Archive for January, 2010

Letters to My Congressman

January 27, 2010


1 4/4/07



A true Democrat knows we can all live together.
A true bad guy knows most are the good guy.
A real reader of the constitution sighs that the artifice of money got
by our founders: He knows the people can come up with a wiser economy in free assemblies.


The situation has been worsening in Iraq with us, let’s leave and if it gets worse we can go back in and return. How can we stop their civil war, when we are in the business of war? What hypocrisy.
The Iraqi government has to come from Iraqis, we can’t impose or help.
Islam is our friend because it sells us oil. We are kind to the religion because the religion is the superstructure that sells oil, tribal religions wouldn’t.
When the Romans would defeat the Sabines, whose attacks on Rome were questionable because they united Rome and always lost, Rome never, at least in Livy’s first five books, stationed a
garrison there or tried to impose its government. They respected autonomy and forced peace treaties. Far more respect and progress is garnered by negotiating with the enemy than warring with the enemy. Keeping troops in other lands would be beneath the honor of early Ancient Rome. Extracting Peace Treaties to see if they are followed wasn’t.
Help me prosecute for the tenth amendment. NJ would be so much better with the people ruling their towns in free assembly; that’s how New England protected and protects its countryside. Some N.E. Towns require a quorum of 240 people for town decisions to be made. (See Guide to Massachusetts Town Meetings)
These mayors and councilmen of N.J. are not the state or people the tenth amendment reserves powers for. The people have a right to not be ruled by the few locally. This right is in the reservation of powers to state or the people, the protection of free assembly, and the 14th amendment protecting the federal constitution from state laws. “The powers not given to the federal government by the United States Constitution, nor prohibited it by the states, are reserved for the states, or, the people.
There really is the kingdom of god, the still people are hard to
admit, and this admission is the long run solution, and goal of current society. You can’t blame people, heaven runs things, and we have to know the score and don’t deserve this totalitarian influence. I know you are unable to help, things being so described, but I appeal to authority per design of authority. Or is authority more justifying of illusion, than meant to deal with ignorance.


Totalitarianism does infer a mind-control, or other-worldly control. Witchcraft infers witches from the afterlife controlling this world.

This interpretation renders spirituality and religion the natural defeaters of communism and totalitarianism.

It would seem a good bet that if we left Iraq the civil war would
subside. Certainly staying there and it is getting worse. Think about it: Could the Sunni/Shiite conflict coincide with our military industrial complex?
The problem with establishing an Iraqi police force there is that the police force intrinsically comes from the people, or the strongest force out there; it can’t be transmitted by another country. This is
basic wisdom. Iraqi security has to come out of the Arab people or corruptions thereof, it can’t be helped by foreigners: that contradicts the idea of who the police act for, the idea that the people consent to
the police, is undermined by the police being imposed from without. I’m not sure one culture can train the police force of another. Is there any historical precedent? There is the precedence of an army adopting and imposing foreign coda, but through themselves, in the safety of larger federation.
You are not in my world. You are invested with
power. A power that is subsumed by the status quo, and I do not think
congressmen were meant to be subsumed by the status quo; their power
allows them to get around the status quo, and that the status quo is too
strong for them shows that they are not even aware who the enemy to the constitution is. Don’t think people are communing about how great things are. Do think they want more in their life?


Then again an understanding of the kingdom of god explains the absence of the people.

I don’t think you are aimed at the fraud perpetuated in the name of truth regarding the kingdom of god. You don’t know what the enemy is, the media, and that is the sting on congress.

If you think blacks are better athletes you shouldn’t be in congress, and if you think that isn’t something to investigate then you isn’t a racist. The definition of a racist society is a society with one tier for one type, and another tier for another type. Thus we live in a racist society, and we never examine the legitimacy of these racist tiers.

4 9/11/07

There is scant historical precedent and success for one country setting up the government of another. Colonialism, doesn’t work and looks bad. The Soviet bloc countries? Is this what we want to be?

We helped Germany after ww2, but their people attacked us. That’s quite different from Iraq.
We can’t succeed because one country can not organize the government of another country; and its looking like profiteering, which an awareness of the kingdom of god should dissipate. The Kingdom of God shows no one is using money. That money is an artifice designed to distract from the kingdom of god, remit’s the kingdom of god to irrelevant; whereas any true economy is grounded in an awareness of the kingdom of god.
For General Petraeus to be ignorant of the basic immorality of the mission is out of absolutist communism; because there is no negotiation with the terrorists. And the senate is barely a check.

Moreover there are two suspicious things to question. The first is ifradical Islam is against the west how come they don’t advocate for
stopping selling oil to us? The Arabs were self sustaining long before oil
became a commodity. They were tribal, didn’t use money; Islam westernized them, by force, and unnaturally.
And two, with radical Islam and Islam so violent, pathetic and evil, I’ve read the Koran, any discussion with or debate of Islam should be easy; to destroy Islam as a religion in fair debate. It’s really an awful
arab-oppressing religion that can be shown as such easily; mandatory prayer, draconian laws, veiled women, a book whose prophet murders.

That we don’t negotiate with those oppressed by this religion, use communication to sort things out, is suspicious; for us to be at war, when we can communicate, viably, makes no sense. For us to be at war and not expose Islam, just shows the totalitarian monstrosity we live in, the intentional and removed quality of war.

To not firmly and unequivocally differentiate between The Arab People, and Muslims, misses the whole element of fighting to free the Arabs from Islamic control, and allow them to choose their religions.
As authoritarian, I must be stronger than the mind control that
keeps my knowledge and advice from being successfully injected to make our country better. Seeing me as an authority stronger than what keeps the silence of the unfeeling…that’s authoritarianism, to break the totalitarian hold upon society.
Peace be with you
Hopefully we understand the kingdom of god enough to know
things can change in a day. And hopefully there’s at least a playful recognition of the descant of witchcraft as the only explanation for officials and the people not acting in their own interest.

Congrats on encouraging green energy. Fairly logical and unifying an issue. Suspicious that the media doesn’t promote it unilaterally. Lean on the media, call those depressed bastards out, and you democrats will see a difference.
I’ve called your office now and then, to see if you understand
the constitutional legitimacy of the check on war by congress through it
being in charge of raising funds for war.

I believe it can be said that this could be a perfunctory job a treasurer could do for a chief executive, or intended as a fair protest of war by congress as warranted.
However since the language entrusts congress to raise funds for war, and since these funds come from taxpayers and not rich guys’ pockets, Congress should say, “look the money for taxes and war come from the people, we are only entrusted to take it and use it for war, why don’t we just ask the people if we should fund the war; then every rep polls his district, comes back with consensus or understanding of the dominant opinion; and then the onus is off congress and on the people, so the people will be happy, and the executive will learn he’s not meant to be all powerful for so long.”

To me, the odd thing about these presidential and senatorial terms is how long they are. In early Ancient Rome, these were only year terms. There would be a flurry of campaigning 2wks to one month before an election by speeches for all to here, and caucuses for all to partake in, and the yearly change of leaders very dynamic.
Regarding steroids: That the players didn’t cooperate is horrible. The industry will lose its right to regulate itself for stuff like that. But
this situation requires a lot of therapy, because, almost everyone is on
steroids, I believe. The voice of the players that want to compete fairly
and make money did not come out: and that is where the change will come from: because steroids are so prevalent that almost everyone is guilty of using them at some point: because the kingdom of god is easy to inject to produce a product of an athlete; and you should be conversant with the term “kingdom of god’ and see if you feel it is a term meant to be used in law.

6 12/27/07
How do you reconcile elections with the kingdom of god. The kingdom of god, means no one really is, people are represented or affected. Yet that representation is imperfect and corrupt or dishonest. So really election statistics are made up. Not only is the religion of Christian Terminology inimical to capitalism: it is inimical to voting. If the Kingdom of God is taken out of the equation, how is any semblance of fairness imposed on elections. First of all, the kingdom of heaven does the voting. The Kingdom of God, insensate. The making up of elections is the hallmark of banshee rule.

The charge to every nation continues, how do you deal with a country full of the kingdom of god. This most pressing issue is ignored, but a great nation will not ignore it.

Many people know what the kingdom of god means; used often in church services; not a perfect term, or of a perfect religion, but viable, and intended for a use to make a better world. The term may be such so that children are not scared.

I hear of the opposition leader in Pakistan assassinated, and realize the protection of all public servants is paramount as well as those unelected that strive to represent the people and offer these thoughts towards their protection.

First, it is not extremist Muslims, it is all of Islam. Islam is
oppressive to its people, much the way communism is, or to be frank, our educational system is. Moreover, Islam is a house of cards that does not stand up to honest debate: So that’s the first key to safety from them.
And many Muslims are aware of this. Indeed liberalism misses the point that the oppressed are aware of their oppression. The poor can be aware of their poverty, the gay are aware of the oppression of their homosexuality, the Muslims are aware of the oppression of Islam, and Catholics, the Vatican, and citizens, government, and fans, last place teams, and athletes, the lack of opportunity for pick-up games. All the oppressed are aware of their oppression. Everyone is aware of moral ambiguity.

You can not stereotype the situation into black and white terms. Muslims know their religion is bad. It’s that simple. Talk to them that way

Secondly, with the kingdom of god as such, where does the danger come from? It comes from the media, The media ignores the kingdom of god, and makes up a world as if the kingdom of god doesn’t exist.

So why does the media do so, when it is explicitly free to report the
kingdom of god? Because the kingdom of god is caused by the universe, by something stronger than the kingdom of heaven that would protect us. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven (and/or the universe) creates this evil media that then we have to somehow manipulate and use, towards the reduction of the kingdom of god, and towards the increase of humans.

And not even so, salvation seems to lie in getting away from the media, and into the kingdom of god.

Thus any political leader or leader period, is benefited to know that
the danger comes from the media, because the media controls the human being to represent media‘s will.

If Bhutto had operated on the precept Islam is a ridiculous
religion, that the media’s ignorance of and legitimization of Islam is far
more dangerous than any incarnation of Muslim upon the kingdom of god, and most of all if Bhutto had recognized and cited the kingdom of god as a reality and a viable term, a viable term the Koran does not mention once, she would have been a lot safer; as would be everyone.

Really once the kingdom of god is cited and not ignored on national media, everything becomes much safer.

It’s sorcery from the dead running our world in such spirit.

So how do we stop that? How do we stop the excess negative action, and increase the good legitimate action that moves forward to an accounting and dealing with life and the kingdom of god?

Know if whole countries are in competition for truth or salvation, they are both precious commodities, rationed well, and indispensably, even in little doses.

Yet a more theatrical approach by decreasing if not shutting off the news media, and that given the fact of the kingdom of god, this can be done voluntarily.

The Press is enslaved now. Many times I’ve told them the tenth amendment renders local officials illegal, the court battle, and not one story. Were the press free, any journalist’s integrity would have asserted that freedom by now.

The media’s eye is on power. And this is proven by the media’s ignorance of the tenth amendment which makes local elect and appointed officials illegal, since those powers are reserved for state or people in free assembly.

Now it is true, you and politicians are equally unresponsive, yet I
believe you are held back by the media, while the media is held back as a force propping up a phony reality. Moreover the media’s self-identity is
as the good, whereas the politician is more aware of the moral
ambiguity/complexity, and metaphysic of situations. The media speaks on other things that happen. You speak as your job.


None of the candidates speak on the building the people hate, the rampant expectation of increased population is a bad feeling to the people, the people know less is more.

But no candidates can break the self-crucifying hold the media has on them, and speak on what would show the media to be quite ignorant.

Nor can officials really reach people who know the tenth amendment, or have their hearts in the right place, because those leaders are not in the media, and the code seems to be that those covered by the media can be responded to.

Parsnips would probably grow better in aphganistan than carrots.

Also the economy is fake. Christianity and capitalism are inimical to each other. School, without discussion of that time, is like communism.
The world can be made much simpler and we the people can control it through local free assemblies that give homage to the federal government and constitution that enable our country that way. But apparently instead of believing in the kingdom of god and heaven the belief Christ died for you surrounds near where the news is coming from. How can He have been seen on Easter and died for you? What does the term The Kingdom of God indicate regarding this? It means media is different than truth.

The tenth amendment is very good news, if you understand it makes local officials illegal and intends for the people in free assembly to talk about their society and community and what they want from each other and value time and truth.

8 3/9/08
I read we executed 6 Japanese soldiers who we convicted of water-boarding our soldiers in WW2. Just what do the pro water-boarding officials have to say to that?

I really think there is a tyranny of media that would have made that point known, if it is true.

While government is morally ambiguous and meant to be so, newspapers are meant to be valves of truth, and a fair check. But they are not, they are wholly dominated and influencing in a negative way.

9 6/09/08
Regarding impeachment: Like any civil suit, impeachment is a nasty, unpleasant process; no one is really saying impeachment would be fun or passionate; because hurting someone, in this case the president, is never fun. Impeachment is not something I care passionately about, or even care at all; because as you indicate, the chips have fallen where they are, for the world to look at, regardless of whether impeachment is tried or not.
And yet the argument for impeachment is that republicans, this president, respect and need the checks and balance and guts the form of impeachment provides. Impeaching or attempting to, would be respected by the republicans.


The president is so in over his head, he needs impeachment to force him to not be able to do whatever his spirit or defense contacts moves him to.
The most important thing is integrity. Free speech is often unpleasant, and I have people who are not the friends I want them to be, but respect me for integrity. Integrity transcends what people think of you as a person; and I do think with all the complaints, it is hypocritical to complain about these executive violations, and then not issue forth
impeachment hearings.

Believing the nation can’t handle impeachment and that such sullies the waters of consensus, is not my analysis of the situation; which is that impeachment would be respected by the people.

In fact, differentiating between the media and the people, and overcoming the gap between the people and officials, a gap that is the media, is important here. While impeachment may be vilified by pundits, I testify it would be fairly universally respected by the people, and that we, the people, is you, and the people.
For instance, local government is very bad, and almost all know that. Yet if you say the local elect, being neither state nor people violate the tenth amendment; I fear you are reacting to the pressure a media that
reaffirms the status quo puts on you, and not to the consensus of the
people that local government is horrible and should be of free assembly
and not local elect.

The recent senate report that intelligence was manipulated, quite
frankly, must be accounted for.
Yet the other charges don’t necessarily bother me, even though they are unconstitutional.
For instance, spying without warrants on American citizens does not bother me because I have nothing to hide: What does bother me about such, is that spying by the government on its people, has got to have a deleterious effect upon government; the same way immoral behavior resonates to rot the soul.

Frankly, his suspension of habeas corpus for military detainees does not bother me because I am not Islamic. Indeed, I believe the Arab people have a real issue with Islam; Islam does not serve the interests of the Arab people well at all. It is far more conservative and unconstitutional than George Bush. I firmly believe the tribal religions previous to Islam would not sell us oil nor use money and just simply be self-sustaining as so for centuries. So in my mind, there is something very suspicious about Islam, and it is a huge issue to work out, that our intelligence community does not address, which is suspect of our intelligence that doesn’t recognize or glosses over the genuine oppression of Islam

Certainly the continuing unwise prosecution of the war, is dammable, but impeachable? In early ancient Rome, Leaders could be prosecuted for unwise military action, fined, put in jail, or executed.

No, in my mind what is impeachable about Bush and C is war profiteering.
A little like Ike warned us about the military industrial complex.

The war industry is huge now. If the price of oil drops after his
presidency, then we will see how he works for the oil interests as well.

His family has a history of war profiteering, selling steel to Hitler’s Germany in the thirties.

Now it’s true, it’s hard to say members of the bush family are going around to defense contractors and being handed envelopes of money. But it is easier to say that the Bush clan will be taken care of for generations by that industry.

What is required is an investigation as to the collusion between the defense contracting industry and bush and c. It’s a hard investigation
because there need be no actual communication or direct colluding on the subject; because bush doing what he does, the industry benefiting, does not require direct communication, involving as it may, a general

Now this is not to say the rich don’t have a conscience, quite the
opposite; there is quite a quality of guilt to them. What an investigator needs to do is find a conscience-stricken benefitter of the Bush policy, to say and prove that making profits off war is the name of Bush’s game, and get a few depositions, and in my mind, that is the real impeachable offense: the transformation of the moral ambiguity of war into a long-standing opportunity for profit.

But when you say impeachment is unachievable I say its far more
significant and respected to just try. It’s not the end result, it’s how
you play the game.

An when you say it is politically impractical, I do’t know what you mean: you’d win respect, it would be consistent flanking movements to undo the president’s policies, and the republicans would respect the democrats because they are harder nosed and respect force and might more than political efforts that exist now. They are bullies, and bullies respect suits. They laugh at people who fear, whatever they fear, vilification. Impeachment, I think, would be a step towards bringing troops home, for there is no way Iraqi government can grow naturally with foreign troops on its soil, and this is historically consistent.

Bipartisanship, which I believe in, I believe is served by being tough on republicans because they pride themselves on toughness. Moreover there have been reports over the disappointments with Bush by republicans; so it is hard for me to believe that republicans and democrats can not agree. The world is more three dimensional, as are republicans. It’s two dimensional on paper, in papers, but as men, and women, the consensus is definitely there, and I don’t understand how it can not be claimed.
It is being said that the democrats inability to express the will of the people, is just as bad as the republican jettisoning of America: but this is not something that we can not work through……


Democrats discuss things, and the tenth amendment requires discussion because it is a law few understand and use, and our local government is so deplorable and inimical to the natural law and right of people of a society coming together to discuss how they live.
You say nothing in the amendment prohibits the people in a jurisdiction from consenting to be governed by a local government.
I know this is hard to stand up to a status quo, but if powers reserved
for the state or the people, are exercised by neither, the amendment is
being violated. The people do not have a right to give up a right that is
reserved for them and in reality the state gave this right to local officials, that the people consented to. I feel this is an easy point and why public debate insures honor on the part of participants.
The real problem is that the kingdom of god is caused by the universe and that this violates a natural right to life, and it is only from this spiritual basis that we see how we can be so ignoring of our own laws. It is very tricky to turn around the way things are, maybe impossible, but it starts with spirituality, and understanding that such terms are there to help us in an unfair society

Dear Rep. Rush and C.,
You have the opportunity to discuss the tenth amendment with your colleagues and see if the glorious magnitude of the constitution is seen. This will give you democrats, who are supposed to be on the side of the people, and free assembly as a forum to discuss issues, good benefits. Really, this is the soundest advice you’ll get from anyone this year. I believe it is very responsible of me to lobby on my congressman on the tenth amendment, especially since there is so little judicial history on the subject; and what there is pales before the tenth amendment’s clear negation, and natural regulation, of the few deciding for the many, at a local level

Never the less, there are many things the media and congress does not cover; such as the sending of minors to school so much without discussion: In that the discussion at the board of ed does not consider the time and means put into something that regulates the individual en masse.
Or how the economy, that needs the most discussion, in free assemblies, so people can put their head together about it, gets the least discussion, because such forum is monopolized by the few; because elections, necessary at a state and national level, are not ideal at a local level. And the bill of rights clearly cites this in the tenth amendment.
That being said you have the clear opportunity just to begin discussing the tenth amendment and see where it brings you, and your colleagues.

And while the media gives no shrift to the tenth amendment, as they are focused on you congressman, maybe you could get the ball rolling there.
Because in a debate before an audience, or in the media where public debate is offered, which is its point to put pressure on officials who might bow too easily to the status quo; but as the media gives no shrift to this sort of thing, nor school, nor the utter fakeness of the economy many a church service knows, the public debate and fair scrutiny which guarantees a sighting of error on the part of debaters, is absolutely required for the subject here; a discussion I think you can get going because I think many a congressmanandwomen would give the tenth amendment a very fair shrift.
That being said I believe motion such as this requires divinity. And one of the things I learned from Livy is that the rich, the republicans, the officials in power control religion, not the poor or the people. Without religion propping up the republicans, the republicans wouldn’t be so powerful.
If the compassion of the liberals could be combined with understanding of the kingdom of God, and Christian terminology, a good service imbues; well, we wouldn’t be in the crucifying quagmire, and the broader and three dimensional issues of life more available.
Power controls religion, or religion serves power, even as it preaches forgiveness, which the upper class needs, is based on the reality of the kingdom of god and heaven. Where Christianity yet fails is to specify the universe as the causer of the kingdom of god.
Thus the transmission of grace and divinity to the lower party remains a conundrum my mind essays to cure.
Moreover the ignorance of the media and ourselves of the tenth amendment indicates the reality of the kingdom of god is so great as to inhibit the true constitutional genuflections, and sacrifice our country, so.

In the context of the kingdom of god, the kingdom of heaven, and the universe, we realize this is a metaphysical situation. Metaphysics means a study of relation of parts and these parts do not have to be material or physical.

And thus the deplorancy of what has gone on, is not only seen as a reality, but a challenge, and real politic that extends into relations and understandings with the kingdom of heaven, which ultimately you are, for the kingdom of heaven is all around.

John Locke knew it was not that there are bad laws, it is that there are good laws that exist, but are not noticed. He implied this was least a wise law-maker could do. At least provide a valuable law, even if this law will not be recognized. The understanding that allows such graphic fall from enforcement is that there is a situation on earth more severe than federal constitution.

This being said, I also learned from Livy that the grace of the knowledge of the kingdom of god, would aim the judiciary at the people in power.
And this, the judiciary, is where the people’s party, the plebes, the democrats, the second of the two party system, for everyone else; the people didn’t need their own political party to counter the rich in power, they needed and wanted and got their own judiciary, with judges chosen from lower classes to keep an eye on the rich senators who date their blood back to the first senate of Ancient Rome.

The soldiers actually went on strike over a stupid series of battles until the people got to man a legal system created specifically as a check upon abuses of power

. It was from the judiciary, which the people got when the soldiers went on strike, a judiciary that could take to task swiftly the likes of those who sell the country on a wrong war, and fine or imprison them for such stupidity and greed, from this soul of a judiciary, came the plebes, as the party the less rich enjoyed was called. The plebes were the party opposed to the arrogant power of officials. By definition, if you were an official, you were of the patrician class and party. Later, if you were not nor ever had been an official, or rich enough to employ many people, you were automatically in the plebian party. Later, Ancient Rome, had a lower house, which was actually outdoors in the plaza before the senate, of elected representatives, all of whom came from the people.

But a judiciary ignorant of the kingdom of god, or fair spirituality is not a fit judiciary. And the rudder expected these official prosecutors and judges provided for Ancient Rome, never materialized to the substantive expectations. Because power corrupts, and these tribunes, as these prosecutor judges were called, became much like our democrats today; urging lengthy projects like health care or land reform that never get passed. Without ever taking down the military cult that ruled Ancient Rome: Without ever really offering movements the people genuinely were popular to. And they became often concerned with petty or mistaken offenses of the patrician class, or inflated with their own glory.

The kingdom of god can be proven and shown, it can change everything. The more people are aware of this spiritual dimension, the more positive change is possible.

Christianity, Jesus, introduced the terms the kingdom of god and the kingdom of heaven. In some way those terms are euphemisms for something quite serious. But where Christianity is resting, is the trail head of inquiry of what causes the kingdom of god. The universe, which exists in senses different than our own.

In some way the democrats can’t escape the eye of the media. Yet at some level I expect Congress to know and ramify the understanding of this blatant terminology. Then Congress will be stronger than the eye of the media. You must break the shackles of the media where the status quo is reinforced through huge effort of the kingdom of heaven, and I believe congress, collectively, in a knowledge that does not exclude religion is strong enough to do that.

In Rome, the patricians eventually gave some ceremonial religious authority positions to a few plebes. This was after much argument against that. Rome kept on succeeding.

You see the more powerful the folk, the more service they need service to be forgiven for the lack of rectification of the world.

Whereas poorer people need service to achieve salvation in the material world.

Though religion is posited against the state in citing terms the state ignores, both have the same goals of democratic discussion that better the people and the union. Spirituality and government have the same goals.


Way to go with the hard line on energy.
I’m in my fourth yr learning the trade of managing an organic farm and it is fun exposing workers to agriculture and providing produce to local families.
This Karl Rove fellow refusing to testify is right out of the drama of ancient Rome. His refusal to testify is a statement that he Is an evil bad guy, with the arrogance, and unsteady sway of conservative senators to match.

That republican senators in that committee refused to condemn him just indicates how “evil” he is, or playing to be in that way of capital theatrics.

I really think that kind of party line holding by the republicans is going to lead to their big downfall in November.

Not to bring up a sore subject, but trying to impeach Bush will test republicans far more than democrats. Republicans that back bush in all fairness should do worse than those that examine his executive qualities honestly.

At the same time McCain is exposing Obama, for which Barrack needs help, cover, which will only make us stronger.

I know we try to change the things we can change and accept what we can’t; but if the democrats actually do truly popular things, deeply popular things they might be too inhibited to do, such as reduce the school year, or discuss a more realistic economy, or understand spirituality, they will be loved and rewarded.

The difference between the tribunes of ancient Rome and the democrats of present day America, is that the tribunes had to come from the lower class, (and the senators from the upper class, the tribunes being the judiciary) whereas the democrats have trouble identifying with the labor class, or seeing themselves as from the majority of America.

That being said, what is baffling about ancient Rome, is that even though the officials of tribunes were created to be for the people, and you figure would lead to a reduction in war, the warlike quality and behavior of Rome in ancient Italy, has been on a steady upswing from bks 5 through 9 and shows no sign of stopping.

Upon consideration, the answer to this question is this; previous to tribunes, it was morality itself that held a check on the impulse to war. Once that morality became codified by officials, tribunes, that codification just resulted in greater potential and actuality for corruption and warping.

Thus the lesson may be to emphasize the people, whoever they are, to change the world from humble still uncorrupted positions.14

Dear Rush and C,
1) The democratic party convention can’t be before the republican one, each time. Everyone knows the team that bats last has a better chance; because they can see what they have to beat, and appropriate strategies. So please advocate alternating who goes first in election summers, please. Also for god sakes, help Obama, crack down on him, cover for him, he’s a leader of the black people for sure and I see the pride and spirit all out, but as for being a leader of the white people, without us whites becoming closer for it, and checking his bad points, he may not be black studies enough.

2) I am against the bail-outs. Look, I’m the first to admit Christianity and capitalism is inimical, and the economy more than anything requires lots of discussion by the people at a local level, which is what is missing from our country, and for companies through false philosophies, greed, stupid deregulation, to be bailed out, when I’m here trying to make a farm survive….let me put it this way, I see the falseness, know the difference between money and production, and am in agriculture because it is honest, producing, and expansive and desired… A little bail-out and it’s an issue whether they will make the same mistakes again. Also what about the little lender. Say I have 250,000, which I don’t, and I see some guy wanting to buy a house, and I lend it to him, in the wake of disaster he is my business, you
bail out those idiots, and he goes back to being their business and us potential little guys are unable to compete. I mean it is unfair for some people to play capitalism, and other people to play federal bail-out . One deserves respect, character and godly knowledge.

3) About the tenth amendment which I try to promote as I can, given the circumstances.
a) No one has figured out the reservation of powers to the people, the no mentioning of local rule save free assembly, so if one person, like yourself tries to figure it out, it’s almost hard to admit you didn’t get it before, you’d have to admit a gap in your intelligence and awareness, but if a group of people study and get it together, and share the blame, it is much easier to get. In other words, my congressional friend, when I speak to one person, they stumble, but when I speak to a group, they get it, it’s understood. And this is called consensus, and consensus is aware of the euphemism, The Kingdom of God, or, if you prefer, the frail path of spirituality.
b) No one is against the tenth amendment. Liberals may insinuate a vast conspiracy against the tenth amendment and an apathetic people, but obviously this world is run by the kingdom of heaven, in a feigned ignorance of the kingdom of god, and there is no intention by the kingdom of heaven to sort this out. Yet the kingdom of god does have to be start factored in, in solemn silence; how spirituality starts at home and goes on to topple communism.

Life is not as projected on TV. The box we have to think outside of is the TV box.

peace be with you



First health care. I’m for affordable health care, there’s nothing like it. But it must come with a big exercise program to get Americans in shape. Opportunities to play in team sports for adults must involve everyone.
Likewise health care must involve degrees of first aid training, and cardiac training, so that everyone knows something about medicine and the people first to an accident scene will go a long way to making treatment better.

Second, if you had impeached George Bush, he wouldn’t be so big on this wall st. crisis. Impeachment is not partisan or political so much as the integrity of exercising a chk upon executive privilidege. Legislature’s job is to impeach an imperious executive, that makes it not political, but honorable, and had it been done, he’d be operating more cautiously now, and congress would be taking more of a lead in figuring out the situation.

I’m willing to bet also, karma, that if a democrat, obama, is elected, we will catch Bin Laden with half a yr.

About the economic crisis. This was caused by homes being built that were approved by local officials who are neither state nor people, in violation of the tenth amendment.

The sophistication of countries that value real production, and not paper business, or conspicuous construction, not based on population growth, but providing better things, is not as much in America as in Europe. Europe would never have allowed those homes to have been built. Check it out someday.

The democrats are said to be in with Fannies and Freddie because local gov is supposed to be of the people, and democrats are supposed to be of the people, and they betray the constitution at a local level.

I am in a curious conundrum, because when I tell the people about free assembly, the tenth amendment, and how new England towns require a quorum of 240 people, they know what I am saying is good, but are not empowered to help because they officially gave their power to government or media designed to disseminate, and because there aren’t forms of free assembly to discuss these calls for local self-rule in free assembly.

And when I tell journalists and officials this, they are so tied up into the system of media and officials, which is so much bigger than them, and this idea is so big and fundamental, and darning to a degree, though redeeming as well, that no one journalist or official is able or big enough to take an issue this big, being a part of a system so big.Yet this inertia as I’ve said, is not due to lack of character or integrity, but the simple decision by the kingdom of heaven to run the world in opposition to common sense.

There really is a kingdom of god, that’s a euphemism, there really is a mind running things, people wouldn’t be so muted, and these metaphysics require a lot of thought, for I have but some doubt, my mind is tied into this whole thing, since I am the only one proactive and preaching the tenth amendment, which is easy to understand.

If we had free assemblies in local towns where the people talked about the economy, we could do much better than a 40 hr wk, and make producing cool, and not doing jobs that essentially don’t produce much but take time.
You look at all those on Wall St., if they wanted to help actually produce, we could reduce the work week and have better goods, sir.
I like the way Obama is polite and nice things to say about McCain. I like the way McCain seems to know minorities are challenged. This is kind of a good race.


Very disappointed with bail-out. People more spiritual and savvy than that. Those companies produce very little, waste employees time. DISCUSS THE ECONOMY IN LOCAL FREE ASSEMBLY. That is the solution.

Let the community ask each other what they want, and what is possible.

Believe me, that law in our state constitution incorporating towns with local officials, is illegal, because those officials infringe upon free assembly, (and exercise powers reserved to state or people.)

Think about it, isn’t discussing the economy in free assembly logical, natural and needed. Shouldn’t the people be talking about the economy, and not letting it rule them without discussion.

Could congress consider mind-control? Or is that discussion off the table?

Obviously we wouldn’t be breaking our laws if we were willed to correct things. While this issue is bigger than one person, together, this issue can be handled, in a group.

Since the constitution said congress, which makes the laws, can not make a law abridging free assembly, then certainly the state constitution can not have laws creating local officials dominating community discussion and puissance. Because those laws would be contrary to the federal constitution, and we have an obligation to turn to the federal government, and hold it higher, than state laws, otherwise, we wouldn’t have a federal constitution.

Moreover the issue of the federal government being in banking, was considered as an issue, in The USA vs. Maryland, 1823.

Today, many people think governing is one thing, and banking is another.

Maybe a bank is where the government just stores its money. But I’m sure it could make interest at private banks, and then be subject to the same economies as the person-citizen.

The point is, the issue of government and banking being conjoined, is a pertinent interest these days, and shouldn’t be taken for granted.

When the government bails out these industries, instead of letting the market correct itself, as we have been taught since econ 101, whose losses are consistent with the illegal allowance of the destruction of farmland and forest by local officials, towards housing a greater population, without serious discussion consistent with environmental edicts of population, tragedy is not seared within the head, and a lesson learned for the ages; but history will look at what you do, the truth will out.

The governments bail-out, as an investment, might be the next great thing, if it turns a profit, and we could revisit government as a revenue-generating institution, but the fundamental philosophies underneath our directions must be spelled out, so we tread confidently.

I can’t help but think George Jr is winless in all his initiatives.

Health Care: Mandatory CPR and first aid classes will make first responders reduce hospitalized hours.
Mandatory exercise will create a healthier, and happier, population capable of defending itself lest the Muslims attack. Seriously though, we should create an exercise police, enforcing jogs, sprints and team sports. People not complying will be tossed in gyms, until they exercise enough to get out. That’s health care with spirit.

As for taxes, what is on paper, is not necessarily, the kingdom of god does not use money. The point is to save the human race from the universe, you’ve got to be cool, they make you fearful because you are empowered. Widgets.

As for the war, we have no right to take the war on terror to Iraq. That is unfair to the people of that nation, and makes us look wimps.

We should negotiate with terrorists and win via negotiation far easier than via force. Because their religion oppresses their people far more than Ronald Reagan oppressed me. Their religion doesn’t stand up to Christianity in serious conversation because Christianity has a term, a euphemism, yes, but a term, none the less, “The Kingdom of God”, that describes a phenomena upon which any credible religion is based, a term the Koran uses not once, signifying a phenomena, Islam, like our media perhaps, designs to obscure.

Muslims, like several minorities, are like the bad guys, and they know it, and they don’t want to be bad. They want to be reidentified as The Arab People, and lives self-sustainably, tribally, without money, as they did for years before Islam, develope their own idiosyncrasies and societal peculiarities.

So why is Islam so popular. Well, first of all, Don’t Believe The Hype, especially if you are intelligence.

The west is significantly different from the darker skinned, tribal, non Christian parts of earth. We have the oppressive regulation of school, and no discussion of the economy in local free assembly, no free assemblies that focus on the community where the few don’t make the decision for the many, and most of all now, parlance of the context of the universe and metaphysical truth.

So we create a buffer zone between the darker and lighter parts of earth which is Islam. Islam not only westernized the Arab world, preaching money for instance, but also keeps the people under it, less tribal. Thus the more natural tribal consciousness of our southern cousins is less likely to take down the unnatural fabric of our lifestyle because the buffer zone of Islam lies between the west and the south.

In other words the interests of Islam are consistent with the interests of the west, insofar as the interests of the west lie in maintaining our imperfect lifestyle. Because Islam creates a buffer zone that makes western peoples less susceptible to tribal modality.

Because there really is The kingdom of god, it can be spoken of and detailed, and rule created that is bad. If we see Islam as consistent with western characteristics, we might realize that we control it. That moves the barbarity of the atrocities to a level where it is controlled and willed for them that cares not about their interest or influence. I hope I could work with people invested in concern about this country, in this light.

I just want to reiterate the metaphysics is that it is easy for the kingdom of heaven to control the kingdom of god for its purpose.

That the media gives no play to free assembly and the tenth amendment and discussing the economy in local free assembly, which everyone is for, that’s the thing, everyone is for discussing the economy in local free assembly, that the media give this no coverage shows the media as the missing variable of our democracy, and that that the variable of media is where the dominance and illusion is sanctioned and created.

I have thought about this again. The less civilized areas of Africa….Islam might be created by them and imposed. Because it is in Africa’s interest to sacrifice western mores and gain African humans.


Thinking about the constitutionality of the bail-outs: Where in the constitution is this made legal? If there are such words, such words would be greatly reassuring to the American people.

Because it seems a murky issue. I never saw the government as helping businesses, but regulatory, and needing services.

Yet this bail-out is the means to an end. Should the government attempt to back-up the economy? Wouldn’t it be more concerned with regulating the will of the people. Isn’t our polity about survival of the fittest, or is it about trying to reach some economic place? And then if that economic domain is reached, and it falls again, at some point you have to examine it, and correct it, and realize that this takes you to a different and new economic place.

Moreover, surviving leads to evolution. In some way you hold back the market’s evolution. Also the further conjoining of government and business changes what the economy is evolving through.

It’s like suddenly mated, and the economy and the government are going to have a child, and it’s not going to be as fit as a singular economy, and singular government.

The irony of this should not be lost upon a mixed race president, nor should we hold back our exhortations to keep down the population, America.

Another economic plan would be to take down some homes, promote a reduced birthrate, and have those lots be gardened.

Another economic plan would be to make the parents and community more proactive about their children’s education, to a point where such involves the parents themselves and not career teachers or such centralized locations.

It would also be good to discuss the economy in local free assembly.

Free Assembly, in the old days, was when the town gathered, everyone had a vote, and issues were discussed and voted on.

It is easy to see how local officials abridge this happening.

I know these remarks are awkward because they pass new terrain.

It is through forgiveness and a realization that now is the time to discuss whatever held us back. Then there are larger issues, than the simple enforcement of federal constitution.

Everyone is for practicing free assemblies. It’s in everyone’s interest. The only reason why this idea is not accepted, Is not that it is wrong, but that it is relatively new. I used to think this. It’s not accepted because the world has to break spirituality first. The greater truth may come first. The less truth is easy to withhold.

Even more so, whatever witchcraft maintains this state, maintains this state. To impugn a lack of integrity or character upon anyone, in face of this witchcraft, is not the answer here at all.

The Episcopal believes that our identities take on the metaphysic of “God”. There is scant evidence this is true. The media that dominates our minds, so wholly dominates, that extending to the realm of metaphysic isn’t possible.

People, like yourself, who are called on this law, aren’t against the idea per se, but just don’t like that they didn’t know this idea already. This idea could be anything. It is a reaction to something being different from the way they have resonated, than a refutation or dislike of the idea of free assemblies in local communities, and an ending of representative democracy locally.

While there is discrimination and reaction against the unfamiliar or new, this dies down, the witchcraft that maintains the world holds the world.
There’s this old political theory that we left the state of nature so as to discuss our community. Once we start discussing the economy in free assemblies, we might be able to do a lot of good, and I think that is universally recognized, though if and will something be done, depends upon the will of the people. And the people seem awol.

According to these laws, all building approved by local officials has been approved illegally.

This is too big for one person, yet very much cause for the interest of congress.

Because there may be a reckoning to all this, and our whole economy reconsidered.

Yet when we see our inertia, as related to The Kingdom of God, we again start to move into new awkward terrain, because Christian terminology isn’t used these days much.

And again, no one is against a vocabulary that describes a phenomena the people do want to care about, it’s just that inertia is from something new, something people, officials, journalists, might not have thought would or could ever come up. Or rather plan to ignore.

The lack of use of the term “The Kingdom of God, the lack of elaboration on the term ,’The Kingdom of Heaven,” is not a rejection of those terms, but a rejection of something new to a ken.

But once the reality of the phenomena the term “The Kingdom of God” describes, appears, then forgiveness, is more obvious.

Obviously there are some metaphysical controls dominating people, and human beings.

So the responsibility for actions is not really with the human being, but the mind.

If free assembly could come to this part of the debate, we could further understand the relation between “the soul”, and the mind. But it is hard for people to make the connection between the soul and the mind, if I am using the term “soul” right.
The constitution gives the right for the legislative to expel its members.

So the senate should just have seated Burris and then immediately expelled him for associating with an evil man on the political landscape who should have been isolated, and when impeached, the lieutenant governor would have made an appointment.

The way to handle Hammas is diplomatic and subversive, not militarily. I firmly believe Hammers is an oppressive regime the Arab people don’t like. Working to show the merits of the old testament to the Arab people, encouraging non Islamic, tribal, native religions, and liberating the Arab people into a morphology they are proud of and actually is idiosyncratically good—these are non military ways of improving Arab people from their oppression.

Organizing free assemblies to discuss the economy, will show the American people, liberated, into a discussion of the economy and what they want to do with their time and life. This is the way to solve the economy: by having more people discuss it and address each other into an empowered body rather than individuals to individuals, to assemblies where anyone can speak. The solution is so simple. It’s about freeing ourselves to community discussion, not people in power directing the economy for everyone.


I am trying to organize local free assemblies to discuss the economy. I live in Princeton N.J., and I go rent a community room at the library or at the Suzanne B. Patterson senior center.

But they don’t rent community rooms to individuals, I need to be a 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax exempt LLC to rent a room.

Notwithstanding the virtue of incorporating my efforts towards free assemblies, doesn’t this restriction abridge my constitutional right to free assembly?

And for instance in Hackettstown NJ, I tried to book a community room, but I needed to be a tax paying resident of Hackettstown. Doesn’t that abridge my constitutional right to organize free assemblies?

I think there is a clear violation here. Can you give me some advice here, or call town of Princeton under whose charge these practices are.


I think local free assemblies to discuss the economy could not only solve the economy, but make our life much better. I would investigate why the natural inclination to put our heads together in free assemblies is missing.
I think the gitmo prisoners should be exchanged for peace. Barring or including that, for money, ransom. The reason being that anyone paying for their release would keep a more watchful eye over them so they don’t cost money again. We could see who pays for whose release. They would get their bodies back, we would have exacted tribute.

We should negotiate with them. Our religion is very superior, their crudeness is stupidity, that should be easily elevated by reason, they can recognize the pathetic inadequacies of their religion.

We should be seriously trying to arrange a truce with terrorists, make peace with radical Islam, through the abashed triumph of good over evil.We should see the Arab underneath the Muslim, we should ask him what he wants.

Europe buries telephone lines – good stimulus idea.
Stimulus should be time delayed, involve applications, a little at a time.
People don’t think the stimulus is cool.


Mar 4 6:30 Free Assembly about the economy, Princeton Public Library.

Idea is people coming together can be wise.
Opportunity to do so, Roberts Rules of Order sort of thing, when people come together, they may want more agriculture, less wasteful jobs, value time over money, not want the unnecessary, we don’t know, they haven’t had the opportunity to freely assembly.

Hannibal ransomed Romans prisoners of war, set free for free their confederate allies, partly bringing him good will from those he hoped would ally with Hannibal, not Rome.

Are Gitmos criminals or soldiers? Criminals do time, dealing with soldiers- greater latitude, greater risk to undertaking war, whereas criminal risks, known and certain – so that’s a real issue, arguments, do you think they are criminals or soldiers and why.

I think they are criminals because they do not follow a code of war and avoid civilians. They represent no set people who wants them to stand up for them. They seek to destroy, not negotiate.

This means they have access to our court system, but lest those that hate our enemies resent this; they should remember that were they enemy soldiers, they could easily be released through a peace treaty.

Dear Rush,
You may claim the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the state or the people, while interpreted by scholars to protect the state from the federal government, it is fairly unknown and clearly limits powers to the state or the people, in free assembly, of which local officials are neither, and that this is a logical and natural and kind law because communities should not be ruled by the few locally, but the many, coming together.

Thus the state constitution is in error, in violation of the 14th amendment: no state can make or enforce laws abridging privileges and immunities secured by the constitution. It could even be said that the people are in involuntary servitude to local officials, in violation of the 13th amendment.

You have written me the state has the right to give those powers in incorporating local officials, but I wish to refute that by saying the powers are reserved for the state or people, and not local officials, so the state can only give those powers to the people. Giving powers to local officials is beyond the scope of the tenth amendment.

I am especially anxious now because one of the last forests in Princeton may soon be given up for senior housing, which can go elsewhere, and that the issue of population needs discussion, not further destruction of forests, and that these forests are owned by future generations and not our greed, and that government regulates people to not hurt others, not to allow people to destroy the environment.

And Princeton Junction Train stations may be turned into a vast complex, further congesting and lowering the quality of life, and basing an economy not on production of goods, but on population growth, which is how building is causing a weak economy.

And these allowances are illegal by the tenth amendment, yet while lawyers, people and authorities seem to agree my claims are valid, and I lobby Trenton on the subject, and there is consensus, proactivity is difficult, and it is hard for me to act on consensus, because no power has been invested in me by the people or our laws.

Tho NJ’s constitution Article 1 2A, “” says power to reform and alter government for the benefit of the people, is inherent in the people. This is because government only administrates from its form. It is not ordained to consider its form, only the people are. Thus there are words on paper mandating action and thought upon my words

I wish you’d interject to stop the approval of the destruction of forests and your district.

However replacing local officials with free assemblies is a nationwide issue, demanding congress’s interest.

It is the solution to our problems: the wisdom of the people, the ending of the unnatural domain of local officials deciding for a community, prone to bribery.

We are all adults, this is a good idea, it may cause a reactionary response, but that is just discrimination against the new and unfamiliar. The right to fair local rule is a civil rights movement.

I think it is understood, that face to face, transparently, no one is against this idea, and it can be propelled forward, because at bottom we are all adults, and it is a natural idea. Yet I also understand face to face meetings are difficult with authorities, because such would advance the case. And there is avoidance to the new, out of reactionary fear. Moreover, if my claims were false, they would have been effectively rebutted by now.

Free assemblies would discuss the economy, and unite the people; the humility by officials in acting on this case and cause, would also be good. It is ironic that this solution to our country is in our own

Local officials do not deal with me. Mayors seem to hide when I look for them, really. They are of such a corrupt form that they are too twisted to deal with this, whereas you, and Trenton, may be more able, because your form is constitutional.

This will be and is a very popular idea. Why it is unenacted is a metaphysic: The absence of the people makes me the people tho if the people are absent, does that dwarf my rights in light of the ignored metaphysic?

Again, you can’t care about this locally, as much as it is a national issue and concerns all of congress. Housing starts would be replaced by free assembly discussions of population growth, and what kind of economy we really want, and what the people are capable of.

This is a fine product, all like, and I hope you see the logic to it, and reach me therein regarding, because I have faith this idea will prevail, and be embraced.


As you may know I manage a small organic farm we got going in NW jersey. Over the seasons, I have many volunteers, who I can barely afford to give any money, and I am grateful they accept vegetables and the therapy of a farm instead.
These are all sorts of people, from High School students, to senior citizens, to people developing the ethic and karma of hard work, or getting off the streets, or the occasional fugitive who I always try to get to make peace, or an old friend desperately needing to lose weight, or stop drinking, or abusing, or getting away from spousal abuse, or hippies traveling, or yuppies whose conscience mandates helping, or people threatened by foreclosure, even, people with aids.

I am correspondingly more ambitious and will require much more labor help. I would like to pay my helpers more, but simply can’t afford it, can I apply for stimulus funds that would simply and strictly go to help pay the people that help me, which would encourage them.. Please get back to me on this.


Sen. Shirley Turner, Senate Leader, and my district, referred my tenth amendment claims to the Office of Legislative Services, the bipartisan legal arm of the state legislature composed 16 legislators and lawyers for the legislative, who review bills for legal tweaking and technical consideration.

They did not find anything wrong with my claims, and so asked me what I wanted the legislature to do. And I wrote I wanted legislation in N.J. to replace local officials with a free assembly format.

The attorney general’s office in NJ is more hamstrung regarding enforcing federal laws, since they don’t have the ability to change existing unconstitutional state laws.

Nevertheless, I am exposing this to Trenton, and I think we realize the stupendous nature of such proposals, and I hope our elected officials are capable of dealing with such simple and natural law

Regarding the repeated line, Contracts are the basis of the economy, vis-à-vis AIG bonuses, that is so untrue.


1) Integrity is the basis of a good economy, hard work, ability.

2) Contracts do not Have to be followed, in light of extenuating circumstances, integrity, or contracts that arrange to void previous contracts.

3) Congress, not contracts, is the law of the land, esp. interstate commerce

4) These people are not really enjoying their money re: the kingdom of god. Were everything OK as the media says, we would be living much wiser.

5) The press gives no coverage to my tenth amendment concerns. What does that say to you?

6) Why is consensus based on lack of negation, not affirmation? Where are the inclinations of the people to discuss their time and life in context of community? Why would the exercise of that right be limited to local elect? The answer is The Kingdom of God signifies an altering in the womb. Perhaps you are so burdened by what you represent, you fail to see the fake, false quality to society; ergo spiritual guidance is essential to good government.

I organized a free assembly at the Princeton Public Library Mar 4th. Anyone can say anything, all have a vote, everything though was consensus.


Enclosed I share my opening remarks, and notes on the assembly:
Free Assembly Inc.

Victor Fedorov 201 232 1154

Be loyal to a federal government that protects Free Assembly.

The opportunity to search for wisdom with Free Assembly, should be practiced more. Search for common values.

Free Assembly is consistent with the tenth amendment.



To me, this means the state or the people in free assembly, have the powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution. Not local officials: New England, traditional, decision making, is like this: inquiring, educational, even spiritual activity that searches for wisdom: Rules of order apply.
Free assemblies are a civil right spelling the right to be ruled locally by the people in free assembly providing constitutional immunity from the few ruling the many locally. Where and why have free assemblies gone? According to Princeton Township website, Free Assemblies were how Princeton made decisions in the 1900’s.


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” laws incorporating local officials abridge the community decision making process of Free Assembly.

Notes on Free Assembly:

Mistakes made, post issues, thought economy
Army mentality, what is needed, what we do as a people to achieve what we want is a part of free assembly. What I mean is that we the people should see ourselves economically as a huge army, capable of doing what is necessary, not violently, but economically, together, for the good of the people.

This mentality existed more among the people in classical times, Classical free assembly was practiced by people in fear of opposing armies of necessity. With Hannibal at one gate to the city, and the Romans at the other, free assemblies were vital towards deciding who the town in question would support. Decisions made put to voice vote

In America as we expanded without conflict except the Indians, unlike Europe that had ancient tribes claiming the land warring each other from the beginning, there has been no survival chakra need to freely assemble and make the wise decisions.
So ironically, war which has not happened on our soil, save the civil, makes free assembly more necessary. Then Free Assembly is picked up as a community tradition.

Thus towns would also force people to go, in classic times people ordered to free assemblies in towns squares, piazzas.

Have to recruit, compel, success dependent upon you to have more attendance. Success corresponds to number of people there. This requires direct appeal to individuals to be there and assert themselves.

Real issues, economy, real economy, wisdom evident at Free Assemblies

People began discussing what kind of economy do we like, can we match the resource of people to what needs to be done. Can we match the resource of economic leaders and businesses to the resource of people?

All issues, essential, no need to limit free assembly to economy,

Because there is vital religion and spiritual, and across the board aspect to free assemblies, the advertised focus on the economy can inhibit. Free Assemblies must be understood as very across the board in their nature.

Agendas can be developed though, and advertised in advance.
Free Assemblies must be advertised and promoted, a date set. They can’t just happen.

Though if they happened outside, more people passing by would join.

Adultness, spirituality is affirmed by them

Feel let down by the lord re sparse turn out,

But it is a very fine product, everyone enjoyed addressing serious concerned people.

So success is about recruiting people, marketing, difficult but the key to all business success. Not the product, the marketing.

Princeton Township Website says free assembly form of local government till 1900.

Europe really preserves its countryside, consistent with our own federal environmental code sec4331 title 42, of ensuring the environment, and views and farms and forests are handing down to succeeding generations.

Yet they have suffered WW2 and wars on their land. They fought for their land, so they are not going to waste it. Do you see that? Goodness comes not from comfort but cost.

The destruction of America for unwanted population growth is our war ravaging our country.

Metaphysically, some good is purchased by it, but can’t this all be discussed and done legally, per the tenth amendment, ez to see reservation of powers not to local officials, and in free assemblies as natural.


The Lord Moves in Mysterious Ways

January 18, 2010
1Travel Blog——
Being so committed to farming lessens the time I spend on politics, so I had a free day before my train left to Cincinnati, where I was going to promote myself as a latter day Cincinnatus, who as we all know, in ancient Rome, when it still had political ideals similar to America’s;
      “Cincinnatus was a Roman farmer, dictator, and consul from the legendary period  of Roman history. He gained fame as a model of Roman virtue. He was a farmer above all, but when called to serve his country he did so well, efficiently, and without question, even though a prolonged stay away from his farm could mean starvation for his family. When he served his country, he made his stint as dictator as brief as possible. He was also admirable for his lack of ambition.”
To fluff out the story, he went into farming after finding the morality of the political climate did not include his calls for greater morality, thus he worked his fields out of humility and disgust—-and when Rome was hurting and needing someone of his integrity to lead them, they came to his fields to ask him;
 “Cincinnatus was plowing his field, when he learned he had been appointed dictator. The Romans had appointed Cincinnatus dictator for six months so he could defend the Romans against the neighboring Aequi, who had surrounded the Roman army and the consul Minucius in the Alban Hills. Cincinnatus rose to the occasion, defeated the Aequi, made them pass under the yoke to show their subjugation, gave up the title of dictator sixteen days after it had been granted, and promptly returned to his farm.”
My similarity here is I argued in political races and federal court the reservation of powers for the state or the people made local officials illegal and our founding fathers intended for free assembly as the form for local community decision-making where all participate in voice votes. I was given short shrift, our judiciary needs reforming, and knowing the people would want a more agrarian world, if they could have such leading discussion in free assembly and so went ino agriculture, where I often expect the powers that be to come to me and ask New Jersey to be led into Free Assemblies, which existed in the times of ancient rome.
Cincinnati, I saw, has 7 hills, just like ancient rome, and knowing the story of their namesake put me a step up on the other tourists. Indeed, one person confided in me that even many of the locals do not know the story of Cincinnatus, a fact I find astonishing.From Cincinnati I was going to the bible belt/tobacco producing/dry parts of Kentucky near the Tennessee border to see my friend Jesse. Jesse and his girlfriend Summer had helped me at the organic farm I manage for 4 wks in May and June. Halfway through they confided in me they were on the run, using the farm as a hideout, so to speak, not out of genuine love of organic growing.The proof that an institution is evil is that it controls something. Islam clearly enables oil for the wasteful west. Marriage, clearly enables the reproduction of the kingdom of god; local officials clearly enable the repression of community polity.

The next morning I got on the train for Cincinnati. Amtrak is a leg roomed way to travel, and there was a polite string of polite people. And soon the question arises in civil discussion how society, western civilization, be so foolish and fool of lies, where the important truth is not discussed or self-evidenting. The answer may lie in metaphysics where western civilizations work of falsehood may be a sacrifice so other societies are somewhere able to discuss the truth.

In this context I came to Cincinnati. This theory goes that there are not only races and cultures on earth, but in heaven as well. That while there is interaction in heaven among races, there is also some separation. While everyone in heaven probably gets along and works together and is aware of the common concern and afflictions of earth—the nature and substance of this is difficult to get from this material world.

Earth is dominated by the universe. The universe influences the womb to alter the human into the human being of the kingdom of god. And it seems western civilization is based on using the kingdom of god to create the illusion there isn’t the kingdom of god and everything is basically all right.

Yet one way to explain the cruel ignorance’s of our media, is that it is controlled by the afterlife of another race, for one race could not control its own so cruelly; likewise, it is perhaps our race that controls Islam to get us oil, because only one race controlling another race, can be so cruel. The idea then is that by being so cruel to another race, a leeway is opened up, whereby the power is assumed to be able to protect a fetus in the womb from being altered. Though there are probably many layers of understanding here, many layers of truth.

It is difficult to find a Muslim and say, 1) Hey Islam is clearly evil to you because without it you wouldn’t sell us oil, or use money, and you would be self-sustaining and could trade oil for any goods you need. 2) The Kingdom of God makes people easy to control in geopolitical metaphysic, so let’s work to stop a control that is bad. And 3), Look at the correspondence to the white western race, they don’t make decisions in free assembly, or discuss their life and what they do or should do, as a group—they have to overcome their flaws as well. I would engineer a peace the government, and media has been unable to. I’d be greater and more beneficial than the U.S. government. Think about it. I may not be successful, but I am playing for big stakes.

And I thought on the train more about sex, and gayness. Sex is good, it forces people to deal with each other as representing the kingdom of god, and the kingdom of god, and thus love relations are a good thing, when they are true and abled. Yet homosexual relations go in a different direction, because, or if, people don’t want to act homosexually, that direction does not lead to a disintegate of appearance for a dealing with truth. Whereas a proper direction leads to a lessening of the control of the lies upon people. Yet even so, it is one thing to feel good as the kingdom of god through intimacy, and another to recognize the sadness of the kingdom of god; a sadness that may, I think, reduce sexual direction, for others.

It’s obvious problems succeed through lies, that the American and human nature is to work out and solve problems—whereas the liberal consciousness is one to accept problems—accepting a problem and not letting it get to you is wonderful, according to liberalism, whereas trying to solve that problem is inconsiderable, whereas conservatives and human nature would have a bend to solving problems, or recognizing problems are not good, insofar as consciousness of an inured problem is possible.

The recognition of problems is contingent upon honesty. Because problems really do exist, and the tendency or sense of ease to ignore them makes honest apprehension difficult. I look around and see a society that in varying degrees lacks honesty in social apprehension. Honesty creates possibility.

I arrived in Cincinnati at 2:30 am. I had several polite intellectual encounters on the train, and this continued in the morning when I went to take advantage of the free continental breakfast and found the others there were there for some young boxing tournament, so I was surrounded by mainly black youth talking boxing. The athletics made them well behaved, and they obviously had issues they were trying to address and direct. They had an element of hygiene, and racial loyalty and awareness of moral ambiguity and complexity that reminded me how athletics can be and is a positive influence on the athlete. I always found athletes to be easy to get along with. I did not find them as getting women all the time, or women throwing themselves at them. That seems to be an illusion. Also, women who throw themselves at people they don’t know, are usually a bit nuts. Relationships are bittersweet enough to temper their constant necessity.

The Lord created a robot, disguised with an animal name. The robot was very insecure, and needed a women not his color who wouldn’t challenge his insecurity. But being a robot, and unable to sense the bittersweet quality to relation, both in golf and romance, his appetite never felt fulfilled. But the problem was not wholly he was a robot. The problem was the media always liked the robot, and gave him more popularity than robots honestly muster. Thus because the robot was enshrouded in the illusion of his own popularity so much his senses were occupied by the perception of that like, and not what the other end of his relationships went through. Thus he was not able to react or feel relationships, as people do.

Having never been to Cincinnati I aimed to walk around it all day and conveniently catch a bus to sleep on after midnight that would take me to Missouri. Cincinnati like Rome has 7 hills. One is Mt Adams, near a large park. After passing through an inauspicious worn down and even remote downtown, that was though having a pub crawl for people in a Santa clause suit, and up the hill to the neighborhood by the park, I found the neighborhood by the park to be filled with cafes, bars and good restaurants, and a dog parade.

As I walked through Cincinnati sometimes I picked up this Midwestern depression, a disappointment with western civilization. This is an unfair sensation, because people have people; if you are unhappy, there are Americans to turn to have fun with and improve life. I’m not a Christmas person, I prefer the calmness of Easter, as the orthodox Christians do. The first thing I would say to my kids, had I them was, “Christmas is not about presents, but something much more.”

In the hotel, as I was looking through an alternative paper listing things to do in Cincinnati, there was an editorial condemning a civic group that condemned them for running ads for full body rubs, which may be more prostitute than full body rubs. I am totally against prostitution; the wonderful thing about love is that it shouldn’t involve money. It is the last free thing in America. It is dangerous too, because the men that would pay for such, can’t have that much going for them. And the women that do that, can’t have great character. And there are so many lies and insecurities to deal with, that taking love or sex to this professional level is sure to be fraught with bad things.

This Midwestern tenor, of disappointment, was fringed with the sense that the African race wants a held back American race, as a sacrifice to the Africans being able to discuss the truth, depressing a metaphysic as that is, in the context of the depression of the kingdom of god.

Easter is good because it reminds us Christ lives, and show the lie he died for us as a misinterpretation of these sense of the gospel of John. John the Baptist was also a Christ. There can be many chrisms. And chrisms and Christianity and the good service of all good religion and good science, can stand in opposition to the oppression of government and media, isolation and sin, money and school.

The dogs were very cute, hundreds of them. Animals deal with at a level the kingdom of god too. It is amazing how high cats can jump though.

I think we need intermediary councils combining several states into regions, where regional issues can be better dealt with.

Cincinnati is a bit of a dangerous place, in its runner down parts of blacks; for which the cops buzz around efficiently in cars; praise the lord; the blacks and the whites will tell you not to just walk around anywhere, but takes buses and cabs, because it is easy to get beat up here by blacks. You would think Obama would have the loyalty to minorities to address a bit issues like these, which in turn would steadfast him to the loyalty required to deal with American issues.

Yet whites have a problem being what I call the white guy. The white guy can and has interacted positively with minorities, being the only white guy or fewer in number in certain situations. It’s a combination of having seen their good side and their bad side. The white guy knows how cruel and out of control and hateful, they can get, and subtly tries to exert a strictness upon the situation as well.  For some reason, that experience is difficult. Herodotus was “the white guy” writing pages about the Persians and their areas he traveled through, though he was Greek, sympathetically, and aware of their potential for cruelty and disaster. White women out of guilt, should take it upon themselves to show black women a good time. For some reason this is difficult as well. Minority males, have on many occasions demonstrated good behavior to me out of their guilt for lessening American society, by abusing women, and dominating some sports, and not interacting well in mixed society at times.

Consciousness is required for these acts. Consciousness is required to eat well, to understand school should be discussed, to feel compassion for people in the economy running around without ever discussing the economy is a puissant group. Honesty, which is hard, is required to address issues effectively. Consciousness is required to realize the kingdom of god is a serious issue and that many people are required to combine the human energy into enough spirit to take on that deep issue.

Then again I have spent decades specifically trying to do this and the world is still the same. What is the point? I never reach the end. The end comes upon better communication with the Kingdom of Heaven; and greater awareness of the universe.

I walked from Mt Adams to the neighborhood on both sides of the university of Cincinnati. I passed and a lot cheaply of tasteful and creative vegetarian food. The college bar I stopped in after walking and looking in shops and using the computer at a library was less dynamic than the next bar downtown I stopped by after I took a bus downtown to get closer to my hotel and bags stored there. Never use the suitcases that don’t roll. That is my one lesson: rollers on suitcases make all the difference.

I’d been meeting fine people throughout the trip; a 22 yr old against money, into making his own things, seeking the rainbow, a 30 year old awarely studying urban planning, a retired black women interested in stopping local politics through the ideas I shared with her—-citing the lack of media coverage of me or my ideas as holding us back in the context of earth in an evil universe. In the club car of the train, I met a fine old couple from Maine, who noted I shared Maine morals, as we discussed gay marriage. At a bar in Mt Adams, I met another conservative small business man in the asphalt business, an alumnus of the Midwestern college that beat Ohio st on TV, and at the bar downtown I met a young lawyer who had just passed the law, who told me about energy law and contracts in the vivacious atmosphere of a more sophisticated downtown bar.

The greyhound scene was the nadir of this. You can sleep very well on a greyhound bus at night as it rolls along, but having to get off the bus at Indianapolis, St Louis and Kansas City for 30minutes to over an hour, disjointed the sleep horribly. And the bus can tend to sad older black women, white female trash, violent looking blacks who frankly seem headed to jail, and niggardly whites extolling heroin and bad drugs who like hanging out and encouraging the violent looking blacks. This of course is more in the back of the bus, and I’ve seen that bad scene so many times on greyhound in my day, I am always surprised it is still around and hasn’t moved on. For whatever reason there is so little spirit and decorum and pride at the bus stations, that I don’t know why; but it certainly was a step down from Amtrak and walking around Cincinnati.

I was thinking how high the afterlife must be to recreate in the womb was altered into human being. And I was thinking that if there is a metaphysic the African race is able to benefit from, its unjustified, because whites not only came from Africa, we all have the same ancestors, but whites went through more cold, and adapted to something away from the heat they came from, which is greater than just staying in Africa—though american blacks heritage is there—–thus being white is a travel statement, and rather than having bad luck for it, the traveler should be respected. In Indian, travel is a religion and there are yurts in front yards for travelers to stay in.

Missouri is a fine and polite. The woman who served me a cheap pizza at a chain-type restaurant was very polite and hung around making conversation with me over a football game on TV, since not many people were around on a Sunday. The female hotel clerk I lugged my suitcases to was very polite. Of course, behind every smiling female lurks a potential psychosis; I know enough not to take such events seriously; yet point out the amiable quality of Missouri. A quality that recognizes me, as I recognize it, as a function of me.

Of course a problem in Missouri is the same as a problem everywhere, which is that we are not a productive nation. Too few people have jobs or do things that actually produce, and the quality of life as measured by the quality of our food, and temperament of our people, suffers for such.

And there is a constant creation of society around me, which I believe is run by Africa, though I am sure we all get a cut of the cruelty to me, little compared to the Kingdom of God; nevertheless, the cruelty of an unproductive society, when everyone agrees we should have more of one, and would have created one, is such that can only be done by the afterlife of one race to another. This theory posits it is much harder to be cruel to ones own race, and gaping cruelties, such as go on in the mid-east, and exist in the reinforcement of America in the media, can only be done through the control of another race over that one. Now I can’t be cruel to any race. Indeed, I feel sorrier when another race gets hurt than my own, the injury being more striking perhaps; but when I imagine cruelties, they seem more easy to engender by a different race, than to one’s own. As it is, tremendous steps must be taken by the afterlife, to lie, to reproduce, to cope, to exist. For all we know the afterlife is ruled by the universe, as society by the afterlife, and the cold universe by portions therein.

And the constant creation of society around me, each minute creates a little bit, that can be stored towards a purchase of life amid the kingdom of god.

Lying down, I realized there was a relaxed part of me and an unrelaxed part of me. Try as I could, I could not reach myself to relax the part of me on my left that seemed to me unrelaxed.

So I stepped out into the evening night, and went to a bar a mile away, enjoying walking in the cold. The bars were full of young people, each of them, and I am not used to bars full of young people. There is a university in this town that accounts for this. I am used to bars with older people, hopefully mature ones, where younger people may be showcased one by one; so this predominance of younger people I felt as an onslaught.

Yet in coming out and socializing I realized what this unrelaxed part was. It was the voice of the people in the kingdom of god. It was where the afterlife lives in me from which it can create society and specifically speak in and represent the kingdom of god as people. I found Missouri so appealing because it was consistent with the recognition that people are thus an extension of the Christ consciousness in this day and age, albeit an extension of the substance, if not the proper form.

As luck would have it, I sat near the only person old in the cavernous bar. I’d yet to figure out this was a college town. He turned out to be another fine person I met on my travels. My right wing views seemed to fit in fine in Missouri, my conservatism he called it, not used to these newfound and positive definitions of fascism such as less government, more decisions by the people, the use of means to achieve ends of which the means fade upon the end being achieved. Like me he was young looking, and like me, he turned out to be the same age as I, 44.

It turns out he was a former state trooper who infiltrated biker gangs enforcing crystal meth laws, and now worked for an insurance agency detecting insurance fraud; the issue of fraud detection he speaks on publicly, and he had many interesting stories, and views consistent with mine, though more virulently anti-obama, castigating the mere 140 days Obama spent in the senate before assuming executive leadership—-and it took time to realize he was a former undercover because he sure had me fooled—and he was shopping a screen play he had successfully entered in contests, and struck me as a successful concept.

The funny thing about all this is the slight suspicion I get the attorney general’s office tracks my movements. This would be a perfect person to rendezvous with me, and while I know this is not really true, it does give me pause. I mean this is the bar I would walk into, and the seat I chose the seat I would pick. And knowing a thing or two about law enforcement agents from The Sopranos, he was a little like me.

The story he told me was that his wife had turned on him so he left his house outside Kansas City and went 70 miles here to Warrensburg where his parents lived. AS the hotel room had two queen beds, I let him spend the night there for twenty dollars, where we had another beer or two.

Everyone I significantly met in Missouri was a writer.

As I walked into town the next day, I passed near a small storefront offering 25 cent donuts and coffee. Unable to pass this up, in the 20 degree weather I walked into this cluttered space adjunct to a small apartment where this women Sharon lived. She had written a book too, about a serial killer she had a relationship before she discovered he was a serial killer who framed an innocent man, and how the serial killer avoided being confronted by the framed man when he was released because of new evidence.

More significantly she was Christian and reminded me how great the bible belt is because there you can bring up what I try to talk about often and it is considered relevant conversation approachable by anyone from the great Christian and spiritual fraternity that is. It made me regret how much New Jersey is not the Bible Belt. Again we were able to talk over an hour over coffee and donuts as the denizens of Warrensburg occasionally came in and out for coffee and donuts, either exchanging conversation or putting the money where the money went and serving themselves.

She said I could leave my bag there while I walked through the cold to several parks, a walk that covered over five miles and exposed me to the rolling Missouri prairie and plains and Missouri trees and brush. This was reminiscent of my long walk around Cincinnati. On my returning from the outskirts of town I stopped in a deli that was also a market for vegetables and landscaping supplies that had high quality eastern items, and noticing the Christian music, and posted prayers, just had to say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” and instantly found people I could share my teachings with, as they theirs, all within a Christian and knowledgeable vocabulary. Oh I love the bible belt in the background. That everyone you meet, in a way, like me, has a ministry, is a real improvement from the one pastor/whole congregation system of the east.

The man who owned the deli, everyone in the bible belt who has their own ministry has a near failing small business, knew exactly what I was talking about regarding the relaxed and unrelaxed part of my heart, even touching my chest where the heart was most relaxed in experienced knowledge.

The thing about bible belt Christianity is it is an accessible game, fun and easy for the whole family, honed, and improved, present and humble, accepting, and striving—to start it just takes a Christian term or two, and a lesson or two you’ve gained from experience or relate to. It creates instant friends and responsible socializing—were this country more Christian–its so easy—a great fraternity.

I went on in my cold walking and found a bar opposite Sharon’s where there were older people, interesting mature theatrical older people, the kind I am used to, who speak to the whole bar rather than one, or talk loud enough for there to be one central interesting conversation that excludes no one. This also made me happy, finally finding mature people away from the sea of young people, nice as they are.

That night from there, loading up on food and water and beer, I got the 8pm to Kansas City and the 10:30pm to Santa Fe.

Here I started to notice the screw that is loose with the western part of the country. A screw loosened by practicing population on essentially a high altitude desert, or rugged cold mountain range, and 9 month winters. The people were less tight more like greyhound than Amtrak. It just wasn‘t as behaved. And unlike the mid west, which is suggests itself a part of a puzzle that can be discerned, and recognizes the importance of race, at least psychically admits its shortcomings, the west tries to cover up its failings in these horrible social endeavors of the people about, who I wanted no part of, and looked of the construction trade.

As for myself I had several thoughts: Souls in the afterlife were maintaining the creation of society from within me–the voices of other people come from me—this constant creation seems for a purpose and dictated by African metaphysics—-but what if I just wanted out, stopped my dreams of being a latter day Cincinnatus and just wanted the recreation of society to stop—could I bring that up? Would I have to be a part of the use of someone else to be the central head? Could I stop it through truth? Because the phoniness of society, the phoniness, the phoniness stems from that each person I see, they could have all engineered a more productive and reasonable society more, with free assemblies and common discussion—-that brings up the Kingdom of God, in its glaring appearance, and discusses the realities of earth in the universe, spiritual concerns, truth all paths lead to…..would have been done naturally and easily—–so every person I see and meet in the near and now, could have, would have done this by now, no one accepts this, that’s not natural, people would know the kingdom of god, there are not naturally so dumb, so to play as if they have a past and are more than near and now, is so phony—it exposes them as not worthy of the creations they create–why should I deal with anyone with this glaring evidence in my face???? These were the thoughts I occupied myself with. In the bible belt, I could bring this up to any serious Christian using Christian terminology.

It’s an example of this totality of control, and phoniness we in the west have to deal with, in the context of the kingdom of god, a serious situation which speaks for itself: To a point where one imagines a lot of silence in heaven. There is often new hope, or the same old hope a slightly different way, maybe a team of good friends is required, but a team of good friends is hard to find.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways, but with the right worship, I would hope he does something big and super good for us. He needs his fear and love to be able to change the axis we are on. In the world of the afterlife, the souls are very light. And there is a consistent effort to hide from my material eye through the application of pressure on my heart that pumps blood covering what might be seen. Once the souls of the kingdom of heaven may be viewed….it is important enough to occlude them. Yet these light souls do exist within me, crouch and feign the communication of my little world—whereas they probably exist together, in groups, with the great broad concern, and responding rather than communicating.

For they do crouch to talk and enter this world, to apply pressure on my heart, to degrees that press some people into a repetition of the media world, whereas for some other blessed people, the heart is not so pressed, and there is a greater and more sympathetic knowledge that no one is happy, and there is a battle of good vs. evil each contributes to. People with sympathy are conservative, whereas the media really abjures people they should have sympathy for.

For now I focus on the pressures in my heart, what lives inside me, and try to see what is light, as in not heavy, energy, all around.

I also feel in the west a disrespect of farming, which one gets the converse of in the east and Midwest–literally, another pressure in my heart to analyze.

As I was focusing on where my heart applies pressure towards some people conforming more to the party line of the media—that the world is as the world seems to be—I realized an entire flow of blood further to my left up and down my body and head—that I surmise generates media, the illusion of western civilization—that is churning a direction that is not natural. I am overwhelmed by this, but am fairly confident that setting my mind on this phenomena will reduce it to some conciseness.

I am under the impression, it is possible for parts of the mind to shrink down to the size of a cell or two; roll out the media that needs to be written or enacted, so that it spins through the air in a small size, is caught by a larger mind around that transforms such into what needs to be done, either through the writing of gods of around, or to larger enactments transmitted.

So there are tiny things living in my left ear, sucking the blood that enables the afterlife to represent this world in writing as if everyone is like me, without any mention of the kingdom of god—all the writing and production of western civ, must be a lot of work; the afterlife; depressing and silent taking care of the kingdom of god, and the obligation to create western civilization; and when one gazes at the black universe over the sky, and sees the evil machine whose job it is to alter in the womb and create the kingdom of god; that is so compelling, it seems to slow down or challenge the writing in my ear. And I wish I could show you all a picture of my left ear. Unlike my right ear, my left one has a pyramid shape sticking out of it about a half an inch, on the lower part. Lest anyone think I don’t think straight, look at and explain my left ear.

Feeling the silent afterlife caring for the human being, for the kingdom of god; does little to slow down or challenge the creation of western civ I perceive, ridiculous as an affront western civ is; but the vast machine of the universe, lowered over earth, perhaps allowing a tiny bit of consciousness to be saved, destroying anything over that ration; that quiets the crowd in my ear.

I climbed a peak nearby, took only 80 minutes, sat against a rock at the view, the clearest thoughts, the gazing at the tiny souls floating about; trying to move them on; the people of the west here; think they are Indian; the Indians here, being the majority, the power structure, the mayor and council, the police chief, the Taos pueblo reservation, have a natural inclination to know, like, and be friendly to each other. Somehow the niggardly curse on white people has them pretending to be that to each other, in ignorance of the lie, without deference to the majority, without trying to be the wiser minority, and it is annoying. At least the Midwestern syndicate has some Midwestern god who acknowledges her power; shows a piece of the puzzle now and then, gives some space to the forewarned and knowing; here in the west, I try to step aside and mind my own business.

The Taos Pueblo

The most classical thing about Taos, (pronounced with a T) is the Taos Pueblo Indian reservation. Know how I define classical: The interesting thing about reading about ancient and classical societies, particularly in the writings of historians of that era such as Herodotus and Livy, is a combination of how similar old cultures are to ours, in that it’s not hard to recognize ourselves in the people of older history; (the Ancient Romans had a Senate) (The Ancient Persians had a cruel side) (The ancient Athenians were even more crazy liberals than we have now)—and at the same time, see our ancient selves, in related cultures, with totally different cultural innovations. (The democrats in Rome controlled the judiciary, the republicans of Rome controlled religion, a pontiff ensured fair elections–oracles were normal in ancient Greece–Sparta would have two kings at once)

And so it is with the Taos Pueblos, nestled before huge mountains, at near 7000 ft. They have a different religion, and ways, but are very much in the modern world. I went there on a Sunday—-one is guided into a parking area—it was a beautiful winter day—the views of the looming mountains impress the eye—it is all sacred land, the white man is not allowed on—-one turns off the main rd leading north of Taos, to the east towards a mountain pass with sage brush prairie on both sides. Once past the recent casino– which makes no sense to me because the Indians didn’t use money, nor is Indian necessary a fair agnomen for them, or native American, I mean the reservation should be as self-sustaining as possible and produce items that can trade directly for what it needs.

Now the problem with this formula is that the constitution article 1 section 10 disallows Bills of Credit. A bill of credit is a piece of paper signifying credit as a part of future trade for past trade. Maybe this is holding back the Indian’s economic development associated with self-sufficiency and direct trade—maybe that law is why the Indians are forced into the corruption of the casino.

But once past the little casino, which are all over New Mexico from Santa Fe to Taos, they have cattle and buffalo grazing in the background—and another mile guides you into the parking lot—off to the side of the main entrance to a large field with a stream running through it, with adobe houses in a horseshoe around it, including a white church. This field and houses, which turn out to be stores, is where the tourists are allowed. Before the entrance is a visitor registration booth, which requires ten dollars; and roads leading in several directions to the greater reservation which are marked “restricted”.

Inside the main circle of small pink adobe structures of thick walls, a few of them two and three story with ladders leaning from terrace to higher windows, it was reminiscent of a rainbow gathering. There was the high pleasant smell of cedar burning in the camp fires. Every structure had a prominent fireplace with the pleasant high smell of cedar, which in my nose evoked that smell from a rainbow gathering, and there were a few fire pits outside in front, but more permanent than at a rainbow gathering. It was December near the solstice, so fires were rigorous. No electricity or running water is allowed in this area.

The idea is to go from shop to shop, look at the jewelry and drums and baby shoes for sale, and talk to the different types of Taos Pueblos. Since there were few visitors, or locals today, that made it much nicer to engage in conversations with them, and I was very glad I came out there to see it.

They make their rums by hollowing out tree trunks. Subsequently some of their drums are very wide and huge and make a deep imposing sound. They don’t have the high narrow drums the hippies like to carry around but the shorter, flatter ones, and some of them leave a bit of the cow hair on the cow skin stretched over the hollowed out logs and stitched tight. Cow skin is usually stretched over both top and bottom of the drum. They also seem to use drum sticks that have gentle puffs of pom poms or something so the drum sticks are not sticks at all but sticks with a leather pouch of something soft within it. The cow skins are stitched together with one leather string in diamond fashion. They say they do not have drum circles the way they do, but that they call out the drums for ceremonies. (as they seem tight of cash, they want to sell drums.)

So the concept of going from place to place to talk to Indians around a central area, is consistent with the structure of a rainbow gathering; since each Indian you meet, is possible to talk with, and the spirit of talking about serious and problematic issues, pervasive.

When I go back there I want to talk more about agriculture with them, and even try to trade them seed potatoes and interesting varieties of seed potatoes and carrots, (blue potatoes, yellow carrots) for drums. And they themselves said they would rather trade than sell.

In general, politics need to lighten up and expand, not contract and tighten.

Unlike the Cherokees, the Taos Pueblo Indians, are a patriarchy, their 30 officials are all male. Regarding their division into clans, as many tribes are, they are very secretive. And they are very secretive about their religion as well, which often meets in these sacred underground chambers. Yet in conversation with one, about how the universe created the kingdom of god, and how a good point of religion is to negotiate or deal with the universe, even though our senses are developed for the sensations of earth. It was revealed to me that their religion is very focused on the universe, recognizing, like Hinduism the potential for great and more powerful forces is the universe.

I also apologized for all the lies that come out of western civilization, and mentioned that these lies, an enormous production of the kingdom of heaven, may pay for what little life the universe allows on earth; yet I was unable to admit this metaphysic may be derived from African understanding; though the depressing nature of the world transcends my racist tract.

Some of them on such a beautiful day were looking forward to going drinking at a bar and watching the NFL. I find the NFL an unwatchable product and prefer drinking outdoors but more so I prefer playing sports to watching sports. This kind of speech though goes over equally poorly with the rainbows and the Taos Pueblos.

They also often shared with me their strange Indian names, like red willow, the way the rainbows will have strange names, except the Indian ones can be translated into their native language.

Their similarity to the rainbows extends to that they have lots of dogs, there are lots of dogs here and there, either congregated in one area, or around one particular shop.

And the way the rainbows have a rule discouraging photos or at least requiring asking permission to take photos, the Taos Pueblos believe each photograph takes some of their soul; and have in the past specifically outlawed cameras, subject to confiscation or tribal court, as well as not allowing cell phones. However this time, I noticed at the visitor registration center some sign about how for a certain fee cameras would be allowed. Yet as for me, the precise point of visiting the reservation is respect their ways, not take pictures, and explicitly enjoy or partake in an area that can not be photographed. I see these white people occasionally take pictures, and I get offended; how hard is it to simply follow a few rules; what is the big deal?

The northwestern NJ community I come from these days as an organic grower of potatoes, in some respects I consider a Gallic trait; more people work with their hands than around Mercer County where I am from, the people are friendlier the place being more bipartisan than one party Princeton NJ…and one pronounced trait that can exist in this Gallic area, which the more roman area of central jersey, to extend the metaphor lacks is a care about the younger generation—-and the Indians, being more tribal, transmit less specific care about the younger generation, since it is more a tribal and less particular concern, as well as the tribal consciousness requiring a kind god the precludes generational issues, in the sense we understand them. The Indians may have had a historic problem with alcohol, and require it less than the white man and women, because while there is wisdom to tribal consciousness, there are good and bad parts to everything, nothing, it seems, can be perfect; thus a tribal consciousness can preclude even the necessity perhaps, of an individual conscious.

At the same time, the Gallic consciousness, whose etymology stems from one having the Gaul to assume we can all share or live tribally, understands the rejection of the particular offspring, for the more general interest in the younger generation as a whole—there are different senses of generational nurturing. The Gallic way seems a general care in that direction consistent and throughout time, while the Indian way seems to have specific ceremonies and behaviors that mark the transition from one era to another—at some point a 75 mile hike or something is required, at another, a sacred object is viewed for the last time—and these events mark the transition from one age-classification to another.

Outside the main field with shops and structures delineating it, there are signs indicating restricted areas. What if we had restricted areas at rainbow gatherings? Can some areas be more sacred than others?

Instead of using the Christian term Jesus introduced; The Kingdom of God: I am going to use the term, “human being’. Anyone in the upper class is to be thought of as a member of that class, not apart from it. This whole representation of western civilization, in my eye, and writing, the energy of which expresses what the universe spreads through the womb: this seems to be thought of: It seems to be whatever artificial? deeper consciousness is consumed by; the artificial greater unconscious, may even rule the silent souls all about. The first thing it requires is reproductive copulation. I can’t believe my substance has some form I notice that goes along with this. Yet you can’t have alteration, without reproductive copulation, or at least have so much. The truth of this condign, the moral of the story posited; is things are so bad, this is justified, because there may be an organization from all this long waited for.

All this representation, writing that goes on in my ear by microscopic forces of the afterlife, has the energy, is guided by the thought of how the universe rules earth: specifically by see the production of the human being.

That thought is dominant enough to make the representation secondary; or to create the proportion so: The universe is to the human race, as representation is to me. Even though the human race is way more to me that representation, that proportion is the proportion I refer to. I would suppose, ultimately the point is to separate the universe from the human race; as the representation of writing from the representation of the being nearby; if heaven is in you and you leave, the kingdom heaven stays with me. Because it is the writing, darker.

The gay movement I lobbied against, (you know one doesn’t have to be paid to lobby to be a lobbyist), in NJ, seems to have responded, by losing the steam. The legislative sense I know thinks the gays are very wimpy for crying so much at the public hearings. Lord knows we’ve all causes and never cry for it—the female suffrage- did they cry? No. The slaves to freedom, did they cry? Not recorded by newspapers. The Jews in Egypt? Did Moses cry before the pharaoh? Sarah Palin, in the face of all the attacks on her, does she cry? There is no precedent of tears making a point in all the annals of legislatures throughout time; even in the most melodramatic testimonies and speeches of ancient Rome, no one ever cried.

It’s because the media, which wants to reproduce, because it represents the need for reproductive copulation, to create the human being; wants to extend reproduction to homosexuals; which can’t be done; because evil is blinded and ruthlessly pushes out of blind rage; And yet I meditate about being a part of that order that produces reproductive copulation; and hope to withdraw it so as to lower the birthrate of earth; that is a primal, significant thing to do.

Meanwhile, to the gay movement, I argue that while marriage may be a contract, contracts, like grants to organize free assemblies, or stimulus funds to stimulate agriculture, labor, and restaurants, must be qualified for. But the unique thing even more here so, is that what the contract of marriage is about is not meant to be publicized. While the universe needs reproductive copulation; marriage is meant to facilitate it. This is why I don’t believe in marriage at all. If a gay couple wants a ceremony ordaining their living together till one dies; they can go for it; just don’t call it marriage; make a separate term for it, a contract straight couples don’t qualify for. I can’t even predict a name for the term; but it would be a term; unless we disprove homosexuality if I reduce the birth rate, meditatively, in my mind, or perhaps through readers.

Mexico City though, I read, legalized gay marriage. But I just think that was a psychic kick from jersey; because we also hate the gay south American illegal; they are incapable of buying organic vegetables at restaurants they work at; because they don’t know what continent they are on to begin with. My market would double, if every kitchen was mainly white; I ready to cause an international incident over it. Our federal fathers feared angry farmers.

Unfortunately, legalizing gay marriage, may lead to gay couples raising children. It is very important to talk to people who have gone through this. It is ironic that calls for equality in this marriage issue fail to recognize the difference in rights to minors, and people over a certain age. Rights are qualified for. Letting people who have gone through this, speak in public, on the subject. If homosexuality is a delusion, that goes in the wrong direction, then it is not useful in revealing the human being.

Nevertheless, having helped them, now that Jesse had an upturn in fortune, (Summer was caught in Colorado and extradited to NY state), he was working on starting a restaurant with his mother in Kentucky near the factory his step-dad worked out, and I was going to help them.
However on the train to Cincinnati, his mother let me know that the police came and got him on a warrant he had, and now he had to go back to NY.
I wondered about the coincidence, and attributed it to the untrue put downs of the bible belt, which could have attributed the jitteriness here. For the record, the bible belt is a fine place, and all those put downs of religion, not right-wing, centrist, bipartisan hippie rainbow, but confused liberalism masquerading as the true heart.
Anyway, the day before I left, I was advocating against gay marriage. Marriage is an institution of reproduction, gays don’t qualify for that contract, their crying about the issue only reveals how unreasonable they are, apples and oranges are treated differently, marriage is no great thing, love is a great thing; I mean marriage is specifically designed to trick people into the reproduction of the kingdom of god; look at it this way; say straight people moved to abolish marriage as incurring too much reproduction, and binding relationships till death, when really love is sufficient to make those decisions—-would other heterosexuals start crying about their right to marriage, and can’t that easily be seen as a naïve perjoration of love? You see, if you are against marriage, per se; this whole homosexual clamoring is ludicrous. And I ask myself, why do gays want marriage, wouldn’t the benefits of not reproducing and being bound in love not marriage be more self-evident to them, than to the insecure straight people that fall to the illusion of marriage? The surprising psychological complexity revealed by diligent analysis here comes to this: The force of reproduction is a powerful force in our society. We need reproduction to do western civilization. Gay people can’t reproduce, so the ignorant and demanding forces of reproduction want gays to marriage in hopes that putting two people together can cause reproduction.
And because homosexuality itself is suspect, I mean there is no scientific evidence of something that causes homosexuality, and it certainly seems an unpleasant and abhorrent practice to me, so the news media, which lies about the kingdom of god, consistent with the false premise unto reproducing for western civilization, is even more able to control homosexuals than they are everyone else, in the consistent reinforcement of media lies, because there really is less to homosexual people because there really isn’t homosexuality. Homosexuality is a big lie, whose illusion upon the confused, in our corrupted world of lies, can be psychologically mirrored by difficulty of gender relations, racial disharmony, and the unnatural way to western civilization, even a universe that doesn’t reproduce like on earth, may be gay—but if we talk about those psychological influences, then we may eliminate homosexuality; and for the courts to not question homosexuality, because we are to question authority, and search for truth, especially the courts, and so for this inquisition to not enter the domain of the courts, exposes the courts as inadequate.
And this glaring evidence is made possible when the Iowa supreme court, in its hearing of testimony as to whether homosexual partners are fit parents; included no testimony I could see from children raised by homosexuals; children who are the only source capable of making judgment knowing what the score and deal is herein regarding. The number one first hand source of info on that issue, was no where to be found in the Iowa supreme courts analysis. Children see the falseness of the world much more than adults, because they are less inured to it—being raised by an authority within a false rubric destroys the leaderships parents are meant to offer.
As I was making this case to two people, one of whom is aware of the legislative and judicial wrangling over this issue currently in NJ, and became aware that one of them might be gay, as he was getting angrier and angrier, stifling more and more anger, at every argument I made. And a gay friend of mine from college, rather than engage in legitimate discussion regarding these concerns of mine, called me the worst person ever—-so this service I offer attempting to save gay people, can be the potential recipient of anger because gay people are controlled by newspapers which is consistent with reproduction, and as you can see from newspapers, newspapers are very angry. So I was incurring wrath, and defeating perhaps, homosexuals, who I thought would want this liberating service.
Then, in Princeton, I went to meet the reverend of the peace coalition, and maybe these people come round, but in explaining to him how Islam oppresses the Arab people, and to sell us oil; when really we should have a less wasteful economy engendered by free assemblies that don’t need oil; and the native tribal religions we should help restore wouldn’t even use money, be self-sustaining, and simply directly trade oil for what they may need, —- well this minister, who is supposed to lead the efforts for peace–was thoroughly indoctrinated by the notion Islam is good. He hadn’t read the Koran, and was parroting the view in the news, that doesn’t take on Islam, and thus perpetuates the violence. Obama said recently violence is necessary to defeat evil— so untrue, public, fair debate, can do so. But these ideas I mention do not come up in the media—-because again, authority is not questioned, whether it is Islam or homosexuality, anything that is conflicted, rather than seeking truth leading to resolution; liberalism traditionally ignores conflict, accepts conflict; that is liberalism’s modus—acceptance, not resolution, of conflicted situations and what does not make sense; it is the contrary of the natural human endeavor—it feigns to question authority, but at the most basic levels it fails to and in fact follows authority blindly.
So after my agricultural work in nw jersey, where I guess everyone is conservative, I realize again, liberals don’t like me, and conservatives do. And that is fine with me, except I hate how liberals act like the good guys, but I guess it is hard for the confused to act like the bad guys, because if they were aware therein in they wouldn’t adopt their untenable poses. I mean liberals have no sympathy for Muslims, Homosexuals, illegal aliens or blacks in America; they should know its not easy being those people, and there are some core issues to get into here—but rather than act out of those sympathies to help those people, liberals beget this essentially everything is ok, attitude, homosexuals, Muslims, illegal aliens, blacks in America, are happy, and any experience shows you otherwise.
That is why this minister lacked experience, lived in a world of paper, talking about all the good Muslims he knows–when I interact with them to, and they have let me know these truths I try to share–and if they truly liked him, they would have made him hip by now too, so there is some vital consciousness missing, by leaders of the peace movement—the pattern seems to be, it is not just the greed of bush, but the wimpiness of democrats who could have stopped the war at anytime by denying its funding every two months, a check written into the constitution—it is not just the stupidity of trying to solve problems through violence, it is the ignorance of the peace movement in examining the situation—its not the people in power, but also the leaders of the people. If he encountered the fear these people live in, his thoughts might have taken a different turn.
Then I went to the office of the federal government in the form of our local noble congressman where I made the case regarding free assembly and the tenth amendment and the obvious exciting benefits therein to a congressional aid. This exchange was pleasant, I made a nice speech, she said she would pass this on to the congressman, that I’ve conveyed this to him many times. I told her to tell him this issue involves all the congressman and to have a committee address the issue. I’d testify, I’m an expert witness. The federal government is more polite than the coalition for peace action, and certainly more polite than gay people clamoring for marriage. But whether out of fear, psychic controll of the media, there is a dysfunctional lack of response. Of course the world is so easy to fix. It starts with being against the regulation of our educational system.
     Taking on passionate liberals can be hairy, to a point of ridiculousness; not that I take their chastisement painfully–just unbelievably, because these are competent solutions to issues they care about; they end war; save gay people; that sort of thing.

I went to the Taos Pueblo again. I learned why they call them The Taos Pueblo Indians? If you don’t know, all the other Indian tribes, the apaches, to the southwest, the Navajos, to the north a bit and west 300 miles, the Cherokee in north Carolina or Tennessee, all have a cool name whose sounds signify something character—Taos Pueblo, the name of a town, and the Spanish word for town, and boy—means these “Indians” are called whoever lives in their little adobe city with scattered buildings around it. So sacred then is their land to their identification.

As I came in on the 24th of December, not having to pay entry fee, brightly clad Indian children were processing in a space near the buildings on the left, as elders in green shawls, walked, chanted, or sat and played drums to the chants, as the children walked up and down a space, making it sacred. It was a ceremony for children, which made the space sacred to those children, and all.

Not the concept of restricted areas, now the concept of sacred places. Those Indians constantly come up with little tricks designed to promote the resolution of serious issues as they come alive sometimes in tribal consciousness; whether they can do so or not is the game they play with their gods; for that reason, that every game with the gods has to balance on a fence, so to speak, provide an equal chance of either side winning, has to balance the possibility of winning with out of control quality that defines creation; they have a resentment to alcohol, which is used as individuals to compensate for hard work, not necessarily tribes, with tribal benefits.

Thus anything that is preyed on to increase the out of control quality of individuals, is an unpleasant insult to tribal efforts, and not their culture. This is not to say different cultures don’t have different vices.

I saw their closed government offices, and agriculture station, two areas I want to view and share knowledge. They were closed because on the 24th, the night of December, they build fires around the circle, and invite the town of Taos over for a night of cold weather and little fires. The problem is I don’t really like the white people of Taos, so I was glad to be around people I do like by the fire at home. Not that I don’t like the reservation, cold weather, or night camp fires; just that I don’t like the alcoholic acting whites, by which I mean the out of control, not tight, funky people around.

The Taos Community Foundation, expressed their interest in funding a free assembly with my 5013c nonprofit registered Free Assembly Inc. and that emboldened me to plan to talk with tribal officials, and agricultural agents. Legally, the fascinating and uncharted area of law here is that they are a nation, who coexist via treaty with the federal government, compared to states, like New Mexico, which are subservient to the federal government; even though that is an issue with the states rights people. Can States nullify federal laws? You see that when marijuana production laws are not enforced.

Well, these tribal lands have rights state do not. They are separate country. They are allowed to write bills of credit, and make economic alliances, whereas states, may not. If one state produces potatoes and tomatoes and wants to trade it to another state for a few pick-up trucks, and the individual farmers aren’t smart enough to find who is willing to trade pick-up trucks for potatoes and tomatoes, and the people with pick-up trucks, are coerced by government to go through the government in terms of locating markets that will trade for pick-up trucks; then state governments will need to organize such trade, as some state agriculture agencies guide the marketing of produce in their state. Bills of credit will be required; because a bill of credit, like money, can represent how many pick-up trucks the provider of so many pounds of vegetables provided. Economic alliances may encompass this scenario.

Well, neither bills of credit, nor economic alliances are allowed by the federal constitutions, article 1 section 10. This has held back economic development, and true trade; the business culture shifted us off a productive axis. And maybe not allowing states to organize economically this way was necessary in the perilous nascent years of our country’s 1780’s and 90’s, because they might lead to the dominance of one state over our republic; but as of now, they hinder economic nature and wisdom, and some states dominate the union anyway as is, disproportionately.

But the Indians, being their own nation, should be able to write bills of credit and argue for economic alliances with states. And who would they trade with? Other people, other states. They could trade their drums or buffalo meat to a mercantile, or states, for pick-up trucks; but that would require a bill of attainder. Thus, the use of bills of attainders, the creation of would start with the tribal Indians. From there the flow of the critical use of bills of attainders and economic alliance treaties, to the states would be much easier. The states would be more legally charged to do so, since they have begun with Indian tribes.

I’m going to have to look at their specific treaty with America.

The Indians are also concerned about protecting the environment. If I teach them that building approved by local officials violated the reservation of powers to the state or the people, And, local officials infringe upon free assembly; and if the people made community decisions in free assembly, they would become more agrarian. I am amazed that free assemblies incorporated in New England towns do not take on the economy or educational means.

I am also anxious to explain to them, this legal ignorance is a result of a metaphysics on earth whereby the universe results in human beings, and that transformation seems to be linked to my consciousness. They know the universe is greater than human gods. What do they know about it? I must get their information, without offending them.

Their tradition of inviting over other people for a night of celebration the 24th of December is wonderful evocative of an ancient roman tradition of inviting over neighboring towns to a scene of many individual houses offering food and drinks for the people from other towns. I think that is a wonderful behavior.

They said they get together with the apachees sometimes, but that the apaches, have more land and more services and structures, and that they engage in foot races with the apaches and the apaches are welcome to come over for a foot race anytime. One Indian, who numbered the tribe at 3400, (their buffalo are numbered at 140), gave me addresses to other tribal governments, because she married a Taos Pueblo and had those contacts. She agreed that change must start with the oldest people here, the Indians. And I agreed with this principal. Our similar political objectives could make us allies, and my political start, with the Indians support– my rendition of an alternative government, with more reasonable courts. I am also curious about learning about organic growing in this high altitude desert.

I notice when the days shift to longer from shorter. One minute I was on a peak on the shortest moment of the year; next I noticed the new year peeping in to my left. The earth became bluer, the old brown, faded away. The Indians have been having a lot religious stuff lately because the solstice is a holy time.

I am hoping the tribes can come together. This Taos Community foundation is much less snobby than those umbrella fund raising groups in N.J.. I learned the upper class must be seen as a class. They are controlled, because they can be powerfully good. Most people are anti-federal government. And this could especially include the Indians.

I am enjoying the vision of the universe operating through my brain; puts all this political stuff in perspective.

There have been a spate of two parts lately; a part representing the here and now, a part writing; a part the procreates, a part that alters that production. And the part that conjoins people together, is like an ionization of my body, an electrification; my left side I compare to energy because it is unnatural to join together if the universe is controlling things so much. Indeed, the point of witchcraft is to unite all the women into an understand of their subjugation by the universe. This crosses class lines.
The other part, which goes on in the womb, is like a mashing of the brains, resulting something producible, but not as sentient. This is not electric, but a sonic hardness.
I also wanted to discuss with the Taos Pueblos, Catholicism. I’m thinking I could get creds converting them to a more wholesome denomination.
I got jealous about the Indian kids edifying their land the other day, so I walked around Taos at night playing the kalimba. Unfortunately I only know two songs; “calling all witches” and the song that calls out two people to fight. Weird witchy eerie spaghetti western kalimba music; the old west traveling musician type of instrument playing.
On a more humorous note I have noticed that if the states were freed from the federal government, while the lands I am from, NY, PA , NJ, Conn, and Del…structurally could not fight each other; the only warlike one is Conn.; New Mexico is surrounded by the craziest states in the union. Co, Tex, AZ. These states are warlike. Now maybe it is because they have nothing to give towards an indianer like state; but such is geopolitically not hip. Arizona is right wing, Colorado is overly policed and miserable, Texas has been secretly controlled by Africa all these years. They can turn themselves in for Kennedy anytime they are able. You wonder how the military complex is a psychological complex?
There is a small coffee shop on the corner that has the best coffee. It is like a siren. An ideal day has one trip to it, after the basketball, or investigation of community affairs, or hike. I think the kalimba playing pricked them, who can only be challenged or goaded into pride.
If I had my choice of going to a play, or concert or a party or a Presbyterian service, I would choose the Presbyterian service. I went to my third one this year. I went to one in Hackettstown, one out in the country, and first Taos Presbyterian. While they pale before the bible belt, they provide the vernacular and classical service of opposing the truths media and government act upon.
Presbyterians also don’t do communion. (but once a month). It’s about Christian terminology and earth and universe as it really is. It’s not interactive like the bible belt. I have a standing invitation to go to service at a fourth Presbyterian church near the farm. Someone at a bar I frequent mentioned it. Hitherto fore it was impossible to imagine a Presbyterian at a bar. This of course is a mature bar.
After playing the kalimba I stopped at a bar and listened to a two-piece band resonate the universe’s control deep within me. Now I see what the universe does as a sound I hear the most. The true proportion of that sound to anything else reinforces the truth of the extensive network of universe that exists on earth. It’s a very deep system. And it’s about one thing. As it is within me, it is also outside me, a mother ship perhaps, but a vast network I now can hear as the dominant sound.
The old west is long gone, but the witchy kalimba sounds bring it back wondering about this sound.
For presents this year I gave out drums and kalmias. Half the drums made by the Indians on the reservation. A kalimba aka thumb piano, through the interaction of these metal tongs upon a wood board, with the thumbs, a chiming sound may easily be made. The sound sounds better in night time.
The contract of marriage may not be admitted. Yes it encourages reproduction because children deserve their mother and father; but no, if that was explicity made known, even to disprove gay marriage, the birth rate would go down.
I also gave out a history by Herodotus and a history by Livy; Greece, and Rome. Herodotus was a westerner writing sympathetically about Persia. Livy was a Roman writing sympathetically about Rome. Both have the colloquium of good story-tellers.

I found a tea house at the Taos Pueblo.

Fascism is a lower class movement of the people. Can the upper class get along with the lower class? Is Presbyterianism a cult? Trade secrets with the Indians. Reform the reservation with a smidgeon of Presbyterianism. The upper and lower class can unite in the knowledge that reproduction is caused by the universe. Yet what is the difference between the electricity in me, and what the universe does to reproduction?

I thought the service was at ten, but it was at eleven. I deserved that time switching for being late so much. They are snobs, but not hypocrites or Pharisees. Their prayers are to neighbors and friends, not themselves, as it they’d rather have salvation come from outside. Their prayers are points and mulligan’s to everyone, sneakiness, all around.

Like the tribe, they have their own fairness doctrine. They like playing the organ scary, like the kalimba, that witchy haunting tune. The piano is a cult instrument. The choir is evil, as it exalts. Then there is actual worship to the universe machine. This is the impressive use of voice and sound and tone, of the congregation reciting, designed to appeal to the evil universe that runs earth so, indeed is extensively entrenched. The we give thanks to it for allowing the Christ child; in doing so, asking for more.

Oh come oh ye faithful, what do voices do? But praise that Christ was allowed. But that praise of how Christ was allowed pales before the concept of great humans would be if all humans were allowed.

There was a holiday tradition of allowing visitors to speak; so I spoke of my efforts to create free assemblies. Again I felt a generosity of spirit, that Presbyterians don’t. Unlike the highly interactive bible belt, Presbyterianism is more a service, the hearing of which bolsters the good and strengthens the protection of good intention. It’s not an interactive church, no one really has a house, the propensity to Babylon addresses the issues here.

Like the hippies and the Indians, they feature children by calling them forth to the center, for a lesson on faith. The old testament lesson was about Samuel, and reproduction, relevant; and the sons of Eli who sinned before god, as opposed to another, when they lay with easy women; evoked the Tiger Woods saga; he is in hiding now. By living a travesty, he sins before the lord, no people. The people are amazed. The Lord can not believe it. Such is what the control of a media figure can be. And such control is between the media and the Lord. Marriage is between the media and the Lord. Humans lose their faces in heaven. Presbyterians are compassionate but conservative. They are forgiven. Whether that is in Christ, I am not so sure, generally speaking, yes, but particularly, their allegiance to the Christian, is hard to ascertain as great as any media may be greater. Christianity is active Christ worship.

The believe the human race would be great, is true enough to consider as metaphysical. Our birthrate is ordered, or must be negotiated. The reference to the Father, in the gospel, may be to the Jews as the old testament beget Jesus. Identifying who beget us, it must be Jesus, critically introduces the concept of the father to Christianity.

Western civilization is a big job; there are wires, hardness’s, slavish heavy wet actual metaphysical influences of the universe it is possible to hear as well. John the Baptist was a Christ. Who was his father? The Greeks? The establishment of Christianity includes an ignorant government, the enslavement of the press we have now, represents what Christianity takes on; without admitting of the universe. The media must admit its concert with the universe, and say what it is doing, for the media is the representation of the universe doing the worst thing it does. Perhaps as the media stops and slows down, so what the universe does, will do as well. There may be a corresponding reduction in birthrate consistent with tribal values rather than western ways. Western Civilization’s difference from tribal ways seems to be that western civilization allows greater population, indeed, is about increasing the population on earth.  Why would this be a goal. Because the greater the population, the greater the rampart; in that the metaphysical situation is protected by the ramparts of population of human beings. The protection is like an increase of the suffering leads to an increase of protection, and benefit. While western civilization may offer the chance of a respit into an epoch of truth; that may be a bait and switch with the whole point about increasing population.

There are prayers of communion and prayers to be answered. There was a light in the sky out my window late Christmas Eve, it was a planet. Presbyterian services are meant to protect you in your endeavors, but they are not an individualistic people.

Amazing this can happen, must be by something low, in the universe sucking me. Maybe sucking everyone; all there is to listen to is the universe, the daunting vast overhead, it is thicker, from deaths transformation, light v dark etc controls this a statement of universe dwarfing false statements of west and us; different tones of black thicker all around right outside what my eyes perceive. All to meditate on, compelling, true.

Can others see the monster of the universe. Each soul in the kingdom of heaven must.Is it on and in earth more actively than its design indicates. It seems grappled and sucking into me, from particular points. Attracted and attached to others? The light of heaven, drawing from way humans are. All there is to think of.

I do this bit that if all the states were freed from federal tyranny New Mexico might join Mexico. So we are holding country together with federal gov for you. New Mexico is also surrounded by kooky states like Texas, Colorado, Utah and Arizona—none of which have terrible grace regarding the Spanish speaking power of New Mexico. Sometimes it takes two races working together to succeed where one race alone failed.

All of those western states are anti-federal government. The ant federalism goes over well there—while in N.J. we have been subservient to the federal government so long, there are more shackles to make come undone in thinking. Yet the western states don’t get along and compliment each other as well as the eastern states. But freeing N.J. involves a new way of thinking.

As evil, insofar as lies are evil, dominates society; the upper class, and family is dominated more, insofar as the upper class, and family are more potent and potential forms for improving society from its lies, and western civilization from its show. As soon as free assembly is shown as a logical and natural way of local community decision making, and local officials as violating the first and tenth amendment, and this issue qualify as a civil rights issue; it is the media that will be exposed as ignorant for not knowing this. It will turn out our press was enslaved, insofar as it is easy to make the human being lie. Yet state civil rights laws, while designed to ensure all our laws are for all our people who qualify; do not list the priviledge in the bill of rights of Free Assembly, nor feel its abridgement violates a civil right.

One of the inhibitions upon society is the inability or difficulty of human consciousness as it is to get outerspace, to look up and notice its sound and sight—-the mind is like a cave—that has to be climbed out of and gaze at the universe. Though all souls or ghosts have some concepts near their consciousness, being more formless without a body, such may be less easy and natural.

There are no individual ethics in this context. The ethics of society exist as a whole. I grow organically to signify a personal responsibility I feel to produce food in a society that has grown increasingly unproductive as our education has increased.

New Mexico has state police, local police, Indian reservation police, and volunteer police—they are against drunkenness like the cold night is against warmth—it is scary. Every speaks of how zealous law enforcement is of alcohol abuse. I walk everywhere. If caught over the limit with a kid in the car they can charge you with attempted manslaughter. People have to breath alcohol free into their ignition to start their car.

My lobs and suits to state and local officials in NJ have been ignored and unfairly handled. So I am asking the NJ ethics board if they think local and/or state officials are influenced by personal or ethical considerations–which is illegal under state ethics law. Certainly local officials are, as they must consider their salary and prestige is drawn from offices which my analysis posit as in violation of two amendments in the bill of rights. And the reluctance of state officials to help may be derived from their prestige being derived from office which can not be shown as being negligent enough to have a state constitution which tramples free assembly, the people, the tenth amendment; and installed a culture of local government which has turned off people, not dealt with common concerns, and fallen prey to corruption.

This is why many state constitutions have the following law. “2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”

I am also asking the Division of Community Affairs of the state attorney general’s office for help organizing free assemblies in large cities where the people will be able to discuss what is wrong, in a positive and constructive atmosphere.
I hope the new republican governor, with his background as a federal prosecutor, and his history of prosecuting local officials for corruption, will put some maturity into the attorney general’s office, which has not followed through on its promise to get back to me about this constitutional issues. There is little two party rule in this roman part of NJ. I need bipartisanship to achieve my goals. Without the check of one party upon another, corruption flourishes in secrecy. Gay marriage was defeated in the senate. I think they objected to the crying, and latently realized gay marriage is just an ill fated move by reproductive media in hopes gay people reproduce. Marriage is just too morally ambiguous to be cast as a shining ideal overshadowing love, which is a true ideal. Still, some democratic state senators I lobbied failed to vote against it.
Then the N.J. legislature approved medicinal marijuana. These are parallel issues in this sense. The high from Marijuanna comes from it being illegal and breaking the law. But this is a functionalizing high because society without free assembly is unconstitutional and so can weigh down the functioning of the individual, who thus needs a high to function in a low society. But this high is decreased, as pot is legalized. I am not for serious prosecution or jail time for marijuana activity; but I am not for it being legal.
As marijuana is meant to help the person lacking in free assembly; but the constitutional violation of free assembly be unknown; so marriage is not meant to be known as an institution of reproduction.
The universe is within me, damp and wrapping round my ribs perhaps and in my blood in my neck in my chest plate, in my marrow. Maybe they are noeumic lies, maybe it is the universe, maybe a bit of each.
And anytime my eye catches the universe, sees the patch of darkness my eye focuses on, the universe is attracted to me, it seems to leap from where I see it, towards my eye and me, and lands within me or close to me. It is like a psychic black cloud, that moves like a feeling, like a feeling is the best way to describe it, a black feeling, that I can’t adequately feel, because it is sadder than me, and even finer than my sensations.
I wonder if it feels human beings? Like the dimension of silence where the kingdom of heaven is conscious of human beings, is there a dimension where the universe is suckled by the being body? There are dimensions beyond my faint sensations. This is true phenomenology; the study of phenomena in my mind.
Traditional salvation is sometimes structured by a revelation of the human being, a revealing of the kingdom of god; and that’s why I like agriculture, it is never that far from salvation, with its professional understandings, and purposeful work.
Traditionally, perhaps, salvation may be pursued along in one’s mind, with meditation and prayer; and/or it may be pursued socially. While a group of friends committed to the pursuit of salvation may be hard to find; seeking salvation is consistent with good social behavior.
And I reckon well sought salvation is like a controlled fight; where you have to dilute another person into god in the interests you see; the same way in a fight such honesty is respected. In the old west of Taos, such unofficial code was a very apparent metaphor. The air of the old west very much seems to honor the unofficial, the victor by might, not office.
With the Media designed to obscure truth, anyone who takes on that falsifier in the vacuum, is worthy and kin to power and honor.
Relating the dimension of the afterlife, and the dimension of the universe, is more compelling than the power of any office, and more worthy of the land.

In my thinking I also came across a phenomena like a diamond feeling behind my left ear. It feels like a diamond, extracted from within my heart, held up near my ear, to exude an “everything is ok” reflection; and everything is not OK, it is a falsifying diamond, annoying and oppressive and key to a projection of the world as it really is not.

The other side of sociality, is that the aggregate of society acts like they don’t have a clue; that there probably aren’t individual ethics that start with a concern about the way society is tomorrow; there are ethics of western civilization in Toto that keeps western civilization from putting the people’s heads together to discuss tomorrow.

These ethics are in context of the universe, and metaphysics of earth. It would be logical and natural for people to realize our western society has the capacity to reason together towards a greater society and community; yet they don’t. I alone invoke free assembly and the tenth amendment. So why am I trying to galvanize this principal and not others? Well the background of the universe. So this background is what must be discussed in free assemblies to compel attendance out of apathy, I reckon, and not the economy or school or local issues, through well framed resolutions may and should be voted on, at this point I imagine the discussion of the spiritual to resonate more fully with the public.

In Taos I sometimes scotched taped a “be” to the front of my chest, like a biker patch, and went out. This would have an effect on people. Young girls yelled out their car at me. Older ones said they liked it at the supermarket. It has the effect of making media recognize they are to be, and not act or do. This has honesty and integrity. Hopefully people recognize it is the media, not the government, that is not representing people as being. It also imbued a mystique.

With my mind focusing on the winds of the universe, and the myriad attached to my senses and beyond; wearing the b-man scotch tape reduces the social work to a fairly condensed sign. Gives me an image and edge and mystique and powers, without me having to say or do much; just walk around intimating the necessity of being; which has a lot of integrity for a little work.

Many people are very in control of themselves. Sometimes though people are less in control of themselves, and while this is done by a higher power concerned about a subservience to what the media is projecting, it is associated with alcoholism in that its effect is an individual making choices and behaving in a way destructive to themselves. When confronted with that type it helps to try to hear the appropriate thoughts in ones own mind one wants to hear from the other. It is also triggered by an exciting part, and marked by a lack of care, in that the exciting part is not true, and what is false, finds it hard to care.

I hear the sadness of the universe is so great as to make a case for earth this way.

The five things I would like to get the Indian reservation attention about. 1) Catholicism vs. other forms of Christianity to supplement their native religions. 2)Bills of credit and economic alliance testing article 1 section 9 and 10—direct trade involving bills of credit and economic alliance, not money; setting a precedence in that direction towards true economic development. 3)Teaching them how free assembly and the tenth amendment intended for local rule by the people and how the lack of this practice shows an unfit standard of government by the United States; and as they are for protecting the environment of the land mass; how everything built or destroyed through approval by local officials was done so illegally, and getting them to ally legally with me and other groups in making this claim. 4) And how the lack of prosecution for these laws is misplaced indeed; because were there free assemblies discussing local communities, there would be much less crime; so instead of turning law enforcement on unhappy lower classes, law enforcement should pivot upon the first and tenth amendment, and the 14th and manifest a legal society that has less crime, rather than an illegal society with crime. I think reservation Indians are very sympathetic to this understanding of misplaced power. 5) Read their treaty. Anything starts with the Indians—the two-party system may be originally construed as the white man and Indians.

This law is about how officials may not consider their form of government, only administrate under it. Thus issues like this; which expose a fundamental flaw in the governing of a state; may expose a need to change government so it is more aware. So I ask the ethics board, what is one to do, if state officials can not act, out of personal interest; and the form of state government is thus not fit to take on issues that discuss forms of government that administrate important laws. Only the people may convene upon forms of government.


2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

The NJ Vegetable Growers Association Convention in Atlantic City

January 13, 2010
Gambling can be construed as good, like guys and dolls in Damnon Runyan, or as bad, like by the New York Times. Same as farming; farming can be construed as very good, which it is; or, as, at best, an isolated segment of society completely dwarfed by a completely unproductive business class. This is why agriculture stopped being organic. Instead of 70 % of the NJ’s population being in agriculture, mere decades ago, 70 percent of NJ’s population is either in business, or in the service industry—So chemical fertilizers are used out of a labor shortage.
And the same with me—I, or my ideas, could be recognized by a viable media outlet, and a part of the dialogue of media society. And in rejecting me, unfairly not including such concepts past the filter of their mind; I am cast as unconsciously being rejected, and my market picks up that rejection as a negativity that keeps my vegetables from flowing with the ease that they do. If they knew my story; about fighting for free assembly in the federal courts for over a year; and running for local office on a free assembly platform–they would see my agrarianism as consistent with the political statement of agriculture; as free assembly consistent with agriculture and a discussed time, and productive society—and the people would buy my vegetables; likewise if people saw farming as the sensible task it is, agriculture would be booming; and if people saw gambling as at least the excuse for western civilization to discuss metaphysics; but they don’t because they must bow to media projection. All that energy saying what’s important over the news, dwarfs anything the individual soul may say.
The State legislature—that floundering piece of government skeleton—disproved gay marriage, and approved medical marijuana. While marriage is not designed to be revealed as an institution of reproduction—and the media out in the courts pursuing an institution of gay marriage, which for the sake of truth, is not marriage; and will never be achieved, because this homosexual urge for marriage, not love mind you, is a psychological desire to reproduce, and once science firmly shows homosexuals not reproducing, there is every chance not one gay couple will want to be married.


It is the same irony with medical marijuana. Marijuana is not meant to be revealed as a placebo. Since society is illegal, because there is no logical and natural discussion as to how tomorrow should be; that power is usurped illegally by local officials; you must get high by committing a law in your own right. The high is from breaking the law; no one can deny there is a high from breaking the law; especially in the good way, of harming no one; yet to become functional, you rise up in the morass by doing something to get moving. But if this becomes a known truth, the high will cease: as if Marriage becomes known as an institution of reproduction; reproduction will cease, because people do not want to reproduce the kingdom of god or human being; this is the reconciling of the reckoning of metaphysics. 

So these are two issues raised high in courts of truth, that may not be revealed; for they are not designed to be revealed; thus they are traditions more than laws.
While medical marijuana and getting high is necessary to the sick and hurt who need to combat the illegal morass more than anything; it will have more effect procured illegally; ironic I know; but we should put our hands in an effort to supply patients with black market marijuana; rather than make it legal and tether; no one should be going to jail for it; but until someone substantiates THC, medically, so I understand, I distrust all authority and that includes THC until shown to me sensibly otherwise.


A problem with western civilization and capitalism is the marketing. The market is not real. It’s a show, and its mirage is accelerated by the unconscious rejection of my ideas and stories; so I wanted to talk to the agriculturalists in Atlantic City, at the NJ Vegetable Growers Association; about marketing realities. The idea I thought up was this: People need to conceive of themselves as the producer or distributor or supplier of what they are—this takes some self-conception; And they need to be Christian, to understand the kingdom of god and human being. Christian enactments of capitalism are essential to moving towards a production based society that acknowledges the human being, or Kingdom of God. Getting agriculture as locally as possible is one of the things a nation or region can be most proud of, and there are things to be proud of along side that are consistent with it.

Yet as I said framings’ essential sensibility, and my sensing story are rejected as inconceivable by the news media promulgating what it thinks important 24/7. I think we are able to deal with how murder is made up, how free assemblies with ayes and nays should be taking on local issues, and what the kingdom of god and the human being is, and what has been holding us back. Spirituality is how the grip of communism we are in is defeated.

And I had a dream my little and necessary media exposure may come. In some ways; the NJ vegetable growers association is to republicans what NJ-NOFA is to democrats in NJ. Is anymore proof that our media is enslaved and not free at all needed, than the simple fact, that in New England, a quorum of 236 people is needed to decided on something like whether farmland can subsist many houses, and in the rest of many states this power is given to a few local officials subsuming local decision making to a numbing point of interest to the people. I’m not sure the media coherently understands it is lying; it really thinks these lies are appropriate; and that there is no service in churches each Sunday, or spiritual paths taken by individuals and groups, even demographics. The press does not see beyonds its nose because its writing are moved and distributed. This massive symbolism weighs the newspapers with its sense of preponderance. And the press reads itself and comes up with its articles, many times, from articles they read. The press responds to articles of the press. This too gives it  a reverberating sense of itself that drowns over any sense of what the people and officials really would say. Ultimately, everything comes from the press, not the particulars the press describes. Because if there really is the kingdom of god, and the human being; then everything claim to have been said by the human, has been made up, and that fictiousness originates from the apparatus of the press. Journalists are wholly subsumed as the trailhead and path for the “devil” to control our society.


The agricultural profession goes through what I go through; but getting on that level of discussion; does not seem possible to the perfectly mannered; everything is a little too starched; though there are a few free drinks; and anyone remotely republican seems foresworn to be a good sport. I’m going to have to stop being against the federal government; that bit ain’t playing as well here as in more western regions of the country. If only they could understand Connecticut and Pennsylvania, though they came very close to battle in 1785, are in no danger of warring now, nor with NJ or Delaware; and thus the prime reason for the federal government is obsolete; they should all raise their children to be against the federal government; but that is not going over so well; now that I remember the plan; the plan is to talk about the lord and pray everyone is the bible belt and uber religious.

I’m also going hand out a pamphlet you may see. In some way the convention reminds me, at least in the beginning, of the American Legion I sometimes garner a Friday evening meal and beer at near the farm. That though passes. There was an important handout that listed varieties of vegetables most prone to NJ. But it didn’t mention varieties I have had A+ success with such as Jersey Wakefield cabbage, and Yellow carrots, and Chantenays as well; very strange; and they did not list the Eva potato as disposed to NJ, but did so the Reba; I see the difference between the south’s sandy soil and the northern rocky hills as great enough to have different favorite varieties; and they did not specify exactly what the organic yield for their organic potatoes were per plant; which I am most curious about, to see if it betters my potato yield; guidance towards what varieties to use is very important.

I’m also concerned with using face book, diversifying and cementing my market outreach program; as well as direct trade. I was hoping to bring up Bills of Credit; how if we just wanted to organize the swapping of what we produce for what we need or want; Bills of Credit would be needed; economic alliances between regions might develop; and neither is allowed by Article 1 sections 9 & 10 of the federal constitution. The reasoning is that some states will then dominate the union; a reasoning whose reason is long past. One subversive plan I have is to effect trade that tests Article 1 of the federal constitution Sections 9&10. And my subversive plan involves starting trading with the Indian reservations because they are their own nation, not the federal government’s; not like the states, and are allowed to write bills of credit and create economic alliances; Once they throw their legal weight in this; it will become much easier for producers. That’s my plan. The Indians I know have buffalo meat and drums made out of tree trunks and animal skin to trade.

Then we turn ourselves in for trading with bills of credit, daring not to use money, practically in the face of the federal government; insist on being prosecuted; and when it comes to trial pull the rug out from under the federal government by claiming we’ve overcome the need for that part of the constitution; create an alternative court of justice and put the federal government on trial for not knowing or applying the concepts of the kingdom of god and the human being; when we invest in them to be wise. Make them turn on the press for not being free: Enforce the bill of rights. Break up the nation into 40 or 50 countries.

But again, it is the spiritual we must turn to to overcome the communism.

The following is the hand-out I had.


Agriculture and local Free Assembly

Vic Fedorov 201 232 1154

We believe local decisions should be made in Free Assemblies by the people with Ayes and Nays

Local officials abridge Free Assembly.

Local officials are neither the state or the people, the two groups reserved powers not given to the federal governmentby the U.S. constitution‘s tenth amendment. “The powers notdelegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited byit to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Local decisions by local officials, as opposed to the state or

the people in free assembly abridge a privilege and

immunity guaranteed by the federal constitution. This is a

civil rights issue. The 14th amendment is violated. Any



Official in charge of our rights is liable for not enforcing our laws. 

We believe if communities made decisions in Free Assembly, we would have a more agrarian and productive society asserting common values.

We believe it is possible to use Bills of Credit, and trade, through economic alliances; though this is not allowed by Article 1 Section 10 of our federal constitution.

We understand earth is not as it is made out by the news media. That inquiries into truth are relevant.

The federal government is outdated

 If this is true; everything built approved by local  officials is illegal.


Most religions are helpful

This was the pamphlet I printed out at the UPS store in the trump taj mahal and engaged people with. I also asked them what they thought of professions that really don’t produce, and may not be necessary. And I asked them what they thought about direct trade instead of using money: this was in the huge convention room with exhibits, where the happy hour was held, and awards and dinner banquet as well, with lots of tables in the middle, and coffee and danish in the morning.

Coffee and danish is the place to lobby farmers in the morning, but Tuesday I got there too late, and Wednesday, I had been up all night and missed it. Predictably, the people I talked to had views consistent and identical to mine; regarding direct trade and jobs that don’t produce much.

The key is getting from there to the spiritual side of the discussion; In the end though; it is the same thing; the people share my opinion, and don’t go much further. They have no trouble receiving me, and entertaining me; they are compassionate, and their heart is in the right place; but they are powerless to take it further. They have no fear; and may leave themselves to organization; but they do not intercourse on the subjects well.

They are more inclined to god, than the constitution.

I ate at the buffet each day once. The first day was great, the second not so great; The taj mahal had a great view; but the experience of time there was mauled by the Haitian earthquake; that cast a pallor over the cloudy shore, and disturbed my writing.

The democratic party influences Atlantic City and parts of N.J. negatively. As I have said because constitutionally free assemblies were meant to be how local decisions are made; and they are usurped by local officials; and local officials are democrats; and local officials know more than anyone free assemblies make sense; local officials don’t want the town to get along; because that would demonstrate bi-partisanship; and then other parties would recognize the guilty shame to the few deciding for all; so in general there is a conspicuous cloud cast over the democratic towns inhibiting the natural getting along a resort should engage in. And I think Donald Trump is aware of this.

The problem is more that there is no check on any level of government by the people keeping an eye on sensibility and corruption. Instead the people are kept an eye on by the judiciary; when it is illegal forms and corrupt officials that damage the fabric of society; when the people only damage a few, if any.

The problem is that the press and news media wants and assumes the democrats to be caught up in the psychology of keeping a town from getting along better; because our officials are invested in karmically to supple the town with reason: But the media is wholly evil and claims this leadership is supplanted by psychological psychosis implementing an uneasy flow of comfort between citizens. And this claim is more valid than the democratic party itself; which is ruled by local elected officials.

I was on a cruise ship once outside Greece and amazed, how like college, everyone made a real effort to meet people, be nice to people, and make new friends. I sort of expected this model to pervade in the casino hotel and town; but there was something repressed; caused by this manipulation of the psychology of the democratic party.

For instance, Irish bars are everywhere. Now the Irish are great people, who look out for you and care about you, even if you don’t recognize that; because they are proactively attracted to good. But an Irish bar is just a crowded bar where people are not as friendly as they can be. While the bar of such should be concerned with the clientele of people to a degree of having interesting professions; Irish people are special outside bars in real life; but ineffective, for whatever psychological reason, in bars. Thus the Irish bars indicate a worse level of bar one party towns are known for.

Walking around the beach and boardwalk; and a little out of town are the confines of a black majority; I met an Irish guy on the boardwalk hawking for the Irish bar a block or two back of the boardwalk; and he was fine and informative to talk to; but the bar; while filled with people of Irish descent; I asked and checked; did not exude that confident capable quality Irish people have long garnered people to expect.

Then the smaller bar across the way, which had a mere 3 white people in it around noon; was filled on Wednesday night with black people, but well behaved ones; in obvious confluence with Irish spirit.

Ultimately until the press reveals past the pump of blood that flow its falsehoods; the people will be held back; there is hope though the upper class will learn to be more powerful in a good way.

The press would be better, if more people enjoyed producing papers, and the older orders of papers were always abdicating for the influx of new journalism. There would be a constitution of the press; with three initial articles; about the universe and kingdom of god; about how the federal government is very outdated and usurped state powers; about how the people should make decisions in free assemblies; beyond those articles we would have to see what a local would choose to report; the quiet; the lie? the policies we live under? At this pt I am not sure what an honest press could print.

The point is to continue to bring up the metaphysical with the people.

Worried about ability to talk; maybe hard to discuss market reality—as higher than the way things really are; my plan is to grow more, charge less, sell more, get people to know us more; the ideal market society though, is a godly society. But talk about how other professions produce much less, even though agriculture is greater than medical care in its necessity, it is paid much less; thus to convince the business class that the common values of health and time may be more greatly asserted in an agrarian society, one needs to explain to them that the concept of the kingdom of god will be used; that this kind of change essentially requires good religion. This context is far more likely to engross the concept of the kingdom of god, or human being, than marketing realities.

Farmers are the sort of people who can handle me. That I can sit down next to, look squarely in the eye, and ask any question I want. Talking with them is like being punched in the gut. They completely agree with what I say, and are completely unable to help further, at least right then. Thus one accepts the total agreement; but there is not more energy for future help. Unless we get into how one metaphysic is everyone, and examine the potential of acting within western civilization; this route must be approached in context of streamlining society from less productive tasks.

I feel there must be some way my situation is recognized. If I was on TV maybe I would feel the necessary power to speak honestly with people, but there really doesn’t seem to be the market; there seems to be a natural distribution of goods; incorporating my produce in it for money, another matter.

The Federalist Papers and The Path we haven’t taken ahead

January 10, 2010
According to the Federalist Papers, which makes the case for a federal government in 1788, the six main reasons for a federal government are following in order of importance.
1) To stop States from warring each other over disputed Territories.
2) To provide a large Navy so England, France and Spain wouldn’t abuse us.
3) So that states which goods are transported through will not impose duties, imposts, and levies on trade passing through.

4) So that states don’t compete with each other foolishly in trade pacts with Europe.

5) So that the federal government can directly raise an army, rather than each state contributing men.

6) To be able to quell insurrections in states, should they happen.

All these reasons are outdated. And our analysis of the constitution should seek evidence that it was a short term document designed to evolve past its necessity in our country’s perilous nascent years.

1) The states are not likely to war one another; there are not disputed territories. The indian lands are gone–nor were they fairly handled by the federal government.

2) The one purpose for a federal government may be a united defense–there is little danger from Europe–if States became countries, they could join up in defense leagues. Or a spiritual world could be tried.

3) The prohibition of duties, economic alliances and bills of credit, Article 1 Section 10, by states, so no state could become economically dominant and rupture the peaceful coexistence, — now holds back states from relating to one another, caring about their own economies, and being a true market economy.

4) Likewise, competition between states in trade with Europe is true market economy and healthier than the limits of federal devices.

5) The need for a large army to unite us, may argue for the need of a federal government to provide defense—but also limit’s the input of states and people in the manifestation of defense—and may be less needed than we think – and possible through pacts and treaties.

6) There have not been insurrections in states lately—moreover a state can care more adequately and wisely for its particular land, than a federal government concerned with a vast area.

I think this very clearly shows the federal government is an outdated institution—not designed to solve problems- but designed as an authority to prevent them. We need to look for the clues that illuminate the nature of the federal constitution as intended for certain circumstance which we have moved beyond; and find a way to take off the swaddling clothes that sartorialize the states in such untailored fashion now.

The Federalist Paper    The federalist papers starts off with arguments justifying the former colonies becoming one nation, rather than 3 or 4 separate countries. Several times they refer to the alternative and option the constitution saved us from; being a part of a land mass of 3 or 4 countries.
     This, of course, as they themselves mention, is a reference to England being a dominion of Britain, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Those separate autonomies, to this day, are appreciated and seen as respectful of a grace on Britain’s part, to allow such autonomy and distinct culture, within an auspice of England.
      To me there is something communistic, and homogenous about combining different regions in one republic. I see small countries as having governments that can care more about their area, than states of a large federal government. This is too logical and natural to dispute.  The measure of effectiveness regarding such government, must be their treatment, or lack of treatment of education. Education should always be a first hand concern of the community. And that its jurisdiction is relegated out to much larger governments who provide guidelines, rather than truths being taught by the community directly to their young; the taking of that priority (the actual structuring of education) by state government from community governance obviated natural and important societal impulses. If a small state does not take on this domain, it’s improvement is nuanced and niche, cultural and better; but not great or as notable.
       In some ways the issue of small vs. large country; it is conspicuously contradicted by the lapses of  Holland; a small country and less a republic in Europe, which is repressed by homogenous housing, prostitution, and legalized pot; prostitution having horrible ripples, and legalized pot providing no help against an illegal society of incorporated officials making local decisions, rather than naturally deciding being done so in free assemblies.
                So I set about here debunking some of our founder’s arguments; to show them, cloying; and their praise, phony. In that the constitution is a legal mechanism for the improvement of this country, the federalist papers are positive foil for any attempt to substantively improve this land. When one learns of the reasons for something; he is more able to attack it: Thus one must always know the rationales of the other side, to advance causes.
       The single greatest mistake of our founders was founding our country on political rather than spiritual or religious foundations. The earth I have found myself on, requires spirituality to deal with. At the same token, the restriction on human life that causes the kingdom of god, is sufficient to reflect a restriction on the ken of government, to the ages old failures of political government, as opposed to the potentially ground-breaking age, more spiritual political understandings may have. So it is done on purpose, we could not be this stupid, we would put our heads together and live far more wisely. Yet who are we; but the kingdom of heaven. Thus government is a consensus of heaven rather than actual humans running things
       Everyone knows what the truth is; it is just the people running away from the truth; who have yet to register their opinion; are some ungarnered force  not replacing impetuses with wiser ones.
       In the second essay, “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government”; This is precisely where they slip from spiritual understandings of the goodness of the human soul, to this negative viewpoint of human nature that has rallied throughout history along with government. This is where the shift is made from how good humans would be, to how beings can be represented to conform appropriately to the correlation between a lower form of altered life, and its cause in the universe. Certainly this indicates the consistency between the human being; insofar as that stands for the altered human, and the negatives of the universe which cause such alteration or alteration. This lack of consciousness may be monitored by the Universe.
      Community, dialogue, ascertained values, standard of life, all these things are far more certain and indispensable than government. This sentiment of our founding fathers upon the indispensability of  government is traditionally classified as the crass desire to have more power, in emulations of nobles and feudalism, but couched in constitutional law, and exigent for a shorter duration than under feudalism, nor allowing for hereditary primogeniture.
     The ancient Romans, after five very good first kings, succeeding Romulus, replaced the kingship with a senate, precisely so more of them could wear the trappings of power. Thus the political legal model for government that is representation of heaven, more than of people, and of course, consistent with the universe: replaces the flimsier government of  kings.
      Thus one could even extrapolate from these motives, that more people could enjoy power, were the powers invested in one federal government given to three or four concentrations of power within the colonies. In the sense that that the motive of giving more people the chance to experience power would manifest itself more in several heads of government, the advocating of one federal government by these founders reflects a misguided spirit of thought I would like to point out throughout. This may indicate that greed is a slander determining government rather than an actual determinate himself.
     Jay goes on to say, in 2, the next one he writes in in 57, how wonderful it is that America has the same language, religion, ancestors, and manners and customs; whereas I think homogeneity is notoriously noncompetitive and overly simplistic. I simply fail to see the delight in the sameness of everything. One of the wonderful things about new jersey is how the geography and culture, to a degree, changes every ten miles; surely these culture would govern themselves more wisely than Washington. And yet these governance would stem best from local free assemblies, with some auspicial state government perspective in the guiding background.
     And from here I start to see how where the new path of politics should be to increase as necessary the communication and form between the different, that facilitates peace between the different, a sort of lower crass sentiment to Catholicism, in the sense of sameness develops. And yet the noemic and energy of the afterlife, may signify how our history exists on paper, in writing; or in thought, and mind; and the actual translation of that consensus process into binding discussion of free assemblies; abridged by the lack of adeptness in the transition of mind to body; dualism has not provided the language popularly. The Kingdom of Heaven acknowledging itself, is such a break from TV; that such does not happen.
      The union created in joining together to fight the British is precisely a confederacy, not a union. In this sense the confederacy and the civil war, is a signaling of confederacy and alliance, not union and nationhood. And how nice would it have been to have had a friendly and competitive nation to our south? Look how beneficial our breaking away from England was, and how hypocritical it makes the union’s impetus to civil war.
      We must understand, in many ways the model for our constitution was the early part of ancient Rome: An executive office elected frequently: in Ancient Rome every one year, in America every four. Two executives elected; in America, a vice president; in Rome, a “master of the horse”. A two party system, one of republicans and patricians to whom the system was weighted; and the other to democrats who were to encompass everyone out of power, yet fail to adequately represent the people.
      However to repeat, we see the flaws developing three-fold. The assumption of a political, not spiritual understandings of government: The  assumption of government as an absolute: And a focus away from a government whose form could accommodate differences. This last though: In Rome, many people grew to encompass roman citizenship and in various degrees: And in America, there are many different states and colors. Yet as expansive empires; Rome and America were fundamentally separating tribes, and diluting indigenous culture; by never affirming those principles of unity; to the degree nativity may garner; they are against those principles. This is parallel to the weakness of the democratic party of the people; both in Rome and America; they did not equal the prowess of the grander, older, party; through their own clumsiness and fuzziness.
      Ancient Rome’s spirit of unifying Italy under Roman rule, is actually a spirit of diluting or dissolving other cultures and stripping older ways; much the way communism plays out to. By these links, America has a communist heritage, rearing its head today in the regulation of school, and the usurpation of discussion of the economy from free assemblies to an officials-media domination, as well as the prominent dismemberment of the Indians.
      Of course the number one cause and case for one federal government, is from the survival chakra: safety. It is not hard to follow the logic that between the Indians and the foreign powers, a larger country is more defensive than a small one. Like Ancient Rome, America started small, yet overtook many square miles around it. Nor can we not see the principle Reagan went by; from strength there is peace.
     The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption of warlike nature: much the way warlike nature was prevalent in Italy with the origin being Rome in the 500 years before Jesus Christ. At least insofar as recorded history through Livy recorded a yearly record of wars from ancient Rome, often initiated by insignificance; Of course Herodotus recorded war as well; and the question why war exists, exists beyond Ancient Rome.
    It may seem impossible for the founders of any nation to not assume a warlike nature to their world; unless we remember the emergence of Christianity’s gentle teachings alongside the emerging magnitude of the Roman empire. Yes, war seems everywhere, but if you look a little to the right of it, you can also see the professions to the Kingdom of God, and Heaven; you can see how the acknowledgement of society and war as sin, reduces such to an easily rectifiable dimension.
     Jay goes on to argue that the fewer differences on the land, the less causes, both real and imagined, that can be, for war, as the causes of war comes from differences of people. The less difference, the less war: is essentially Jay’s justification of the homogeneity a federal government causes. Thus the real faith, is in encouraging cultural difference, and not seeing war. Moreover, Europe has been very unwarlike since world war 2- thus disproving difference causes war; if proving widespread destruction by war prevents war.
       Now if I can speak coldly on the subject of war: War protects the environment. The outstanding problem of contemporary America is the trashing of its countryside’s farmland and forest, in a way Europe eschews; because European wars fought for those fields on those fields, and there is something about blood on a field that keeps that field from being built on in reckless population growth. Case in point, all the civil war battle grounds are not built on.
     Now if I can speak coldly on the subject of war: War causes Free Assembly, wherein the genesis to a better society can only take shape: War causes free assemblies, because when you are an Italian town with Hannibal attacking from the north, and Rome intending you to be her ally or else, on the south, you must absolutely hold a free assembly to determine what to do: the stakes are to high and the cost too great for rulers to decide. Whereas when things are kind and comfortable, there is less necessity to and people forget the necessity to put their powers heads together in free assemblies.
     Thus an explicit focus on governing a land, as led to our constitution, should focus on means of communication that allow difference without war, rather than the preventing of war by discarding difference. The development of laws regarding common safety, and the development of laws regarding trade, and commerce, this is where the muscle of genius should go. The reigning alternatives of simple wisdom grounded in unity, and the common interests and issues of regions, is a way of thought; but the argument that the best men will rise like cream to the top and benefit our federal government should not be a way of thought. Because the outer orbits of human concourse are more prone to corrupt conduct that those orbits closer to the people, and more inclined to natural good.
     Moreover for a book claiming to derive from, and cite, frequently enough the lessons of history; to not note and learn from the derivations of freedom of assembly and protection of the environment from law, is hypocritical.
      There are many wisdoms, not just one, much less the one a larger federal government will find; and while in theory the best men may rise to state government, where the common issues of the counties are discussed; to assume that from these pools the best of these pools will rise to federal government overly discounts that the more an official rises to the lens of the press, the more pressure is on that official, the more inhibiting the microscope becomes, as the sinews of character are paralyzed under the constant excitement the media makes government out for.
     Imagine our great networks each divided up into 50 state networks with each state having its own shows; not only would there be 50 times the work for actors and actresses; but you can imagine the shows would be more risk taking, daring, and illuminating; because instead of being constrained by one vast audience, one is in competition with 50 others to relate to their particular audience in the best way possible.
     The assumption that the simplicity of a large federal government, is the most graceful and safest administration of governmental wisdom, assumes a communing that such is so, based on an assumption of warlike and negative human nature. This communing is where communism begins. Communing about something being true, which readily isn’t; such as the greatness of TV,  or the greatness of our federal government, or the greatness of school or the greatness of our economy; is where communism begins; communism begins where there is an assumption of communing (which is the opposite of discussing) that something is good and great; when it plainly is not.
       I believe that the less communing there is, the more democracy there is, the less war there is, because war will less accidentally be slid into through false assumptions.
       Then  Jay exercises the assumption that wars are prevalent because wars are about wealth. Was Hitler, exerxes or viet nam about wealth? No they seemed to be about pride. Was Troy about wealth? No, Pride. While Germany would get rich from winning the law; it was such a misguided venture, no German was successful off it. There are too many common denominators of oppressive schooling, lack of community discussion, and lack of truth of the kingdom of god; for this positing of class opposition thus, to be more than the cunning of communism making things worse.
       Jay makes the case the federal government is much less provocative to the Indians than the several aggressions incurred by the tenuousness of several states; So, I say the focus should obviously be on kindness and respect to the Indians as opposed to imposing a mandatory form upon states stemming from federal policy. And certainly the removal of the Indian by the federal government in the near future must discount Jay’s appeal to wisdom there.
        Jay makes the case states have more pride than federal government; to be sure the largeness is to ensure a comfort greater than pride; and moreover, a large country will not take the abuse smaller nations have been subjected to by larger ones.
    Yet this only opens up the age old question of why there is war, when it can be quite known that the way to deal with bullies is to get them in private and indicate the Kingdom of God. Thus the influence of Christianity should spread, and not the influence of constitutional law.
     Without Christianity Jay goes on to cite the difficulties of other foreign and commercially competing powers around to the old refrain of a federal government efficiently simplifying over a large region; yet I say that has led to an overextended federal government incapable of caring about the many different local and state issues everywhere.
      Jay cites England’s colonial prominence as arising from its strong federal unity but who wants colonialism? Hasn’t that been firmly disproven, by no less than history? Isn’t that union for evil, not union for good?
     Jay cites the fear of foreign dominions from England, Spain and France, in the argument for a central government of this scope, but look at ancient Greece and how it resisted foreign influence so well? Yet of course, look at all the war the Greeks had among themselves.
     War and its transmission should be very much the focus of governmental convention. Why war is fought has long been the unanswered question. How wrath, so easily soothed in individual form, and how logically soothed by good government, can so frequently manifest itself in history as war, is the conundrum of the ages. How to end war, once and for all, through some political formula, is like the holy grail of international politics and diplomacy in general.
     And the answer seems to be writing. The manifestation of wrath may be written as part and parcel to the cover up of the kingdom of god, but not nearly as easily actually experienced. In some sense, western civilization, which never reckons the kingdom of god, and is therefore somewhat two-dimensional, has a written word which is communism in the assumption that that which is written is believed in.
    How is war transmitted? I can only begin to partially answer by stating it is easy to write of war.
     Jay though says wars are caused by inequality and jealousy from one worse state onto another better one. Likewise this argument does not hold up to the empiricism I have seen in my travels. Clearly Eastern Ohio is better than Illinois, and Illinois is better than Indiana—and yet there is only the harmonious recognition of the natural law of some equality to experience everywhere, no matter what experience you are in; and that there is unique good and bad to all places. Moreover I am led to believe that Holland is inferior to the rest of Europe, yet a notoriously peaceful nation. Furthermore New England is superior to most of the rest of United States, whose karma may have caused the patriots of late as we notice that their free assemblies, where decisions are made through ayes and nays of those present, are vastly superior and more democratic than the incorporation of local decision-making to a few local officials, in violation of the tenth amendments reservation of powers to the state or the people, and abridging free assembly and free assembly’s locus.
    This roman impulse to generate the justification of political feuds is not something we can just commune to be true—because it is not–and I hope I am consistently showing you specious reasoning within the federalist papers.
     In the promotion of spiritual understandings and government, we must find a difference between cases of writing versus experience. Or else you buy into falsehood.
     Nevertheless in six, as Hamilton cites the love of power, commerce and personal issues, as the causes of war, he neglects to see such propagation as done by powerful national figures already in the public eye, captured by history, not hidden in locality or of neutral experience but jaundiced from godly knowledge by acts of writing specifically designed to keep western civilization two-dimensional and not dealing with the kingdom of god, and spiritual paths.
     Shays rebellion is caused by a local desperate debtor: But its solution seems to be working with the people regarding debt, not implying a large national government would not be so prey to influences of personal vicissitudes. Nor are the real issues of racial difference addressed yet.
     Instead of believing there is war, nations are enemies, unite and be more common and catholic; we should ask how war is contrary to the kingdom of god,  and focus on the blessedness of peace-making and difference.
     But the number one reason, greater than commercial problems, Indian problems or foreign powers problems, all of which should be solved by knowing how to deal with bullies Christianly, why the united states should have one core federal government rather than each state being a country or former colonies dividing up into  3 or 4 countries, is that territorial disputes would erupt into war.
     This is a fascinating and intriguing assertion because number one, does that claim still exist, and ergo, is it still in our best interests, now that the Indians are in south America and the states have been friends so long. Even more, claim the claim be made that Connecticut and Virginia would have fought, had there not been the federal government? That states would have warred, had they been given more power and there been no congress and senate to the power it is now?
     This is fascinating because people from different states are such good friends naturally. And it is intriguing because our federal government has never taken credit for its aversion and stopping of wars between states. And it really makes you think what if, what if we had the papers of the confederacy instead of the constitution? One really sees the fork in the path here between a land of many or several states and the one nation we are…but even more so, one sees how the path we did take has made all the difference. But it was snowing that night, and was it really the right path. And should we consider the other path now, now that we have gone down the path we chose so long, well, and to our results?
 The claim in 8 that we of states would fight each other, is of higher magnitude and degree than other issues, in some ways we been set up for this, in others, we need confidence for there are frankly specious arguments, written and perhaps communed as true, but obviously refutable. And the larger calculation is quite a calculation I am not sure comes in in our history or political debate up to the present; that if we did not have our representatives in Washington, and there is a need for different areas to discuss common interests, but somehow our representatives in Washington, the president we elect, and of course our federal judiciary is averting war, between NJ and PA, or Massachusetts and Virginia; and even more so, how we have forgotten that is an issue, and how we have forgotten how that is about half of what our representatives are doing now; keeping us from attacking each other; and more so, how this philosophy may not so be needed now; and how by taking on the federalist papers, using it as constructive foil, we take advantage of where and what we are in history to show the light for a new place and a new direction.

    There is reason to be suspicious of the initial claim that the states would war over terrorist were there not a strong federal government in the argument of 8 Hamilton makes. “The sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbitrator of their difference”. The federal court disputes would be submitted to, under the articles of confederation, would be ultimately disrespected. And rogue individuals making plays for powers in individual states, like myself perhaps, would be more ably dealt with. Maybe this is so. I can not claim to know, because I have not experienced such. Suffice to say, such claims are forgotten now, and should not be, because they are still relevant as to the justification of our constitution. And at least initially, I have to predict, as a believer in humanity, states would not have warred over territory, but perhaps picked out a meritorious form of assigning terrorist, whose political study should be the focus of conventions.
   But I can not dispute, states have gotten along so well for so long, leading to a dominance of America upon the world, that the stage has been set by our founders, for a return to christian understandings facilitating the safety of many states rendered into countries out of our union now in history.
   So maybe we are set up, I add that the tenth amendments reservation of powers for the state or the people makes the local decision-making process for the people in free assemblies; that we don’t know this indicates a higher power and higher issues.
     You see when Hamilton says, “Competition of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention.” I have to look at him like he is an alcoholic, for precisely the oposite is true. As is the ban on states being trading  partners. Different states developing different economies would be a wonderful and sustaining thing. Now with the concentration in business mirroring the federal government concentration of government powers, we have a huge reduction in the actual production of varying states, because economic idiosyncrasies are not supported by the principal of federalization, but by its oposite principal, of self-sustaining communities.
     So when this argument by Hamilton which is clearly specious and damaging to the land is made, after the claim that the states would war each other, when the unique opportunity was given for that not happen, I have to be suspicious about this roman like impulse to larger federal government which has defined America on the world stage by being larger than traditional countries. The only argument for such speciousness, in historical dimensions, is that the goodwill between the states will enable a christian or spiritual subcontinent in later days, where war is done away with through christian or religious or more so scientific understandings as religion can be seen as a gateway for the methods of pioneering science. And of course, the factor of dealing with the Indians with kindness and respect is far away but reckonable as well.
    “The public debt of the union would be a further cause of collision between the separate states or confederacies.” Again, resolution of public debts, contracts, would be a concern of a convention trying to work things out. The character of politics is to try to work out precisely difficult matters, not abscond from them through the imposition of authority. In this sense, the constitution can be construed as a better of two evils, or necessary negative; and this is not what its public relation firm describes it at, or as it is known. It is known as a document, trampled perhaps, when congress doesn’t exercise its check on the balance of war by withholding funds; or when free assembly as a form for community decision-making is not know, or when the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers for the state or the people is violated by local officials incorporated by state law, or when eminent domain can be applied to create a tax base to fund many things, rather than public use in the singular such as utility sites or parks or libraries.
   It is a document know to not provide the final answer but a former forwards which evolving answers and improvements can be galvanized and finessed. This is how it is known. It is not known as an alternative to the logical supposition of many states arising out of this land mass, through justice, with care.
    In essay nine, it is said that were there separate countries, the existence of armies and soldiers would lean into war. And without garrisons and traditions of discipline like in Europe, particularily in such divisions early days, war would break out easily. This whole assumption is communistic as it needs to be debated by members of the various states, who would or may not profess good will, then, or now, but adherence to this principle is communing about something not discussed, which may be bad and needs discussion. It is almost the destiny of elaborate government to be communistic in so far as they rely or create these communions as to their greatness and viability, which are not backed up through any assertion or specific activity.
    What about south America no war there, maybe stronger commercially, but integrity to regional differences not wimpy; and economic crisis better dealt with by states, manufacturing not business, common values more time, self sustainability, put that to the state, they inhibited by fed

Seems to make pt fed gov till territory runs out, and short term, means to insulated end, achieved, states will protect far more, fed gov forgets, doesn’t care, seems free assembly preempts claim fed gov to not forgive debts because can work out economy there wisdom prevails, ever free assembly? Worked?

So the federal government is starting to seem as a short run short term necessity to insulate the states from war fare, and allow peacetime to develop sophisticated and good mechanisms, to say nothing of providing the prosperity war is meant to destroy.

Yet nowhere has it been mentioned of the intrinsic short term nature of the federal government I am beginning to see.

Kentucky and Tennessee seem two central areas potentates for dispute, so the rendering of their statehood by the federal government without historical dispute seems to prove the ability of the federal government to render terror ties into state hood, without dispute, and even preventing disputes that might have arisen between states.

The irony of ancient Rome, was that as it spread its codified citizenship, much like international communism professes, much like current government governs you, tribes and tribal ways were wiped out. A few of these tribes were nomadic.

America was comprised of nomadic tribes refer erred to an Indians, in an ironic mistake of Columbus. The federal government took their land, and their nomadic way. The word roam is a homonym on testament to nomadic magic ways.

The first test of the federal government would be how well they handled the issue of the nomadic tribes. As soon as the compensation to Indian tribes was seen as absent, the greater good should have stepped in and ceased the federal government as mockery of humane values. The United nations arrived two hundred years too late, yet the morality of this seems to be commonly perceived, leaving us perplexed as to our disrespect.

And of course this is analogous to our destruction of farm and forest for population growth and spread. Any tourist to Europe soon notices how the greater extent of preservation of farm and forest than what we enjoy. Any constitutional scholar should know the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the state or the people precludes the tyrannical usurpation of local officials, and that the federal constitution provides for free assembly as a form for local decision-making by the community with ayes and nays; a practice that would have not allowed the destruction of farms and forests.

These historical and citable atrocities, involve ignorance and uneumpowerment and lack of assertion of basic and primal morality.natural aw not animals

We are forgiven and absolved by The Kingdom of God. A great awareness of this phenomena shows a far greater tragedy than these. These horrific destructions, the kingdom of god shows as metaphysical, and impositions upon history and the individual, human kind and all physical and essential by the kingdom of heaven in its creation and tales of Western Civilization, whose context as such is phony, is definitive. Great suction core f consciousness.

Nevertheless one hopes for the demonstration of necessary understandings capable of taking on core understandings of western civilization. The long tradition and history and western civ ignoring the kingdom of god, emphasizing the difference between government and religion.

In any event the renditions of statehood, justify the federal government, while its treatment of the Indians, expose it.

way to untailored fashion now with clothes that fit well. Yes we may need a common defense; but that is as far as the federal government need go; and even there; there are instances where a consensus of the people object to war’s conduct on the field of diplomacy.
       Look how ultimately the federal government handled the Indian situation. If you were to imagine one way “America” would consist of warring countries it might have been through alliance with Indians. You say there is a two party system? Maybe it’s the white man and Indian?
       Does “America” justify its international military might? If we broke up into regions or more independent states, looking to each  other in earnest dialogue; but not turning to federal government for  replace the swaddling clothes that sartorialize the states in such much more than united defense. The tenth amendment restricts federal powers because a federal power is too authoritarian to be effective at a problem solving level–it is a lower form, fit for defense—but we should not practice turning to it to solve our problems. State governments have a much greater knowledge of the land they care for. The federal government became separated from its prime purpose in the early 1900’s, as the whites established the west. And it seems certain segments of the country and population have the power to try out their views in a public state arena—rather than being ignored by a small minded national media, that by focusing on the small locus of federal government; they miss the potential idiosyncrasy and development in 50 state governments.
        The Federal government is there to prevent problems through an authoritarian structure; prevent states from warring, uniting in common defense; quell insurrections within states: It’s not designed to take care of old people; or make sure you get a good deal with your doctor. Those important and legitimate concerns are a more likely domain of a state government; and ideally the concerns of a proactive local citizenry.
         Yet this isn’t to say federalism prevented conflict between the states as America was expanding. But what kept us from recognizing an increasing uselessness of the federal government might have been world war—certainly the devolution of towns being run in free assembly, to towns incorporated by the state with local officials in the state constitution of 1947. This historic movement is quite ignored. And Free Assembly , as the only logical and natural way for community decision making–what distinguishes us from animals, misunderstood. Yet the federal government has shown itself incapable and unaware of the civil and natural right to community decision making being made by all present–not letting a few decide for a many; this societal breach may only be explained by God; if God is the notion of wrenching something vital out of the people. Because there is no way the human would accept this situation. Thus the devolution of the human into the human being explains how law and human nature be so undervalued.
     Who cares more about a locality, the state or federal government. Obviously the state government knows what a town is like, the culture of the people there; whereas the federal government is quite homogenous and ignorant in the application of its culture of the more native culture.
       There is also an understanding in a federal government that wealth be less tested, nor deepened. Smaller and stronger state governments would fall prey to the vicissitudes of fortune more so than one federal government. Likewise the judiciary, which is the shortest of the federal articles, is small enough to be unwieldy in its examination of the status quo. In fact my two least favorite things about the state constitution is article 1 section 9 and ten which holds back economic alliances and bills of credit among the states as well as the states with Europe; and the decision in our constitution to let the federal government create currency; But the third worst thing is the judiciary; because there are no spiritual guidelines; our judiciary is far too ignorant of the kingdom of god or the human being; because our news media officially ignores the way the human race is; and the judiciary is small enough to be influenced by our daily media; and what it rejects as unfit for print. Whereas if we had many people hearing cases for a short term, a more perspicacious, legally aware, less inhibited, judiciary and populace may develop. One or three or 9 judges serving for life and burnt out to resolve basic issues causing societal symptoms; whereas if hundreds of people heard and discusses a case; fundamental issues would be exposed.

     The limitation on imposts and duties are limitations on economic complementariness,  creative contract, and creative economy.

      A major problem in our founders view of how America should be, was Europe’s history of wars. They turned and looked to Europe and saw wars, and prevented that from happening hear, at the expense of homogeneity and detailed care of local culture; this is an odd echo of the roman empire.

      The history of Europe previously; and really Europe only started to set an example of not warring each other in the past 60 years; so gripped our founders mind, that they did not consider the potential for spiritual guidelines upon government that could make war unnecessary; an art of contractual negotiation between state, nuanced finely enough to provide untold economic benefits.

      Then of course the Indian issue; tribal consciousness wasn;t able to deal with the ceaseless efforts of individuals in the west. Tribal consciousness sits its people down for a while; doesn’t manifest individualism, but acknowledges the kingdom of god as foremost in the step to tribal movement. So historical negotiation was never able to happen. You would think Indian gods and the Whiteman’s gods would negotiate the spiritual guideline demonstrating a lasting good deal to all; but in a totalitarian way; the way of the printed word, has prevailed without a printed fight from the other side because they have a tribal consciousness; and don’t write; much writing obscuring the kingdom of god or human being. The moral ambiguity of writing, and metaphysical domain combine to make it historically dominant; the name of the game is recognizing other cultures; all of whose first line seems to be dealing with the takeover of earth by the universe. Removed from this essential truth; western civilization expands; and the gods do not seem to care; though there be opportunity to address this issue in the media, and apparent connection to some honest direction; the overall energy going to producing out the written world, subsumes any honest integrity; so it is asked; what wimps you are for not wanting to discuss this? Maybe it is the necessity of sorting out my mind which this is in which will eventually promulgate these issues. Suffice western civ is built for population, while tribal modes for less people; and most importantly, the population of western civ may provide a rampart for something.
     In my mind, our founders were obviously not spiritual enough; you see this in their strong assertion of the need for a federal government to provide peace, there is an assumption depending on spirituality development is futile. And this is not an open-minded or opportunistic way to think. Being handed the foundation of a country is quite a responsibility; adaptability is needed; purposes known, and a hold by the people, essential; as well as spiritual guidelines which could start with a truth tribal culture seems to know, our written word intentionally tries to obscure. Balance the evil of the lies of the media, with the evil of the universe; What would have been the benefit to metaphysics if this had started yesterday? It’s a simple little thing to change the world. We need to move on to spiritual issues. There may be some metaphysical enjoyment of  the superficial western fantasy. It may be as a luminous light to consciousness of darker realms. There may be orders holding back out of fear of the universe: Though it seems to me we would want to decrease the media; and create a fairer land. The Lord moves in mysterious ways; but he must be worshiped, and feared; I would not trust my opinion in such matters; Yet I do not think it is such a big deal; and that I may grow into an opinion worthy agent.
       While I have heard the claim many times that our founders were religious, there is a distinct and disheartening unchristian, religiously unaware and illiterate; in the federalist papers. Likewise; the anti-federalist writers have really been tossed to the dustbin on history; because the debate was very vigorous, the prospective path of a nation, very exciting. Yet we definitely did not take the more exciting path; we took the safer, less risky, route; and while it got us to harmonious states; now that it got us there; what is its point; we must test state relations; we ignore each other too much; we need regional councils; we must risk war between the states; but if we win; gain a more careful attendance of our affairs.
       The first amendment only says congress may make no law respecting religion; this is the oposite of separation; this is not being able to raise a finger against the dominance of religion. The Supreme Court misconstrued this out of pressure from a news media that does not recognize the kingdom of god, and obscures the human as the human being. This is because too few people judge, and for far too long. Judging is not terribly special, the theory is that the more jurists you have, the greater the wisdom; this after all is the logical justification for republic dominions over smaller states: more people decide the laws. The laws may be aimed more at the people in power who create the context for misbehavior. And the issues of legal discussion easily and effectively made ready for debate by public.

     The federal government inhibits the number of people practicing government; as TV networks hinder the development of actors if the each state had its own three networks that only based their art on that state;  The federal government Washington DC locus reduces and inhibits the dialogue that could be; it is a taciturn government; no more than tacit; yet frequently attempting to extend past the tacit unsuccessfully.
      If ultimately, in contrast to religion, government is a pretend structure; the claim and practice of the federal government unduly inhibits the reaching out by the polity upon its concerns. By subsuming functions of government at a reduced federal level; the complexities of issues handled by each state government decreases the job of government, which is to work things out, make a state better.
      The federalists are against factionalism. The political scientist, says factional, well handled, are wonderful, complex contracts. The federalists say, “no, too risky, we need a republic/” Now it’s true, a lot of crazy liberalism came with Athenian democracy. But America’s vision seems to be forestalling liberalism with true democracy. Rather than placing a check on liberalism, they create a republic whose centrality draws the air out of factions.
      Hamilton also dares to make the case in essay nine, that a republic, which compresses more area and people than a smaller democracy, will have wiser policies because the ideas are filtered upward through many more people than in a  democracy. But this assertion isn’t even true. The locus of federal government is so small and crude; it is the care of complexity of state governments where culture within a state works out a problem. This is where debate happens; at a national level, the national media is an inhibiting factor, which at the same times hinders state debate by not focusing on state power nearly as much. The case is made the people’s voice is wiser going through a representative; when history has shown the reprehensive to lack the homespun wisdom of the people time and time again. And the removal of debate  to Washington DC among officials who only know one tenth to fiftieth of the country truly well, is homogenizing and reductive; like a sea of water rather than idiosyncrasy of landscape. Rather than deal with factions, the federalist prefers the safer route of representative; which ironically is so inhibitive as to be pithed and dulled.
      Vic Fedora When our founders assumed having more people elect federal officials will create greater officials than smaller groups of people electing officials in smaller states; they completely missed how there is greater inhibition on reason from a greater number of people you represent, and a greater concentration of press and media upon your focus.
      Madison in ten concedes the states will have a lot of power ruling their own land. Yet health care and social security is to be solved by the federal government? Is the wisdom of the great many influencing the federal government to more compassion than states? Or do we just fail to turn to state solutions when problems arise? It also seems that when the issue of defense is taken out of the state, the capital of political reasoning declines.
      The federal government seems to dilute the capacities of our country. I do not know what a stronger state government would be like. A federal government, grounded in common defense,  seems to unwieldy a construct to change a whole large area if required. Yet Madison’s principal is that the more people making a decision, the less interests of faction will prevail. But the people are not making a decision, their inhibited representatives are; and what should they do, but compel the states with mandates to their own state; by which I mean education health economic welfare reform. Encourage the government closer to the people to care for their people. Yet so great and plumed is the domain of the federal, and the area and multitude they rule, that such humility is beneath them.
        The spirit of people on our land is missing. In some ways, the leniency of the articles of confederation, were like hippies, sharing things; but Madison fails to recognize, these hippie sentiments are steeped in godly understandings, and genuine awareness as opposed to laziness.
        By compelling a united navy, back in 1790. the federalists probably averted skirmishes between European and American boats. Yet it seems the nature of the international world now, at least among Europe and America, supports a spiritual tenor making America’s Navy today out of tune. There was a fear that smaller weaker former colonies, would fall prey to the dominions of warring states; forced to make subservient alliances. Yet there must be some way to test if these suppositions are true. We can’t write off a closer detailed care of a land by a closer government, without testing to see if these fears are still merited. You can have competitive and strong, separate and self-reliant states; or states reliant on federal governments. The point is this a legitimate debate; and while the federalists may have won 220 years ago; that does not not make the issues irrevelant. Quite the oposite: there are issues that are decided on, but the issues of the issues may naturally recur as times change.
     Hamilton thinks the usurping of naval issues by federal authority, coupled with the ban on duties and imposts would make trade between states unfettered. However this ease of trade has had the ironic effect of not creating the supplemental and complimentary economies between states that there should be. When the route of Georgia peaches is in the hands of the federal government, there is no pressure for another state to obligate Georgia with a specific trade item. Thus the economy today is unsorted out enough to cause our reliance upon foreign food.
    Understanding the economy is a local concern. Trade pacts between states may help production survive. But they are illegal, as is not using money, by Article 1 Section 9 and 10.
       By giving such regulatory power to the federal government, instead of state government being more involved with industry, we actually become less economically competitive–because our federal government is overextended; individual federal officials really don’t know the whole country. The whole point is to let the states compete among themselves for the best society; Let a state sculpt its own development and stability. Don’t put this in the hands of a homogenous federal force beyond a necessary dictated time. When you see why we have a federal government, you see why the federal government is so ineffective.

Is the post office necessary; to unite our land yes; but that unity can be represented by companies. Should the federal government be concerned with a national currency? Should there be a national currency? I have always said no; open up the currency market and see what develops; gold may be suitable for a federal government and defense; but outside that splash; currency is a far more intimate part of the person than the government.

    The assumption that human nature is wrong, that history must have wars, is the defect in the constitution of our founders; a defect good religion can remedy. America is not nearly christian enough to qualify as a christian nation; another myth by the devil the battle of good vs. evil strives to reject.
      The assumption America would incline to imitate Europe might be false; we may never know; likewise the united battle against the Indian, may justify complex defense talks; a complexity the federal government never needs to delve in. The development of better political systems must be a constant motivating factor in political scientists and polity. Look at the gauls of northern Italy. My understanding is that they had many little princes, who though apt to take different sides in Hannibal V. Rome; rarely warred each other. Instead Hamilton and Madison are apt to cite the frequently warring Greeks whose republican alliances were never strong enough to deal with quarrels within the league. These princes, according to Polybius, arose out of natural competition, and not hereditary things.
       The confederacy most likely to supplant federalism was 4 northern states,  4 middle ones and five southern ones. Just because an issue was decided does not mean the losing arguments go away. A wise polity is eternally aware of the arguments of all sides.
      Truth is all  its nuance, should not be handled by the “judicious arrangement of subordinate institutions” but grappled with as locally as possible. Some republican overview is required economically, but not at the expense of stultifying inferior governments from dealing with truth.
      Likewise the founders fail to take in the concept that as the lands the federal government rules expands; might not at some point it prove too great for the energy of federalism? While conceding that a confederate division of states was unlikely to remain at 13; Hamilton fails to conceded that a  republic can get dangerously too big. Did not the Persian empire attack Greece so often out of its tradition of expansion? Was not expansion linked to Wars of ancient Rome? Is not the civil war firmly a product of expansion testing the strength of federalism, and little more?
       The colonization of nomadic and indigent Indian lands, our founders were concerned, would be too tumultuous a scene for a confederacy to resolve. And yet the federal government must take all the responsibility for not respecting tribal autonomies and claims. So we never got to see what would have happened. This is the most tantalizing and perplexing thing about our federal constitution; it never allowed us to see the bends of history that would have been taken by a confederacy. This diluted risk management, at some point in history, ceased to pay dividends; and compelled its own efforts, as the state government frequently weakened itself by passing on state government powers to towns incorporated with local officials, abridging free assembly as where community decisions are made, as well violating the reservation of powers for the state or the people, with local officials. Like Jim Crow laws; state constitutions have been co-opted to demonstrate an unsavory distrust of free assembly, consistent with a federal government that distrusts factionalism.
       Republican federalism does not recognize that there are many paths to the truth, that could originate from states; and that we should consistently evaluate paths to take; Yes there can be pains and humiliations to growth; The federal government may have effectively protected our inner child, but at the expense of brow beating themselves, old children may mature from. And is it possible for a state to like its national government? Is there anyway for the natural harmony to manifest itself? At best a federal government can like a state that does things for it. At some level, for a state, at best, a federal government can defend it; and even that may harm the character of state polity.
     There is a consistent and general trend and assumption that the evils of human nature will win out without the strong federal government we have now. The union has the ability to punish. The dark side of the federal government, which is a philosophic commentary on human nature, “Why has government been instituted at all, chap15? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason…” This ignores peaceful communities, and that wars are made by governments, and not people. This ignores the motivation of a king unto a community.
     The philosophy that federal representatives represent for the good of the whole country, instead of their people; makes them servants of the federal government, not their people. Healthy rivalry between states is effectively dulled.
      In this light, the civil war may be seen as a function of overexpansion of land by America, ripping an overextended union in two. Instead it is viewed in light of economic rivalry, or slavery.
      Not only is the debate towards a confederacy rejected as unworthy, but there is no formal discussion or empowerment by the people regarding a discussion of the regulation of school, nor the economy, nor the kingdom of god, discussion’s capstone. The allowance to a federal government to directly punish and draft and tax individuals, rather that such routes going through states seems to have reduced the dialogue about what comports our lives.
     At some point the concept of an insulated society becomes outdated as the states have lived in peace long enough for war not to be a worry.  More time in this insulated state just keeps our state governments from caring about the states, and developing more popular and thoughtful economies. Health care, illegal immigration, the economy, education; all can be more effectively handled by the spirit of state government than federal.
         Hamilton says in 17, “It will always be far more easy for the state governments to encroach upon the national authority, than for the national government to encroach upon state authority” But the oposite is what history has shown. As the rights of states got duller and duller, the federal government has taken on education, and a myriad of concerns. Hamilton also says here, “The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture, and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbably that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the=he attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory: and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.”
      Yet exactly this has happened. There has been not latitude and concession to state governments to handle these issues their way; everything is handled by the federal government, I think, because there is such a media focus on it. Of course state governments did not administrate with “uprightness and prudence” that illuminates innate weaknesses to federal constitutions; look how many states in their constitutions abridge free assembly and violate the reservation of powers to the state or the people, by incorporating towns with local officials. Federal, not state government and state affairs, grips the public mind in different states. Far from thoughts of owns own unique state being on ones mind, the national government dominates the radio.
     Hamilton contends there is no danger to worry about federal usurping state government, because the passion of citizens is greater to the state, than the federal; as that of a man to his family is greater than to larger society. He claims the diffused and diluted quality to federal government will always be less attractive than the passion of state government to the passions of man; and that what state governments do should be vital enough to reciprocate as similar vitality from the public to state government.
     What is out of the equation is the focus on the national by the media; and lack of conception of the potentiality of state government as well. The media’s focus on national government is very simplistic, crude, sensationalistic at the expense of intelligence. Federalism has triumphed over state behavior and action, because our media is not developed enough to change the focus where important action and discussion is.  State government is perceived as less potent because the federal is charged with everything.
     Hamilton states “the transcendent advantage belonging to the province of state government—the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice….This…is the most powerful….attractive source of popular obedience and attachment.” This reasoning is specious. For one thing, in ancient Rome, the judiciary was a source that provoked loyalty from the people, because it was a judiciary aimed at officials and powerful politicians, as a check upon them; the focus was on officials fostering a life where crime was unnecessary; as opposed to Hamilton’s referencing the prosecution of crime itself. He seems to think the federal government being more benign and diluted won’t come as close to home as the state government; so there is little to worry about regarding the usurping of powers from the state to the federal government; but the state government has been so messed up, and specifically corrupted from the true guideline of ensuring a society uncorrupted by poor government; that it is as irrelevant and burdensome as federal. This notion the protection from and prosecution of criminals will endear the people to state government, seems a slander upon the forgiving nature of Americans, as a conniving corruption of the tribunal system of Ancient Rome; whose judicial focus on officials as a check upon official power and corruption endeared tribunes and Roman law to the people.
 He seems to think the states will be like the barons of Scotland; strong enough to resist a strong monarchy. (until England subdued their fierce spirit.) But these clans of barons had traditions dating hundreds and thousands of years; whereas the embryos of state are nascent enough as to make Hamilton’s reasoning shown as faulty; if not downright conniving. But I must add he was killed in a dual by the vice president, and that may have been karma from these erroneous and fearful assertions.
    In 18 Hamilton seems to think, that without the federal constitution, something like Athens and Sparta would develop, competing cultures that would soon compete in war. After defeating Xerxes, it would have been logical for Athens and Sparta to strengthen their union; yet they were puffed up by their victory, to weaken it, and such led to great war between them.
    Yet lessening cultures, and the distinctive difference of Athens and Sparta, were not goals to Hamilton. This was sacrificed apparently for peace. So there may have been a need for a strong union then. But surely we can get by without one now; maybe a defense league.
     The point of a strong union in “repelling those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the states constitution….Usurpation may rear its crest in each state and trample upon the liberties of the people—while the national government (of a confederacy) could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of law and order” Yet for its powers the federal government failed to protect the people of states whose later constitutions incorporated towns with local officials from the abridgement of free assembly and natural and desirable forms of community decision making.
      Yet the reason for a strong federal government was to ensure states more physically situated towards prosperity not dominate their poorer counterparts—I am not sure prosperity and war likeness go together; war often seems like an option for the poor and unhappy state. And it is hard to imagine a weaker sadder state attacking a more prosperous state, to economic extortion or advantage.
       Likewise the assumption that economic competition, and the ability to deal effectively with foreign powers by the states, be sacrificed for a regulation of interstate commerce and exclusive right to negotiate with foreign powers by a federal government; while this view may have it positives, it is important the other side of economic competition, state competency dealing with foreign powers, and a positive view of human nature through the assertion of The kingdom of God and human being, not be lost; as it has been.
      There has not been recorded history where international affairs be guided by spiritual understandings. This could be conspicuous absence on the part of history. Or such is not allowed in the metaphysic of the world dominated by the universe so. Yet the new opportunity of America and the current situation of the world today has some consistency with spiritual guidelines and a reasonable view of human nature. Often our own experience is at odds with what news and other media projects, as well as the issue of war itself. One wants to render this dualism consistent with a polity, and yet that seems blocked by the tradition of western civilization. Yet it remains a goal and dualism should not be ignored.
      Trade and treaties by states, leads to a natural care of that state by that state. Europe has preserved her countryside, partly by virtue of her age, but partly because smaller countries have a greater proportionate concern for their land. The whole issue of money versus direct trade has been absented, removing us from a vital sense of the experience of living. The detachment of money, coupled with an overindulgence in education, has lowered the rate of productivity and sustainability in America. One wonders why in the free assemblies that have occurred, a more honest economy manifesting more common values has not been asserted; nor the regulation of education upon children been felt as an affront; nor the spiritual issues signified by “The Kingdom of God” been established as a necessary capstone to wise community discussion. And the answer is that the kingdom of heaven, bands together in evil to oppress society to the degree it does. This of course is the condign of the rigid unswerving rule of a cold universe upon earth—understood in that larger context, is different than judging the kingdom of heaven outright. But the point is, truth, while not outlawed, does not seem brought into play by the concourse of most society; thus that this works constitutes a harmony with metaphysical truth, renders it an opportunity similar to the ones our founders had.
    In 22, there is a great fear “the interfering and neighborly regulations of some states,….if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended….till they became serious sources of animosity and discord.” This is the issue; would unfestered commerce result in problems between states, or a more efficient, self-correcting economy. Hamilton, “Yet we may reasonably expect from the gradual conflicts of state regulations that the citizens of each would at length come to be considered…in that of no better light than that of foreigners and aliens.” I am not so sure. There seems to be enough movement, in the new world to new places, and enough momentum from coming from Europe, and enough common sense of destiny of all states starting out together to overcome this bleak vision of human nature and international relations of Hamilton.
    Amd internationally who can not say America is not like a too large clumsy dinosaur, annoying and irritating, all by being too large and not recognizing its impotent federal government, its stripped yet logical state government, or free assembly as a form for society deciding how it lives. Of course this is in context of the kingdom of god, and Christianity, whereby what opportunity exists for the worship of one saved from the kingdom of god; which though at hand, is far to reach, and therefore that crossing must be done must be done with christian terminology and perhaps invoking good Friday
      The power to raise an army directly by the federal government is important because when the states were required to contribute quotas, manpower was harder to procure, and the states facing greater danger more energetic therein than states more removed. But the issue of raising soldiers, and far more so, where and which states are in danger, are constant relevant issues and problems. These problems should not be accepted and overcome through strong federal government but solved. War seems almost always to cause reluctance among individuals—and if states in danger had to take more steps to protect themselves; it would be similar to the work out different economic natures of different states would force. These are both like natural market forces to correct themselves; rather be subsumed in the authoritarianism of a federal government that doesn’t deal with the nature and detail of the economic and defensive particulars and nuances of each state and region. These are natural issues, not be glossed over by a crude federal government, but solved through developing communication and dialogue between states—a dialogue hindered by national representation, and encouraged by state autonomy out of necessity.
      A federal government to draft soldiers into unpopular wars; may not be the best way. Establishing peaceful principals and skilled diplomacy seems a more difficult but potentially more rewarding route.
      The advantage of the state interposition between the people and the federal government regarding defense and the economy; by which I mean states vote on an issue, and by a certain majority an issue may be decided; as opposed to representatives of a state in federal government; is that it places the people closer to the issues of defense and economy; a way they are removed from now. And this general trend of removing the people from issues, is what has enabled the tyranny of federal government to usurp powers not given to them by the United States Constitution.
    Contracts with stipulations, negotiations, are needed to evolve past this simplicity. It has long been time to work on something wiser. Rather than worry about and assume problems, the situation should have been observed back then, and a federal strength imbued when and if problems requiring such showed its need. Thus the question to be asked is why did we go off in this federal direction: Was it to handle the Indians in a unified way? Was it for an elite to develop that could mastermind the union? Was it God’s way of giving us a coddled and unbeneficial childhood–a challenge for us to work out of.
     It is simple and necessary enough for a kinder society to be enacted by the simple understanding of the term The Kingdom of God—that is the genius of Jesus–the terminology introduced by Him. Yet this understanding is not allowed to flourish, or other paths similar to it; because the situation with the universe causing the kingdom of god in the womb, is dire enough to mitigate truth to purchase good. This is the situation we are in. This is what holds back western civilization from its obvious solution.
     It is obvious the kingdom of heaven joins together in evil, as opposed to in other forms which it does as required also, and writes daily and historical media, creates entertainment and pastime—and enters into the mind of some humans in a way designed to create society before their eyes and ears and mind. And it is obvious this is done not out of choice but in context of an uncaring and mitigating universe. What percentage heaven, what universe, how easy, changing forms of heaven I believe in. More like the universe, which doesn’t understand as the claim is made.
     The case is also made in 22 for a supreme tribunal, a federal court and judiciary that arbitrates. Yet the judicial development in article 3 is the least developed article of the constitution and shows a defect of the national constitution. Too few judges means more inhibited decisions and less analysis of the status quo. Judging too long means burned out robotic judges reasserting themselves. And a lack of spiritual guideline leads to confusion in applying the law—-as well the turning of the federal judiciary on the people, and less the federal or state government themselves; this making the focus of the judiciary the people, rather than officials; when the wrongs of officials do far greater harm than the wrongs of individuals—makes me suspect the character of our founders. While the metaphysic of our creator is in power, not men; it is the weakness of our judiciary where an oppressive structure stems, for the righteousness of the people can not prevail as it should before the judiciary. And the legislative process takes too long. While the right to petition the court for redress of grievance allows any citizen to ask a judge a question regarding a grievance of his; I said before a federal government local officials abridge free assembly as a form of local community decision making, and violates the reservation of powers for the state or the people, since local officials exercise powers not given to the federal government and are neither state nor people; and I was not treated fairly by any stretch. Relevant constitutional federal questions, brought up, by me, in court—have consistently met with incompetent judges, no more capable of standing up for truth in a world of lies; But this sidesteps the real problem; which was I got no media coverage; for if issues are made known in public forum; the corruption that can fester in secret about them is disabled; how can one blame courts or officials, when the myriad of journalists do not find this a relevant story. It is the enslavement of the press through the lies enacted by higher power that is conclusively where the stultification of this country most comes from. Journalism must change its image to conform to the conception of covering change and information; from a robotic self-conception to one that needs to variously see what is going on about it but outside the locus of traditional power. Journalism is too a part of the cover up to have anything to do with this issue. The control of the press is where God limits America.
     Without the ability to power spiritual guidelines, at least till the situation allows such, national security will not be as effective. Therefore one balances the natural collective urge to self-defense through unification of our nation in national officials empowered to draft; with a states interest in itself and self-defense. With a competition of many states inclined to deal with issues beyond their state, one may come closer to the spiritual example and effectiveness sought; that the rigid outline of federal government repeating itself through the constitutions dominance through time.
     A peacetime standing army is argued for, even though many state legislatures even out rightly banned them, or made them contingent on legislative approval. Yet Hamilton calls them essential towards being ready before being at war. Even though the moral ambiguity of a defense industry is readily seen in history; the peaceful inclinations of states reflect faith and confidence; and militias exist as a front rank of defense.
      Perhaps our reliance on a federal government stems from its necessity out of the chaos and confusion of transition from colonies onward; but the example in ancient Rome seems to have been lost; that when there is chaos and confusion and power need be authoritatively centralized and administrated through a dictator: this strong central authority may legally exist only for a short term; at which point government reverts back to a more democratic republic. This is the second example of ancient Rome not cited; the first being the judiciary of tribunes, chosen of the lower classes, aimed at officials and the powerful. The second is the concentration of federal power may be a short term necessity but not a long-term strength and benefit.
    The astonishing hypocrisy of modern times is that while the Iraq war is complained about by the people; and the democratic congress has the frequent right to cut off funding; and there is a law stating congress must approve a war every two years; the democratic congress fails to stop the war, while blaming republican administrations for the promotion of war; this is sheer hypocrisy. By this fact, the institution of congress has lost its integrity; because it is foremost a check on imperial executive power. And the reason why, I believe, is the power of the media to create a despotic executive through unrelenting focus on the magnetism of the executive, at the total expense of congress; likewise the ability of the press to vilify and scare opponents of war, has also cost congress its integrity; and so the institution needs reform. At very least congress needs to address and take on the control the media exerts over politics; at least recognize that it is the media that has cost congress, and not executive power congress I licensed to stand up to.
     The assumption of political upheaval and undealable debt, is consistent with the contradiction of the kingdom of god, or the human being, and voting. It is ironic that the alleged improvement upon monarchy, through the institution of voting, can imbue a greater falseness upon earth, than monarchy; and that falseness be the very cry of pride.
    The assumption that factionalism from truer and more trusted democracy is what there is to fear, political upheaval from unchecked democracy; is not as traditional a call as the fear that officials are prone to corruption. Instead of having a strong federal government to prevent discord, one needs a strong check on the federal government to check its potential for corruption. Of the three units of checks and balances, executive, legislative, and judicial, they are all of the federal government; the federal government is really without a check upon it; which if noticed, is conspicuously absent. AS I said, Ancient Rome, which had two parties, senates and executives; gave its judicial check to the people upon its senators and executives, who could only come from the patrician class.
      A federal army, would keep states from arming themselves, and mitigate the militia’s loyalty to their state. There may be a need for a common defense and army. But it is treating a state like a child, fearing they will war other states, not letting them grow strong economically through alliance and treaty, unable to diplomatically deal with other nations outside America—
       There is a sense Alexander Hamilton is egregiously lying when he writes, “Money is, with propriety, considered as a vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion and enables it to perform its most essential functions.” Scientifically I have to disagree. Money is absolutely not necessary; and certainly not necessary or becoming to a federal government, which might use gold and impose a gold standard, but not print money. That was a real disappointment about the federal constitution and its eradication of state and private currency; as well as taking on the production of currency, which should the duty of those that produce, production being more primary than government. Much moreover, producing for the needs of the community, directly trading supplies for needs, seems to dwarf money as the primary direction of a true economy and what government should focus on.
      There is another thing one can’t tell if Hamilton is blatantly manipulating the truth; or simply so zealous as to be out of his mind like an alcoholic; but he finally speaks in his essays on the right of the federal government to tax about how the Romans had the patricians, whose class supplied the senators, and the plebes whose class supplied the tribunes. But Hamilton makes out the tribunes to be like a lower house, when even though they scrutinized policy as a check upon the senate; they were for many years simply a judiciary, of tribunes, aimed at and scrutinizing officials and legislation from a standpoint of legality and honor.
      Yet in the discussion of  the necessity of the federal government to tax directly individuals, parallel to its power to draft individuals to the military, again one’s sees the virtues of the states being responsible for raising money and men for the union, countered by the claim the federal government requires the means to achieve its ends. And this segue ways into the ingenious situation where the state serves as judicial checks upon the federal government.
 Give each state one or two checks a year; and if they object to or wish to raise an objection to federal behavior, before a court of what should be many jurists; upon objections of natural law and wisdom, and right; they may be encouraged to. All the wars and corruptions of federal officials could have been checked and punished by the states. States could have forestalled bailouts, and focused on what their own state requires. Yet free assemblies are required to discuss a wise economy, and the way earth is, of human beings, not humans; a greater problem, needs to be discussed. So all this economic complaint, and foolish injustice, seems secondary to the fact the universe does not allow such to live. Then larger issues, where the forum of public debate can not abrogate policy through logic; would be submitted to intra state councils of regions of America; for greater analysis; in proof, testing whether the larger representative sphere is wiser than the smaller. This, This is what will endear the state to the people; being a judicious check upon the federal government; the endearment of the protection of the state for life and property, misplaced by the kingdom of god, and fearful. A fine slogan no taxation without representation—by a collusion of federal interests in the form of representatives from states.
        In his continued case for direct taxation, Hamilton writes,” How is it possible that a government half supplied and always necessitations can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the reputation of the commonwealth?” Isn’t this sentiment used to justify the socialism of Europe now? Isn’t what separates us from socialists our lower taxes? And even now, with direct taxation, our federal government is usually short of money. Praise Bill Clinton for balancing the budget in 2000. Moreover, aren’t the states perfectly capable of many if not all of these charges. The need of the federal government to dispense Indian land is simply not needed now; so this ego driven appetite for federal purpose should not be so easily funded.
      On issues of defense, the people care much about, there is no direct line to the federal government, or interposition of state government; the link of the people to government is frankly broken by such federal auspices we have here. Free Assemblies in local towns, and a greater influence upon state legislators by the individuals and movements out there are not about factionalism as accused in Papers, but creative, popular and wise politics. Look how stuck in time, and unable to control change, we are; how much is that the federal governments taking away of powers and not enforcing free assemblies. When are we in the east going to get used to the lack of necessity for these extra layers of government we have on?
     Hamilton provides the interesting inquiry of the value of militias, whose resonance I raise today; Certainly militias can do no harm. Especially if they are regulated by the unarmed; as opposed to the federal government, as Hamilton proposes. As it is, States with militias, are regulated by states, and I imagine all militias as registering with the state government, and as being seen as the peacekeeping force that they are. I always interpreted the second amendment as predicated upon alliance with a militia, to encourage militias; whose regulation, in converse, must be finally done by those who do not desire fire arms. I do not see how the Supreme Court got to “Federal Government” from “well regulated militias”. I would assume militias would be regulated by town and county, until and if, problems arise.
      Yet the radiance of this light is not elaborately described by Hamilton; rather on this, and in the several following on the case for direct taxation he says little; and once the case for drafting a military is underscored, the point about taxation seems mute.
       Evil as Hamilton may rightly have been; he is one of the few authors of a relevant and artfully written book, who died in a duel. As did his first son. Our founders, like assassinating communists, dueled each other. He was killed by the vice-president. Republicans were more liberal than federalists back then, and Burr fell out of favor with the administration to campaign for the NY governorship. To his credit, Hamilton noted he was not going to aim at Burr; many duels ended with shots into the ground. Dueling was illegal in NY, so they rowed to the cliffs on the other side of the Hudson and dueled there. So Hamilton is one of the few authors who karma led to duel death.
      Yet when Hamilton writes the senate of ancient Rome, and the tribunes of ancient romes were both legislative branches countering each other; he misleads because the tribunes were a judiciary who could check federal policy in their courts. Their cause was to engender justice. But the senate had much greater legislative control through the belief that those related to the original 100 senators were better adapted to lead the ancient republic. This branch of justice, missing to today, possibly inherent in states prosecution of the federal government; Hamilton did not want recognized, for its glaring omission changes the eye of ancient Rome unfairly.
      The first 40 papers are 90 percent written by Hamilton. Then Madison starts to write about the separation of powers. Among the last things Hamilton writes sum up his consensus and his judgment on the need for federal republican government. “To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway, than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and to model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character”
        This is it, in a nutshell, the case for a federal government back then, was human nature is bad, and a federal government prevents war between the states. What would have happened, if we hadn’t gone so federal? We can only speculate. Are these reasons valid now, or intended to have been adhered to for so long? Didn’t the federal government hurt the Indians, whose ghosts are very much of this land. Isn’t human nature good? Haven’t wars in Europe stopped? Wouldn’t the states not war each other? These are the questions we must ask ourselves to see the relevance of the federal government; as well as exposing its flaws as of natural disposition.
       The only explanation I can offer the academic or journalist or diplomatic as to why war exists is this. International relations compose the outer sphere from the center of people’s concourse; and thus the wisdom of the people has a hard time reaching it; and thus that international relations are more easily controlled by the press from where the strict afterlife exerts its rendition of western civilization; than the more modest and reasonable exertions known to characterize good society.
       Entering into government without spiritual guidelines relevant to the metaphysical world we live in, does not work, because it can be too easily controlled by the kingdom of heaven. Peace is necessary to be created, through careful diplomacy and vital spirit of people’s, contracts and friendship; the issue is ensuring this orbit of government to contain the natural wisdom of the people and not the relentless assault on reason running through the newspapers.
    In learning Hamilton’s positions, we take on what Hamilton cites as opposition. For instance he attempts to refute the idea different professions should be represented in federal legislator with the idea that the interests of producers is best held by  the learned, and the finance and mercantile industry. This of course does not make sense; if more ordinary producing men were in federal government, the wisdom of the people would have rippled through international society; which may be said to have been done at times; but not to the streamlining level of reducing federal government for state government. Hamilton’s assertion that the character of men elected to federal office be naturally greater than those elected to state office ignores the medium competency of all men, and over inflates the egos of those who require the humility necessary to turn over federal powers to the state. The inclusion of productive professions into government by law, would have been a good thing, consistent with the spirit of Britain’s labor party.
     “Will not the man of the learned profession, who feel a neutrality to rivalry of the different branches of industry, be ready to prove an impartial arbitrator between them, ready to promote either, so far as it shall appear to him conducive to the general interests of society?”
 This omission of respect of the professions in the composition of the federal government has contributed to the current denigration of the culture of production; the lack of asserting the value of time over money; the importance of producing better quality good more accessible to people; of having a wise and interactive community.
        Hamilton fails to take into account the fake quality of society, and as an outerring of society is controlled by the metaphysical negative rendition ignorant of spiritual context, the human being, and Christian terminology. He is also forgetting how controlled thus the man of official power may be by the press where the metaphysic operates its powerful tyranny.
         This metaphysic exists to a point where to help me undertake it has almost a historical dimension; when it is precisely the historical dimension that is on the outskirts of society and inaccessible through the imposition of the historical potential upon everyone; thus impeding reason.
    Not without checks on government by judiciaries of people, not without true parties capable of finding the best candidates, not without an evolving and transient entities of press that project the articles of spirituality, government, and metaphysic as it really is, not without true science and true economy; should we be advancing the interests Hamilton advises us towards peace by federal government.
      Then the writing turns to Madison who argues the placement of power in the hands of many for short durations is an appropriate check on power. Yet this has met incumbencies of decades, and too few representatives ruling too many federally; while not bringing up the issues that truly unite us. Madison fails to account for the tendency for incumbents to win; a tendency driven not the logic of eternal dissatisfaction with officials; but a conservative media that keeps repeating the success of previous elections in its reporting of an electoral illusion. The illusion of voting fails to be accounted for, shown fundamentally so.
      There is also the overwhelming theme to an analysis of the constitution that at some point America is going to be too big for the federal government; and the federal government as well is going to have created a stable and secure situation enough among the states to evolve into inter state senates, and greater practice of autonomy by state legislatures. This too, seems to  be conspicuously lacking.
     And yet we see the commentary by Madison having more republican virtues than the federalism of Hamilton, which in its purest seems to hope for a king of a republic of states; where the states agree to have a king through formal constitution; who would then concentrate authority, by the federalism, but not be warlike, through the unification of that states aspect of it.
     A few thoughts come to mind as we leave Hamilton’s papers, and move to Madison’s. Such as: Can the weakness of state governments; their unfulfilled potential and general result of dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction amid the populace for their state; can that weakness be attributed to federal authority. It sure can. The usurpation of the tenth amendment’s limiting federal power to all in the original constitution; or at very least reserving all powers not gone over in the constitution to the state or the people; the federal government constitutionally limits state strength in the field of caring for the state’s economy, limiting illegal immigration, social security and health care. This is terribly rehabilitative to state governments and bad for the republic. Yet the effect of federal government on weakening and making ill state government, though directly seen, is not much of a cause these days.
    In that the gospel of Hamilton switches to the gospel of Madison here, we note the stylistic similarity to the new testament. Madison argues the placement of power in many for short durations provides the necessary wisdom for federal governing.
    And yet if the only point of federal government be to provide a situation where states get along and don’t war; are these many representatives capable of the transition to state rights, a peaceful situation engendered by the federal constitution occurs. Another fundamental flaw of the federal constitution may be an evoking of the egos of federal officials to a point whereby their federal egos fundamentally don’t understand the logical charge of empowering and strengthening state governments to maximize care of the land and people. Commanded in the glory of the constitution may brighten the eyes from the natural transition the peace of the united states occurs.
     Madison seems more thoughtful and aware than the dynamic coda Hamilton promotes of strong federalism; but maybe not thoughtful or aware enough. Maybe a weak moderate check on the federalism of Hamilton.
      Madison’s tone does bespeak the issue that changing federalism to state government, local officials to free assembly, education of the simple tenth amendment; means that anyone who helps me in this effort; as logically it will be successful, will take on almost historical proportions. And Madison knows, as the international affairs is the outer orbit of human concourse easily dominated by the foolish misrepresentation of humanity; and so are officials of federal powers far enough from common wisdom to be controlled to the detriment of society; so the reader must ask himself what are the restrictions upon him regarding his ability to enact logic he clearly sees. Is there a historical domain to this dialogue great enough to inhibit common action?
       Do we see how the people, at least according to the newspapers, are unable to wisely and capably, to engage in the discussion that will ease their world from the tribulations of educational regulation and economic cacophony? That their different order must be commanded by a higher power whose recognitions commensurate with mine?
       The size of the united states can instill a jealous hatred in others. Its disproportion ripple ineffectively, its lack of conservation of Indian culture, the holding back of state controls: All this can lead to a serious rupture in proper order. The federalist papers, like the gospels of the new testament, establish something, in the form of 3 or 4 authors describing the same state, with different spirit.
      When Hamilton opposes quotas for professions in federal office, for mercantile representatives; this is a demented upper-class notion; and while I may be a monarchist, in no way should my power depend on tricking or lying to the people; such as I see Hamilton and in many instance.
      Unfortunately, Madison is the same sort of huckster but with a different spirit. I am aware our founders have had a positive image, even though local free assembly has been abridged by local officials, the federal government isn’t designed to do more than keep states from warring; have an overkill of a defense treaty; stifle states economically for the good of republican dominion; uproot factionalism, which can be a positive reaction to status quo.
    The incorporation of god and religion with the federal constitution is Madison’s warp. He calls this constitution blessed, and consistent with the Lord all mighty and creator, as well as consistent with the most mathematical logistics of his day; without incorporating the spiritual guidelines, or check upon federal officials, or short term necessity of the constitution. Thus the association is not between the constitution and religion, but as the approval of the constitution by religion, which is less important and not religious.
     However Madison seems a more beautiful, less mean, and more moderately spirited, less confrontational. “The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people buy a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires the hands in which power is lodged should continue for a length of time the same. A frequent change of men will result from a frequent change of elections; and a frequent change of measures from a frequent change of men, : whilst energy in government requires not only a certain duration of power, but the execution of it by a single hand.”
 There are several things here asserted simply not true. Time has shown us how incumbent the incumbent is, in our political psychology and theory; so there is not frequent change of men.
 The power for federal officials to acts is derived from the federal government, not the people. The people, through representation, are removed by one orbit from power. Monarchy be as monarchy get, but lie to the people? Don’t forget.
    However, in the following paragraphs and pages of Madison’s first paper, quite eloquent language is used, evocative of religious or metaphysical discourse in a way never dimensioned by Hamilton, he speaks poetically on the warped quality of communication bound to western civilization’s affairs. Twenty four years later Madison became president. 17 yrs later, the current vice president shot Hamilton in a duel along the Hudson river in N.J.. A warrant was issued for Burr’s arrest, whose interest tended towards the governorship of New York, since John Adams no longer favored him, but after two years, charges were dropped.
     When Madison says, “It shows the convention must have been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous considerations”. And that is completely true: It is created out of worry, in a response to the difficulties of states getting along. This also indicates being written after Hamilton and after some convention on the subject of the constitution. “The convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure; extolling the federal constitution as the creation of necessity.
    Then in religious tones he exalts and anoints the federal constitution; though there be no tribunal check on federal officials, as the army of Rome successfully went on strike for; nor indication of short term necessity; nor setting of any spiritual guidelines to aid the outer orbit of the people in its course within a metaphysical world that is calculated enough to require observation and analysis within the compass of behavior. So we do not have a constitution based on a religion; but a constitution praised by a religion. The two should be reversed. There is also a fear of factionalism, when factionalism should be an encouraged part of democracy, or certainly a political party. He also speaks in favor of bipartisan ship, which, while hard to mess up, isn’t often practiced in America today, or is it?
        There are two types of originating forms of law—one from one lawgiver, like Lycurgus who imposed the laws of Sparta that made it last 800 years; and this includes the law of several Greek defense leagues over time. And there is the law laid down by council of several. Madison lays down that this law stems from Council, and not one. Which he admits may be seen as a misgiving, giving the greater sense of laws enemating from one lawgiver, than councils; This shines light on the very interesting legal claim that law comes from the good judge, rather than the principle of law behind the law. Hitherto for we are thought of as a nation of law. From herein on him, we are devoid of a lawgiver, from whose credence, the legal system is weighted. To what degree are a democratic people prone to concentrating power in the hands of one good man? In this general philosophic way he speaks of what the lawgiver in history remarked upon his own thinking, “As more to the toleration of their prejudice, than to their happiness” Solon the lawgiver of Athens; speaking the conservative anti-factionalist line.
 Madison, in a paragraph find, also infuses those times with the sense the need for the federal government is urgent: States are disagreeing with each other and threatening military action. In which case the United States of America came about of necessity to prevent states from warring each other; and not as the produce of genius and wisdom; which contradicts the divinity he praises the recent convention with. More egregiously those times were not taught to us as that way. The road from the declaration of independence to The federal constitution was a stairway to heaven. Really it wasn’t. And the motives were questionable.
         While Councils of Men leading conventions towards government often go on to figure prominently in it; as single figures who rescue a land may find themselves king; The single figure, can be a law giver, whose credence has more to do with law; than law itself.
        More importantly why was the discord, cited as urgent, by Madison, not conveyed in American History as rivaling in turbulence the French-Indian war which was proudly taught as leading up to the war for independence. Is it so the federal government is not seen as necessary to prevent wars between states? Or is Madison overstating the case, and the federal constitution was unnecessary, unpopular, and imposed upon the majorities of states and burgeoning peoples? But the urgency Madison conveys to the situation is morally questionable because while Hamilton speaks eloquently on the virtues and advantages of the federal constitution; without specifically mentioning the protection of the local decisions being made in free assemblies, our first and tenth amendment provides; both laws which are not enforced, violated by local officials, because the press is pressed to lie about the situation in Toto because Western civ believable faith to change things a reckoning a manifestation of constitutional law, a transition to truth, however brief; or just a decoy, an excuse to increase the population for western civilization, as opposed to tribal forms that had and have less people; because the reason to have more population is that human beings serve as a rampart against the universe, a sacrifice against the falling howls of the universe which protects us. It does not seem the way may be changed. Slowly or quickly earth is decimated; She will require several centuries to heal. In that time, who knows what claims history will make; should there be a dialectic between sacrifice and healing; if any at all.
       Seeing the formless life, is another matter; Examining the sense of realness and fakeness to the human being; seeing that which has been here eternity; these are harder to comprehend; because there is such a jumble of soul and disease upon my brain natural cognition is unintended.
     Seeing either the formation of the constitution and the ignorance of the cause of the civil war being westward expansion tugging at the roots of the federal government; which oversaw westward expansion to a greater degree than a confederacy could have; and expulsion and appropriation of Indian, has not been cited at all as a prominent cause for the federal constitution; yets seems its most poignant and lasting legacy. So even this level exists in secrecy. To say nothing of the other shades reflected in ignorance by our educational system; as the philosophic stretching of the garments of government by westward expansion manifesting the sentiments of the Articles of Confederation; A confederation being defined as a defense treaty of states or nations, and a federal government as providing a central government for all lands involved.
     That our federal constitution is allegedly praised by higher power; without incorporating the spirit of paths to truth, or humility before metaphysic; ignores the chances for a better material life through orthodox Christianity, or Presbyterianism, or Hinduism, or any other myriad and supportive paths to the same truth and reconciliation at the top of the mountain the paths lead to their different ways. Maybe wars between the states were imminent enough to signify divinity to the constitution; but the point of the presentation of American History seems to obscure the federal government as caused by a fear of war between states; obscure the federal government ruthless effectiveness dealing with Indians; and obscure actual conflicts between the states before the constitution; and obscure the civil war as a function of westward expansion; though I believe that was taught in A.P. History Class in 1982.
       Theses systemic biases evident in education are consistent with the oversight of education placed in the federal government. There is nothing in the constitution about education; and the clause, “general welfare’, in my mind suggests a short term response to a crisis, not a long-term embedding of the regulation of education precisely because education is not specifically addressed.
       In my mind the critical essential reform to American Society is reducing and pulsating the educational system of America. Yes we need Science and Math programs to advance the genius inclined there. But the scale and scope and regulation of education impedes the essential thinking for one’s self, being able to determine one’s time; impiously upon the righteousness of natural life. Education does not need to involve schools, but houses, small classes, myriad of educators, each of us teaching a little of what we know, whether it is biking, or a foreign language; such intimacy would engender the puissance necessary for more time for more enjoyable activities and living and thought for younger people. This in term, like agriculture, would illuminate society to the importance of time and production and quality than waste, unnecessity, and superficiality.
      But such concerns are more likely to be held locally, and impeded by representative democracy at a local level, abridging the form of free assembly, where such issues may arise. And certainly more by state governments concerned about their people than a federal government.
      Likewise concerning immigration, each state could have their own policy on it; and have to coordinate wisely its effects with other states; but would increase the muscle and capacity of state governments. Such issues like education and immigration require a spirit a diluted federal government can not, compared to the spirit particular cultures may impart upon and through state government. States would police immigration for their own state; much more than federal government care about its own borders because a smaller state government caring about a smaller state border is more effective than a vast federal government caring about a vast federal border.
      Regional differences and cultural dialects do exist in different regions of America; But these differences must be lessened by the federal government, and these differences are good, as like religions all being different paths to the same truth, so are cultures; one needs many of them; developed too; in case some are thwarted, other paths exist. This is why communism, imperialism, world government is so evil; they reduce the number of paths for humanity to sneak by.
     Issues that are too heavy for the concentrated federal government in D.C., and its diluted appendages across America; may be energized by the people through state governments much more vigorously. But the sacrifice of America into stupidities ranging from fast food, to suburbia’s extension into farmland—and our prey to education and undiscused economy; through a lack of spiritual reinforcement: Must happen for a reason. May have a reckoning. And it is a worthwhile job to discern those reasons, and analyze potential reckonings. This whole long term mistake of federalism maybe the trailhead to an analysis of human on earth; or a mere excuse for more population which protects the kingdom of heaven in a dire universe.
     Madison compares the land to a patient, getting worse each day; such passionate appeal belies itself. He engages in conspicuously flowerily and ornamentally elaborate language; then acknowledges imperfections in the constitution calling it; “It is a matter both or wonder and regret (Sammy remember 2/4) that those who raise so many objections to the new constitution should never call to mind the defects of that which it is exchanged for It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect.”
     So then how can he praise the constitution as he does in the paper before? Actually he invokes Christian terminology, where Hamilton doesn’t, in a literate, yet less praiseworthy than I thought, almost exculparily, of the constitution, “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it the finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.” This referred to the bipartisan convention process he lauded, and how astoudished he was the former colonies came together in the way they did; rather than what they agreed to. And who is to say the finger of the Almighty is not backhand compliment to Hamilton’s paving of the way in his works apparently written previous to the convention; which seemed adopted.
   Another religious reference by Madison; from which it may be said our founders were Christian. “When the Almighty himself, condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated. Papers 38” This reinforces the general mediocre but necessary reform allegedly consisting in the new constitution, as the vital conduit of wisdom, but imperfectly, and this imperfection to be forgiven or evolved from, as erroneously theorized politically, and consistent with the Christian transmission of forgiveness through the limitations imposed by The Kingdom of God.
      Madison’s arguments repeats Hamilton’s but with greater metaphor and spirit in style, evidence of skillful debate, “No man would refuse to give brass for silver or gold because the latter had some alloy in it. No man would refuse to quit a shattered and tottering habitation for a firm and commodious building because the latter had not a porch to it…….is it not manifest that most of the capital objections urged against the new system lie with tenfold weight against the existing confederation? Is an indefinite power to raise money dangerous in the hands of a federal government?”
      This last is exactly where we are now. On the one, the federal government theoretically is too benign, yet in a swaddling way; to be dangerous with money; on the other; this tendency to sensationalize by Madison, ignores the obvious, moderate and retarding nature of such powers; of long-run consideration that demands a check on precisely this.
      The condition of the current congress, back then, was to requisite monies from states; yet states were poor, barely having enough for themselves. What was a federal government to do? In Hamilton’s extemporaneous upon taxation developing the need for direct taxation; I found a moment to give it pause, because the right of the federal government to draft and recruit armies and navies, superseded and created the right and necessity of the federal government to tax directly. One can not take on taxation, without taking on the right to have an army; And one must consider the entire venue of federal government to largely consist in defense league and national defense. Thus direct taxation is appropriate for military support. But of the right of states to mind their own defense; this is where the battle on taxation is rightly fought; for armies traditionally are too expensive; indeed, survived on plunder.
    Madison’s exceptions to the current confederation, then include, an objection to a lack of bill of rights, and lack of dividing the congress of the confederacy which controlled everything, into an executive and judiciary as well, and Madison cites the new constitution as offering the importation of slaves, for only 20 more years, whereas the articles of confederation allow it forever.
      The Articles of Confederation signify a check upon congress by the states. Madison decries this as the states negating the congress’s power, and therefore congress having no real power. He says the current situation is incapable of administering the vast wealth inherent to the west; but that a federal government is more capable. At least he is admitting the subconscious inclusion of conquering Indian lands as incumbent upon the national course; even though this conquering that needs the most debate, seems the least discussed.
  In very flowery language, Madison cruises for republicanism, “…no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the American People…with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.” He defines republicanism as, “…a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of people, and is administrated by people holdings their offices….for a limited period, or during good behavior….otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles…might aspire…”
        Yet this council of writers of the federal government seems very aspired to exert and yield The United States. The moral ambiguity to this issue is furthered by the justification of the republic in the election of federal officials generally through voting by the people. And yet, as pointed out, voting, within the context of the human being or Kingdom of God, is specious; and hard then to derive good from in this specific context of justifying and insuring the good from a good-intended contract. By the same token, this metaphysical context exposes the form of council as governed by a higher power to create a government ultimately suited for the reflected image of the desires of The Kingdom of heaven, or our Creator; Who, throughout history, has demonstrated a restraint from wisdom and a casting of the opprobrious upon society.
      So it is not the fault of these councils; there are forgiven within Christian and religious content, even while they fail to note such mechanistic guidelines within their work. Such is the nature of Christian progress in a world of foil.
     Detractors, Madison says, complain The United States as the consolidation of states and therefore a national movement; as opposed to confederacy of autonomous states; and that a republican government is more a confederacy than one nation.
    To which Madison answers that the states agreement to the federal constitution is of proper confederation; which of course is logically nullifying, for the states are agreeing to give up their autonomy. But more significantly, Madison claims, as federal officials are derived from voters and be from different states, so there is an essential confederate quality to the nation. And this is true; yet state governments are so weakened.
     The weakness of state governments, Madison agrees, weakens the confederate quality to the federal government as the direct link of officials to the people increases the national quality. So if a state has a particular issue, it and the people must push this through their federal representatives. But that sort of use and application and motion between state government and state representatives to federal governments, has not happened. The vortex of state government as place for anti-federal government sentiment to well up has not been landscaped. This could be because representing your state in federal government emboldens you to federal interests or a federal way of looking at things; as well as by making you one fiftieth of the senate, very little momentum through the limit of number of representatives in comparison to the number of all representatives there, to be able to bring up what is truly relevant or objected to by one state; without having to caucus up an alliance; Governmentally; this sort of disagreement brought up by a state, would be streamlined through a judiciary, that would sort the merits of the grievance.
      By putting the issue in new terms of confederation versus nationalism, Madison has taken the gospel of a federal constitution from Hamilton and infused it with more general and broader arguments for it, and definitions of the debate as a whole.
     “The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things….Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes it is vested in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures.”
       Yet Madison argues this tension between state and federal interests and ways, can be safely determined by The Supreme Court, rather than local or state ones. And yet it is fair to say there is little proud commemorated tradition of states opposing federal government within the federal courts. Quite the opposite, generally states are found to be flawed in the eyes of the federal government and remedies ordered. So history has proven James Madison wrong is his avocation of the effectiveness of moving state interests through state representatives to federal governments, as well as the use of the federal courts to direct the care of a particular state in the way the particular state desires. And yet this lack of satisfaction to State Legislatures is neither resounding nor echoed. The power to states to naturally care for its land better than a federal government, neither resounds nor echoes; partly because national issues dominate state newspapers, and state newspapers are incapable of apprehending the benefits of a greater state government, capable of working with other states as a confederacy, as opposed to be so part of a national unit, that such motion of working with other states is stifled.
     Madison concludes paper 39 that the constitution is neither wholly national or wholly federal. Since that were it national, the majority of the people, ultimately, is what would rule decisions; whereas were it federal, states would have the opportunity to block legislation; much the way tribunals for the people were able to block legislation by the roman senate.
     And yet the majority of Americans voting on issues, is a finer way of deciding issues, than our representatives in congress. And the form of states objecting to legislation and specifying their reasons, is a greater form of legislative debate that highlights arguments and disagreements more accessibly than now. Thus it is possible, for the expedient, or pragmatic, to be less than the ideals of everything, without the benefits of anything in particular; like the famous lawgiver said, “I catered not to their capacity for pleasure, but to the avoidance of pain.” And the philosophy of this credo is meant to be debated. Is there a truth to it; Or is it a mask for Republic out of touch with direction. For a republic is unwieldy enough to drive right, or drive anywhere, national direction in America has often been unintentional and undirected, of free market, and societal flow rather than designed wisdom. This is because America is too big for a spirit to channel; the regional differences great enough to impede common spirit, but not great enough to galvanize its own regions spiritedly.
     As Madison previews and cites a charge to the states to provide delegates to provide a union capable of dealing with exigencies, so real debate regarding the stated reform of the articles of confederation is mute, he says in 40. He also seems to suggest the vision of future government may be most suited from the genius of one man, rather than a putting together several visions that are not of the same vision. Yet if this is the path, “the means should be sacrificed to the end,  rather than the end to the mean.” This is very much what our liberal spirit has contradicted in faith that a government of gentle means is healthier than one of violent or strong means. The spirit of The U.S. has proclaimed the means ensure the greatest return of ends. This is probably because colossus as federal government is, it is benign, and flawed by design, not contemporary malice.
   In this tone that encourages discussing, so it is a compelling job to discuss the claim that were legislation subject to the almost tribunal approvals of states; as the articles of confederation did; one state like Rhode island could object to legislation for all, and that this is wrong and unfair? Is it? I don’t know, we would have to see; certainly in the decade preceding the federal constitution it looked like fun to see what each state thought about everything and how they differently decided issues such as state armies, militias, alliances, war debts, foreign countries. It’s politically exciting, more European in its style and requisite diplomacy. That route was sacrificed for safety.
     So, like a different song on the same issue, Madison reencounters Hamilton’s arguments: A federal government is necessary, not perfect; The division within the federal government is wise; And a new twist; While the individual state or even league of states, may not check legislation, like the tribunes in ancient Rome, corrupted as they were; because the legislature is from the states, the states may check legislation through their federal representatives. This though, we can see, theoretically comes out to poorer odds, than a small quorum of state prohibiting something/ The states are really left out of the equation, particularly in conducive conversation between each other. These thoughts to the other side are drawn out.
      And another new twist in this song’s rendition. The ends justify the means. The federal government needs the power to arm and tax, because it is going to provide a great service it must not be shorn from. There can be no shortage of money/ That frugal mentality, from the get go, is never an issue with the federal government. Yet remember, the federal government isn’t an ideal, it’s a crude derivative of government with enough security but without spiritual guidepost, or one great law-giver; such esteem was given to a war-winner, but not a law-giver. Remember Lycurgus, who founded Sparta unto greatness from corruption, partly by replacing the currency with lead, so as to make money worthless and discourage profiteering. This is what made Sparta great; communal meals between all classes of free men; a rotation of responsibility for males; the ordered exercise and singing practice for all women of a certain age; this is Lycurgus; who even if his laws were not understood, his integrity was to a degree his laws were followed. Compared to the guts of Lycurgus, the founders isn’t got nothing. And yet Sparta was known for war after war; those these were short week and month long wars, so it seemed in those early years, a battle comprised and decided a war. And certainly war is bad, the stewardship of country through an avoidance of war, is not such a bad deal; but the encouragement of the mercantile, which Lycurgus did away with as the scourge of the cause of corruption, so efficiently, Hamilton swears by.
    Crude as this new government may be called; the other side, which the federalists argued against, seemed to cease and desist. In a way, the tragedy is not that they lost; but that they did not maintain a loyal opposition holding fast to their ideals of state checks upon federal legislation; which would involve states working with each other, and states finding common state’s allies. Wouldn’t that be interesting; seeing which states N.J. ranked in its first, second, third and fourth fifths? Whether state diplomacy could pay dividends in an increase in quality of life? But somehow the questioning of federal government is more appropriate a few decades into its reign, because it has held its purpose and its purpose achieved something, and now that purpose has been achieved, maybe higher ideals are possible to aspire to. It is easier to debate something after it has been seen in action, rather than before hand. Yet the anti-federalist movement died out; and while it flickers today, I hope to lead it closer to its home. An analysis of how and what anti-federalist movement broke down through the 1800’s would be a relevant inquiry.
      Madison asks in 41, “Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative.” And yet there is precisely another side that at least would be wise to acknowledge, that has a faith man can live without war, that history is a mendacity, that Christian terminology transcends thousands of history books; that the inner orbits of people exist without violence, and it is just the outer ones organized by and as government beyond the control of those within its orbit. There is so precisely an opposing view, traditional, and integrity-filled, that Madison’s askance gesture reveals him as forgetful of crucial issues. And yet he is meant to be foil. This is obviously a potential departure point for a real examination of history, the metaphysics in context. The absence of faith by Madison; intensifies the faith seen now.
Having States essentially have no input in discussions of wars, save through federal representatives whose agenda is dominated by the executive; the prevalence of general agenda limits the opportunity for federal representatives to enact state agenda; and the multitude of representatives from other states, limit’s the hearing those particulars receive; whereas states being able to issue formal objections and proposals regarding laws, through whatever requirements, would command the center stage needed for such inquiries.
      History concretely shows, especially recently, a total lack of voice by particular states as identities regarding their opinions on Iraq and Viet Nam. This proves Madison’s claim that the representative legislature was from individual states, to a degree where such quality was confederate as opposed to national. Even though Viet Nam was unnecessary insofar as communism is doomed to fall of its own weighty collapse upon indigent culture, its unpopular attempt to cast religion as a weed; its imperial homogeneity; and ignorance of dualism, and one party cast; all show Viet Nam as unnecessary and even fueling communism’s false fire.
     Likewise, whereas Islam can be seen as oppressing the Arab people and existing for tyrants to sell us oil; And America can be cast as a very wasteful and unproductive economy who does not deserve Mid East oil; so the conflict can be reconciled without a shot; and yet the war is grievously not run this diplomatically or honestly. And again, errant and foolish as attacking Iraq was, as bowing to Saudi Arabia may be; the states had little say in the matter, because their representatives sucked up to George the second too easily, because their fears were played upon by a warmongering press; because the press is the outer orbit from where the metaphysic works its magic far from the outstretched hand of the spiritual and faithful people, because western civilization may provide a rampart of people; but also open the hope of the outer reaches of international diplomacy allowing a guiding spirituality and understanding to impose a time of peace and truth and healing; until we see where that trailhead leads.
      Madison likewise insists the top limit of approval of tax funds for armies and wars be every two years. War funding seem voted on several times a years in times of overseas wars; and despite the lack of success; indeed the positing of conflict at times it seems, which would be the opposite of just war, is continually approved; whereby if state legislatures were all equal a vote or vote and a half, and weighed in on the war; more wisdom would prevail, because 50 state legislatures isn’t gonna back down to no warmongering press because state legislatures are closer to the people, and state legislatures have more people involved, and a higher group, than represent their state in congress. Thus Madison’s system claiming the approval of appropriations every so often constitutes a check upon war, is refuted by history herself, and logic as well. He says, “..The best possible precaution against standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support.” And as I just said, this is conclusively shown not to be true. The genius Hamilton claims will arise from federal officials being of a larger pool than state legislatures is negated by the pressure on them from a press fixated on power, even creating powerful actions scrumptiously without accountability, and pressure from the executive. It would seem Congress and the Supreme Court would ally against the executive; simply because both of them are more mellow than the presidency, though the supreme court is benign, congress exerts a more reasonable tone.
    Even when Madison eloquently and truly says, “America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibit’s a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited” , one may respond that there is a need for a common defense treaty, but nothing more than that.
    Madison makes the case the potential for American wars between the state lands was greater than that of Europe, because in addition to the states having to worry about each other, they would also have to worry about Europe. Yet for that we must ask ourselves, “Do we truly distrust Europe?” Were the French ever that mean to us? Did not the brits almost lose to us? Has there been threat or conspiracy uncovered? IS the friendship of a European rival such a bad thing? There is a lot of foreign affairs in this intrigue line of thought. Fobbing off Europe as undealable, is not quite integrity. And likewise, if European nations did want to exert an evil force upon America, would not that unite the states, and as fulcrum, lead to greater and natural peace among the states; And does not this fulcrum seem remote compared to the fulcrum of Indian tribes. And much as discussion about whether Europe is good or evil is merited; it is several times more regarding Indian tribes. Likewise is it possible to discuss that we might unite Europe, and into putting a lot of ships together and sailing here. Though it would seem Europe values its differences.
      But there is a worry there would be attacks from the Atlantic sea, and the maritime towns would be forced to pay ransoms while the inland areas failed to care. Yet the inland areas may need help against Indians. Moreover such a real politic would test the market into correcting itself, and the common interests of a defense league, have to prevail, through diplomatic and understanding negotiation. Would not the aid of troubled areas, by more impoverished places, stand to benefit all, in a continuing evolution of natural economy?
    Then Ironically, Madison says power,” to lay and collect, taxes, imposts and duties and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to a commusion to exercise every power which may be alleged to be for the common defense or general welfare.” Now we know from history, Congress has used the general welfare clause for everything including health care. So it does amount to such a vast commission, even if it is not intended to.
    Madison claims that since the specific powers of congress follows the general welfare clause, the general welfare clause may not be interpreted to give a wide latitude beyond the specifics listed right below it; power “to borrow money on credit,” etc. And if that was the intent, then either Madison is lying and knows fulwell how the general welfare clause may be construed to mean much more than the following powers, including health care; or the courts really misunderstand the lettering of the law.
      Because I believe in greater state responsibility and local communities deciding issues in free assembly, I would say general welfare implies, ironically, a short term response to a negative situation, and not a long term solution. Whereas the powers following are of a more permanent nature. Yet it may be said money from taxes may be used for the general welfare of the united states’ if that means of the prestige of our government abroad, then our federal government may use that money appropriately, but insofar as it means the strength of the people, in the words welfare of the united states, such money may not be wise, for money may not make us strong; and at some point the federal government looking after education is a responsibility it needs to delegate. The failure to delegate to the states, is where the failure of federal government ultimately lies. States so dependant on central government forget their own importance and devices.
       But when Madison insists the specific powers inclusion confound a movement by the words “general welfare” that specific argument is untrue, and suggestive of being taken advantage to expand the scope of federal government because those powers are only included in the category of general welfare rather than comprising it. Whereas seeing the power specifically mentioned as powers recommended for federal governments; and the phrase general welfare as signifying short term needs from situations that require thought, successively defines the specific powers, and short term necessities.
     In 42 Madison debates the need for federal government to deal with foreign powers. A defense league would need a state department; but diplomats from states to foreign powers are relevant and may expose provincial understandings to sophisticated ones from longer duration. Federal diplomats need not rule out nor weaken state ones. Madison also again cites a clause prohibiting the importation of slaves after 1808, which I do not see in the current constitution. State diplomats may also facilitate commercial interests, even though Lycurgus rid Sparta of corruption by making Sparta as self-sustaining as possible. Thus comes to mind the diplomatic ideal of countries benefiting from exposure to better ways of other lands; indeed, Lycurgus got his wisdom from travels before he applied those lessons to Sparta.
     That Madison cites a clause to do away with the importation of slaves after 1808, which did not make it into the final draft is relevant in two ways. For one, there is no mention of the 3/5 act which made slaves equal to 3/5 a person in relation to number of representatives a state had in congress. And secondly, had this clause gone through, it heralded an abolition movement that might have removed slavery as an issue by the time of 1860 when disputes over Kansas and Nebraska threatened war. There might have been less a phony excuse for war had the slaves been freed by 1860.
    Madison then goes on to say that were the states to have the right to regulate their own commerce with other states, animosities would flare. This contention, is a battle, because I would think economic regulation would give the necessary prudence to avoid wars. And this sort of market correction is necessary and not to be feared by embraced. Now to be sure impediments of duties upon goods from other states, may increase the sustainability of regions by having the free market effect of reducing trade and thus encouraging sustainability; which seems the traditional point of duties to begin with.
    He makes a point how Switzerland and Germany and Holland are not intended to have their counties or cantons impose duties on goods passing through within their respective nation; but while that is obeyed in Switzerland, to what effect of sustainability, and mischieveiously ignored apparently at times in Holland,  and subject to national permission in Holland; indicates that this issue can be addressed and has been tried, by larger and more central governments, without necessarily damaging autonomy insofar as states may conversely be allowed to impose taxes such as each states agrees to the virtues of common and agreed rules.
     Regarding the Indians, who today have their own nations on land reserved to them; Madison admits and agrees it is a perplexing question of how to regulate trade with them or bring them before our judicial authority. The notion of states maintaining their own currency, or barter or use bills of credit, is never seriously entertained. What is most an issue, and most needs to be worked out; is never seriously considered. What Lycurgus did to Sparta in making things payable only in lead, our founders never consider. In this symmetrical sense, they lack the tribunal check on federal governments through a lower class of people or state, which Ancient Rome prided itself on, and achieved through a strike by the army; though a soon corrupted system that conformed to the law of power corrupting; and rather than a disdain for money which Sparta was founded on for 800 years, an almost absolute love of money and mercantilism and focus on therein as some natural course of government. Thus being tight with money, or circumscribing money, were never concerned worries of federal government. And compared to this flaw of government, American understandings are quite different and oppressed.
    The lack of discussion of different rights in different states that could ensue with the articles of confederation; and the issue that conditions for bankruptcy may be different among the several states under the articles of confederation; for the most part, misses the principals, that it is healthy for those entrusted with land and people, to practice their exercise of power so as to grow healthy, rather than be restrained so care can not emanate. Yet the latter has happened to an extent to wonder whether he design of our federal constitution wasn’t to weaken the care of our land. This of course would be a sacrifice commensurate with wars we hear of from history.
     There is a lack of discussion of the entry of new states into the union. The articles of confederation seem to be of dissimilar states enough to allow a freedom of motion to evolving states, while the federalist argue regulation therein is of the essence. This issue too, is not fairly entertained. Likewise assumed is the protection of the states from monarchial or aristocratic governments. This is disrespectful to such forms of government that actually employ less people and are smaller than republican governments, and whose provisions are based in understanding that the people may be able to take care of themselves more independently of a king, than of a federal republican government.
     Nor can a state per se be said to be prone to monarchal and aristocratic aspirations. And such aristocracy can be seen in classes that senators came from in Rome, and intended to arise from in America. It seems there is a great deal of talk by Hamilton and Madison about how the means are required for the ends of a federal government and how energy is so important for a federal government; when really a federal government stifles the ambitions of leaders within a state, and stifles the positive relations that can be accrued from the friendly guidance of a foreign power, and stifles creative cultures of emerging states. Madison and Hamilton argue those contingencies are likely to be bad; but certainly they are energetic, and energy is recognized as essential to good government.
     This energy according to Madison in 43 is more likely to come out in attempts at dominance by more ambitious or vengeful states; rather than the contractual and governmental creativity our federal government has been falsely venerated as assuming. Though history may be full of confederacies where stronger parts eat their weaker confederates; I believe we would be very pleased to see if this actually happened, or has a chance to, and find it disproven, and then America would be that perfect land it feigns to pretend in its self-imposed moniker as the greatest nation on earth with the most perfect government.
     There has been no discussion of a two party system. In paper 43 minor and majority parties are raised, and in the convention, bipartisanship is considered divine towards the agreement with a federal government. Yet what happened in America, and in Rome, is that the party of the people, became wholly corrupted, ineffectual, dysfunctional, and not responsible, for some great injustices stemming from the metaphysical control of the press, to dealing with real issues like the ineffective overabundance and regulation of school.
     Yet the federal government is here understood as having the potential to coolly reconcile conflict between two parties or factions within a state through the interposition of the state’s representatives. Yet discord within states, has never reached that pitch in history I am aware of. Thus fear of factionalism is exposed as overstated, and the solution of federal representatives never required to. Though the healthy part of the nation could cure an unhealthy part—and the cool concerns of confederate states would care about each other through the transit of federal government; such has never been needed to be brought to bear. Is that because there is no factionalism ripping apart a state; And is that because one assumes a more vigorous and honest and essaying democratic party, there is such a vacuum of political form, that these fears are never manifested, hence their security checks ill-conceived.
      Madison again argues that were the states to make treaties with many provisions among themselves, the damaging of one article of the treaties, could make whole collections of governing articles fall; whereas the humanist and faithful view would have these contractual studies develop the muscles and characters of government to demonstrate the positive nature of diplomatic interaction within America and its united concerns.
    In paper 44, to me the place where economic stifling and artificial regulation sets in is article 1 sections 9 and 10 which prohibit Bills of Credit, which would facilitate direct trade without the use of money; of whose virtues I have spoken. The prohibition of economic alliances, also strikes me a reducing complimentary and beneficial relations between states that may aid in the self-definition of states. OF course this production must be consistent with local polities of free assembly to ensure common values assertion, rather than endless labor as dominates a long work week now without free assemblies. This and the prohibition of a state coining its own money, I believe is a little cited passage of the federal constitution where a great deal of trouble and misery comes from.
     Because this portion is virtually verbatim from the article of confederation Madison foists it off as a no issue; when, in keeping with the other nonissues that actually deserve a great deal of consideration; these prohibitions are quite damaging.  Why the articles of confederation outlawed alliance between the state and bills of credit, makes the articles more conservative than history and Madison and Hamilton make it out to be. Maybe the movement to constitution from articles while nullifying the opportunity for states to interpose vetoes on federal legislation, was still conservative enough to discourage political and cultural creativity within states. Suffice the integrity to production be contingent upon dialogue, as opposed to strict freedom, as well as production rather than mercantilism.
    Madison’s condemnation of paper money as worsening the worth of currency ignores the paper of bills of credit as more transferable and intended so towards direct goods, from the export of direct goods. Bills of Credit are a way around money, and not necessarily a paper form of money which circumvents gold and silver. Again the negative characterization of human nature dominates in the form that assumes different currencies among the states would lead to animosity between the states, rather than cultural creativity. Is this a valid or fair assumption; must we not have the minutes of what each state says in regard to these charges? Are the states able to defend themselves specifically  from these charges? From what  I see, the states have no chance to address what might reasonable be defended from as slanderous, and liable.
   Madison argues again, abolishing duties and imposts allows free trade between the states; as well as giving the federal government a check against potential abuses by states. And yet Trade is fundamentally not free. Trade is about goods and production which requires work. To not adorn our unique understandings of goods and productions, with understandings of government, is to not link the economy with government. In other words, trade is always an issue, while the exchange of goods may be free, the goods themselves are not, relatively speaking; and therefore there should be sets of rules protecting and regulating production from the unfair manipulation of their trade and market. Thus most laws of imposts and duties understand this obligation to their states own production; allow for the negation of what and how these should be determined; offer the opportunity for concessions on both sides. I produce potatoes; somehow I may say that my right to sell potatoes in my own state is rightly unimpeded; and that possibly how potatoes growers in other states respond to my potatoes and me to theirs in my state is an issue. While I would want my potatoes to sell without impost, nor want an impost upon potatoes from other states sold near me; I can see how this sort of thing needs to be reviewed, for maybe it is possible and logical for potatoes to go where they are nearest.
    Madison says in 44, “No axiom is more clearly established in law, and in reason, that whenever the end is required, the means are authorized; whenever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.” I do not believe it is true. If the government must uproot terror, spying on American citizens is not tolerated, because such ill suspicion does not damage the citizen, but the morals of the government administrating such affronts. Likewise if the law commands ending the wave of immigration illegally and population growth, the federal government seems unable to subsume the means to do this; even as the spirit of states and communities in this regard have the capability to be serious enough. Even the appropriate pressure upon the pride of south American governments that may be afflicted through American diplomacy is not effected. Thus warped means cause warped governments, and not long run benefits; whereas automatically granting the means to achieve something; may not be consistent with the innate abilities of the federal government. If the ability does not exist, no amount of means will make the ability possible.
     Then the stanza about how the states can interpose a check upon federal government through casting out its representatives; whose consequent refrain is that incumbents survive illusionary elections; and that the federal government is not capable of the creative legislation, or meant to be, that government pursues. There will be and has been such an absence of relevant and truthful federal legislation, that the states were never galvanized to test their spirit as a political force. This may explain how states never have much taken issue with federal governments; and how the case is more fairly cast as the federal government recognizing the necessary humility to delegate to the states, than states assuming tribunal mantles and tilting at the federal government. That kind of knighthood, equestrianism, has been eschewed by the vast proportion of federal government. Though grievances may be checked upon the federal government through federal court by states and individuals; since power and energy and focus is within the federal government, this dynamic is more likely achieved by a humility of federal government assigning tasks of general welfare to states; yet the vastness of land, number of people, focus of media, seems to inflate the ego of federal officials beyond this efficacy.
    Obviously the defense union will have to be designed to reconcile with the developing cultures of each state. Again this is the belief states can work things out; war is not inevitably turned to. It seems the threat of war is used to ascertain something evil.
       Spirit of new world, states would have gotten along united by common defense issues like ancient Rome proven clean slate new hemisphere would have gotten along and done something amazing, instead of colossus, playing it safe, homogenizing, and broad.   As I read the federalist papers I start to feel what America could be, or could have been, as a peaceful and united new world; not as gasconaded but actually, had not there been such a strong federal government and the states handled there own territory more.
      There would have been more approaches to the problem of voting contradicting the kingdom of god. More economic allure and potential from allowing economic alliances and bills of credit; The care of the states by the states; that authority was severely crippled through the miscalculation, if it was simply such, of the federal constitution; The short term aspect of the necessity of the constitution till galvanized and united by America and American defense prospects is completely passed over, recklessly; as if what makes sense in 1790 must needs make sense forever. America took over the west very quickly, practically in 50 years. So we must not blink at the destruction caused by overpopulation and suburbs and malls we’ve done not so quickly in past decades. America moves fast enough that I hope an open forum for this stops it on a dime. All the building approved by local officials, abridge free assembly, which is a form to make community decisions that is logical and natural, has been done illegally. The incorporation of local officials through state constitutions violated the tenth amendments reservation of powers to the state or the people. Debate over this kind of stuff is in the media, yet the media is outside the orbit of the people, focusing on power, and has the power to create what people say, as where the news flows from, without a professional conscience that I see to acknowledge its moral ambiguity. This rule of the press is possible because the press describes the representation of the kingdom of god.
       The power necessary to insure the protection and funding of federal ambitions is a part of the contract that crippled state governments ability to care for their own states as they should. There are a multitude of questions upon a cobweb of federal government that need addressing which the federalist papers glosses over.
       “If it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different states—” More and more I feel the spirit of the new world where the states would and can live together; and harbor less ambition against the Indian–a new world deprived by the founders.
        “IF it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty….” If by faction a no communicative power is meant—I don’t know what to say—certainly the democratic party is a faction today to me–insofar as they are completely unable to address the issue of free assembly, or much at all—-and if a faction is merely a particular way or movement, like the populists, or the nascent Tea Party—then factions are good and what democracy is supposed to provide opportunity for.
       “If the union be essential for the happiness of the people of America…” I don’t see it that way. Indeed I feel the spirit that something wondrous could happen—a lot of states getting along and wisely caring for their land—a rule of local free assemblies—a genuinely popular state government enabled to check any federal defense treaties.
     Was the revolutionary war to benefit the people or the states, Madison asks, “Was the American revolution effected…..not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty and safety, but that the governments of the individual states…might enjoy a certain extent of power…..” This is a very interesting question. When Madison supposes the people to be better off under a federal government than a dignified and more sovereign state governments; I anyway see how that is a very slick and not true argument since a state government be closer to the people whose welfare be its concern. Moreover insofar as the British government oppressed the people, the point be a state government more caring. It would seem wars are fought for better government, not for a happier people—yes the Greeks fought the Persians to avoid slavery and death—-but even that just recoils to the way things were, and is not about improving the people but fending off oppression; and once that shackle is shaken; what is the form to ensure such threats and actualities do not menace again. While the people accrue some happiness to the delivered promise of the union that there be no war between the states, by and large; this not necessarily be consistent with a better land and economic cleverness; far from it. The vexation is that we never experimented with some state autonomies in a region, to see if they are inclined to war and human nature be more likely bad in the breast of man; than a new world offer the fresh opportunity to show peace prevailing.
     There is just faulty reasoning abound; with history as proof; so there can be little argument. Madison in 45 says state governments will have the advantage in the allegiance of their people. I do not think this is true; there is more identity with the United States than the particular state, and to the detriment of that state and spirit. Madison says the Federal Government is more dependent on the states than the states on the federal government. Well, first the federal government doesn’t do much to make the people’s lives better; its charge being broad in the area of preventing war, little else; second the state has been emasculated from doing good things for the people, because it is not prone to consider what the federal is not made to consider; with all the focus on the federal, what the state can actually do, is lost.  The state lost popularity and prowess incorporating towns with local officials, thus preventing a state wide aegis of wisdom governing things like building and destruction of forests, for the tinier vision of every municipality; while the federal stood by and did nothing to enforce its first, tenth and 14th amendment. The power of the federal government makes it arrogantly not consider the importance of the state; and the state is so dwarfed by the federal that the state can not consider its own stature and potential as well either. The federal government frustrates state government, witness raising the drinking age by withholding federal highway funds; far more than a state has stirred to stop unpopular wars; or has even cause to prevent the blandness that characterizes federal governments inadvertent oppression of the land. This is just faulty reasoning, and easily seen as so, because as the book goes on, the spirit of what could have been, how good the new world could be, without the federal government, refrains more.
    “The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of The United States will be much smaller than the number employed under particular states.” Well yes, but let us say from their own principal of representing more people than state officials, the federal officials have more power, if less people; and let us say measuring power in officials specious to the proven extent that officials really don’t interact in our life in a positive measure as it is; they uphold the status quo, don’t take on the regulation of school and the economy, much less metaphysic or proving the possibility of spiritual understandings with other nations–officials, like the press, is where the metaphysic that make western civilization so, works from—in that sense they are a negative, or at most benign not something of value towards inveighing popular change in our lives. And finally, the number of federal employees in a Republic, is many more than would be employed by a king or monarch.
        An analysis of this argument by Madison reveals the psychology behind it. If Madison truly wants state power to be puissant compared to federal government; he must turn to the nature of a central king with disparate nobles outside his spokes. In this model, once can truly say, A noble may be more popular with the people than the king if the noble enacts that which makes the people happy. Or the people may be happier because of a king, if the king, with his less extensive federal structure than a republic, allows the people to do what they want. Feudalism, not republicanism is of the structure alluded to. Madison mixes up the advantages of feudalism with the disadvantages of the republic; because a republic has many more employees than a monarchy.
      “The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.” This is simply not true. Now it is based on a rougher draft of the constitution contingent upon state legislatures having a say in the election of the president; but that has gone to the electoral college; and in today’s world the states are neither consulted as constituents, or essential to the federal government; where as the federal government sucks the spirit out of state government, and limits its organization. This characterizes The Federalist Papers as words without meaning designed to propel a federal constitution, to the ultimate detriment of the land.
     “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain to the state are numerous and indefinite.” This has been mitigated by the general welfare of the people including long term designs by the federal government; a lack of intervention by the federal government concerning the incorporating of towns with local officials by the state constitution; a spirit of leadership upon the people turned to the federal government; an apathy of leadership by illegal local officials, and emasculated in both directions leadership by state government.
    “The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of state governments in times of peace and security.” This is a fine ideal, but is it true. When in war and fighting for what may be the most essential parts of man and society that drive to war; those secured by war thus endears the federal government to the people more than any state can and contradicts the endearing nature of state government the papers try to paint.
    The regulation of interstate commerce, also checks the natural liberties of state governments. The media, which lies about the human being and kingdom of god, school, the presentation of history, the irreality of money, all this is better dealt with through 50 paths of 50 states, than one supreme path which is logically foolish; for evil need just stultify one path for the many to be stopped.
      The power to directly tax, Madison says, was only proved necessary had the states contributed what was needed and promised under the articles of confederation.
       Metaphysically, one can not examine statures of government without contemplating the government of heaven and higher powers that influence earth from beyond and wondering what the government of that afterlife is like. Are all the souls equal? Are there varying states of afterlife consciousness and forms to reside in or is each separate soul essentially what there is? Are older souls more powerful? What is the extent of the form or lack of it to the afterlife? Are souls linked to the souls in whose time they entered the afterlife with. Is there rivalry, consensus, voting or pliability to forces more powerful than our afterlife? Without a working construction to the government of the afterlife, we have little stage for our own. Without agreement as to the nature of the afterlife; we gain little perspective on what is great about our life here. Is there really a need for government, or is that a false justification designed to take the power to life out of individuals and put it in officials, greatly stultifying possible progress in one’s own life.
     Madison in 46 goes on, “to inquire whether the state governments or the federal will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. In some ways does the butting up against government, against rivals, prepare us for the strength the universe requires? That ghosts control society and government, in the rampart of western civilization, and those individuals outside it, used for greater freedom…
   The idea, Madison says, is not that states and federal governments are rivals, but agencies with entirely different agencies. But making the federal more than a defense treaty, or more than what strictly is handled better for a larger aggregate, of which are few; and the restriction upon economic freedom, and genuine causation by diplomatic resources; means working together a cumbersome, unwieldy path; the demonstration of states referring to states, or working with the federal government, or doing anything to invigorate an apathetic status quo and false enjoyment of western civilization is simply not seen today.
     Madison, says, “ultimate authority,….resides in the people alone. ….Truth… requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.” Yet today, the people are so apathetic, and the channels so not in place, largely through the usurping of municipal agendas by local officials; but the lack of interfacing with state and federal officials, the lack of consultation by officials of the people, the domination of debate by the media to the extent of making localized discussion feeble and underpowered….the people have been conspicuously not protected by the design of the federal constitution. So while the ideal is important; our laws must evolve to surfeit that importance.
         Where the federal government is limited, for good reason, that superabundance of blandness there; has ill effects on state government towards picking up the slack–because if the almighty federal government stays from something; how can the state conceive to pick it up?
       And the prejudices of federal representatives to their states power do not manifest themselves, because the culture of Washington exalts the federal government. So what is Madison thinking in citing otherwise. Likewise, as State governments are unlikely to include prejudices towards federal government; they have been so wholly quelled of spirit, and unobserved by media, and unfulfilled—that it is mute whether federal spirit interferes in state government because state government’s spirit has been so sapped through an ignoring by the press, and an emphasis on federal. Nationalism as it opposes one policy for many, is not a good thing, and keeps the roiled spirit and engendering policy-making from being developed and practiced as required by need and observation; though we can not forget this is in context of a higher power, a tragic creation of the kingdom of god.
    “A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of congress than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the various states”. Really the case is that there is neither spirit, and little spirit found within the bland stifling caused by federal government; Local spirit either exists federally in the want for funds, which does little to take on the status quo but endorses such; And national spirit is great enough to relegate state spirit. This is done because the states have no pivot to turn to other states, or relate to national concerns. Look how the spirit of handling immigration or health care could be galvanized statewide, but is not allowed. Look how isolated the federal government renders the state, to a hollow echo of spirit, through the restriction upon state government dealing with state governments, or being able to take a lead in creating a better way of life.
    Though illegal immigration be against the law, and undesired by anyone aware of the positive virtue the jobs they take offer, and the federal government fail to handle it; there is little state versus federal opposition on the matter; nor is there a tradition to be worked out in such form. Madison’s case that there is enough organization for states to effectively object to or create policy in defiance of federal policy is simply not true, and a part of his design for there to be a federal government, which is concomitant with a metaphysical desire for western civilization to be seriously flawed.
     “But ambitious encroachments of federal government on the authority of state governments would not excite the oppositions of a single state, or of a few states only. There would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Paths of resistance would be concerted.”
     Yet regarding health care and illegal aliens and the prosecution of recent unjust wars history has and will show as unnecessary, especially as our efforts do not address the enormous cruelty of Islam to the Arab people—there has been no such organization of spirit to the states. The states are very secondary in being turned to and activating legislation that appeals to the people, because it doesn’t not create a better economy or lessen school or understand spiritual concerns; and this is less likely to happen as states are not trained to turn to each other.
     While state governments have not been annihilated, and federal governments have not used troops to take over states; the exercise of government, far from being invigorated and motioned dynamically; has been universally disappointing.
   Madison extols in 47 the separation of the judiciary from the legislative. But he misses that judging for life, in small numbers, issues that effect millions, is no way to judge issue. As the flaw of the federal government is there is no check on it from states or people with grievances; so the flaw with the judiciary which entertains such grievances singularly laid is that the judiciary is of the federal government, does not to great proportion check or analyze the federal government–instead focusing on criminal behavior of the people; does not use nearly enough jurists to make decisions, or render decisions capable of being snappily understood–look at the wrong decisions of separation of church and state democrat process on established religion, and eminent domain use,—-and not only are tens or hundreds required to judge without inhibition or a bow to the status quo, so judges going on for long periods bound to bring about robotic interpretations, does not make the laws more accessible- but hides them in robes and cloaks—-so the separation of the judiciary is still flawed enough to negate its separation from the legislative and executive easily—-nor most grievously does it ever recognize free assembly as inhibited by local officials,  who also violate the reservation of powers for state or people. The ignorance of these prominent laws, made with a lawgiver behind them, is incompetence; and for this governmental incompetence across the board exist, while Madison extol the virtue of the structure allowing such remiss, and the judiciary is ignorant of the relevance of religious studies.
     When Madison cites the degrees of separation of powers within each state government; there is no mention of tribunal checks upon state officials, or channels for the people to oppose representative claims.  The point being apparent more and more that government is meant to be cumbersome and stultify the progress the people may make being charged to order their own life. Were there free assemblies this might flow more. But free assemblies though in NJ till 1900 were cast over by state legislatures and constitutions, to their own great detriment. This, like so much relevant information, is not taught, and the assumption that locally we be represented as we do in state and federal and there is no place for the people to put their voice together and coherently demonstrate their consensus and discussion is ludicrous.
    If government is designed to detach the natural volition to improve one’s life—the whole claim to good behind the federalist papers is lost. This separation of powers, while logical, and half empty, is a screen a decoy, a venerated aspect that obscures glaring liabilities.
     In many ways the federal government, being concerned with post offices (another short term necessity for spirit, long term unnecessity) foreign powers and peace among the states; these are benign intentions; it is true while not helpful and too turned to, the federal government can not do anything really bad; this is true and within Madison’s compass. This makes the sole problem regarding the rectification of our polity based on the necessity of not turning to the federal government to solve issues, being too large, unwieldy and concerned with too vast an area; but to state governments. The federal government, at least it can be said and agreed upon, is too focused on, to glamorized, too accountable for more than it is capable. In some benign way, it is not the federal government that is at fault, but that the federal government is so turned to, and glamorized by the press, and that state governments and the exciting relevant things and examples they do, ignored by the national press.
     Moreover, in 48, for purposes of argument, Madison cites in Pennsylvania how there was a body of censors designed observe and calculate whether the nascent state government has acted according to law and intention. And that also in Pennsylvania, the executive branch comprised of several if not many people. The allowance of greater state government among the states, as an increased object of focus, as of movement itself, highlights many different ways and vehicles to get things done; which would be of quite use to the development of the new world. The focus on one national government detects for the opportunity for governmental innovation, and traditional experiment resulting in political scientists dreams. The constricting effect of the national government is not the proper government for a righteous and unwarlike people. That this has not been noticed illuminates the fundamental background of the kingdom of god, and this writing a hope of changing western civilization to see what tangible comes of that.
     Madison in 49 spends time elaborating the perfection of his separation of powers compared with existent in state governments. But really, we can look to history, Jesus no less, and see attention needed for foreign affairs to be ground in the unity of spirituality. We can look to ancient Rome and see the tribunal power of the people corrupted, much like the democratic party today. We can look at history and see the written word control the political word. We can take steps that we never war like Athens and Sparta without a federal government. We can examine the press and see what instills them with proper spirituality. We can look to the people and posit free assembly, and the state looking over statewide concerns, and broad concerns the federal government.
     Jefferson mentions the compulsion to convention should two thirds of two of the three branches wish so regarding something. Madison does not recommend this fearing the interest of the people to be too impassioned; thus the argument for terms independent of popular approval. But government in the United States has made the people too inspirited, because politics, with the ending of free assembly is too removed from them to care, and to doing of little to inspire care. Really, the contracts necessary for good government should seek conventions of the people, and mark their input and count their solicitation.
     All of his talk regarding the separation of powers pales before the larger issue, and the smaller issue is that the federal government essentially is not constructed to encroach upon our lives, and state governments and free assemblies must take on the issues nearest to us. The federal government already showing it is not meant to be that big of a deal with constant focus. Moreover, why have not Hamilton and Madison once mentioned free assembly as the only logical way for a community to make a decision because all are present. These founders are put down as venerated for the point of a federal governments imposition, without really settling a situation that responds to the people. In some ways this projection of our government is for a government essentially of western civilization, while western civilization’s explicit history has not been shown to achieve even truth, let along sail with her wind.
        Around this point in the Federalist Papers, I find Madison has basically been explaining the arithmetic within the structure given. It is the structure I debate. The arithmetic within it does not occur to dispute me. So I will take some time to extemporize upon some issues that might fill out and further explain the perspective of my analysis on work we question. In my mind, the following issues form sort of a circle.
      For instance, in my mind, what has justified the Federal Constitution as the great classical document it is; is its protection of free assembly from abridgement by local officials in the first amendment and in the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the state or the people. IN European Constitutions free assemblies are respected, but there is no reservation of powers to the state or the people; no backhand reinforcement of free assembly by a tenth amendment.
    Yet free assembly is not understand as a form of community decision-making by all who care to participate through voice votes and consensus, nor is this respected as the only natural and logical form of community decision-making there is. It is where all are equals and all who care, may. It is as if we have forgotten the basic jurisprudence of not being able to hurt another, as essential to community.
      Yet neither Hamilton nor Madison ever seem to mention this issue of local decision-making. Their argument centers chiefly around state legislatures. The greatest thing about the constitution is never cited by Hamilton or Madison. The perigee of my concern may be the absent apex of theirs. We cross swords, but not in each other’s hairs.
       Almost in parallel lines, our state constitutions violate the tenth and first amendment when they incorporate towns with local officials; in the erroneous assumption of similarity between state and local needs for representation: Practically an error of ignorance. So the state negates it; our founders don’t mention it; so of course our federal government ignores our civil rights herein.
      As I have noted; The tribunes of ancient Rome, who had to come of the lower class, to combat the political and religious dominance of the upper class; officials whose existence was established by the bold move of a strike and mass desertion to a neighboring hill by an army, in protest of an official inability to prosecute foolish conduct in the leadership of wars: These posts of tribunes swiftly descended into corruption and consistently fell far short of the ideals they were created for. Does this remind you of something? Jefferson’s Democratic Party; created with noble ideals, a party of the people, friendly to state rights, anti federal government; failing the people consistently like a poor sports franchise.
      Why is this? This is because free assembly is rooted in the bill of rights, but enough towns in N.J. are wholly democratic enough to constitute a one party rule and abridge free assembly: an almost mythical democratic party machine; capable of making everyone democratic in a single blink.
      So maybe, the tribunes of ancient Rome had trouble enacting goals of the people because Free Assembly in Rome, which was practiced by tribal meetings, for Rome was divided into a score or two of tribes, and supposed to practiced at a community level. Free Assembly seemed to compete, either as adjunct or solely to some level of patrician power, through Italy in Rome’s earlier days. This is evidenced most strikingly by Livy’s history citing free assemblies called by many an Italian town in order to decide whether to support Hannibal’s side, or Rome’s side, as both were fairly evenly matched, and choosing the wrong side was too great a risk for patricians to take or be able to take, and free assemblies were naturally concourse to spread the guilt around.
    But perhaps the absence of free assembly is what knocked the tribunes akilter, as it certainly exists as a pretext here for the media of press to exploit. Perhaps the sheer written record constituting history back then, parallel to our use of the press, enacts the pressure to assert the corruption of officials; simply through the lack of balance the status quo may provide.
     If Western Civilization is a preset to increased population; as both Rome and America advanced; and what differentiates the parameters of western civilization from tribal ways and thinking; then there is no guarantee the thought of creating an epoch of truth is more than an enticing advertisement for western civilization as opposed to something consistent with western civilization.
      The press desires an extension of its slander, which an off-balanced democratic party provides; chiefly marked by an inability to get along; consistent with the thematic of local representative government; reinforcing the illusion of the need for the few to decide for the many.
     This absolute emanation of press; within the legal structure seeking to ensure a free press; is one of the criteria for communism.
       And we meet other criteria of communism as well. Imperialism, be it Roman or American against native tribes, or the ascension of communism in the far east; be a communistic movement defined. The homogenizing effect of federal government is consistent with the naïve structures of communism. Communism’s implosion of its own accord illuminates the folly of the Viet Nam as unnecessary. Little doubt Islam will fall of its own accord, or at least be recognized as the artifice it is to sell us oil; alongside the reconciliation of our communities with free assembly and wisdom and economy.
     Yet our press may not mention these constitutional proofs, because it would show how the kingdom of god, can be easily controlled to be ignorant of our own precepts and laws. And the whole point of the press is to otherwise. Thus the press must at least meet with me to discuss this as an issue of professionalism; in the event revealing the universe as the cause of our condition falters.
    Likewise the banning of religion’s guidance from government; an absence of the recognition of the spiritual, may be consistent with communisms greedy assumptions. The regulation of school, the lack of discussion of the economy, leads to a lack of free-thinking, and empowerment; consistent with communism; and as this discussion is abridged by one party representative rule, this is more communism.
    I also believe were free assembly truly practiced, we would have a more agrarian society; making agricultural, especially an organic culture predicated on many hours, a political vanguard, and somewhat recognized as outside the political mainstream and culture.
    I also find it curious how Livy and Suetonius sometimes mention without explaining how there is a lower house to the senate called the house, similar to the assembly of people; for though while things do have to be run by the people in roman republicanism; there is much less mention of those conduits than the senate, which is mentioned often. There are also tribal votes in piazzas of Rome, assemblies of people, and some lower form of legislative body, that merges into the form of assembly of the people.
     Agrarianism was in the background of Livy’s tome; farmers didn’t want the fields trodden by armies; In the nights of Caesars farming was obviously greater and more surrounded as soldiers wanted farmlands as pension. It is outside the economy, well in The Kingdom of God, and thus neglected by Media; but were agriculture to assert itself, in its conservativeness; It could overcome the forces of false lies and create something kinder. But then the population would decrease. Thus we have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our large population. How do we consciously reproduce the Kingdom of God, for that matter? Surely it is ordered by the Universe. The form of life after death seems more consistent or relative to existent forms in the universe; perhaps more accepting (of metaphysics) than the incorporated. Yet a more likely analysis is there is some sort of gain, to the afterlife of our human race; from condescending to this population, consistent with the structure of western civilization rather than the smaller population tribal society affords.
      Indeed; insofar the structure of earth depends upon a rock at this ratio to star; one earthlike planet may be sold up the river for another; if one is to consider the vastness of the universe; this may be implausible; but certainly thought.
      Attack and solve the problems that cause crime; a humanistic approach; then turn that caution upon the public figures who determine society to the degree manifested by media.
      There is also a principal of many jurists judging issues of law with less inhibition and greater wisdom, than one judge; With more people aware and serving this capacity; short term jurists would be less capable of swallowed up socially by an upper class so conspicuously dominant in judicial scores; Indeed, that is why the tribunes; whose officials so famously checked the roman senate through veto power and threats of prosecution for foolish actions; by law had to come from the lower classes; to ensure they could not be corrupted by the society their check was bound to balance. This principle is sorely missed by our federalism and state governments. Yet again, were it explained and the truth take to the current a flowing, population rates must go down; and thus we must ask ourselves again; what is the benefit the production of reproduction.
      That is the ultimate explanation for why Judge Anne Thompson seemed to feign an inability to understand the natural concept of the localities being ruled in free assemblies. While European constitutions forbid the abridgement of free assemblies; which is flagrantly done in Europe too; European constitutions lack the positioning of State and People powers not given to the federal government must go to. One discourse within the federalists papers cites the increased benefit of laws found by a great lawgiver like Lycurgus; whose legend backed the law. Whereas laws, without a character behind them, failed in their galvanization of legal success. Free assemblies are frequently cited from the annals of Rome.
        We return to question population rate; with the metaphor from Livy of ramparts; wherein our population is a rampart relied on against the universe; so the interplay changes between light and night. Obviously there is a law violated, obviously the federal government is outdated, obviously no one cares, the strict hand of god has a hold on everyone; Yet the law violated offers hope; even to a small planet in a huge universe; but all the time, perhaps, hope is just offered; the real point is the necessity of human beings to provide the basis for a representation of culture.
       The light part is composed of some hard gold like block, so it seems this day; souls have grown into comfortably alongside human beings; thus making things easy. But there also may be human minds spread out over earth as a part of the superstructure to the structure of life after death.
     The people strike me as more concerned about God, than the federal constitution. With the lack of care from the people; in lieu of the real point; this is more like a battle I can’t win; than a debate.
    The light must merge in an awareness of the universe; to such distinguished form; or so great is the human mind, the afterlife lives in its shadow, and blends unsensing into the immaterial or material or towards other pinholes of light, thus providing for many soul. This sort of existence may be sad, but necessary and capable of communication grounded into further understanding of the fineness of life; Into the impressionistic afterlife so much exist grounded away too to the fine, in which a form is searched for that is actual, relative, and relevant. The conception of the universe is searched for; the implication the universe is here as well arises.
     Insofar as Christs must be worshipped within Christian context; the lies of western civilization compel the excuse for the human being; as we wonder whether western civilization will ever crystallize and grow Christian consciousness, or has the sole point long been done? Can a culture, over years produce a reckoning; is it just to keep us tuned in as weak in battle?
     There have been two reaches, in world history, the thinking goes, a Reich meaning a nation which lasted a thousand years; the first is the Jewish people who existed consistently over a thousand years; it can be defined as not having the same place all the time; but a religious movement consistent with self-government; in fact the wonderful thing about Judaism, was the priests ran government. They made lots of laws concerning religion. Like Rome their conservative order was subtly blended throughout religion.
      And like ancient Rome, which was the other Reich, having started in 800BC and going on strong at 90AD. I suppose Egypt and Persia and China may be considered Reich; but when Hitler presumed to the third Reich, he was talking within the contexts of western civilization. The first two reichs both share a strong written word; as does America with its media; the written word of the old testament, arrogates the taking of Israel, a small portion of land from other older religions; Rome is filled with annals which record the history of each year; as well as historians. Thus Long governments are associated with the written word. This shines light upon the press in America as reverberating where the issues of today enemata.
   “You must enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” This forgets the primacy of historians. Moreover there is a failure to assert the dynamism of Rome for 600 years, was that its executive branch had terms for only a year. The four year term really is stagnating; yet Madison never mentions the alternative of 1 yr executive terms. Nor is a program for determining a slate of candidates to choose from, an issue; one of the vexing and conservative qualities to national politics is that there are no good candidates to choose; that really understand the people better off for discussing the economy; that really understand our educational system as falsely over regulated; Who comes up with the candidates to choose; why are the people we may respect in more humble domains never considered. That was an issue in ancient Rome. The choosing of who the people can choose from, an issue. The people not only wanted the right to choose among candidates; which is natural enough I suppose; but the right to choose at least some of the candidates they are to choose from. The absence of the latter also points to the flaws of our federal design.
     We now turn to commerce. A natural economy would naturally regulate itself to a wise and sustainable society. It would seem knowledge of that regulation and its particulars; that essential focus on production; would grow from within the state, rather than Washington. Thus states are more prone to economic wisdom than the federal government. And no clearer sight of how the authority of the federal government, which is vast enough to not be encompassed in one authoritarian figure to be negotiated with; more of a community of government with no one to appeal to because the federal government is bigger than each official, even each department and agency; and thus the interstate commerce regulation clause of the federal government may be viewed as an authority designed to stop the bad, rather than enforce the good; not really made consistent with creative economics at all.
     “The most laborious task will be 53 the proper inauguration of the government and the primeval formation of a federal code. Improvements on the first draught will every year become easier and fewer.” This does not seem to be the pattern. Creating a federal bank was the second draught of federal government; and that confuses market influences, and fails to see the federal government play the same game in the same society as we do; to a point of a lack of competition.
      “The affairs of the union will become more and more objects of curiosity and conversation among citizens at large….The increased intercourse among  of those different states will contribute not a little to diffuse a mutual knowledge” Yet this has not happened’ the federal government is so uncreative as to repulse people from state knowledge, whereas a media focus on how states successfully and differently handle issues barely seems to exist. In other words, the high property taxes of NJ should turn to PA to see how theirs are substantively lower; (even if the answer is less expensive real estate; likewise, how some states can not have a state income tax, and others do; needs to be examined.
    Meanwhile if government is destined to be involved in insurance, why not start with simpler car insurance; instead of many hundreds of dollars of year; why not twenty dollars a month to a state or national pool who dole out payment to those in car accidents who really need it; otherwise keep the offending party responsible within reasonable deductibles for error ridden behavior.
    The focus on federal government has not brought out wise debate. Did God know those words would not manifest themselves?
     Look at our domination of the Olympics. Did our founders intend for a large republic to compete with smaller European states? Do we not win because of our larger pool of talent? Is the fairness of that, and relativity considered relevant to Olympics, or would that expose a path to greater truth.
    Let us look at the great compromise as calculating the slave as worth 3/5 of what the governance of citizen weighs to in the representation eyes of federal legislatures from those electorates. Is it a wise or healthy ethos for production to be based on slavery. Aren’t workers interesting enough for labor to be done normally; aren’t those transcendent values? What value is denigrating the fabric that sustainability requires labor, and labor is good. Or whose absence felt in today’s business culture and nonproductive times? Is not slavery also a mine tossed in to hurt us; neither as in our real interest as a false subtly dominate press; nor regulative educational system; as is corrupted Christianity with its cross? These mines very much seem to a rivulet from the bar of heaven upon the natural flow of humanism.
     A law allowing voting, may not allow the ideal slate of candidates to choose from. Representatives and judges may be chosen fairly, but who assures they can not be bribed?
     In 55 there is the fine issue of the ratio of representatives to people in the state legislature: the lower the ratio the better; without being ridiculous.
      From my personal experience, my congressman has never responded with the energy my observations meant to convey to him. Likewise Judges, have not signified the vigor and energy invested in them- due to a class affiliation with the other parties of my suits more flowing with the status quo than I. These problems along signify the glory of our construction needs to be alloyed with the realistic temperaments aware metaphysically.
      Where Madison is confident the state legislatures can stand up to and remedy foolish federal legislation,…having so “many motives to watch, and which possess so many means of counteracting federal legislation, would…fail…to defeat. A conspiracy against their common constituents” Madison fails to calculate that the incorporating of towns with local officials, in violation of the first and tenth amendment; would amputate state governments from their legality; or that States have never been strong enough to effectively or regularly temper federal legislation, except in strongest republican terms, never as a single or defined group of states; this theater hasn’t come much into play. Yet if you understand the glorifying of our federal structure; what I cite is not imagined; just the way the egos of federal officials fail to see the valuable check of state legislatures.
    The problem is not the rich but the fraud; And the fraud involves everyone, so great is the control of heaven upon individual wills that western civilization controlled by less material environments to frame a show for me and the people to their degree of exertion from which we try to climb towards truth and reckoning. Maybe this is not meant to be more than a chimera, maybe there is meant to be a capstone.
     There is quite a belief federal officials will be leaders who take this country to a better place, through virtue. Without the check of a lower class or state legislature judiciary upon the federal government, I do not think this virtue will shine through. In 56 he assumes officials will have more substantive resumes and the elective system promote natural affection, that frequent elections and similarity of interests between he and his constituents will guarantee the leadership to the greater path. The nobility and glory will suffice. Such is mist of this fire and water. “Duty, gratitude, interest and ambition itself are the cords by which they (federal representatives) will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.”
       There is a class element I would like to address, insofar, as, in 57, Madison starts, to justify the wisest as being the upper class; in that federal representatives will be elected to federal office by, “not the rich, more than poor, not the learned more than the ignorant….;” And yet the slate of candidates is rarely from the common man of common experience, as Madison justifies the elevation of individuals to a stratosphere from which federal office may be sought as consistent with the nature of earth. The limitation of terms to two years, enforcing the responsibility of the people.
     Yet as I have said, because it seems a great deal of public policy enemata from within the press; or at least within the status quo the press reinforces; the most prime being the human being as human; elections are very easily controlled consistent with incumbency: Nor is some method of arranging candidates of the slate for the people to decide from contrived. And subsequently you have few candidates who take on the logic of discussing the economy in local free assemblies, or loosening the regulation of school. That would be too outside what is asserted by the press as concerns of the people.
    And the ills of nonplussment towards stated iniquities do not reflect a conspiracy of the rich; but a fraudulent imposition by heaven within the universe.
     Yet, our federal constitution is hallmarked, in the context of its debate, by insinuating aspersions upon the upper class as the chief benefactors of the transition from monarchal to republican rule; same story in ancient Rome: after 5 kings, the rich went republican.
      Who benefits from a conservative republic? The rich? No, they really don’t exist, are an illusion. Ergo the metaphysic benefits; and benefits through this warp of the upper class. Wise as the upper class is meant to be; it does not seem to be able to pierce the entrapment of the status quo through the press. A natural slate of candidates is rarely processed and refined; through the true solicitation and canvass of the people; pertinent issues aren’t barely addressed. Such is the context of lies within western civilization from the metaphysic. There is no tie between the voter and elected; in context of our barren civilization. The natural roots of survival and protection long extirpated in its way; so how are they to surface and suffice with polity; other deep more primal urges are denied; while the light and air of polity may embrace the condition; the history of politics has shown ridiculously little concourse to human reason; save the example of Jesus Christ; and the Preaching’s of John the Baptist; Hindu understandings of the universe; Greek mythology, Christian terms; religious sophistication in most paths. Polity is continually denied its natural assertions and states. Anything humane that does happen may be outside the realm-domain of history and media reporting; insofar as said entities misrepresent fundamentally, the state of the human race.
      We still ask ourselves, what is the federal official? In that it breaks from the monarchal tradition; at least that monarchal tradition had an authority you could appeal to. A face behind the law: A person in charge compelled to listen and decide. Once you lose that absolute authoritarianism, defined as authority being in a person; for the many of republican government through federal officials from all the states, a diluted form of authority. You may come across a situation where no one is really in charge; yet there is significant authority over your life; even as it compels the domain of the most important issues, without considering those absent issues.
   From this angle; republicanism looks more and more like communism; or a form of government where a party or class is in charge, and such entity difficult to logically galvanize; this latter dialectic from the monarchy easier to use to reinforce status quo; though less prone to far, insofar as a body of officials is less manipulated to war than one sovereign individual. These dynamics a compromise of the amalgamation of the elite that must be countered against a prime reason for kingdoms: when the sovereign is merely one man; his rule more easily construed a show for the people to work around. And in some way; that is what must galvanize the people of a republic around the show of the media. Society in my day is potential many parts TV channels, and 1 part social opportunity with friends, and another part co-workers; such ratio emblematic of the rarity of that which breaks from the representation of earth through TV and writing; this western civilization context makes the use of writing morally ambiguous indeed.
     The federal official is therefore though revered as a force of good, a pawn of the press; combined with the press to suck in the locus of importance, and block its discussion through the obstructions of its true form.
     So when Madison speaks of candidates, 57, “somewhat distinguished by those qualities, which entitle them to ( that which makes them preferred by voters)  and promise a sincere and scrupulous regard to the nature of their engagements” This belief in the upper class fails to consider and more endorses the form of the rich as flawed, rather than self-benefiting. The portrayal of the upper class as flawed is also consistent with the known prism of communism; it is just directed through the representation of the elite as pawns to deflect and help subsume the call to wrangle out western civilization and learn the truth. Of course truth can be of necessity under the invasive universe subjective.
    Madison too generously overstates the optimism of the wonderful feeling representing one’s citizen’s to make things great. This idealism which has so completely not panned out in developing the cultures endeared to the people; be it the uprooting of agriculture by business, domination of time by TV, slur of truth by anti-religious sentiment, or conduct in free assemblies; little encouragement of noncorporate business even, let along the absence of the people and limelight of media. This is consistent with descriptions of the roman people, who while afforded more latitude in tribes and assemblies of the people and office of tribunes, than the people today; seem wholly absent from an effective stopping of Ancient Rome’s imperialist and warlike culture; culminating in an equal ineffectiveness combating wanton emperors domestically. Thus the people never developed the culture to contrast at least in history, the expansion of the roman empire. So to think the representative system in America, will do more than offer a good law or two, is promoting a form to benefit the rich, then comprising a form, along with media, effectively restricting the people and culture; the nature of federalism does not seem designed to solve problems except combine for a national defense, making international diplomacy even farther from the natural logic of the people; and to keep states from warring.
    Thus a federal official, while automatically in the upper class, is a pawn of metaphysic as opposed to a ruling class, and federal officials like clumsy pawns, by nature of this political system, obstructing the flow of wisdom, though capable of resolving disputes; so Madison’s shameless idealization of elected representatives; whose kernel of hope has not provide the popcorn the people seek, is a characterization as sleazy a class the plays into the moral fiber of the metaphysic. Now occasionally there are politicians who rise above the caste. But we have all experienced otherwise with more frequency, inclusive of state and local. Bearing little brunt of the blame, is the innocent looking newsperson. The relation between creation of news and conduct of will seems to blur and confer a dominance upon the news. If you forget the context of media upon official, you cast an unfair light upon them. That they have yet to take on the media–shows the control over them, again.
     Incumbency reigns, to further denigrate Madison’s rosy hues, because the alteration of local decision making from free assemblies to local officials through state constitution, has altered the axis of the democratic party. Less media has to translate into more interaction by the people, is it not so, but things are so skewered that an incumbent can maintain a claim upon support in search of the logic that voters are eternally dissatisfied and want to change representatives as often as possible; thus possibly distilling a dynamism and fitting urgency as well as new perspective.
      While I have always seen the democratic party as lacking the filters and equilibrium to encompass large arrays of candidates for the people to choose for, and republicans as being somewhat inherently incumbent; the lack of spiritual guideposts, and logic of free assembly; federal government seems a plateau so not designed to do more than solve conflicts that rise to its service; as opposed to providing a means for different areas to better and improve their areas. If this is known, ascendancy to such is more consistent with status quo and a maintenance of the way things area, consistent with all the forms of economy that can make places worse; since the means to improve local society; while legally out there, and purview to state government; that vision has been lost by the aggrandizement of federal plains; conjoined to in many cases an amputated state government found critically inaccessible; though by no means, not completely. In many respects state government is fine and the healthiest of current government organs.
      There is a condescending false maudlin to Madison’s criticisms of opponents to the federal plan. And there is a complete neglect of the short term necessity long term evolution of the federal constitution. The objections are such that federal ideals exist only on paper, not in experience, or even crystalline in ideas. These implications are towards a business culture; whose culture declines experiential knowledge. This acknowledges the limited routes to benefit and less to reform.
    Once the ratio of representatives to people is discussed, in the moderation of having many, but not thousands; Britain is cited whereas the corruption favoring the upper class politically is more legalized. While public liberty is not undermined by republican government and its class; reform and wisdom is. The federal constitution’s conception locked us into an auto drive, whose veneration produces an ego that doesn’t look beyond itself when it fails we could try 50 solutions to health care, instead of one homogeneous one hard to agree on. The futility of federal government, puissance of state, is seen here.
     Thus it occurs to me that; in light of the absence of law and wisdom; to frame the argument not in terms of the pieces of the puzzle so hollowed and missing but perhaps of a puzzle around me, close to me; then you, the people, may be privy to a closeness enabling the means for truth and resolution. By analyzing how truth and western civilization are a part of me, and that cascade upon you, we may manifest the fairness necessary to understand the forms of heaven or stop the institution of illusion to examine the integration between human mind and otherworld.
       An analysis of the nature of federal official, as upon a plateau, capable of stopping conflict; but not sowing solution; renders the impression of our difference from communist Russia; with federalism there may be the wealthy that are already wealthy; whereas in communism, the wealth changes hands; thus prophetic interpretations are read into the notes of the federalist papers.
      If one considers changing western civilization, even for a small area outside the media’s ken; understand heaven has the means to do what it does. These means are a space in which the means may operate themselves.  Western Civilization could encompass the vastness and variety as to be significant within the afterlife; and some form of itself, perhaps offering significant benefit to parties benefiting from material analysis; whose benefit would have to accrue to be applied to my salvation.
     The way Madison dreams up the senate, in 58, includes the interesting vision, or the house being more of the people, and the senate the power of the state; this, of course, makes sense. This kind of nuts and bolts analysis I have no issue with. I can only test it against history; for he goes on to say; the house being more of the people, will need the help of the more popular senators in the senate, to prevail in the house; yet rarely if ever do you see senators reaching over to the house to help their friends prevail. What has caused then this state of paralysis separating the vision from actuality; the fear that putting more senators on stage will lead to a truthful earth. And we can not underscore enough how much the press does not admit any responsibility to underscore the truth; or its liability, should metaphysically our press not to be found free at all.
      He then goes on to predict the western states will be a power, having disproportionate senatorial representation, which is true, but goes on to imply these western senators be more inclined to help the people through representatives. The western senators do seem to exude a natural and distinct leadership, but they do not seem to have taken the country anywhere.
      When Madison states about the worry about larger more important states prevailing at the expense of others through a dominance of the union; as a credible scenario of moral ambiguity, I believe; I have not seen any instance of that happening; the lack of state rivalry and state inculcation and transmission of wisdom and refinement upon each other reveal a very conservative metaphysical state with limits upon public concourse. TV, free assembly, is never examined.
      Look at a case I had in 04 in federal civil asking the question does the tenth amendment preclude local officials; as does the first amendment. Relevant as it was to the politics of the people; defended from as it was on the taxpayer time, the public never found out through the press; vital public information.
     Madison cites the British system again, this time as meritorious because the lower house controls the funding. Yet these purse strings have yet to be pulled efficiently by congress; particularly in stopping war with their intended check. Why was that? Because the representatives felt so intimidated by a media that could cast them as unpatriotic. How did Hitler assume power? Through a media focus on him. Who can not say the cult of the evil did not radiate through the media in Bush 2? Power and knowledge, while existing on paper, may not be known and used.
     In the context of centralized Republican power, the republican party is unable to make inroads to increase the happiness of the American people; and the yang of this is the democrat stems from such a local autocracy, they have great difficulty sailing.
     Can there be a constitution with a much less decreased federal government—say as simply a defense league; though a prosperous economy may have too good relations to require much defense? And by creating a federal government seemingly poised to ponder the greatest things of concern to all Americans, and being unable to by the nature of federal representation fit like judicial authority to magistrate conflict; but not take on TV, the spiritual or metaphysical; Indeed our constitution may shield us from those very issues; and even when aspiring, congress aspires to resolve problems, not initiate solutions.
     The state is charged with the care of its state; and should be better than the federal government in reaching important issues.
     We must also see this is the book chosen by history. The annals of ancient Rome, and the writing of the old testament; aided those reichs to surpass the more native societies around them; likewise America with the Indians. Thus to begin anything in this land, you need the Indians.
    Madison I 58 rails against mob of the super large legislature, and saying congresses of too many members fall prey to evil, smooth, orators. I tend to disbelieve that. If there were more senators, they might condescend to influence the house more, and more conspicuously.
    There is a tendency by all council and society not to consciously address spiritual issues; as being outside the realm of what councils vote on; though professionally vital knowledge.
    And I wonder what is meant when the constitution mandates the necessary minimum of meeting as I day a year in December. Does this not subtly imply, that if Congress had only a day a year to meet, then only the most important issues would entertain the floor?
     Look how Sen. Buress from Illinois was mishandled upon his appointment by a corrupt governor by the Senate. Instead of conforming to Senate rules and seating him and then voting him out by taint of scandal in bipartisan hurrah against corruption; the senate refused to seat him, and then he argued successfully that he had to be seated and that was it. That is dysfunctional behavior.
    On the regulation of elections, 59, I must point out, in ancient Rome, there was a whole federal office of election regulators, called Pontiffs. The catholic name for pope comes from the holy virtue of trying to see elections comply with actual spiritual parties: likewise from the word fasces, which signify the sacred rods signifying sacred power; we have the word “fascist”. The notion of confederacies within the union, is not such a bad idea.
    Hamilton wrote 59, after near 20 by Madison. Madison tends to state the other side, and be more sympathetically aware of the truth of the situation.
     Federal office is furnished by an upper class, united at least by college; the humbler professions of the less ambitious rarely sought. Conversely we note that history has not been full of mass movements of the people, nor war protest overturn docility, all signifying an uncared for culture. However the absence of war, parallel to the destruction of our countryside, and inhibition of smaller culture; is this all consistent with a republican system. Madison argues against state legislatures choosing our senators to more ably represent state policy and possibly more likely to dredge up state rivalries and conflicts of interest. Otherwise the chief justification of federalism being stopping war between the states, our founders are blurry to miscast states as potential enemy rivals.
     History has also shown the federal government to lean to the side of business over production. Currently there is very much a schism between those in the service industry, and those that went into finance. Recent decades verify the trend to corporation, over the derivation of culture from smaller businesses, being a wise benefit of capitalism. Yet there is no natural and pure basis to imagine this schism or conflict between productive and business classes. Indeed, there is very much of an urge among the disparate to get along. It is more the hiding of the economy in the Kingdom of God. Why hasn’t agriculture been more encouraged and consistent with the values of time and  quality? Can the federal government encourage agriculture nearly as well as closer governments that know where the farms are, and what types of people be about? Agriculture, the distribution of food, seems fundamentally on par with the kingdom of god, as is most of the backdrop to the show. And thus agriculture and production as illuminating truth, is ignored by the press, and subsequent, our discussion and education.
    There are overtones of condescension, threat and bribes; when Hamilton, in 60 speaks of, “The importance of commerce , in the view of revenue along, must effectively guard it from the enmity of a body which would be continually importuned in its favor by the urgent calls of public necessity. Yet the welfare state does exist, to provide for most essential basics; even while Hamilton avoids the spiritual dimension. The community of federal government is difficult to penetrate; much the way community can imply no one person being in charge, and thus effecting change through the Buddhist wax of mind may happen through effective communication. The communist assertion the rich are evil prevalent enough within a republic by nature of federalist weight that ignores an inclusion of lower classes particularly, is all a part of the show. Are we Christian enough to find and worship the divine? The incorporation of the upper class in this quest is natural. The senate does not necessarily do bad things; it doesn’t do good things–I think that weight describes republican and federal government. It is conservative and slow in its movements. Communism keeps advancing the control of the federal government, whereas republicanism is slow moving enough to not see what more there is to control—there is no higher level, or rarefied air than the strict representation of the people. Whereas communism, not beholden to elections, to attain that stratosphere, or associated degree of accessibility. Britain’s monarchy and noble establishment constantly loses out to the lower forms of government, proving established power does not win.
    Madison falsely depicts those inefficient tribunes of the lower class designed as a check upon the upper class as prevailing in every contest with the roman senate. He mistakenly asserts senators were senators for life. This is not true. It seems senators chose the hundred among themselves routinely allowing new senators, and resigning older ones; utilizing the office of censor, the mandatory requirement being relation to one of the original senators. If anything, the tribunes evinced and reflected Athenian like mob dysfunctional rule; the traditional aspersion of the democrat through history; recording the people as unable to get along.
    Jay writes for the first time in 64 upon the right of making treaties; as their foreign policy expert it seems, he advocates the qualities of the upper class as necessary to guard this country with treaties. The quality of diplomacy  manifesting the choice of the people, in recent decades has not been incorporated beyond war is evil necessity or war is unnecessary framing the diplomatic debate; beyond Israel, beyond the highlighting of France; we have yet to see a shrewd diplomatic quality engaging national interest. Even Obama, seen as having natural if unproven diplomatic talent, only attracted a faith in his quality, and did not demonstrate an diplomatic genius or talent.
    How would a defense league deal with the issue that New York or the bigger cities require more defense than inland rural areas?
    In Jay’s conclusion upon Treaties, I notice two points; that we do not really rely on treaties for foreign policy solutions; even though a proposed treaty the public knows, for terms regarding the departure of Iraq, is probably a more viable discussion than a withdrawal date. A proposed treaty detailing what our demands are in Afghanistan prosecutes a war abler than a war without known goals. The terms for ending the Taliban must be known. The interests of tribal people seen. A course for former Taliban members start to be taken.
    Ergo the negotiation of terms of peace seems missing from the dialogue, insofar as cruel cultures indicate a control by other culture interests, and the symmetry of presidents with oil interests, and defense interests, and wars establishing dominion over oil, as well as a country not challenging itself with the right questions, these may preclude the resolution of war. While jay says two thirds of the senate will never go along with similar interests positioned for war, that is exactly what happened. Senators get scared to be called unpatriotic; they are falsely motivated by elections to a degree they do not vote wisely but impassionedly, like the very mob mentality representation by a few is designed to quell. Except it is not so much a treaty, the president may generate, as the approval for war in absence of diplomacy and treaty goals.
    As I have said, the elements of government should not have been counted on to police itself, when the scope of the separation of powers does not extend to checks and balances from other classes, and the upper class is expected to police itself. There is a great belief in the lower house taking on the interests of the people, yet even if the house controls money, federal currency is such a homogenization of vast lands, the form of government is too vague and removed to effect great change and understanding. Executive privilege has been asserted to keep the senate from manifesting its check upon the executive.
    Regarding pontiffs of elections; say there is a colony of the afterlife in the shoulder of Christian consciousness; that merely affirms the bone of Christ; like a vote; whereby that vote, extension of Christian consciousness, alongside a heart that masks appearance; is a primal assumption by the colony upon with which we procreate, that can recreate itself so as to make the vote ridiculous. There can be no voting in The Kingdom of God. Voting a basic  primal assertion, completely unfounded, can be the basis of a creation contingent upon policies discussed in the media.
       Voting, projected as the meaning, of society,  can subsume society erroneously, and be one force repeating itself, rather than the choice of sentiment, party and wisdom, pontifical things had to ascertain.
       Republican government takes away from the superficiality of monarchy, through republican investment in more officiated government; that enforces a colony upon the shoulder of Christian consciousness posited in parcel to western civilization. Thus the political form of the republic is consistent with the colony voting upon Christ. One contrary interpretation of reality is able to impose it throughout the world, perhaps cohabitating an existence within the merger of physical and mental worlds. We must change our republican form of government in order to change our form of Christ consciousness; but how do we get rid of voting? Does the wax impression of Buddhist community compress to an authoritarianism that encompasses everyone?
     Rome, to me, has the same psyche as America, dominated by a military, powerless to overcome its regulation, full of good will, less developed spiritually, overcome metaphysically consistent with large imperialism.
   The insurance of voting fairness, in context of political parties and wise sentiments; political battle, and campaign effectiveness; is ludicrous compared to the colony of Christ misrepresenting itself towards a western conception different from Christ consciousness, though attached to it. Were there not the reinforcement of the illusion primarily in voting, but another situation, antagonism may come out now. The assertion of republicanism, the assertion of one thing able to rerepresent itself, the federal government as distant as the representation of  society in concentric harmony. This republican assertion within concentric society; Ending the federal government like ending the apex of society, replacing it by the authority of wisdom, radiating outwards, involving everyone in a contradiction of the metaphysical western way, whereas within itself the bind of marriage is not in  play and people probably kept less traditionally.
    Can local federal like free assembly and vote for republic officials,>>>does the latter ensure the former—- no who would be voted for—voting first thing to stop. Republic comes off, or decided by outer control of another Christ

Communication with Republican Party of Princeton

January 9, 2010


Re: Remarks on Princeton Republican Newsletter, and outreach


Dear Republican,

I understand the charge before us as to focus on a newsletter, whose effort is consistent with a public relations campaign to write newspaper and internet forums. This involves developing issues, general ideals, and style points, beyond the portion already existent.

I think the most striking resonance of republicanism in Princeton, is bipartisan benefits. Without doubt there is greater politeness, awareness and communication in a council with two parties, than one, because of pressure from another party. Logically this theory in practice reduces corruption and secrecy.

Just the above alone is a persuasive quality to republican victory. So, analyzing the psychology of the democratic machine would be tantamount to humanizing it. We must remember why New Jersey ranks near the bottom in republicanism among the states: Frank Hague’s monarchy from Jersey City. Believe it or not, previous to that, up to 1900, community decisions in Princeton were through voice votes of Ayes and Nays in Free Assemblies.

Somehow the democrats got thrown wholly off track from the ideals of their founder Thomas Jefferson, when the mayoral rule of Frank Hague, led to a democratic machine enforcing local officials throughout NJ into the nineteen fifties. The remnants of this machine we can see now. It is nothing to proud about. It’s destructiveness was probably designed to wipe out the positive and progressive polity of the people better than any official government could do. Thus, we the republicans, are the human alternative to this dehumanized polity in Princeton and N.J..

And yet the democratic machine manages to demonize republicans as incapable of making right choices, and within an evil storm. And this is where we do our worst damage to ourselves; our character and integrity and thoughtfulness, which is what should determine elections; never gets a chance to shine through.

Yet we understand vital things the democrats absent, such as seeking a fair battle, understanding the media is an evil force these days, knowing god and religion helps, wholesome, human, responsive qualities that are fundamentally aware of how in pain the democratic party is.

As a political science major, I’ve got to say, one-party rule, and a totalitarian completely unfree media, constitutes communism. And communism is defeated by spirituality. Right now we live in a community, that to some degree, can be construed as communing that all is all right now. Whereas democracy would be having formal conversation affirming or negating that. One party rule is too far away from that ideal.

In many ways, this polity is analogous to the early part of ancient Rome depicted by Livy. The homogenous codification of far regions is consistent with communisms international bent over more native cultures. A regimented and regulated world, in return for a worldly citizenship, came with Rome. The republicans or patricians as they were called back then, had to be related to one of the original one hundred senators. The Democrats, called Plebes back then, had control of a judiciary aimed at the patricians as a check upon corruption and folly; via the office of tribune.

Though tribunes came from the party of the plebes, they far too frequently made things worse, and were corrupted by power far from plebian ideals and understanding. Like America, the early part of ancient Rome was marked by a corrupted and unable party of the people, and a nobler, yet not as close, party, of people with more power. Liberalism is not based on experience, but something written, and falsely vouched for.

While representative government is made for state and federal governments; at a local level, the incorporation of towns with local officials by our state constitution of 1947, infringes on free assemblies as the locus of community decision making, and violates the tenth amendments backhand reservation of powers for the state or the people, since officials are neither state nor people yet exercise powers not given to the United States government by the federal constitution.

Elections, upon which the pride of republicanism improves on a monarchy, ironically, contradicts the Kingdom of God, a term that can very much be a guideline for government.

Think how often the incumbent always wins. I would think the incumbent much more often loses, because people are always disappointed with governments and the lack of fulfillment of their theoretical promise. Yet the opposite happens, the incumbent far too often wins. How do we explain this?

If we understand local officials violate immunities and privileges of the federal bill of rights, the psychology of the democratic party, which tends to dominate local races, is misaligned. More than anyone, local officials know the destruction of the few deciding for the many locally; know the need for all to discuss our time and life, tomorrow, is an important principal.

So these usually democratic incumbents hold on to the votes they got initially, naturally being in a psychic domain, allied with the metaphysical desires through media, because they are trapped in an illegal situation they can not share.

And even if there is a better candidate, who would benefit the people more, they don’t give their votes up, because they don’t want others to share the unexpected guilt and shame of the false nature of such office, and consequent party, so they hoard their popularity, not following the principal of better candidates, losing sight of the human side to politics, marked by an absence of honest dialogue.

Essentially the benefits of bipartisanship, are easy to see by the voter, and if we can just convince the democratic party to share their shame, I think both parties can agree a better Princeton is the mutual goal and order.

These are my general remarks towards showing the public what they need, relating to the democratic party, ideals, and perhaps, issues. I care about the Republican party because I genuinely believe the one party rule of Princeton has severely hurt Princeton and is completely unintended by larger structure, and in some sense wrought by one of the most evil men in American History, Frank Hague.


Thank You

Vic Fedorov