Headline News

About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Commentary Consumer News
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home

Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.


Lander, Wyoming
July 3, 2002

The Constitution is one rule even the so-called patriot of today cannot bring himself to want to break. The group agreement, even though headed towards political/economic catastrophe is just too strong for most.

In the matter of calling a Constitutional Convention, the very first one was the big mistake made by the politicians who controlled the political scene in 1787.

It must be remembered that we had an unusual patriotic surge back in 1774 and the Continental Congress was about half and half Patriots and Politicians.

The Patriots won in 1776 with the Declaration, and again in 1777 with the Articles, though as the Patriot/Politician ratio kept changing it took four years to even accept the republican structure afforded by the Articles of Confederation.

By 1778 the convention called to amend the Articles had less than a handful of the original Patriots so that instead the Politician majority threw out the Articles and the Old Republic which they created, and instituted a democratic-Republic.

After 1781 the Patriots had gone home to resume their productive lives, leaving the Politicians in charge of the hen house.

That was America's undoing right then.

Today you'll not find a five percent Patriot minority in any American legislative body.

I'll append hereto an article that more fully explains what we lost in 1787.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln, November 12, 1864

"There are many nouveau-Patriots around today who like to throw about the useless term "Constitutional Republic." Our problem is that the U.S. Constitution under which we function as a governed people destroyed the original short-lived Republic and there is virtually no recollection of this fact today.

"Many of the "Founding Fathers" were as much scoundrels as you find in any law-making group today. The Continental Congress however was about fifty-fifty, Patriots and Politicians. The Patriots won in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence and the next year with the Articles of Confederation which created a pretty good Republic, "if you can keep it!" Ten years later the Politicians won and reversed what the Patriots had accomplished and have been winning ever since. They converted the Old Republic into a Democratic-Republic which was ultimately discarded by the 17th Amendment.

(Wm. Howard Taft was our LAST Republican president as no Republic, even a watered-down one, existed after 1913).

History books concentrate on what they want our dumbed-down populace to dwell on and skip what they want to hide. The original colonies were commercial ventures, chartered by the Crown, merged into one big venture under the flag of the East India Company, the father of all commercial ventures. We are told today of the Declaration of Independence, and then skip to the Constitution as our founding documents.

We are told that Geo. Washington was the first president, skipping ten others before him. There is a ten year gap in the political history of America. Why?? Of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, 16 also signed the Articles of Confederation, while of the 8 who attended the Constitutional Convention, only 4 signed.

"If you read the minutes of what became the Constitutional Convention, which was called to upgrade the Articles of Confederation, you find that only 12 states participated, one state refused to send any delegates, many delegates on their own refused to attend, many who did refused to sign, even after their insisted-upon Bill of Rights was appended.

When we decry the fact that government today ignores the Constitution when it suits their purpose, we should remember that the corruptible Politicians of 1787 did just that in ignoring the Articles of Confederation when they wrote their Constitution.

Even the valiant General Benedict Arnold, who did as much or more than any others in the establishment of our so-called independence saw that we were but exchanging one bunch of corruptible politicians for another, and, unfortunately for his historical image, opted to go back to the original.

Expending his personal fortune for the support of his troops, and being slighted for promotion by the Politicians were bad enough but after watching the politicians' inability to ratify a republican form of government for three years he threw up his hands and quit.

The incorruptible and scholarly Charles Thomson, "Perpetual Secretary of the Continental Congress" who recorded every session from 1774 to ratification of the Constitution in 1789, after retirement destroyed all his personal papers regarding the creation of the "republic" and even destroyed a lengthy history of the Revolution he was writing. The Constitution of 1787 was a tragic sell-out to those who understood what was taking place.

"A Republic is a pyramidal structural affair, not just a bunch of patriotic mumblings. It keeps Responsibility at home where it belongs. It delegates very small portions of collective Responsibility to higher levels of the Republican structure. John Rutledge (not Franklin) got his notions of a Republic from that of the Iroquois Confederation (see, which in turn, I believe, got it from ancient Israel as sketched in Exodus 18, if I remember correctly, where it talks of "chiefs (or rulers, or officers, or captains, depending on version) of thousands, chiefs of hundreds, chiefs of fifties, chiefs of tens."

The basic unit was ten families, brought forward to Saxon England where political remnants exist to this day in name only. I think I've heard of Hundreds Courts still active in our southern states where their Saxon/Israel heritage is still remembered to some extent.

"Anyway, the way a real Republic is supposed to function, ten families pick one member to sit in the next higher council. (Among the Iroquois, it was the women who did the initial picking). In Saxon England the ten-family unit was called a "tun" or "tithe" and ten tuns made a Hundred which existed in between a ville and a shire.

At the second level one would be picked to sit at the next level, etc. The groups must be kept small; I recall one delegate at the Constitutional Convention objecting to the possibility that what they were creating might result in more than fifty members which of course would result in the usual democratic chaos so loved by corruptible politicians.

(And ALL politicians are corruptible, that is their nature, which is why most are lawyers by profession).

From the national group members would be selected to serve limited terms as judges, as well as limited terms as President.

(The Articles may be found at

At lower level groups, city, county and state officials should be appointed for their limited terms. One year terms are enough, with no right to succeed one's self in office. This is the way it was in colonial days. Everyone had to take their turn, and there was no need for professional law mongers as the right-and-wrong of the Common Law (Golden Rule) prevailed.

"In a real Republic there is no room for the divisiveness of political parties (even Washington warned against such) and their money-distributing conventions. No room for 20,000 registered vote-buying lobbyists, to say nothing of the unregistered ones. No need for competitive bi-cameral legislatures. No room for ego-tripping politicians and their popularity contests we call elections.

Every servant at every level is subject to the control of the 49 others at each level below him. No creation of a de-facto aristocracy, Senators, Governors and Judges in particular. No need for two/thirds of our national productivity to be stolen and re-distributed by government. Each level is autonomous at its level and no where else. At the top (read the Articles of Confederation) any international commerce might produce more than necessary in the way of revenue from imposts, excises and duties to support limited government.

"It used to be under our watered-down democratic-Republic prior to 1913 that the county commissions selected the state senators, then the state bi-cameral legislatures selected the US senators. Even then the politicians screwed it up. Under the Iroquois Confederation the penalty for abuse of office was being clubbed to death, no mamby-pamby impeachment silliness. I think this would be a good idea still.

"But we can go on waiving our flags and reciting our political catechisms from now until Doomsday but it won't re-institute the freedoms we have lost. Even the many who pretend to denounce the excesses of democracy really don't want a Republic. A world government would be a great idea if it were created along real republican structural lines, with 95% of the responsibility for our lives, liberties and properties left at home where it belongs. But people's egos won't tolerate it on this insane mudball. At least not under the present dispensation. Perhaps we'll just have to see what Nibiru brings its next time around."

(un-copyright 2002, RBT)

Best regards,.

Bob Taft
The Taft Ranch
Lander, Wyoming
(307) 332-2352

(Enhanced for Netscape)

top Top

Previous Page

ptbas.jpg - 5185 Bytes
Web Alaska Copyright © 2002. All Rights Reserved