Friday, September 26, 2008


26 September 2008

[Thomas] "Jefferson insisted that ‘every human mind feels pleasure in doing good to another,’ and therefore in the United States, ‘the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.’" (Larry J. Sabato, A More Perfect Constitution.)

America’s economic system is one of capitalism. What is ‘capitalism’? According to the American Heritage Dictionary (3rd edition), the general definition is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in the free market.

Adam Smith established the foundation of modern capitalism in his most notable work, The Wealth of Nations. Written in the same year British colonists living on the North American continent declared their independence, 1776. I believe and Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government vigorously promotes the idea that capitalism is a solid proven economic system, perhaps the best ever organized for a free democracy or representative democracy.

Contemporary American capitalism, however, is an abomination. It is a misshapen and unnatural application of capitalism principles and theory aimed at achieving improper and immoral objectives. At the beginning of the 21st century the driving force of United States economic practice is not "free market" capitalism, but instead, it is "financial" capitalism and "disaster capitalism". What does that mean?

The over-simplified answer is that in a true "free market" capitalist economy profit and wealth are created and accumulated through one’s merit, creativity, and ability. While in a "financial" capitalist economy, profit and wealth are generated and accumulated by speculation and manipulation. "Disaster" capitalism is a historically and relatively recent wild-west bastardization of the free market profit paradigm that exploits instability, terror, terrorism and the subsequent demand for increased ‘security’. It is brilliant really. Brilliant, vulgar, cruel, and quite possibly the pinnacle of cynicism.

In the case of a true "free market" capitalist economy government assumes a very limited role in regulation and oversight. In our current "financial" capitalist economy government only gets involved when there is egregious malfeasance or wide spread harm caused by excessive greed and obviously unscrupulous behavior by financial speculators. Some examples include insider trading, fraudulent accounting practices, and inappropriate manipulation of stock prices.

As for "disaster" capitalism, government policy and agencies directly promote conditions favorable to what author Naomi Klein in her most recent work, "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," aptly redefines as "the disaster industrial complex". For example the Iraq war and our current financial meltdown. It is when the people of a nation are thrown into a state of extreme fear and shock that government can then institute policy changes that ultimately usurp the power of the people and increase the power of the elite ruling minority faction.

I am not an economist and it is not my intention to delve into or try to explain economic theory and principles. I have no intention of rehashing old debates that are no longer pertinent or relevant. My aim is to establish that Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government economics is more like Adam Smith’s free market capitalism and is not, as many will claim, about the redistribution of wealth. Humanistic Equalism economic policy is quite simple.

Government establishes the parameters and clearly defines the terms, conditions and rules regarding the conduct of business and the market. Government defends the lives and conditions of American citizens first, and then public and private property. All government activities and functions with regard to the workings of free markets will be based on serving the interests and needs required to provide all citizens equal access, opportunity, health, and safety. In other words, the well-being and benefit of average citizens-the people-are considered more important than profit, property, power and position.

There are basically two principles underlying our nations so-called "conservative" political doctrine. First, the smallest sized government possible and very little, if any, interference or regulation by government. From the Founding Fathers through the Whigs of the 19th century to the contemporary Republican Party, less government and less regulation has been the mantra. The caveat is that whatever oversight, regulation and government involvement that is absolutely necessary must exist to support, promote, and insure "free" markets and capitalist profit.

Second, government and law must be organized in such manner that the rich can depend on it to protect their profit and property regardless of the effect on citizens. Why is it governments business to get involved beyond the rules and regulations of conducting business that apply to all in order to provide something extra for the wealthy elite? I will tell you why. Because the rich could not remain rich and the powerful could not remain powerful without government support and protection.

As we watch the current economic crisis unfold I will ask you to think about this: What our president, congress and presidential candidates are doing is exhibiting the actions and attitude of aristocracy. That is to say, while they continue to tell citizens that they need to act in order to protect "main street" their actions are designed to do nothing more than maintain the status quo. Or, as long as the rich are allowed to remain rich and the powerful are allowed to keep their power the rest of us will be protected.

I will delve deeper into the difference between what our so-called "leaders" are trying to preserve and how Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government economics will change our nation for the better next time. Until then Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.

Friday, September 19, 2008


19 September 2008

Maintaining the status quo,that is, continuing the same actions based on flawed reasoning to achieve misguided ends, will only bring the same results we are experiencing today. Violence and war cannot resolve any issue, nor can they establish peace. The United States of America was born in blood, expanded by blood, industrialized and made wealthy with the blood of the poor, with that of slaves, women, immigrants and the weak. America’s traditional philosophy of government is the same as every empire that ever was. Consequently, the results have been, and will be, the same as that of empires past. As long as our government makes law and conducts policy that value’s property over citizens our future will be as violent and bloody and divided as our past. The cycle of momentary success followed by failure and violence will continue until the United States, as we now know it, is no more.

Many people argue with me about that statement, but they are wrong and the statement is true. Since becoming a legally established country in 1789 America has taken what it wanted by force. Our actions may be justified and rationalized, one can proclaim ‘manifest destiny’ and insist that what America has created, invented and given to the world far outweighs any of its minor indiscretions. Indeed, those protestations and claims might sustain that argument for a moment or two. However, if the quality of an action is determined by its consequences, I believe the historical and current evidence leaves no doubt that the status quo is a decisive failure. Is there any valid logic, reason or common sense in fighting so hard to keep doing something that always fails?

If the purpose of our government is to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare, I ask, is our government doing it? Anyone that says yes, is, whether by nature, nurture or choice, cognitively disabled (retarded). Either that, or they are a bold-faced liar.

I ask, if our government is supposed to provide security to enable all citizens to pursue life, happiness, and property in a state of liberty, is it; has it ever done so? If one answers yes they must be brain dead, extremely wealthy, or they are a bold-faced liar.

Our government, the purveyor and symbol of the status quo, is incapable of securing anything except its own power and position. It does this by fomenting fear. Through propaganda we are convinced of a monstrous ‘new’ enemy. We imagine just who they might be, what they might do, and where they might strike. Citizens are constantly demoralized and terrorized by our government and Christian orthodoxy. Everyone foreign or with different convictions is a suspect. The status quo is thoroughly corrupt, its objectives amoral, and its power is held on to through intimidation, secret spying and by applying all the force and resources of state and federal police agencies against citizens in the name of protecting citizens.

Guardians of the status quo know full well that they cannot defeat so-called terrorism, they know that our citizens can never be safe. Ask yourself one question: "Who or what was really protected or profited by the more than one Trillion dollars spent by the United States government in FY2007?" Did you, your family or business become more wealthy or better off?

Terror and terrorism cannot now, nor will it ever, be defeated by any amount of force or money employed by the status quo. Why? Terrorism is a means driven by an idea to resolve an untenable condition. It is generally known and widely accepted that an idea can never be eliminated or beaten by oppression, faith, opposition or force. Terror and terrorism can be fought openly as with warfare, or covertly under cover of secrecy and blackness. Agents of terrorism can be bought or bribed. They can be cajoled, placated, even negotiated with. Terrorism can be supported if it serves our purpose, and denounced to establish our credibility or to gain an advantage.

Those among the status quo concerned with such matters know very well that terrorism and terror will, in the end, always win simply because it cannot be ignored. The status quo have accepted this reality and are now actively seeking avenues and opportunities to make terrorism and terror a profitable wealth generating multinational enterprise.

In practical terms this means that instead of attempting to establish genuine security for America and Americans, the machinery of the status quo has adopted the persistent nature and reality of terror and terrorism as a business model and marketing tool for a wide range of "security products". This is yet another exhibit in the already overwhelming mountain of evidence that our pseudo-aristocratic government, on behalf of elite minority faction rule, believes it is supported by a divinely inspired and therefore protected philosophy. It is a philosophy operating on principles of piety, profit, power, and with supreme control that places the highest and most desirable value on property, position, and wealth, while regarding human life as either a cheap commodity to be exploited or as a disposable tool.

Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government appreciates the momentary pleasure and motivational value of personal achievement. It has great respect for creating wealth and actively encourages success, profit, power and position. There is no question that these are important goals and desires natural to human beings and the advance of civilization. However, Humanistic Equalism ultimately regards these and all exclusively self-aggrandizing materially motivated pursuits as secondary and subservient to the progress, happiness, and improved conditions in which all our citizens, and indeed all people everywhere should live and function.

Wealth, position, profit, and power in their proper context with relation to government and society are interim and immediate results that should serve as an additional means to loftier ends. Ends such as leading all citizens toward the long held commonly desired goal of accelerating human progress, happiness,prosperity and advancing civilization. Wealth, position, profit, and power should not be governments motivating purpose or function. The purpose and function of government is to guarantee equal access, equal opportunity, and equal consideration by hearing all and favoring none. Government must clearly define the rules and parameters regarding the products and wealth our citizens create and produce. The benefits of human ingenuity and labor are a society's common product resulting from common sense for the common good; they are not the property and machinery of an elite minority faction.

The point is that if wealth, position, profit, and power are prioritized properly and governed by a humane rather than ordained political philosophy, all citizens will have an equal shot at the brass ring. Those that start at birth in fortunate material circumstances will be able to achieve even greater heights. While those born with nothing more than a strong heart, strong intellect, and strong back will have just as much opportunity to accomplish something and rise above the circumstance of their birth. After all, is this not the American Dream?

The next natural evolution of political philosophy and systems of government can only be one where the entire reason for a government to exist is to make sure the playing field of public business and public interactivity is level and the rules apply equally to all citizens at all times. To make sure that no citizen is penalized for the course of their life by the circumstance of birth. In practical terms this means that no citizen should ever be kept down burdened with poor health, insufficient inadequate education, hunger or lack of shelter as a result of to whom and in what circumstance they were born.

I do not understand when anyone tries to argue that there is any other reason for government power than to defend and secure the basic necessities of life. In previous times that meant defense from invasion, food, clothing and shelter. In the 21st century it means good health, unlimited education, reasonably priced healthy food, and equal treatment by authority. It means equal access to process, equal opportunity with equal enforcement and equal justice. Government, though it is of society, cannot function or act like it. Society is brutal. Society is a buyer beware, every person for him or her self, I'm gonna get mine jungle; it is neither fair nor equal. And why should it be? Individuals make up a society and their primary concern is their own well being.

Government, on the other hand, must be the controlling authority and force of consistency guaranteeing every citizen absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights by the impartial and ethical conduct of all its action, function, and responsibility. Government must be the home-plate umpire calling balls and strikes, fouls and outs; a neutral objective third party whose only function is to enforce the rules that have been approved by all, for all.

There is no doubt or argument that government must assume the primary responsibility of defining and enforcing the law of contracts and use its full force and authority to protect private and personal property. Government must also define, enact, and enforce a civil and criminal code of laws; and it should be entrusted with all necessary power and authority to keep order through justice. But since all of these matters concern the affairs and effect the lives of all the people, it is they, and not property or other things, about which contracts are entered into, which are of the greatest value.

Government, first and foremost, must be base its action and function on human beings, their needs and progress. The proposed Humanistic Equalism system and process of government controlled by the objectively neutral Three-question Test process will accomplish something never before done by the status quo or any government thus far in history.

Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government adopted as our government system and process will translate into real and substantial security for all America’s citizens, for our homeland, and for our foreign interests by establishing absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights for every citizen in all matters by its ethical conduct of equal consideration and treatment. When United States citizens, and those of other nations are treated equally, with dignity, with respect and with consideration of their needs and progress; only then will security, prosperity, and hope prevail. Only then will human civilization advance beyond its historical and present condition of misery, decay, and terror.

In the case of continuing to uphold and support the institution and tradition of the status quo versus a second American’s Revolution and shift of power to a government of Humanistic Equalism. I believe that I have presented sufficient evidence for a decision and ruling in favor of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government and radical change. If my fellow citizens will consider the testable and factual evidence on the merits and not whether this new philosophy and system of government will rock the boat, stir things up, or cause them to be uncomfortable and inconvenienced, there can only be one logical outcome.

If Humanistic Equalism is considered with intellectual and personal honesty, unfettered by shackles of dogma and creed, failed political ideology or the fraudulent prestidigitation of miracle our course of action is clear. One must consider the facts and evidence as a United States citizen by rising above petty selfish affection and attachment to inherited personal beliefs. When the evidence is weighed based only on that which is knowable and true, a citizen must decide in favor of Revolution, in favor of overthrowing the status quo.

This concludes our initial examination of the broad subject of "Security." On 15 October 2008 Blogger's Unite will sponsor another "blog-in." This time bloggers around the globe will be coming together to address the subject of poverty. I will be among those blogging about this egregious condition plaguing America and the world. So, in preparation for, and leading up to 15 October 2008 I will be discussing on this blog site economics as it is and as it could be under a government of Humanistic Equalism. Please come back soon and Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.

Friday, September 12, 2008


12 September 2008

Because of the horrendous events of 11 September 2001
the United States is now spending nearly half its annual federal budget – more than one Trillion tax dollars – to manufacture and sustain a delusion of so-called National and Homeland Security. The status quo, in full support of the elite minority faction, keep telling us we can even more get security by invading and occupying some nations and threatening others. Pretending that America is safe and citizens are free, we are neither.

There is more than a general consensus in 2008 that real security in the United States is doubtful. In spite of all the borrowing and spending by congress and the executive, in spite of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, war, torture, degenerating civil rights and liberty. In spite of a vengeful fundamentalist unitary executive who acts like a king issuing decree by executive order and legislative signing statement, the United States is impotent against terrorists and terrorism.

The inadequacy and failure of the status quo model and minority faction rule is now being exposed. If we, as a nation, choose to pass up a rare historical opportunity to carry out another American’s Revolution, make a new system of government, and cause an irreversible shift of power, the current status quo will be the condition and position of America until its demise. To establish what most citizens imagine and think about when discussing security terms must be redefined and our nation's means and objectives re-framed. Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is, for the moment, the only viable solution.

In his essay "The Ultimate Power," found in Passionate Declarations, Professor Howard Zinn discusses redefining terms and changing the framework of our objectives writing:

Statistics indicate that, of the industrialized nations, those that spend the least for military purposes show the greatest economic progress. … [The] habits of governments [are] so deeply dug into old policies of militarism and war … if a great popular movement should develop to insist on change, … if it became large enough to threaten the political power of government …[it] must be driven by a vision. … The vision in this case, for people all over the world, is the most inspiring of all, that of a world without war, without police states, … and with immense resources now free to be used for human needs. …It is, of course, an enormous job to be done. But never in history has there been one more worthwhile. … All we need to do is make the first moves, speak the first words.
…The conversion of resources requires a conversion of language. New definitions of old terms could become a part of the common vocabulary. The old definitions have misled us and caused monstrous harm.
The word for security, for instance, would take on a new meaning: the health and well being of people, which is the greatest strength and the most lasting security a nation can have. (A simple parable makes this clear: Would a family living in a high crime city feel more "secure" if it put machine guns in its windows, dynamite charges in the yard, and tripwires all around the house, at the cost of half the family income and less food for the children?) The analogy is not far fetched. It is an understatement of what nations do today.

Following up on Professor Zinn’s ideas keep in mind that our nation is now spending more than one Trillion dollars annually to produce nothing more than the illusion and delusion of national and homeland security. Future spending is projected to be even higher. Citizens must ask and answer some simple but very serious questions.

Would we not in fact be substantially and measurably more secure if every citizen were guaranteed the best basic medical care from conception to coffin? Would we not be more secure if every citizen were guaranteed the best education and training throughout the course of their life? Would our discernible security not be more reliable if every citizen actively and willingly contributed to the nation through a brief period of useful work on its behalf? Would citizens not be more united and devoted to each other and America at large if every person, every business and every corporation that should pay taxes actually paid them? If all citizens had an opportunity to exercise authentic material control over government actions and spending would we not substantially increase the meaning and degree of national and domestic security? And finally, is it not undeniably obvious that America and American citizens would be infinitely more secure if every citizen were guaranteed that our United States government treats all living citizens in a truly equal way by establishing and maintaining absolutely equal status, privilege, and rights, and conducting its business in a consummate ethical manner?

As for national security with regard to foreign affairs, is it not reasonable to believe American security is more likely if our government does not invade and occupy other countries, or engage in constant bullying by threatening others? If leaders used our know-how and influence to aid and support those around the world that are struggling against totalitarian rulers, tyranny, ethnic cleansing, or religious genocide because it is the right and humane thing to do and without expecting anything in return, would we not be infinitely more secure? For example would we not be better off supporting Venezuela rather than Israel or Saudi Arabia?

If, instead of flouting our alleged superiority and very real military arsenal to force untenable Milton Friedman wild west capitalist economic terrorism and social changes upon places where they are unwelcome, unwarranted, and unwanted, would we not enhance our own reputation and thus our security? If we employed our ingenuity, technology, and authority exclusively to help others less fortunate, those mired in devastating poverty or oppression? If America helped them to rise up and determine their own destiny, while allowing them to remain true to their traditional beliefs and culture, instead of trying to make them more like Americans. If, instead "giving" Democracy to those that do not necessarily want it at gunpoint, or forcing the American way of life upon other cultures, the United States lived up to its own ideals, would we not find ourselves with greater demonstrable security?

America has always claimed and, until recently, always been believed by other nations to be the world's first and strongest protector of basic Human Rights. I ask, if our foreign policy were to be equal to our marketing and mythology what nation, what group or cause, what ideology or terrorist would have reason or grievance to attack the United States or any of its interests, facilities or territory? Honestly? Really think about the implications. Our hubris, ignorance, and cupidity – our hypocrisy – is the source and cause of any terrorism, any attack or disruption we are now experiencing or will face in the future.

If our nation acted as it spoke, practiced what it preaches, or did unto others, as it would have them do unto America, we would have no enemy. Only when someone is wronged, intentionally or otherwise, will they become an enemy.

Generally, people treated with common courtesy, respect, honesty and without deception will not and cannot become an enemy. They may still hurt you, but any such action would be motivated by something else; like greed or a need to dominate, something emotional or psychological but not the venom and vitriol that inspires terrorism and real enemies.

Imagine the United States being a humanitarian super power rather than a military super power. Imagine America being a facilitator and supporter of people and nations rather than an invader and occupier. Imagine being the world's healer and the planets’ supreme protector rather than its interrogator, torturer and plunderer. Imagine if the United States government, its citizens and its corporations, were focused on and dedicated to improving human living conditions for all people around the world rather than increasing the wealth, position, and power of an elite minority faction. Imagine that human progress, happiness, good health, unlimited education, opportunity and absolute equality of status, privileges, rights and ethical conduct by government is the most important objective of United States citizens and government. More important than profit, wealth, conquest, oil, or even image and prestige; imagine that people are more valuable than anything of or beyond this world. If you can imagine these things, then you can imagine the true spirit and purpose of the United States of America and its aspiration as expressed in Declaration of Independence. Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government will make it possible.

Can you imagine the United States of America being this kind of nation? Certainly the two major presidential candidates and the two ruling political parties do not and cannot inspire such high minded thoughts. Until we, the people, carry out another Revolution throwing out our bad government and instituting a new one based on Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government our security and safety will remain as a source of fear, oppression, and profit.

Next time I will conclude my examination of security with an in depth look at terror and terrorism. Until then, Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.

Friday, September 5, 2008


5 September 2008

Our in depth examination and discussion about the fallacy of security in the United States of America continues.

The deception of America’s security begins in the words of the Declaration of Independence with the suggestion that "all are…equal." Recall Thomas Jefferson’s meaning that all are equal in rights and not necessarily in abilities. Although this myth of equality was vital when instigating rebellion it was not considered important enough to be explicitly included as part of our Constitution. In the Preamble ‘equality’ is overtly implicit as a sub-text lending support to American security mythology.

The Preamble is unambiguous in its assertion that we, the people, did ordain and establish our constitutional framework. Principally for the purposes of organizing a system and process of government to provide security for life, liberty, and property. It is a legal and binding social contract. The framers agreed that the ends of government are to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. All of which are aspects of either domestic or national security. They also pledged to devote resources to creating a more perfect union and ensuring liberty’s blessings.

Citizens first learn about the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution in school. This process generally includes memorizing the Preamble. As a result, the natural and logical inference one draws is that all this security, protection, justice, and the supposed blessings secured by government are for every member of the group. That is to say, Americans believe this Constitutional contract must apply equally to all citizens, private and corporate. Therein one discovers the fraud, the deception and ultimately, the myth.

The plain unvarnished non-mythologized truth is that our independence was declared, our Revolution instigated, and our United States Constitution was constructed and ratified by and for the benefit and protection of the property and interests of an elite wealthy minority faction; not for ALL. The only role common citizens and poor farmers had in establishing this nation was the actual fighting and winning of the Revolutionary War.

In Passionate Declarations, re-titled and re-published in 2003 by Perennial, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, historian, activist, and author, Dr. Howard Zinn, discussing the opening phrase of our Constitution’s Preamble writes:
"The Constitution thus looked as if it were written by all the people, representing their interests. … In fact, the Constitution was drawn up by fifty-five men, all white and mostly rich, who represented a certain elite group in the new nation."

Dr. Zinn also writes about this extensively in A People’s History of the United States, first published in 1980 by Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, and revised most recently in 2003. He notes that, "In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that representative government was needed to maintain peace in a society ridden by factional disputes." Disputes caused from, as Madison says, "the various and unequal distribution of property."

According to Zinn, Madison saw the real problem threatening survival of the United States going forward as one of "minority faction." The solution offered by the Constitution was a large republic ranging over thirteen states. Madison then says: " It will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other… The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but [it] will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States." Madison reasoned that, any rabble-rousers, or even someone with a legitimate cause, if separated – isolated, could be controlled and ultimately shut down. Thereby keeping the peace and security for those with wealth and property.

But Professor Zinn asks, "[Is] it the aim of government simply to maintain order…? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral… but participants?"
In Federalist #10, James Madison is direct about whose peace he supports. He remarks: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it." [Emphasis added.] James Madison impugns common citizens’ redress for economic stimulus, for relief that had been assured, and a demand to have equal access, opportunity, and protection by designating our purported inalienable rights of citizenship to be both improper and wicked. This act exposes his true aristocratic nature and loyalty to the powerful status quo.

Madison was a member of the original American pseudo-aristocratic class that also included Hamilton, John Adams, Jefferson, and Washington. Most of our constitutional framers were an elite cohort of men that were already established in positions of wealth and power. The group also included lawyers, shipping tycoons, slave traders, speculators and moneychangers. This minority faction instigated rebellion and revolution for less than altruistic or compassionate ends. Upon attaining victory this minority acted to institutionalize its position, power, and priority interests as synonymous with our new nation’s objectives by assigning exclusive authority and privilege to themselves and the minority faction they represented at the Constitutional Convention.

In A People’s History of the United States, Professor Zinn refers to historian Charles Beard’s early twentieth century book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, in which Beard points out that, "for their own interest, the rich either have to directly control the government or the laws by which government operates." By studying the political ideas and economic backgrounds of the fifty-five men who assembled the Constitution, Charles Beard discovered that most of them were wealthy, and that most had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government.

Mr. Beard also noted that four groups were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. I would add native people to the list. Because those groups were not represented, the Constitution did not reflect their interests. But, according to Zinn, Beard wanted to make it clear that, "he [Beard] did not think the Constitution was written merely to benefit the Founding Fathers personally. Rather, it was to benefit the groups the Founders represented, the ‘economic interests they understood and felt in concrete, definite form through their own personal experience.’" Charles Beard also warns us that government, including our own, is not neutral.Government always represents the dominant economic [and I would add religious] interests and shapes their constitutions to serve these interests.

By examining the political clauses of our Constitution and the economic interests that created them, it is very easy to recognize it for what it is. The United States Constitution is not the work of wise men simply trying to establish the security of a decent and orderly nation. The final draft language clearly demonstrates that certain parts of society arranged things for their security in order to hold on to their established privileges, power and wealth, while, as Dr. Zinn says, "giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support." From the very beginning of our nation the government has been arranged to divide and control.

That ours is a nation dedicated to providing justice, domestic tranquility, common defense and general welfare for all citizens is the myth of America’s security. The truth is that ‘All’ is narrowly defined and includes primarily wealthy and powerful religious, political, and corporate interests. The remaining 90%-plus of citizens must be content to rely on our rugged individualism and, in deference to our pseudo-aristocratic government and the wealthy donor-class, we should be grateful to live in the greatest, most powerful, most secure and free nation in the history of the world. The security objective of the elite status quo is to protect its own position, power and profit, not all the citizens of the United States.

This process of securing the wealth, powers and position of the American Ruling Class is maintained by granting – usually after much resistance – some number of limited, tightly restricted and controlled civil rights and liberties. All of which continually undergo further limitation and qualification upon review by the courts and legislative amendment. It is unpatriotic to complain about this because every citizen should know by now that, Freedom ain’t Free.

We have traded our liberties for lawyers and our integrity for the myth of security. The illusion and structure of America’s traditional Homeland and National Security model protected and defended thus far by the status quo offers some insight into the deleterious stupor of credulity and cupidity infecting the spirit and character of United States citizens.

Something for readers to consider. More to follow in my next posting. Until then...Give Peace a chance.

James B. Tinsley, B.A.