Tinstaffl Part IV - History and Moral Philosophy Part IV

Earlier I stated that a religion is essentially a philosophy and vice-versa. I refer again to the definition of religion; a belief, activity or cause pursued with fervor and devotion. I would call attention to the actions of the House of Representatives and Senate of late (2009 CE) and state that they have indeed pursued their belief(s) with fervor and devotion, refusing to hear the entreaties of those who voted for them. Who entrusted them with the authority to speak for them, an authority they have abused. Their actions are quite similar to some religious ceremonies with their hallelujahs and amens.


It can be easily demonstrated that crusading religions and revolutionary governments are essentially the same thought process, differing only in tag lines and creeds. Each relies on the ‘faithful’ and those willing to sacrifice their very lives to achieve an ideal. Even today the Democrats are being asked to sacrifice their seats in the next election to achieve a goal now. They will be the new martyrs for the cause and their recompense will be quite handsome indeed, thanks to perquisites and privileges they’ve given themselves without the consent or approbation of the people who elected them in good faith; a faith they have long abused


At the end of the Revolutionary War an attempt at creating a government under the Articles of Confederation was made but the central government was quite weak and had no authority to tax. In time it was declared ineffective so a new Constitutional Convention was called and that Constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, is the one we work under today. The first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were added in 1791. They were patterned on the English Bill of Rights. They were reinforcement, a pledge that all pre-existing civil liberties and privileges would be guaranteed under the newly formed government. This was in response to the criticism of many that such guarantees had not been addressed in the body of the Constitution. It was the voice of the people that forced this change. For, in the end, it was not a revolution to form a drastically new form of government but one that was essentially familiar, but with a new rationality of authority.


When did this change? When did the voice of the people become subservient to the needs and requirements of the Party, be it Democrat or Republican? We can begin with the Civil War, “….testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” At the end of hostilities the supremacy of the federal government over the states was established and the will of the people was truncated just a trifle. During the Great Depression, Congress at the insistence of Franklin D Roosevelt, voted for sweeping changes, instituting agencies to bring aid and comfort to a demoralized population. One of those agencies was the Social Security Administration that established a monetary pool to supplement the retirements of those eligible. It meant the sacrifice of a bit of privacy, giving everyone a number and creating a database of every worker in the land. Those who were disaffected welcomed it and lauded its passage, not realizing its long term implications.


One of the changes that occurred during the war years was the Tax Payment Act of 1943. It compelled all employers to withhold taxes from each employee’s paycheck and submit it directly to the government – to gain funds to pay for the war effort. This was the opening of the floodgate, for now the government had access to every working individuals pay records. This made it easier for the IRS to track down those who were failing to pay their ‘fair share’. It was but another truncation of privacy and even liberty.


There was much controversy about the act and even though the Supreme Court declared many of Roosevelt’s created agencies unconstitutional it ruled the Social Security Act constitutional, but only after laws were passed that allowed the Roosevelt administration to pack the court with his own nominees. It was another victory for the central government that gave impetus for what was to come in the following decades under Democratic leadership.


Next I will discuss the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms.

TINSTAAFL - History and Moral Philosophy

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

First and foremost it should be clearly understood that to a scientist a law is immutable, irrevocable, inviolable and mathematically invariable, each discipline based on a rigorous mathematical formula.

In the realm of human endeavor, however, so-called laws created by humanity are changed constantly, revoked repeatedly, violated veritably every second of every day and are subject to constant interpretation by jurists based on the prevailing moral and judicial (i.e. political) philosophy and have absolutely no mathematical rigor.

In the annals of humanity these “laws” have been enacted by medicine men, tribal chieftains, emperors, conquerors, kings, depots, parliaments, amphictionic councils, legislatures and congressional delegations to name just a few. To what end? Why has humanity had this all consuming need to create myriad rules and regulations to govern their everyday life to no end? The Roman Catholic Decalogue was precise and concise and was originally geared for a specific culture but in the ensuing ages has become the so-called foundation for a complicated litany of statutes, ordinances, resolutions, canons and many other rules and regulations known by a host of names yet all lumped together under the label of “laws”. Why?

First, let us examine the so-called ‘law of Moses’. The first five ‘books’ of the Old Testament tell of the travails of the Jewish nation, those who believed in one god and called him YWH. In the book of Deuteronomy there are enumerated a number of tribal laws that were purportedly handed down from YWH. These included dietary laws, laws dealing with marriage and personal intercourse. Of course there were also religious laws that dealt with how one was to worship YWH and even detailed what one was to wear and how one was to act. Religion thus controlled every facet of one’s life. Why?

What had once been tribal custom was codified into the set of Judaic laws that prevail even today. The ban against eating pork, shellfish and other forbidden food products has a scientific basis that stems from the scientific principle of cause and effect. What causes illness and disease was to be avoided. One was not to place fish in a bowl that had been used for milk, or vice-versa. Why? The Hebrew’s were originally a nomadic people and the bowls they used were unfired crockery. They were quite porous. If one put milk into a bowl there would be residual traces of milk in the pores which if mingled with fish would case the fish to be tainted and food poisoning would result. With pork we know today that if its not cooked thoroughly there is the danger of trichinosis, from the trichina worm that is often found in the meat. The Hebrew’s, of course, did not have the facilities to cook pork properly, thus the ban.

So, we have an inkling as to why these ‘laws’ were enacted, and what better way to enforce them than to claim they were the ‘word of god’. Enforcement of ‘laws’ has always been a problem faced by rising cultures. That’s why enforcement was originally handled by the medicine man, shaman, or religious leaders. Yet, this practice eventually led to corruption of authority and led to many abuses.

When the American Colonies were established by differing religious groups it was not for religious freedom as the history books often claim. Rather, it was to establish their own religious dictatorships. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the colony of Massachusetts founded by the Pilgrims. They brooked no opposition to their teachings and punished severely or banished anyone who thought or acted otherwise. They even went so far as to believe in witches and developed quite unusual punishments to deal with those they perceived to be practitioners of the dark arts. It was such punishments as these that the Constitution addresses when it speaks of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’.

But we have still not addressed the reason why ‘laws’ were created. What is the basis for these rules and regulations? Let us be analytical and apply a bit of logic to determine the reason. Some would say ‘safety’ but that doesn’t account for a variety of factors. Safety of who – of the people, the family, the state, the nation or the world itself?

No, there is something even more basic than safety. Just what is it? What is the basic reason?

Let us look at humanity itself. What is the basic instinct of individuals? In fact, what is the only instinct of human beings? What is the basic motivation of humanity? In part two we will address this issue and demonstrate the fallacy of many human philosophies and how they adversely affected the history of humanity.

Let Freedom Ring Once more

My nom de guerre is Katherine Lee Jefferson and this is a declaration of war against all those who have usurped the delegated authority invested in them by the people and who have willfully violated their oaths of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Declaration of No Confidence

Inasmuch as it is never really necessary to rephrase a truism once it is stated I hereby restate the following from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We, the people, find that this declaration has been subjugated by the present Congressional delegation to Washing City; that they no longer follow the will of the people who elected them to serve on their behalf and have, instead, elected to follow the wishes of their political party bosses and the dictates of the Chief Executive officer of these United States who himself has subjugated the will of the people to further his own self centered aims and desires.

They have re-interpreted the mandate of the last general election to force on the general populace programs that they do not desire and many tenets of which are against the underlying principles of the United States Constitution and the first ten amendments of same that are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights.

They are not leading but pushing us toward a socialist framework that history has proven to be against the principles of a free and democratic society as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution that relegates certain duties and responsibilities to the States that comprise the whole.

The current President has in effect consorted with the antagonists of this country and has been an aid and comfort to its enemies, compromised our national health and safety as well as its happiness.

He consults with individuals of dubious character who have historically showN that they are not in conformity with the best wishes of the majority of its citizenry.

He has placed the needs of his political party and certain monetarily influential groups above the needs and desires of its people.

He has interfered in the areas of State affairs that are not in the purview of Federal Authority.

He is not, in our considered assessment, a leader but a dictator who pushes his agenda with countless speeches filled with circumlocutions that, in effect, say nothing of any appreciable value but can be reinterpreted as the current administration sees fit to further their own agenda.

He has demonstrated by his actions that he is willing to interfere in the areas of everyday life that are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and has set himself above the judgment of the citizenry, ignoring their legal and just appeals that he cease and desist in his courses of action that will result in harm to this country and its people.

The current Congressional delegation and the Chief Executive Officer have thus been marked by every act which may define a tyrant and thus are unfit to be the rulers of a free people.

We thus express a complete LACK OF CONFIDENCE in their current planed courses of action they profess to be taking on our behalf.

Therefore, I, the undersigned, being a legally authorized citizen and voter of the City of ________________, County/Parish of _________________, State of _______________ do hereby REVOKE any and all Powers of Attorney and Proxies that empower the current administration to act on my behalf in matters having to do with the happiness, health and well being of its people.

This done this ________ day of ___________, 2009.

(s) __________________________

Transmit same by United States Post, certified mail, to the attention of the President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC and to your elected state Senators and representatives