Tuesday, December 19, 2006

 
Dear reader,

Not quite what I wanted to have here, but this is a rather interesting point. The mint was set up by the Congress as per the Constitution. So why would we need a Federal Reserve to supplement it? Yes, the Mint does make money, but it could also regulate the dispensers on the money too, that is, the bankers. Of course this is highly simplified, but if you reduce things to their simplicity, it also reveals what complications are not really needed!

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003358F/money1.html

So, why can't the Mint, a Government institution, control the money of the USA? To get a bit of history on the matter, read the following, rather long, but based on the Constitution.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/prophesy.html


Stephan

Labels: , , ,


Sunday, December 03, 2006

 
Dear Reader,

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourelves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

This is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. It lays the framwork for the entire Constitution and also lays the premise, or stable data for what follows. Anything that follows issues from the ideals above. Therefore it makes sense to determine what the above means in terms of the time that it was written. Not in terms of today. Once we know what the intention was for that time period, we should be able to see how that tanslates to the present.

On October 1 I went over some of the preamble, and basicaly left out the first line. So I am here putting in my 2 cents worth on this.

We, the people of the United States... At that time was the 13(?) colonial states, inhabited by immigrants from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. There were some other nationalities too such as Germans, and Africans. The Constitution was written for the political leaders by one man and was approved b them after a few rounds of disagreements etc. So it was not the original idea, but the agreed on one based on the politial climate. That is not my area of expertise, but I would venture that the idea was that people would be translated to mean responsible citizens. Not the slaves, nor the indentured servants.

In order to form a more perfect Union..... The states were somewhat insular and non-cooperative. It required quite some work to get the representatives assembled and then to agree on the Constitution. But it was done as it was evident that the might of Britain could only be thwarted by the combined efforts of the colonies. Together they could survive. Separately they were at the mercy of the British Army and Navy. A perfect union would be one with no disunity, no self interested separateness.

The rest of the preamble is covered in the 10 October 2006 blog.

The question of what freedom really means, I will have to handle in the next blog. At this time, I find it rather daunting. But address it I must, and see what response it evokes!

Stephan

Labels: ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?