not support that policy
Ė this is
known as collective responsibility. (IMO, this is why Chaney avoids Gay/Lesbian issues if possible and/or is forced to support Bush's view.)
- The Cabinet is expected to defend policy on television and radio, in newspapers and in their constituencies. (IMO, making freedom of
speech/expression useless for them and Media/News based on spreading Lies & Opinion equally along with Truth & Facts!)
- If a party loses an election, it will confirm the right of the victorious party to exercise power. It will not deny its right to govern.
- If the nation is threatened with a national crisis, traditional political rivalry is suspended and all parties work together in the interest of
national unity. (Except here it's called National Security.)
The point behind me posting this here is not to explain Democracy, Answer who is Wrong or Right in Politics, or to state 100% fact that this is the
Real way things are. However, this could explain the reason behind Political Agendas, who is Publicizing it and Using it repeatedly in speeches,
motives behind military actions, and so on. That reason, IMO, is to remove any consideration toward other forms of Government but more
specifically to be Aligned with the Real Leaders of America who are actually 'The British Parliment'.
Perhaps my theory is way off, but then
again, maybe it's right on the mark. You each can decide for yourselves. All I ask is that you atleast look into the possiblities before you
Org. of American States
British Politics - T.O.C