• America Has Always Been a Dangerous Idea

    From Wilson@wilson@nowhere.net to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 12:10:31 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy


    https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea

    Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
    two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats
    against the bold prerogatives assumed by President Donald Trump, echoing
    the Tea Party, the popular movement that emerged in 2009 to hold
    President Barack Obama to account.

    In fact, whether it’s the Black Panthers, the Daughters of the American Revolution, or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warning about The Imperial
    Presidency, Americans of all creeds and passions tend to voice their
    protest of the government in the language of the Declaration of
    Independence, even in 2025. This is understandable; it’s a remarkable document that marks the official birth of America.

    Most national origin stories are about a great man—sometimes with divine authority—who creates a new country in a specific land for a particular bloodline. One’s nationality was determined by blood and soil, and
    people lived according to the whims of their rulers. America, on the
    other hand, was founded on an idea. And what an idea it was.

    What the founders said in the Declaration was that the government does
    not derive its power from the heavens or the sword, but from the consent
    of the people it governs. And the people have a God-given right to
    dissolve the government when it violates their God-given rights.

    The founders did not take the right to break ties with the British
    Empire lightly. Revolution is serious business and should not be done
    for trivial reasons. Go to the Declaration and you find that most of the complaints listed against King George III are about his interference
    with local and state legislatures and courts. Yes, there’s all the stuff
    we remember from middle school too, like taxation without
    representation, quartering an army in private homes during peacetime,
    and my favorite: “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt
    our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” But that last one,
    which alone would seem to be enough to justify “dissolv[ing] the
    political bands which have connected” the young Americans to the British Empire, is the 24th of 27 complaints against the king. The bulk of the Declaration’s bill of particulars are about depriving Americans of
    rights and democratic institutions that the vast majority of the world
    at the time did not know or have reason to believe their government owed
    to them.

    And in this respect, the Declaration of Independence was dynamite. It
    was not only a statement of a self-evident truth about the nature of
    human beings and society; it was an assertion that everyone is entitled
    to these rights. And this idea has resonated throughout the last two and
    a half centuries. It has served at home as a promissory note, in the
    words of Martin Luther King Jr. And it has inspired revolutions and
    uprisings all over the world. It is what makes America exceptional. The Declaration of Independence, the idea of America, in this sense is much
    larger than the charter of our nation.


    Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders did not discover a new
    political insight; they were tinkering with the political philosophy of
    their era. But they were also putting these ideas into action. The
    English Bill of Rights secured a new contract between Parliament and
    King, a notable accomplishment for sure. The Declaration, though, went further. The rights it enumerates are inalienable and their truth is self-evident. They are not based in English tradition; they are based in
    human nature. They are not negotiable, and these rights apply to everyone.

    That is the intellectual context of the Declaration. But there is also
    an important political context. What is often overlooked in the studies
    of the American Revolution is that even in 1775, when Massachusetts was
    in rebellion and Boston was under siege, the Continental Congress still
    held out hope to negotiate a new agreement with King George III. And
    here is a great irony of the American Revolution. King George had
    already decided by 1774 to treat the patriots as traitors and rebels. He
    knew before the Founding Fathers themselves that their agenda was
    revolution. Had the king not been so stubborn, there is a good chance
    that New York and Pennsylvania would have continued to push for what
    they called a middle way. But the king wouldn’t budge, so even the
    Quaker pacifists of Philadelphia ended up endorsing revolution.


    Allow me to anticipate an objection thus far. As you may have noticed, I
    have only lightly touched on America’s original sin: slavery. And yet
    even though it was debated hotly at the Constitutional Convention, the practice was not abolished until nearly a century after the Declaration
    of Independence. Women and landless whites—let alone the native tribes—were not afforded the inalienable rights and equality promised by
    our national charter. In this respect, one could argue that the document
    was nothing more than marketing material for a revolution staged by a
    bunch of white elites who didn’t want to pay their taxes. They just
    dressed up their economic grievances in flowery prose. This is the
    standard view these days from what might be called the post-American
    left. But here is what I think they get wrong. Let’s look at Jefferson’s original draft of the declaration:

    "He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them
    into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to
    prohibit or restrain an execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting
    those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty
    of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the
    liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit
    against the lives of another."

    Talk about contradictions. In this section of the document, Jefferson is attacking the English king for imposing the slave trade on the colonies
    and preventing legislatures from ending what he calls an “execrable commerce,” and also for inciting these slaves to rise up against their masters. But even here, we can see that Jefferson acknowledges that the
    slaves are human beings who have the same inalienable rights as their
    masters. The language did not make it into the Declaration because the Southern delegates did not see things the way Jefferson, their fellow Southerner, did. All of that said, Jefferson, Washington, and Madison,
    all slave owners at the end of their lives, acknowledged that eventually
    the young republic would have to end the practice of slavery.

    But the big flaw in the left’s argument about the Declaration is its
    failure to appreciate how this document was a standard by which
    Americans, who were deprived of their rights, could hold their country
    to account and obtain them. This was the playbook for the abolitionists
    of the 19th century and the civil rights movement of the 20th century.
    This was how the suffragettes argued for the right of women to vote. So
    in this respect, the Declaration is a kind of engine of American
    progress. Because the rights enumerated are self-evident truths, there
    is no appeal to celestial, ethnic, or government authority. Just
    consider the Declaration of Sentiments that emerged from the Seneca
    Falls Convention, the first meeting of American women to organize for
    voting rights. It’s the Declaration with one important edit.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
    inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
    of happiness.

    We can also look at the righteous fury of Frederick Douglass in his July
    4, 1852 address. Here he turns our national identity on itself.

    "Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of
    liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while
    the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen."

    In the 19th century, Douglass and the other abolitionists amplified the contradictions of a republic whose charter asserted the equality of all
    people and their rights to live in freedom while allowing the practice
    of chattel slavery. That contradiction, identified by Jefferson himself,
    could not hold. It was left for Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president,
    to resolve through the Civil War. Lincoln argued that his decision to emancipate the slaves was to fulfill the promise of the Declaration.
    It’s right there in the opening sentence of the Gettysburg Address.

    Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
    proposition that all men are created equal.


    Though clearly different, the French Revolution is impossible to imagine without the American Revolution that preceded it, and the Declaration
    that let the liberty cat out of the bag. And boy, did the cat run.
    Because after 1789, the Declaration really began to go viral. There is
    the Haitian Revolution, which began in 1791. Seven years after it ended
    in 1804, Venezuela, under Simón Bolívar, declared independence from
    Spain. By 1817, the European powers had begun to notice. John Quincy
    Adams that year, from his post as the American minister in England,
    observed in a letter to his father John Adams:

    The universal feeling of Europe in witnessing the gigantic growth
    of our population and power is that we shall, if united, become a very dangerous member of the society of nations.

    The power of the Declaration’s ideas continued to spread. Our DNA is all over the independence movements of the twentieth century. Even Ho Chi
    Minh opened Vietnam’s own declaration in 1945 by quoting directly from Jefferson’s famous second paragraph. It resurfaced in Israel, whose 1948 Declaration of Independence echoes the American one in both structure
    and spirit.

    Across continents and centuries, the Declaration’s assertion of
    universal liberty continues to be one of the most contagious ideas in political history. Even during the Cold War, when so much anti-colonial ferment was motivated by the Russian Revolution and the ideas of Marx
    and Engels, rooted in materialist theories of historical inevitability,
    the beacon of our national charter lit the way for freedom fighters.
    Nelson Mandela, whose African National Congress was aligned with the
    Soviet Union during apartheid, sang a hymn of praise to the Declaration
    before the U.S. Congress in 1990. And my hope is that we will see the
    power of the Declaration today inspire a new generation of revolutionary patriots fighting for freedom in Iran as their regime reels from the humiliation of the 12-day war.

    This American scripture is something all of us should still revere.
    Because we are closer to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence
    today than we were in 1776. Its words inspired Lincoln, Douglas, King,
    the suffragettes, and countless other Americans to demand that we live
    up to its ideals. That is not a criticism of the Declaration but a
    tribute to its power. This is why I reject the fashionable theory today
    that America was founded in 1619—a century before any of its founders
    were born—and the date the first African slaves, kidnapped by Portugal,
    were sent to the British colony of Virginia. In the end the spirit of
    1776 defeated the spirit of 1619 in the Civil War, and later in the
    civil rights movement.

    When asked at the Constitutional Convention what kind of government this
    new United States would adopt, Ben Franklin famously responded, “A
    republic, if you can keep it.” That quote is usually dusted off as a
    kind of warning, but it is also a source of hope. If “you” can keep it; already the republic isn’t somebody else’s business but everyone’s. How you feel about that depends on how you feel about your fellow citizens,
    and perhaps even your fellow human beings. Though there are always
    plenty of reasons to worry for the future, in the end I’m an optimist.
    Who would have thought that a government founded in revolution, whose
    charter asserts the right to shake off the chains of tyrants, would last
    250 years? Will we last another two and a half centuries? I don’t know
    the answer, but we have a fighting chance so long as we never lose sight
    of the indelible truths contained in the Declaration of Independence.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Noah Sombrero@fedora@fea.st to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 12:15:54 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:10:31 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:


    https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea

    Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
    two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats >against the bold prerogatives assumed by President Donald Trump, echoing
    the Tea Party, the popular movement that emerged in 2009 to hold
    President Barack Obama to account.

    In fact, whether itÆs the Black Panthers, the Daughters of the American >Revolution, or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warning about The Imperial
    Presidency, Americans of all creeds and passions tend to voice their
    protest of the government in the language of the Declaration of >Independence, even in 2025. This is understandable; itÆs a remarkable >document that marks the official birth of America.

    Most national origin stories are about a great manùsometimes with divine >authorityùwho creates a new country in a specific land for a particular >bloodline. OneÆs nationality was determined by blood and soil, and
    people lived according to the whims of their rulers. America, on the
    other hand, was founded on an idea. And what an idea it was.

    What the founders said in the Declaration was that the government does
    not derive its power from the heavens or the sword, but from the consent
    of the people it governs. And the people have a God-given right to
    dissolve the government when it violates their God-given rights.

    Yes, but half the people is not sufficient. To bad that when
    proselytizers say people, they mean people who agree with me of
    whatever proportion.

    The founders did not take the right to break ties with the British
    Empire lightly. Revolution is serious business and should not be done
    for trivial reasons. Go to the Declaration and you find that most of the >complaints listed against King George III are about his interference
    with local and state legislatures and courts. Yes, thereÆs all the stuff
    we remember from middle school too, like taxation without
    representation, quartering an army in private homes during peacetime,
    and my favorite: ôHe has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt
    our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.ö But that last one,
    which alone would seem to be enough to justify ôdissolv[ing] the
    political bands which have connectedö the young Americans to the British >Empire, is the 24th of 27 complaints against the king. The bulk of the >DeclarationÆs bill of particulars are about depriving Americans of
    rights and democratic institutions that the vast majority of the world
    at the time did not know or have reason to believe their government owed
    to them.

    And in this respect, the Declaration of Independence was dynamite. It
    was not only a statement of a self-evident truth about the nature of
    human beings and society; it was an assertion that everyone is entitled
    to these rights. And this idea has resonated throughout the last two and
    a half centuries. It has served at home as a promissory note, in the
    words of Martin Luther King Jr. And it has inspired revolutions and >uprisings all over the world. It is what makes America exceptional. The >Declaration of Independence, the idea of America, in this sense is much >larger than the charter of our nation.


    Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders did not discover a new
    political insight; they were tinkering with the political philosophy of >their era. But they were also putting these ideas into action. The
    English Bill of Rights secured a new contract between Parliament and
    King, a notable accomplishment for sure. The Declaration, though, went >further. The rights it enumerates are inalienable and their truth is >self-evident. They are not based in English tradition; they are based in >human nature. They are not negotiable, and these rights apply to everyone.

    That is the intellectual context of the Declaration. But there is also
    an important political context. What is often overlooked in the studies
    of the American Revolution is that even in 1775, when Massachusetts was
    in rebellion and Boston was under siege, the Continental Congress still
    held out hope to negotiate a new agreement with King George III. And
    here is a great irony of the American Revolution. King George had
    already decided by 1774 to treat the patriots as traitors and rebels. He >knew before the Founding Fathers themselves that their agenda was >revolution. Had the king not been so stubborn, there is a good chance
    that New York and Pennsylvania would have continued to push for what
    they called a middle way. But the king wouldnÆt budge, so even the
    Quaker pacifists of Philadelphia ended up endorsing revolution.


    Allow me to anticipate an objection thus far. As you may have noticed, I >have only lightly touched on AmericaÆs original sin: slavery. And yet
    even though it was debated hotly at the Constitutional Convention, the >practice was not abolished until nearly a century after the Declaration
    of Independence. Women and landless whitesùlet alone the native
    tribesùwere not afforded the inalienable rights and equality promised by
    our national charter. In this respect, one could argue that the document
    was nothing more than marketing material for a revolution staged by a
    bunch of white elites who didnÆt want to pay their taxes. They just
    dressed up their economic grievances in flowery prose. This is the
    standard view these days from what might be called the post-American
    left. But here is what I think they get wrong. LetÆs look at JeffersonÆs >original draft of the declaration:

    "He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
    violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a >distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them
    into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their >transportation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel >powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain, he has >prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to >prohibit or restrain an execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of >horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting
    those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty
    of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also >obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the
    liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit
    against the lives of another."

    Talk about contradictions. In this section of the document, Jefferson is >attacking the English king for imposing the slave trade on the colonies
    and preventing legislatures from ending what he calls an ôexecrable >commerce,ö and also for inciting these slaves to rise up against their >masters. But even here, we can see that Jefferson acknowledges that the >slaves are human beings who have the same inalienable rights as their >masters. The language did not make it into the Declaration because the >Southern delegates did not see things the way Jefferson, their fellow >Southerner, did. All of that said, Jefferson, Washington, and Madison,
    all slave owners at the end of their lives, acknowledged that eventually
    the young republic would have to end the practice of slavery.

    But the big flaw in the leftÆs argument about the Declaration is its
    failure to appreciate how this document was a standard by which
    Americans, who were deprived of their rights, could hold their country
    to account and obtain them. This was the playbook for the abolitionists
    of the 19th century and the civil rights movement of the 20th century.
    This was how the suffragettes argued for the right of women to vote. So
    in this respect, the Declaration is a kind of engine of American
    progress. Because the rights enumerated are self-evident truths, there
    is no appeal to celestial, ethnic, or government authority. Just
    consider the Declaration of Sentiments that emerged from the Seneca
    Falls Convention, the first meeting of American women to organize for
    voting rights. ItÆs the Declaration with one important edit.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are
    created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
    of happiness.

    We can also look at the righteous fury of Frederick Douglass in his July
    4, 1852 address. Here he turns our national identity on itself.

    "Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican
    religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of
    liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while
    the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great >political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the >enslavement of three millions of your countrymen."

    In the 19th century, Douglass and the other abolitionists amplified the >contradictions of a republic whose charter asserted the equality of all >people and their rights to live in freedom while allowing the practice
    of chattel slavery. That contradiction, identified by Jefferson himself, >could not hold. It was left for Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president,
    to resolve through the Civil War. Lincoln argued that his decision to >emancipate the slaves was to fulfill the promise of the Declaration.
    ItÆs right there in the opening sentence of the Gettysburg Address.

    Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
    continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the >proposition that all men are created equal.


    Though clearly different, the French Revolution is impossible to imagine >without the American Revolution that preceded it, and the Declaration
    that let the liberty cat out of the bag. And boy, did the cat run.
    Because after 1789, the Declaration really began to go viral. There is
    the Haitian Revolution, which began in 1791. Seven years after it ended
    in 1804, Venezuela, under Sim≤n Boløvar, declared independence from
    Spain. By 1817, the European powers had begun to notice. John Quincy
    Adams that year, from his post as the American minister in England,
    observed in a letter to his father John Adams:

    The universal feeling of Europe in witnessing the gigantic growth
    of our population and power is that we shall, if united, become a very >dangerous member of the society of nations.

    The power of the DeclarationÆs ideas continued to spread. Our DNA is all >over the independence movements of the twentieth century. Even Ho Chi
    Minh opened VietnamÆs own declaration in 1945 by quoting directly from >JeffersonÆs famous second paragraph. It resurfaced in Israel, whose 1948 >Declaration of Independence echoes the American one in both structure
    and spirit.

    Across continents and centuries, the DeclarationÆs assertion of
    universal liberty continues to be one of the most contagious ideas in >political history. Even during the Cold War, when so much anti-colonial >ferment was motivated by the Russian Revolution and the ideas of Marx
    and Engels, rooted in materialist theories of historical inevitability,
    the beacon of our national charter lit the way for freedom fighters.
    Nelson Mandela, whose African National Congress was aligned with the
    Soviet Union during apartheid, sang a hymn of praise to the Declaration >before the U.S. Congress in 1990. And my hope is that we will see the
    power of the Declaration today inspire a new generation of revolutionary >patriots fighting for freedom in Iran as their regime reels from the >humiliation of the 12-day war.

    This American scripture is something all of us should still revere.
    Because we are closer to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence
    today than we were in 1776. Its words inspired Lincoln, Douglas, King,
    the suffragettes, and countless other Americans to demand that we live
    up to its ideals. That is not a criticism of the Declaration but a
    tribute to its power. This is why I reject the fashionable theory today
    that America was founded in 1619ùa century before any of its founders
    were bornùand the date the first African slaves, kidnapped by Portugal,
    were sent to the British colony of Virginia. In the end the spirit of
    1776 defeated the spirit of 1619 in the Civil War, and later in the
    civil rights movement.

    When asked at the Constitutional Convention what kind of government this
    new United States would adopt, Ben Franklin famously responded, ôA
    republic, if you can keep it.ö That quote is usually dusted off as a
    kind of warning, but it is also a source of hope. If ôyouö can keep it; >already the republic isnÆt somebody elseÆs business but everyoneÆs. How
    you feel about that depends on how you feel about your fellow citizens,
    and perhaps even your fellow human beings. Though there are always
    plenty of reasons to worry for the future, in the end IÆm an optimist.
    Who would have thought that a government founded in revolution, whose >charter asserts the right to shake off the chains of tyrants, would last
    250 years? Will we last another two and a half centuries? I donÆt know
    the answer, but we have a fighting chance so long as we never lose sight
    of the indelible truths contained in the Declaration of Independence.
    --
    Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
    Don't get political with me young man
    or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
    <<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
    Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
    dares: Ned
    does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dude@punditster@gmail.com to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 10:23:38 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On 7/4/2025 9:15 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
    On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:10:31 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:


    https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea

    Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
    two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats
    against the bold prerogatives assumed by President Donald Trump, echoing
    the Tea Party, the popular movement that emerged in 2009 to hold
    President Barack Obama to account.

    In fact, whether it’s the Black Panthers, the Daughters of the American
    Revolution, or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warning about The Imperial
    Presidency, Americans of all creeds and passions tend to voice their
    protest of the government in the language of the Declaration of
    Independence, even in 2025. This is understandable; it’s a remarkable
    document that marks the official birth of America.

    Most national origin stories are about a great man—sometimes with divine >> authority—who creates a new country in a specific land for a particular
    bloodline. One’s nationality was determined by blood and soil, and
    people lived according to the whims of their rulers. America, on the
    other hand, was founded on an idea. And what an idea it was.

    What the founders said in the Declaration was that the government does
    not derive its power from the heavens or the sword, but from the consent
    of the people it governs. And the people have a God-given right to
    dissolve the government when it violates their God-given rights.

    Yes, but half the people is not sufficient. To bad that when
    proselytizers say people, they mean people who agree with me of
    whatever proportion.

    Someone should look up Robert's Rules of Order.

    Apparently, Majority rule is the most common social choice rule
    worldwide, being heavily used in deliberative assemblies for dichotomous decisions, e.g. whether or not to pass a bill.

    It is one of the basic rules of parliamentary procedure. However, keep
    in mind that the US does not have direct voting.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Noah Sombrero@fedora@fea.st to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 14:04:04 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 10:23:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/4/2025 9:15 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
    On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:10:31 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:


    https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea

    Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
    two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats
    against the bold prerogatives assumed by President Donald Trump, echoing >>> the Tea Party, the popular movement that emerged in 2009 to hold
    President Barack Obama to account.

    In fact, whether itÆs the Black Panthers, the Daughters of the American
    Revolution, or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warning about The Imperial
    Presidency, Americans of all creeds and passions tend to voice their
    protest of the government in the language of the Declaration of
    Independence, even in 2025. This is understandable; itÆs a remarkable
    document that marks the official birth of America.

    Most national origin stories are about a great manùsometimes with divine >>> authorityùwho creates a new country in a specific land for a particular
    bloodline. OneÆs nationality was determined by blood and soil, and
    people lived according to the whims of their rulers. America, on the
    other hand, was founded on an idea. And what an idea it was.

    What the founders said in the Declaration was that the government does
    not derive its power from the heavens or the sword, but from the consent >>> of the people it governs. And the people have a God-given right to
    dissolve the government when it violates their God-given rights.

    Yes, but half the people is not sufficient. To bad that when
    proselytizers say people, they mean people who agree with me of
    whatever proportion.

    Someone should look up Robert's Rules of Order.

    Apparently, Majority rule is the most common social choice rule
    worldwide, being heavily used in deliberative assemblies for dichotomous >decisions, e.g. whether or not to pass a bill.

    It is one of the basic rules of parliamentary procedure. However, keep
    in mind that the US does not have direct voting.

    Except when it comes to replacing a functioning democracy with a
    dictatorship. That is outside what Robert had in mind.
    --
    Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
    Don't get political with me young man
    or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
    <<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
    Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
    dares: Ned
    does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From David LaRue@huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 19:20:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA
    government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
    that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few years of its existance.

    For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
    also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just that.

    https://online.hillsdale.edu/

    My opinions,

    I have not viewed all these courses but they served as an interesting discussion to prompt me to dig out my own copy of said papers that were distributed in 1976 during the 200 year anniversary. We had about seven
    years of discussions in school and in public detailing the events that led
    to the formulation of this country and its governing documents. The papers themselves can easily be found online and provide insight into each
    person's mind that helped form this country.

    It is a shame that so many here do not understand how other governments function and how ours functions. Such topics are taught in counties around the world.

    For anyone wanting to critisize the USA please visit a few other countries
    and visit with the people outside their vacation hubs to get background on what life there is like and what their lives are like..

    Likewise if you have not visited a majority of other states please do so
    and talk to the people there. Their history is important too.

    When you encounter visitors from other parts of the world please talk with them for as long as you can. Get their views from their part of the world. Then we can start to have meaningful discussions together about global politics and so much more.

    Enjoy what you have and truely appreciate it!

    Thank you,

    David
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Julian@julianlzb87@gmail.com to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 21:31:00 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On 04/07/2025 20:20, David LaRue wrote:
    Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
    that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few years of its existance.

    For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
    also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just that.

    https://online.hillsdale.edu/
    Thanks. A great resource.
    I've started with "The Great Principles of Chemistry"
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tara@tsm@fastmail.ca to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 21:03:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Jul 4, 2025 at 3:20:37 PM EDT, "David LaRue" <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

    Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
    that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few years of its existance.

    For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
    also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just that.

    https://online.hillsdale.edu/


    Thanks. I think I'll take another look at C.S. Lewis on Christianity




    My opinions,

    I have not viewed all these courses but they served as an interesting discussion to prompt me to dig out my own copy of said papers that were distributed in 1976 during the 200 year anniversary. We had about seven years of discussions in school and in public detailing the events that led
    to the formulation of this country and its governing documents. The papers themselves can easily be found online and provide insight into each
    person's mind that helped form this country.

    It is a shame that so many here do not understand how other governments function and how ours functions. Such topics are taught in counties around the world.

    For anyone wanting to critisize the USA please visit a few other countries and visit with the people outside their vacation hubs to get background on what life there is like and what their lives are like..

    Likewise if you have not visited a majority of other states please do so
    and talk to the people there. Their history is important too.

    When you encounter visitors from other parts of the world please talk with them for as long as you can. Get their views from their part of the world. Then we can start to have meaningful discussions together about global politics and so much more.

    Enjoy what you have and truely appreciate it!

    Thank you,

    David
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tara@tsm@fastmail.ca to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 21:03:15 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Jul 4, 2025 at 3:20:37 PM EDT, "David LaRue" <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

    Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
    that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few years of its existance.

    For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
    also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just that.

    https://online.hillsdale.edu/


    Thanks. I think I'll take another look at C.S. Lewis on Christianity




    My opinions,

    I have not viewed all these courses but they served as an interesting discussion to prompt me to dig out my own copy of said papers that were distributed in 1976 during the 200 year anniversary. We had about seven years of discussions in school and in public detailing the events that led
    to the formulation of this country and its governing documents. The papers themselves can easily be found online and provide insight into each
    person's mind that helped form this country.

    It is a shame that so many here do not understand how other governments function and how ours functions. Such topics are taught in counties around the world.

    For anyone wanting to critisize the USA please visit a few other countries and visit with the people outside their vacation hubs to get background on what life there is like and what their lives are like..

    Likewise if you have not visited a majority of other states please do so
    and talk to the people there. Their history is important too.

    When you encounter visitors from other parts of the world please talk with them for as long as you can. Get their views from their part of the world. Then we can start to have meaningful discussions together about global politics and so much more.

    Enjoy what you have and truely appreciate it!

    Thank you,

    David
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tara@tsm@fastmail.ca to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 21:23:20 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Jul 4, 2025 at 5:03:15 PM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:

    On Jul 4, 2025 at 3:20:37 PM EDT, "David LaRue" <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

    Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA
    government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
    that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few >> years of its existance.

    For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, >> refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
    also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just >> that.

    https://online.hillsdale.edu/


    Thanks. I think I'll take another look at C.S. Lewis on Christianity

    Opon reflection, I think I will pass


    Just one review amongst most says:

    " Pat Sajak is their board chairman, a game show host. The chairman of Amway
    is the vice chair, an MLM organization run by ultra religious fundamentalists. The board is a who's who of right wing power brokers in the state. It's about as legitimate a university as PragerU at this point, but with political ambition and power."

    Chemistry should be pretty safe though :)






    My opinions,

    I have not viewed all these courses but they served as an interesting
    discussion to prompt me to dig out my own copy of said papers that were
    distributed in 1976 during the 200 year anniversary. We had about seven
    years of discussions in school and in public detailing the events that led >> to the formulation of this country and its governing documents. The papers >> themselves can easily be found online and provide insight into each
    person's mind that helped form this country.

    It is a shame that so many here do not understand how other governments
    function and how ours functions. Such topics are taught in counties around >> the world.

    For anyone wanting to critisize the USA please visit a few other countries >> and visit with the people outside their vacation hubs to get background on >> what life there is like and what their lives are like..

    Likewise if you have not visited a majority of other states please do so
    and talk to the people there. Their history is important too.

    When you encounter visitors from other parts of the world please talk with >> them for as long as you can. Get their views from their part of the world. >> Then we can start to have meaningful discussions together about global
    politics and so much more.

    Enjoy what you have and truely appreciate it!

    Thank you,

    David


    Oooooo, Pat Sajak is their board chairman, a game show host. The chairman of Amway is the vice chair, an MLM organization run by ultra religious fundamentalists. The board is a who's who of right wing power brokers in the state. It's about as legitimate a university as PragerU at this point, but
    with political ambition and power.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Julian@julianlzb87@gmail.com to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Fri Jul 4 23:22:40 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On 04/07/2025 22:23, Tara wrote:
    On Jul 4, 2025 at 5:03:15 PM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:

    On Jul 4, 2025 at 3:20:37 PM EDT, "David LaRue" <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> >> wrote:

    Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA
    government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
    that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few >>> years of its existance.

    For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, >>> refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I >>> also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just >>> that.

    https://online.hillsdale.edu/


    Thanks. I think I'll take another look at C.S. Lewis on Christianity

    Opon reflection, I think I will pass


    Just one review amongst most says:

    " Pat Sajak is their board chairman, a game show host. The chairman of Amway is the vice chair, an MLM organization run by ultra religious fundamentalists.
    The board is a who's who of right wing power brokers in the state. It's about as legitimate a university as PragerU at this point, but with political ambition and power."

    Chemistry should be pretty safe though :)
    The jury is out. Half way through the first episode
    liberal arts students have been mentioned several times
    but I'll give it until half way through the second episode
    to see if it there is anything for people who know something
    about Chemistry. It's what the UK taught at 11yo in 1960's.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Creon@creon@creon.earth to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sat Jul 5 02:51:12 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:10:31 -0400, Wilson wrote:

    https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea

    Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
    two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats

    Not just Democrats.
    --
    -c
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2