What is the right spirit for the people of the United States of America, and should a diversity of thought be brought to change the originalist establishment of the American republic, or is that diversity of thought alive because of that established foundational liberty of self-determination? Is an amendment of ideological activism unto that first construction required, therein reorganizing the understanding of our nation and opening the reinterpretation of the original intentions of our founders unto the first, natural laws? Unto whom shall we appeal if we motion to stand fast in our defense of the gentle promise of our Declaration of Independence, that the public good be secured without imposition?
In the Federalist Essays, the warning of the works of ‘faction’ is greatly deliberated upon as the singular danger to government of and for the people, and in the 1850’s the selfless Abraham Lincoln continued the footsteps begun before the foundation of America was established, and since that landmark of 1776, to defend the right to self-determination, without the imposition of foreign or domestic government to control the individual’s right to life and liberty, and the right to be safe and happy.
In Federalist #10, James Madison, identifies the effects and works of ‘factious spirit’ in government, as a selfish operation that renders unsteadiness and injustice in the function of government, and general well-being of society; placing its self interest first and the care of the people last, if at all; always searching for preeminence at the cost of individual rights, and a reinterpretation of the first laws according to its needs and purposes, until all that becomes of that government, if left uncontested from within government and from outside of it, is despotism and tyranny. Madison, continues in the breadth of the volume of the essays upon how such self-interested political groups are always in existence on the sidelines of power; ironically, gathering their strength from the same spirit of individual liberty that is the promised heritage of Americans, because national spirit of our union, founded upon individual liberty, values diversity of thought. In essence, the right to liberty provides political space for that diversity of thought, even faction.
Should the self-interest of the ideology of a few, a majority, or a supermajority be imposed unto a nation of diverse people? As ideologies there be many that abound, can a point be made that some ideologies are benign and so the risk of imposing the will of some unto all, therein abridging liberty to an extent, yet in supposed favor of the public good, be a construct that can be imposed on the national body? The care of the physical environment is of importance to the public good, and so a fuel industry that purposes to grow renewable energy for the good of the the physical environment could be thought of as a benign self-interested political association that is for the good of the people. The question of manipulating government powers as an instrument of imposing ideology, though a case may be brought forth that it is for the good of the people, would be an activist addition unto the constitutional powers that limit the branches of federal and state government; allowing the instrumentalization of it by faction in its purpose to impose ideology. Is not our Declaration of Independence the distilled foundational agreement that houses a distinct national spirit of union that with such a diversity of people, of different ethnicities, politics, religions, and walks of life, the only ideas we can at least all agree upon, is that all humanity has equal claim to being created equal, with the right to life and liberty, that we be safe and happy, with the duty to care about how government functions, that it be in alignment unto the original spirit of liberty as intended and written in that spirit of equal right to individual liberty of 1776?
Could it also be that the self-interest of an industry that becomes a political group, however benign, could easily see the political advantage of joining a strategy of conglomerating with other self-interest groups, all brought under one political party, and these, altogether, a faction of factions, the good, the not so good, and the outright bad for the public good, become a monetized political behemoth of ideologies, with the intent of imposing new constructions on our education curricula, on our fuel energy industry, on our immigration processes, and all aspects of society? Such a construction of constructions is in opposition to the gentle waters that are the heritage due until Americans from the promise that is the Declaration of Independence. It would be a tyranny on the public good of the people, and a despotism of those factions, commanding and controlling; socially engineering American society in condescension to that spirit of respecting diversity of thought, economy, education, and always, the individual human right of self-determination.
John Adams, in his own writings, mentions that scarcely an individual can be found in each generation, whom when tested with the responsibility of power, succeeds in proving their altruism; their selflessness, and goodness of heart in doing good works for the people on a national scale. George Washington thought upon the matter of selflessness himself, asking in his writings that schools and centers of learning be created to help produce such a style of citizen; foreseeing that the American republic would undoubtedly be prolonged with such spirit, self-determination, ardor and hallowed devotion to the cause of individual right to life and liberty; the protection of that cause being carried forth with genuine care for humanity, matched with solemnity and understanding of purpose for the needs of the good of the people.
George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan who worked within government were of that caliber, but they were rare exceptions, as was the sum of the whole works of the 56 signatories of our Declaration of Independence. Senator Charles Sumner, a contemporary of John Quincy Adams’s golden years as a Congressman in the House of Representatives, was of such strength of mind and heart, with good understanding that he and Quincy Adams were staunch defenders of the originalist constitutional purpose of protecting the foundation of the American republic as being that of one for self-determination based on the defense of individual human rights.
Interestingly, and quite often, we are forewarned in the Federalist Essays, and of John Adams in his writings, about how government office is procured by individuals seeking a host of benefits, and aggrandizements of self interest, including: honor, legacy (love of glory), wealth (financial security), responsibility over others (love of power), and instrumentalization of the functions of government in order to implement ideological agendas (tyranny).
Outside of government, numerous individuals who have served the cause of protection unto individual liberty, but of these, only a few have served the good of the people so faithfully and selflessly as two individuals, Frederick Douglass and Dr. Martin Luther King. Beyond these two mighty individuals, a cadre or host of excellent people exhibited great devotion unto a love of humanity, the love of people; in caring for the good of others, and doing so with such intellectual execution and success, that their works speak for them. These include George Washington Carver, the Woman Suffragists of black and white skin color of 1848-1920, and Attorney Thurgood Marshall.
The common thread that connects all these individuals was the cause of an unalloyed, selfless defense of individual liberty and justice for all; having found that in its present form, the government of and for the people was not in accord with the promise of the fundamental laws that began the national spirit of our political union, as written in our Declaration of Independence, and clearly intended as proven in the congressional works of the surviving 56 signatories from 1776 through 1820 as being a document for all humanity, of all skin colors, religions, ethnicities, gender, politics, and walks of life.
Now, in the 21st century, we are experiencing that conglomeration of factions that has instrumentalized the three branches of government to impose its consortium of ideologies at the behest of commandeering government to print money for its activism: increasing regulations on the oil and natural gas fuel industry with the effect of blockading its sustenance and growth, creating the conditions though the removal of blocks and the implementation of immigration agendas causing a swarm effect of immigration into the United States of America, therein engineering a radically different political balance of power that will be magnified in the 21st century, and aggressively pushing for the mainstreaming of a human abortion industry that demands the right to end human life at any stage of its formation after its conception has begun, demanding the right to perform macabre experimentation of procured infants with rodents, of the harvesting of organs, including brains while the child is alive. Such human tragedy that we sever the limbs of living humans, that we suction them from the womb, these altogether are a disrespect unto the national spirit of our American union, unto basic decency, and unto the prolongation of our American republic.
The imposition of ideology, however well-intended it may be, is a slippery methodology that is counter to the promise that we cherish and value the right to life, liberty, and the right to self-determination, that we be safe and happy. It can be asked, why should I or you have the right to impose my way of life unto others? That is expressly what America is guarding against. Why should we turn all that has allowed our freedom around and disparage what makes us happy?
In the case that the government has been overrun by a conglomerate of factions, as evidenced by the Democrat Political Party, what appeals can be made to the same governing body, and what expectation can be had that a just deliberation of the appeal will be faithfully executed (Federalist #50)? Certainly, it cannot be expected from a government overtaken in all its branches by faction.
The appealing to the people unto the methods of guarding against the encroachments of what the Democrat Political Party has become, cannot be made unto a Supreme Court that has only one originalist Constitutional Justice (Clarence Thomas), but it must be made from the people unto the people: that we return unto the gentle waters of our Declaration of Independence, allowing no further imposition of ideology, no further ending of human life, and no continuance of commanding and controlling aspects of our national economy, or the imposition of ideological educational constructions (‘critical (of the white) race theory’).
Our towns, cities, and rural communities will have to become sanctuary cities that resolutely defend and uphold the original promise of our Declaration of Independence, as it was first intended: a living charter document for the pubic good, proclaiming our precious value of individual human life and liberty; our right to be co-sovereigns in a land that thoughtfully and responsibly defends; that solemnly respects, with liberty and justice for all, without imposition.
Comments