Civics Education in the US

As a Genuine and True Conservative who knows the History of this country, as well as the World History of thousands of years ago that made Greece possible, including the thousands of years before there was anything called Greece, I can promise you that "Liberals" are not the problem in the United States today.

In the Western World, the problem is an Elite Central Bank Monopoly. All of your "issues" begin and end there, because those who own the Central Banks stem from the same Historical Tree that owns every major industry in existence within the Western World - including the corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA which has been incorporated off-shore since 1871 - behind your back and without your consent.

The "consent of the governed" be damned. You don't live in that Republic anymore. You can get the old Republic back, but the vast majority of you are too watered down on your knowledge of real World History, that you don't know what you don't know and therefore, you don't know that you are no longer "the united states of America the Republic." All you know is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the "corporation." That corporation is owned lock, stock and barrel by the very Central Bank you seem to have no feelings about one way or another - even though there is absolutely nothing "Federal" about the Federal Reserve.

You have a fully Private Foreign Entity with absolute and full control over your Money Supply - and none of that was done with your Consent. Yet, the vast majority here think they live in a "Free" country - or that "Liberals" are the problem - or that "Conservatives" are the problem. The whole "Liberal" vs "Conservative" drama is continued delusional fodder designed to keep you divided and distracted from the real Manipulators of your Western Life. This goes for everybody living in the UNITED KINGDOM and everybody living in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - including all of the "territories" of the Royal Crown of London.

Nothing on the surface is what it appears to be. Absolutely, zero. You literally live in a Western World Matrix designed to keep you watered down and economically enslaved. Your mission (should you decide to accept it) is to Free Your Literal Mind from Bondage. Else, keep believing in made up political references and labels designed to sustain the Matrix and you will never see the underlying control mechanism for what they are - nor those who operate them behind the scenes and at levels you don't even know exist.

Kill the Fed to regain control over your own Money/Wealth and you will be on your way towards a true Revolution That Matters. Any other type of "Revolution" or "Civil War" is willful and delusional Suicide.

Unfortunately, the Rabbit Hole is a bitch.

 

Yes, well, when next in Paris do have dinner at Le Procope in Paris. Which is where both Jefferson and Franklin met with French revolutionaries trying to organize the overthrow of the French King. The discussion of "freedom" was much larger than just overthrowing a king - which both American colonists and the French would inevitably accomplish.

About le Procope and American history (from here):

Many ask why the French King would help the Americans fight a British King that the French King detested. And the answer to that question goes by the name of ... Lafayette. Who scampered out of France with the King's soldiers chasing him to the port where a boat would take him the US. Lafayette had a keen sense of warfare and became one of General Washington's key officers.

It is also anecdotal, perhaps, that Jefferson when traipsing about France saw a house in the southwest that would inevitably become the idea for the present Capitol in DC. At any event, French influence was there at the very beginning. The French engineer Pierre Charles L'Enfant was asked to plan the new city of ... "Washington". (If interested, you will find that anecdotal episode of American history here.)

MY POINT:
*The beginning of the 19th-century was a key historical turning-point for self-governance. America and France were perhaps the two countries that were the first. The French, however, bungled their original revolution. They went on for another three-quarters of a century before the finally dumped "royalty" as a system-of-governance, whereupon they set out on the rocky-road to National Democracy.
*And I surmise that the roots of democracy's modern history are deep in the mentality of the English-speaking peoples. Even Britain finally put royalty aside and adopted democracy. As have today all of her historical colonies.
*Anyone who thinks "history" was made in a day is a naive fool. It often takes centuries for countries to get their evolutionary history right.
*And, I feel, it is still work-in-progress for Uncle Sam, which is still deeply attached to individual success rather than the kind that shared equitably ...

 

Apparently you do need help figuring this out, b/c you are wrong.

The President represents the states and the nation as a whole.

The people are represented in the House of Representatives.

The House passes laws as the will of the people within the bounds of the Constitution, and the President executes those laws.

The peoples direct representation takes place in the House which is the only branch of government possessed of the power to make law.

 

Perfect.

 

Okay, Mr. Know It All, go back through my posts and tell me exactly what I was claiming. FFS, if you're going to insist on butting into an existing exchange, read the whole thing first so you don't sound like a moron.

Hint: Someone else, not you, made the mistake of assuming that I claimed "one person, one vote" is in the Constitution, which I did not do, so I challenged that person, not you, to show me where I had made any such claim. At least that person, not you, managed to go back and read it again, hence I got no further argument except this series of annoyances from a troll trying to pick a fight.

Go back to what you were picking before you butted in here.

 

Yes, it is. Each state gets two Senators regardless of population, which compensates for the fact that some states only have one or two House reps because those are based on population.

But the president represents all Americans, and IMHO all Americans should have an equal say in who is elected to that office regardless of where they choose to live. Via the EC, that is far from equitable, which is why we have elected candidates who did not win the most votes. Millions of Californians are disenfranchised in every presidential election, as are Texans and New Yorkers.

 

You provided no such qualifiers.

 

Why? Choices should bring consequences.

 

The executive enforces the laws enacted by the legislature. The executive doesn't "represent" anyone.

 

This is what economics teaches us about Income Inequality:

The difference between the two "classes" is patently unacceptable.

But, how does one convince the American people that for as long as the Replicants take control of the presidency, then nothing will change as regards Income Disparity that plagues America.

 

I don't know that they "bungled" it as opposed to simply having a different approach to "the rights of man" than did the colonists turned "statesmen" here in what would later become the United States. Additionally, one cannot forget that unlike the colonists, the people of France had been living in the same country and the same landmass as their elitist rulers for quite some time before the "Revolution." That was different in the colonies. Parliament, was back in Great Britain clear across the Atlantic and for the most part only meddled in the affairs the colonists as it related to taxation - which eventually resulted in "Revolution."

So, you had two groups of People, both feeling the need to be "Free," yet both coming to that freedom not merely from different cultural points of view but from an entirely different logistical base of leverage as well. When the colonists shed Parliament, there was no residual footprint for the British government on main soil. But, when the french "shed" (at least the concept of) tyranny in France, all of the Monarchical structure remained on soil and physically extant in the lives of the french people for quite some time after the mindset of "Revolution" became the norm. So, there are some real good reasons why revolution in France, may have seemed a bit slower than here in the colonies/United States. Obvious, no doubt - but a point I felt necessary to highlight.

Pre-1871 in the United States, I would agree to the general thrust of that assertion. However, Post-1871 in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I would disagree entirely. We used to have a free and independent Republic here. We don't anymore. The overthrow of our Nation here in the U.S. began with the ushering in of a Central Bank that was of Foreign control and origin. This was before the Federal Reserve, though back then, at least control of the Money Supply would remain in the hands of (effectively) The People. Today, things are quite different and the structure of "Control & Authority" in this country is no longer in the hands of We The People. It belongs to those who control the Money Supply - for the most part - Rothschild Control.

And, that brings us to the differential and distinction between Democracy and Republic. We've been lulled (via the Dumbing Down Process) to think of a Democratic Republic as something desirable and good for us. It is not. At least, not the way in which it has been executed here in the country. Our Democratic Republic has always been (subsequent to 1871) an "Act" of dramatic proportions played out in front of We The People, and allegedly said to be for our benefit. It is not. It is for the sole benefit of those who control our Money Supply and all those who work in Federal Government are indeed Employees of those who control our Money Supply. We essentially have both Lincoln and the Continental Congress to thank for getting the ball rolling and we have Woodrow Wilson's extreme weak leadership and the Congress to thank for putting the final nail in the Economic Slavery Coffin of the American People in 1913. That can be followed up with Richard Dick Nixon, who exhumed the body of the Republic, shot it in the head again and then buried again in the form of stripping away Gold as the backing for the USD in 1971.

Notice how 1871 is exactly 100 years apart from 1971. Coincidence? Nah, there are no such coincidences in life. The deliberate plan to turn each and every single US Citizen into an Economic Slave to the Money Supply Elite, has been brewing since BEFORE the founding of this country as a "free and independent republic" and was hatched as PART of the plan to do the exact same thing to France, Great Britain, Germany and Russia. However, the "plan" failed in Germany (initially) and in Russia (initially). This is WHY (initially) both Germany and Russia have been BOTH ally and enemy with respect to the fully raped Western nations on earth - namely Great Britain and the United States. The two biggest Prostitutes of the Money Supply Elite.

I know this reply may seem disconnected from your post, but in reality, this is part of the deeper World History that so many don't know exists.

It takes a lot more than mere Centuries. It took Millennia to bring the United States, Great Britain, all of Eastern Europe, all of Rome (both epoch of Roman History) and all of Greece (both epoch of Greco/Minoan History) to finally take shape. That took literally thousands upon thousands of years which gets back to a much bigger point having to do with the concept of World Paradigms, which I have tried in vein to educate people about on this forum for quite some time now - so they can better understand the Western Ethos and Western Ideology that now exists, where it comes from and WHY it produces so much strife between People and between the Nations of the World today.

The core Paradigm or Ethos in existence today in "America" and throughout Western Europe, is a direct extension of the former Roman Empire subsequent to Constantine and the Unholy Roman Catholic Church in one of the most unholy places on earth, Vatican City. Vatican City, has had more influence over the French Revolution and the American Revolution than most people living in either country realize. Again, another great example of why those who manipulate History must alter (re-write) History to exclude themselves as the source of that manipulation as to make themselves either benign to that History or completely removed and inconsequential to it.

Once again, this reply may seem diverted from your post - but in fact, it is a direct explanation (in short summary form) to the History of France and the United States that you allude to.

Nah, it ain't no "work-in-progress" that's healthy or in anyway truly beneficial to the Freedom of We The People.

We live in a HIGHLY manipulated World Paradigm today that is so insidiously false and has such deeply interconnected roots extending back thousands of years and with such blatantly buried History, as to finding and locating the true artifacts that explain the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, WHERE and HOW of History becomes almost impossible for most unless they decided to remove the blinders from their eyes and study that World History for themselves.

We've had three (3) Great Epochs on this planet that are known about by Historians and Archeologists - and for which Western Historians and Western Archeologists do not tell the full truth about. Those three (3) Great Epochs produced all the Nations of the earth you see today and all their previous forerunners of yesterday. Each of those three (3) World Orders (World Paradigms) were radically different in Social Structure and they span a period of about 18,000 years - originating in what you now know as "Africa."

The World Paradigm of today, dominated by the Western Ethos, is highly beneficial to The Individual and highly destructive to The Community. Once upon a time in a land far, far away (actually just across the Atlantic to the East) existed a World Paradigm where Community and Social Stability was the order of the day. There was no need for Police, no need for Correctional Facilities, no need for Juvenile Detention Facilities, no Divorce Courts, no such thing as Criminal Justice Systems (though there were Civil Systems of Justice) and no confusion about what as Morally Correct within Society. For the most part, Society lived in relative peace and relative harmony until outsiders came to invade that World Paradigm. Ever since that first invasion from outsiders, the World has never been as peaceful.

If I were a PhD Student, this could be the preamble to my PhD Thesis. Instead, I merely offer it as food for thought for you here.

 

Once again how many house members does California have compared to Wyoming?

52 to 1 how is that fair in your world?

That's how the EC was setup you want to quote some comedy show as a gotcha moment, we are a nation of states. That's what you cant figure out.


Hell Texas used to be it's own country, before volunteering to be admitted into the Union, so was Hawaii

 

Income Inequality? Let's look at that. First, you must define a thing and agree on its definition before using it in discussion. So, what is "Income Inequality?" What does it really mean and how is it defined in real terms within broader Society?

King the examples is Efficient Market Hypothesis. Just like some people believe that Incomes should be Equal. Efficient Market Hypothesis postulates that no market gains can be made because essentially all things knowable about the market are equally distributed among market players and thus, no one can have a market edge or advantage (this is one one way to put it - I could phrase it in a different way if that matters). Thus, when you invest in a stock valued at $100 per share, Efficient Market Hypothesis dictates that you cannot receive an increase in value because all inputs that make the market are equally shared among all market participants - therefore, there is no reason for an increase in valuation for the shares involved. However, there are glaring problems with such a hypothesis.

First, even if all information about the underlying issues were known in advance to purchasing the $100 stock, not every market participant will use that information in the exact same way and not every market participant will interpret and/or act on their interpretation the same way. In addition, there is no guarantee that every participant in the market will even have the correct interpretation of the information that on the surface seems widely and well distributed among all the participants. Second, not all market participants will act at the same time on the information the receive. Some maybe slower or faster to take action in the market. Third, market pricing is also impacted by human error and emotional inputs that will not be responded to in the same way by every single market participant, etc., etc.

Likewise, when we try to nutshell Incomes of people participating in the broader Jobs Market and conclude that Incomes are Unequal because of X,Y,Z causes - what we do not typically include in that analysis are inputs such as Motivation, Drive, Ambition, Preparedness, Desire, Intuition, Work Ethics, Work Principles and beliefs about Independent Thought and how it functions to produce Economic Independence. We typically and historically take a look only at Ethnicity, Social Status and the Demographics of those on the lower end of Income to determine whether there is a real "Inequality" or not.

As someone who is Black, and someone who already made the decision to become the world's first Self-Made Trillionaire, I understand the History of what we call "Income Inequality" in ways that most people don't. However, I also understand that I am total responsible for the outcomes in my life and that if I have the 'Motivation, Drive, Ambition, Preparedness, Desire, Intuition, Work Ethics, Work Principles and beliefs about Independent Though' necessary, that I can do what others deem impossible while destroying (utterly) the notion of "Income Inequality" as being some kind of absolute ironclad guaranteed condition of the Human experience that I must therefore suffer through.

I will not suffer my brain to endure such Socially Engineered Programming. I control my destiny. I am the Master Architect and Chief Engineer of my Economic Present and my Economic Future. No one is responsible for my Trillionaire status in this world - but me. That is my goal and my ultimate destiny. Now, how much "Income Inequality" would there be in this world, if People were to take on that Mental Programming?

I freely admit that my Brain has been Programmed. I freely admit that in principle. However, I AM the Developer. I am the Programmer. I write the Code. No one else. Period. I write the code. I debug the code. I edit the code and I deploy all the program that run inside my Brain. That is because I am in Control of my Thoughts, Deeds and Actions. That is true because I am the ONLY one Personally Responsible for the outcomes in my life and I know it full well.

And, if ANYONE attempt to get in the way of my Programming, they will soon come to understand that I am total responsible for the outcomes in my life. That is how enormously dedicated I am to achieving and accomplishing my goals which make "Income Inequality" anathema to my existence on this planet. Now, just imagine if everyone Programmed their Brain this way. What would happen to "Income Inequality?"

By the way, I am approaching 0.000071% of the way towards my goal already, abut 15 years into production with a non-linear growth rate. So, I know that "Income Inequality" does not have to exist in the Mind of a person who decides to make it anathema to their life. We chose the outcome. We Program that outcome in our Brains and we target that outcome like a heat seeking missile. If we chose different outcomes, it will be because we choose to Program our Brains in a different way.

Moral of the story? Wire your Brain for Economic Independence and Economic Independence is the target you will eventually strike. Do anything less than that - like allowing failure as a viable option instead of adopting the Mental Programming that Failure Is Not An Option and you will indeed experience "Income Inequality" in your life.

 

You've not explained why any of this would be true.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say "we are a nation of PEOPLE not STATES"

States are artificial constructs? Same as countries and every other geopolitical construct.

I've met a lot of people. Trust me when I say not all of them matter.

 

They do. You just don't accept the process.

 

They do. Such as Trump in the Oval Office.

 

No where. It's truth is self-evident.

Only for those who understand justice and fairness, that is ...

 

Picking nits?

The president represents all Americans, yet because of the EC, not all Americans have an equal say in who gets elected.

Is that simple enough? I sure hope so, because I don't think I can dumb it down any more than that.

Apologies if that seems harsh or rude, but you're the third person so far who has misunderstood my point, yet felt like they should butt in anyway. After a while, even I get a little testy.

 

Because of the EC we are a nation of 50 states, with out it we would be like 4 different countries, what where they going to force the South to join and then try to fight the British?

 

You think that was a surprise after Obama tried to change the United states into France?

 

House members have always been based on population. FFS, it seems a civics class is indeed needed for some on this forum. Sorry, but you were very rude so I feel free to be rude back at ya.

It is very fair. The Constitution specifies at least one Representative per state and no more than one for every 30,000 people. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 fixed the number of Representatives at 435. Don't like it? Write to you representative, or move to a more populous state. Or dig up the founders and make 'em fix it to your liking.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, there are two for each state (and yes, I do know that we have states) regardless of population, which means that Wyoming, with 577,000 or so people, has the exact same representation as the 40 million people in California. If Californians aren't complaining about it, why are you? In the Senate, the more populous states are underrepresented by comparison. If you want your state to have more reps in the House, have tons of children and grow your population, or relocate to another state.

My ENTIRE point on this thread was to state that IMO, the electoral college has far outlived its purpose and we should amend it right out of the Constitution. You can disagree, in fact I'm sure you do, but say so in a civil and polite manner. If you must be snarky about it, leave me out, thank you.

 

Excuse me but where are you going to get those 38 states to sign up?

Also that's how the rules work each state automatically gets 3, before the dang 17 th amendment the people didn't vote for senators they where appointed.

This is why you guys get so confused

 

Why does it have to be written anywhere? Are you disputing it? Would America still exist as America if there were no people in it?

How? And I don't have to accept the process, the states could decide to make the selection of Electors proportional, not winner-take-all and there is a campaign to do just that with many states already signed on OR the Constitution is amendable for a reason. You and i both know that the EC is unfair and the only reason you like it now is because Trump won. I wonder how it will be if it makes you lose in 2020.. Trump himself wanted to go to war over even a POSSIBLE EC win in 2012 but I forget that your Orange God's own words aren't usable against him

 

States cannot make a compact with each other unless Congress approves it, so I guess the Democrats will have to win the Senate but even then it will be taken to the supremes.

 

Can you imagine 40 states making a compact with each other to over throw congress?