The American States Dump Trump

 Donald Trump brought 55 appeals to courts in 7 American states to overthrow the election of Joe Biden. Just as Stalin in Russia put his own loyalists in key posts in the communist government and made himself a dictator, Trump did the same in Washington. He fired anyone he liked in any key position in the Federal Government and put in his own loyalists in their place. He said and did anything he wished for 4 years as he steadily gained total power over the government. Now it is a simple fact that the government he took over is a world government. Citizens of sovereign states all over the world can boast to themselves that they are totally independent of Washington but this is blatantly untrue. The monetary and military power of Washington is active globally, Washington pays 378 billion dollars in interest this year to lenders (mostly foreign banks) all over the globe, it places economic sanctions on individuals globally, it has military bases in 400 countries, it has 11 aircraft carriers in all the oceans of the world, etc., etc.. But let’s not argue the point. The point is Trump grabbed all the power in Washington and it affected everyone globally to some degree. The most important question globally then is how did an American dictator lose his enormous power just like that, not with a bang (to borrow from T.S. Eliot) but with a whimper? Trump made scandalous, viciously undemocratic statements exclaiming to the world that the election of Biden was a fraud and he will continue his totally undemocratic tirades right up until Joe Biden becomes President of the United States on January 20. Trump lost the election even though he had total power over the government.The truth is that democracy triumphed in the United States because the 50 states, each with a democratic government and a highly-developed constitution and legal system, elect the President of the United States. It is shameful that not one media commentator, even intelligent men and women who despise Trump and are deeply proud that our democracy prevailed over him, has spoken out clearly about the mechanism of Trump’s downfall. The mechanism that held up so firmly was the independent legal right and duty of our states under Article 2  Section 1 of the Constitution to decide and certify whom the majority of the citizens of their state voted for for President. A corollary to this truth is that there can not be ever any securely established democracy in any nation state. Dictators and elected leaders in sovereign states falsify elections. Trump would have falsified his if he were president of a sovereign state. He has sovereign  powers but they are limited by the US Constitution and the foundation of American sovereignty is the limited sovereignty of American states. Trump grabbed all the power he could but it was not enough. The 50 states had power too. They dumped him. They turned his undemocratic shouts to whimpers.

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

A New Supranational Government

 The union of the thirteen original states of north america was constituted uniquely. The Constitution is generally understood to have been a masterful creation using doctrines of revolutionary European political theorists of the age of enlightenment. This is only partly true. Rationalistic philosophers in Europe railed against all the stupidities they encountered among nation-states including their endless wars but none of them theorized about setting up some kind of new supranational government whose purpose and being was designed to unite states rather than to be only just another national state among other national states. The government of the United States of America was just such a supranational creation. The government in Washington set up by the Constitution was “The Government of the United States”. It had a purpose and a being for the united states not over the united states. Most likely few Americans in 1787 understood the new government. The best way to describe it to them would have been to assert that  Washington, located in no state and without the full sovereignty of a nation-state, was the seat of a government of an international union of nations and that if the thirteen states acted as nations with limited sovereignty and if Washington acted as a government with its sovereign authority restricted even more than state authority, the unique new political apparatus would work well and profit all Americans because t would prevent wars among states and allow the free movement of goods and people among them.

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO
$0.99

A Coup d'État Without an État

 Donald Trump is now trying to accomplish a coup d'État. But he is not the president of a state  so he is trying to make a coup d'État without an État. You need a fully sovereign state to make a coup d'État and no such thing as that exists in the American political system. The coup he has accomplished however is serious and in danger of becoming permanent leading to political disaster. The Federal Government since the Civil War has taken power away from states and gained more power for itself. The 14th amendment, which directly limits state sovereignty, asserts that Americans are subject to the “jurisdiction”  of the United States. “Jurisdiction” is synonymous with “power” and it comes close to being synonymous with “sovereignty”. Washington’s “jurisdiction” has been used wisely and has served as a means to unite the union solidly relying mainly on the state and federal legal systems. Washington’s “jurisdiction” has been strengthened by its leadership in two World Wars and the Cold War which made it a world leader in globalization. Its firm support for business corporations both domestic and foreign is another factor in its strength. But there is a big but. Washington has never directly governed the American people. It has set up for itself a supremely complicated network of federal agencies working in Washington, in the states and in the world. But this complicated, intelligent and subtle system has never seemed connected to the American heart. It seems to us abstract, isolated and even fictitious. Here is where Trump has made his coup. He has acted directly and even savagely against the normal acceptance by Presidents of the Washington political establishment. He has been on his own. He has turned government agencies into his own property by putting his own people in charge of them. His ignorant and fanatical supporters believe both that the country’s government in Washington is a fictional and fake power and at the same time they want it to be the head of their nation. Trump has tried to wipe the Washington government off the face of the earth and this has touched something in the American heart that is producing dangerous disorders in average people. Loyalty to the Constitution and to the powers it grants to the Federal Government are the very foundation of our social, economic and political lives. Can the political system in Washington that Trump’s coup knocked down get up from the floor led by a new president and fight to make America great again?

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO
$0.99

A Simplistic Rationalization For the Civil War

  When Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated President in 1861, 7 states had previously seceded from the union because he had declared that in the future new states admitted to the union from territories west of the Mississippi river would no longer have the right to decide as sovereign states to be either free states or slave states. Loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to the powers granted to Washington by the Constitution is the real foundation of American national feeling. 7 states by seceding had disloyally violated their binding connection with the Washington government. Lincoln once in power plotted behind the scenes to start a war against seceded states, but his deliberate actions step by step to produce the Civil War have never been examined honestly and realistically by historians. Instead, after Lincoln won the war and a new “national” government was born in Washington, historians sought simplistic rationalizations to shelter Lincoln’s  machinations from view. One rationalization was by far their favorite: it was a war to end slavery. Thousands and thousands of white men had maimed and killed one another in battles for four bloody years in order to free from their chains five million black African slaves. Nothing could be so false and yet so ready at hand for a simplistic explanation. It was red meat thrown into crowds of hungry historians eager to cheer for Lincoln’s actions which had made Washington supreme. Lincoln had warned in his “House Divided” speech that the “slavery agitation” in his opinion “ will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and past”. He warned that “either the opponents of slavery will arrest its further development…or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become itself lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south.” He made a clear and truthful judgment of the situation that “the nation” faced. He was right that a crisis was coming. However he did not mention that the 34 states contending with one another over the issue of whether they should be “free states” or “slave states” were sovereign states. The sovereignty of the states was itself the cause of the “slavery agitation.” Lincoln did not mention that to stop the agitation and end the crisis something big had to be done against state sovereignty. State sovereignty had to go in order for slavery north and south to go with it. When a bullet entered Lincoln’s skull in Ford’s theater on April 14th 1865, state sovereignty as it had once existed was gone, gone suddenly as though gone with the wind. 

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO
$0.99

Lincoln Unites the Divided House

 On June 16th 1858 in Springfield Illinois, Abraham Lincoln gave his famous “House Divided” speech. The “house” was “the nation” but the word “house” better suited Lincoln’s purpose. He wanted to put an end to “slavery agitation” but he complained that the Federal Government’s Kansas-Nebraska Act had not ended but increased the agitation. “I believe,” he said, “that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the election of 1858 for US Senator from Illinois, warned that Lincoln was calling for “a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the free states against the slave states”. Seven years later more than 600,000 Americans from the north and the south had died fighting one another in 8000 fights including 384 major battles all over “America” but “the nation” survived whole and now free of slavery, although the man who had first proclaimed that a division existed in the union had been assassinated. There had certainly been political division over slavery but there had been no division at all in the “house” over the question of whether the 34 states of the union were sovereign or not. In 1861 all the states were sovereign but by 1865 state sovereignty as it existed before the war was gone, wiped off the American share of the North American continent by the Civil War along with slavery. 

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO
$0.99

Historians Rewrite American History

 No historical writer has ever stated the bare fact that a President of the United States had used in the Civil War an American army against Americans. Instead they busied themselves rewriting American history to make it fit harmoniously with the new direction Abraham Lincoln's revolution was taking the United States. Historians used two concepts to help fashion their postwar version of our history, “America” and “the nation”. “America” already existed before the first appearance on the east coast of  European immigrants. “America” transformed Europeans soon after their arrival on her shores into Americans. The English colonists from England who arrived in 1620 at Plymouth in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were some of the first Americans and the political compact they agreed to on their ship, the Mayflower, before settling on the land was an embryo of democratic concepts that would one day be embodied in the US Constitution that established Washington as the head of “the nation”. American colonists in Massachusetts rebelled in 1695 for independent rule and, assembling an armed force of 1500 men, drove the British governor Andros out of Boston. This was the most important rebellion in “America” in early colonial times against British rule and was clearly, according to historians, the first rumblings of volcanic forces that would one day roar forth in a fiery blast and form “the nation”. Massachusetts’ colonists fired their rifles at the British army at Lexington and Concord in 1775 and killed or wounded nearly 200 British soldiers as they drove the enemy regiments back to the safety of Boston. This allowed historians to again jump on the “America” bandwagon and announce that the Massachusetts men had revolted in “America” to set up an independent government for “the nation”.  The Massachusetts men were American patriots and even before George Washington, a Virginian, came to Cambridge Massachusetts in 1775 to take command of their army, they had begun the American Revolution, the  bold event that showed the world the deep strength seething within the American heart and soul to found “the nation”. Samuel Adams, the firebrand organizer of the New England rebellion, instigated the Boston Tea Party, attended the first and second continental congresses in Philadelphia, signed the Declaration of Independence, helped draft the Articles of Federation and supported the ratification of the Constitution by Massachusetts. Samuel Adams might have been elevated by historians to the level of a national hero like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson if he had not constantly and outspokenly made it clear to his fellow colonists that Massachusetts was his “country” and that he had led the rebellion against Britain in her name. We have records of him referring to Massachusetts as  his “country” as far back as an essay he wrote on liberty and sedition in 1748 at a time when he could not possibly be referring to “the nation”. In another essay in the Boston Gazette in 1771, he writes about “the liberties of our country”. His country, Massachusetts, had put an army in its fields, had issued its own currency, the Pine Tree Shilling, and had fought alone for three months with an army of over 20,000 men against a powerful European nation. Adams left behind too much written evidence that proved that he was not rebelling in the name of “the nation” so historians ignored him as best they could and some even wrote books deriding him as a crank.

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

$0.99

A Revolutionary Purpose

 The limited powers assigned to Washington by the Constitution, basically full power over the military and diplomacy and some limited legislative and juridical powers, could not possibly be sufficient for what Lincoln declared was a "national" government. American states had gambled that they could give up some of their sovereignty and yet remain sovereign. They attached 10 amendments to the Constitution before ratifying it. The tenth amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Clearly the Constitution is about delegating certain powers to a central government and this would certainly have been an odd way to set up a “national” government since the powers delegated are limited. Lincoln used the word “national” to describe the government he became president of in 1861 because his revolutionary purpose was to make the Federal Government a national government.

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO
$0.99

Lincoln Goes National

 After the Civil War, historians began writing American history as though the domination of all Americans by the Federal Government was inevitable. Yet for a large part of our history the seat of the Federal Government, Washington DC, did not exist and when it was created, it was not located in any of our states. We chose a separate location for it taking small portions of land from the states of Virginia and Maryland. Abraham Lincoln declared in his inaugural speech of March 4th 1861 that the Federal Government was a “national” government yet it possessed no national territory except the District of Columbia which was a stateless district. The Constitution never uses the word “national” or “nation” or “Federal Government” anywhere. It says its purpose is to form “a more perfect union…for the united states of America” and it then enumerates the limited powers that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the new government possess.

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

Four Roman Emperors, Two American Consuls

 In 69 AD, Rome had four emperors, Galba, who was killed by the Praetorian Guard, Ortho, who committed suicide, Vitellius who was killed by Vespasian’s soldiers. Rome then gained stability again under the fourth emperor, Vespasian. Trump is now the American emperor (so to speak) and Biden is set to undo him and take over imperial (again so to speak) power. But McConnell, the head of a cohort of  Republicans in the Senate, is looking to seize power. If Biden gains national rule, Washington may resemble ancient Rome politically. Before the dictatorship of emperors, Rome was ruled by two consuls who shared power equally. Will it turn out that Biden will be one consul as president and McConnell the other consul as head of the senate? Usually in the Roman Empire, one consul dealt outside of Rome with various parts of the empire and the other consul dealt with local business in Rome. Biden will have full diplomatic power and will deal with relations outside of Washington, but the other consul (always so to speak), McConnell, will be fixed in Washington controlling with his stamp of approval legislation. During the time of the four emperors, Rome was plagued by terrible civil wars. Let’s hope that the memory of ancient civil disasters in the Roman Empire will keep our three aspirants to enormous power civil.

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

A Nation With No New Californias

 When the tyrant Caesar was assassinated, more tyrants followed. Empires are ruled by one man and so are nations. The national feelings of elation at the defeat of Trump were real and glorious but Washington has rarely used its enormous power nationally. So watch out. Do you want a new California somewhere beyond our borders or are you alright with being pressed forever within our present boundaries? When I began arguing 9 years ago in this blog that we should admit new states to our 50 from all over the world, no one agreed. Look at Cuba on a map. It’s big and fertile and sun-drenched with hundreds of miles of oceanfront land. I know you are against admitting Cuba as an American state but I am baffled trying to figure out why. The Cubans, you say, don’t want to be  Americans like the happy Cuban-Americans in Florida. They don’t want to be free to move to any one of 51 states and work there and vote there as citizens by simply living there. We should forget about Cuba and work here solving our own problems in our nation. We don’t want to have the right to go and live anywhere in Cuba with the same rights and privileges we would have moving to, say, New Mexico. We don’t need new Californias. We like things as they are. Okay, but there’s a big problem. Washington doesn’t govern. It uses its power as it wants not as we want. So you have your nation, I admit it, even though it is a fact that there has never been a nation, a viable nation, on the continent of North America. But that’s it. No new Californias. No new Cuban-Americans making hundreds of dollars more than what they now make working for peanuts in Cuba. We don’t want a United States of the World. Who knows, we may not even notice it when the next tyrant pops up in Washington.

Daniel F. McNeill https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

Americans Cast Out a Fascist Hoodlum

 What Americans did in casting out the tyrant Trump was followed on the media by the world. The world saw our complicated and radical political system at work and even the most intelligent among them did not understand it. Trump did not hold onto dictatorial power because he was not the head of a sovereign state. He became the dictator of the government in Washington but the legal power to hold and and certify the results of a presidential election belongs exclusively to fifty sovereign states. Each state certified independently according to its own election laws what candidate for the presidency its citizens preferred. The dictator of the sovereign state of Belarus decided last August to elect himself president by falsifying the results of the election he organized. He controlled the election process and he manipulated it to remain a dictator. He was the head of a sovereign state and Trump was not. I do not mean at all that the government in Washington does not have great power. Trump had taken personal control of all of Washington’s power by putting his own people in charge of the federal courts and all the federal agencies and bureaucracies. He succeeded in making himself the king of America and my fellow Americans rose up bravely and magnificently and voted him out of his kingship. I am not afraid to say what it was: the election of Joe Biden was a reenactment of the victory over the king of England which resulted in the democratic document Magna Carta. The English-speaking people of the world who live in democracies know what we  English-speaking Americans did. We saved democracy in the United States by ripping our country out of the clutches of a fascist hoodlum. The United States will never be ruled by a king as long as we remain forever loyal to the government in Washington and at the same time freely and bravely exercise our democratic rights as citizens of fifty sovereign states.

Daniel McNeill

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L5IXSGO

Westering Was Once The American Dream

Between 1790 and 1959 Congress admitted 37 new states to the United States. 50 is  a lot of states.The Russians once had 15 states in their union and did little to develop new states. The Europeans have 27 in their union and take in new states whenever they feel like it. But they don’t develop them greatly either. Wow, did we Americans once take in and develop states! Westering, to move to a new state for more opportunities was once the dream of every true American. Washington killed the dream by not admitting any new states since Hawaii in 1959. Even just a few new foreign states admitted to our union would mean using again worldwide the greatest most fabulous wealth-creating economic union-of-states development system ever created on the globe by humanity in the whole history of the world. 

Daniel McNeill

www.amazon.com/author/graceisall

Why Washington Will Not Fund Testing For Coronavirus

Funding individual testing for every American to fight the coronavirus amounts to giving back what Washington takes in from taxes. It doesn’t give back money in any form to  directly benefit individual American citizens. Washington’s partnership with businesses and the rich who own property, stocks and businesses is an exclusive arrangement. Washington has never set up any program to benefit Americans directly. All its programs and agencies funnel money out of the hands of individual Americans and into the hands of corporations either directly or indirectly. Social Security, the most successful public program ever created by Washington, is not funded by federal tax receipts. Its money comes from a separate payroll tax. Social Security is funded by taking a percentage of workers wages. Obama Care is an exception, it appears, to the rule. It is set up to be funded by federal tax receipts. However, it turns out that it is a huge subsidy to Insurance Companies who take as profits more than 50% of the monies they receive. Uncle Sam doesn’t give directly to individual Americans anything of value using tax money. That’s the rule. That’s why there will not be the large-scale federal-government-funded massive program of testing necessary to successfully conquer the coronavirus and get the economy functioning fully.

    How does the government in Washington get away with what appears to be no more than  massive public thievery? It creates by its partnership with businesses a huge pool of money gushing forth from Washington in swirling rivers of money unleashed by  men and women connected directly to power in the Federal Government. These rivers of money irrigate not only the American economy but the global economy as well. All politicians do in Washington is spend money without spending it directly for Americans. It’s the rule. The huge supply of money gushing forth from Washington is both a drug for the rich and the fiscal and monetary grease necessary to prevent the American economy and the global economy from screeching to a breakdown. At the height of the coronavirus crisis, states asked Washington for medical supplies in its possession. The son-in-law of the President, Jared Kushner, understood that nothing in Washington belongs to Americans. “It’s ours,” he said. He proved he knows how Washington works.

    The situation is not as bad as it seems for Americans as long as they understand that the government in Washington is a public supercorporation. They are not shareholders in the corporation because they are not paid any dividends but they splash along happily in the huge monetary pools formed by the waves of money coming from Washington. And Washington works well as an international government necessary for world security. It patrols the world with its military. Its financial system keeps money flowing securely worldwide. Washington has supported Americans in the past by adding states to the American union. Americans should urge it to continue adding new states because this is the best way it can offer them fresh new economic opportunities.

Daniel McNeill

www.amazon.com/author/graceisall

Taking A Load Of Coal Up The Hill

Taking a Load of Coal Up the Hill

    In the 1950s when I drove a cab on Saturdays there was little action in the morning around downtown Boston. We got in a cab line early at a big hotel and waited a long time for our first fare. If we were lucky, we drove a businessman to the airport. People were not crowding the streets on their way to work. We all knew that the most action Saturday mornings was in the cab line before a supermarket in Dudley Square.  Black ladies had no car, When they exited the supermarket they had two or three bags of food and they needed to take a cab home. The line of cabs there moved fast all morning. We drove the ladies home to a hilly area nearby. They paid us 55 cents and usually gave a dime tip. If you worked there all morning and downtown Boston all afternoon, you were sure to make a day’s pay on Saturdays of around ten dollars.

    A friendly cabby advised me about making money driving black ladies home with their shopping bags on Saturday mornings. He was white with a reddish complexion and somewhat fat. I  remember the smile that came to his face as he made a racist  comment after giving me the profitable advice. It was not a full joyous smile. It was nuanced. It was smug but it had a touch of guilt about it. It was a smile by someone who knew he should not smile but smiled anyway. But before I tell what he said, I have to say that I never judged the man negatively for the racism he expressed. Why? Because I realized that his racism was in me and in all us whites. Some whites judge that they have risen above racism against blacks. I’m sure they would have judged us cabbies as being racist because of ignorance, because we were crass people, because we were failures, because we were not superior like they and we did not realize how cruel racial prejudice is etc. etc.. Something within me prevented  me from reacting negatively to what the cabby said. This something within me was racism. Yes, I like blacks. Yes, I graduated from college and learned I should be superior to racism. Yes, I had black friends. But I did not react negatively to what he said. That means there is something in me because I am white, something evil, something that is in all whites, something permanent, something so rooted in our being that we will never get rid of it. “Take a load of coal up the hill,” he said to me with his smile.

Daniel McNeill

www.amazon.com/author/graceisall

What US Government Rules?

Who has the power to govern in the United States? It is an historical fact that the Federal Government has been weakening the sovereignty of the states since the Civil War. Practically, this has meant that the state governments who do 80% of the work governing have been given less and less support by Washington which has never seen any problem with weakening their power. As long as Washington by its governmental actions took up the slack, there was no problem. Or better it seemed there was no problem until now. The coronavirus epidemic means that the states must now govern as the Constitution originally intended. They must act as though their sovereignty was very nearly as strong as in nation states. Governor Cuomo is governing New York state just as the Constitution originally intended. He looks to Washington for support just as the Constitution intended that he do, that is, it was intended that there be a central government with limited powers because states need a central government to do certain things they can not do or that Washington can do better. But there is a more important question to ask now about the historical fact that Washington for generation after generation has been weakening state power. The question is: what government do the American people accept as having the right to govern them? The truth is that the people have never accepted that Washington alone had the power because they could never escape the reality that they were governed for the most part by one of the states. But they accepted passively state authority and accepted Washinton as the government. Now with the coronavirus they are being governed actively and vitally by a state. There are many signs that they don’t like it. Men have invaded state capitol buildings armed with rifles to prottest state rule. The American political system has always been a kissing cousin with anarchy because no one of our 51 governments, state and federal, are fully sovereign. Once the people decide they can do whatever they want because there is no government strong enough to stop them thay may in fact be able to do what they want. Remember what Henry Thoreau wrote in his article Civil Disobedience: “That Government Is best which governs not at all.” Washington may yet regret the drastic way it has been weakening over the years state sovereignty. It may have been teaching the American people to be indifferent to all governments and to rule themselves. A dangerous state of things. Now Washington needs the states to act as sovereign states and they may not have enough power to prevent anarchy.

Daniel McNeill

www.amazon.com/author/graceisall

The Silent Generation Is Dying Silently

They are in their eighties now. They were young in the 1950s. They were silent then because they were too young to fight in the war and as a result they missed out on the creative bustle of the 1940s.They were young in the 1950s but nothing happened then worth getting excited about. They enjoyed being young silently. Those who survived until now are either quarantining silently  or in hospitals dying silently. The big difference  is that now everyone else of all ages everywhere in the world is also silent. Nothing is happening because nothing can happen. The coronavirus won’t allow it to happen. It is shutting us all up.  We have all become suddenly silent like the silent generation which is still silent waiting for the death that is hitting it harder than other people of other generations because its survivors are in their eighties.Silence is not golden. Silence is the first cousin of loneliness which is silence with an ache added. Dark bitter aching loneliness, as Thomas Wolfe wrote, that knows “the roots of silence in the night”.

Daniel McNeill

www.amazon.com/author/graceisall

The New Humpty Dumpty In Washington

What will the replacement for Humpty Dumpty be like? Joe Biden is waiting quietly on the sidelines ready to put back up on the wall the old Humpty Dumpty. It won’t work. His pieces can be fastened back together but the old power he had before Trump and the coronavirus is gone. He was whole and solid when he used his power to unify with his financial and military power the global economy. The coronavirus has ended the world’s need for the US government to be a champion of globalism. The old nationalistic economies are already back. Exports and imports will never come back in the volume they had before. States have closed their borders. They will make due with what they have and import and export only bare necessities. What if the new Humpty Dumpty decided he should be a global champion of political freedom? What if Washington decided to admit any new state to its union of states who wanted to join? What if poor states all over the world decided that the best thing they could have was democratic freedom? If they can’t be rich why would they not vote to be free by becoming a new American state? The new Humpty Dumpty in Washington is ready to receive new states. He will fall off his wall again unless he gains for himself some new bold role. He can still keep dollars and other currencies roaming the world looking for limited possibilities. But fighting for a new form of political freedom for the globe will keep the new Humpty Dumpty sitting solidly on his wall. Daniel McNeill
www.amazon.com/author/graceisall

Chatting About A Constitutional Power

Article IV Section 3. of the American Constitution reads, “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union…” This means that Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, and McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate have the power to admit any state in the world as the 51st state of the United States. They could perhaps meet for lunch and chat about what states to admit. It might overwhelm their merely human minds with august excitement if their chat led to talk of admitting Germany and France. Both admitted would add at least 150 million new Americans to America. A truly august yet improbable proposition. But what about Guatemala? Yesterday I heard of a man from Guatemala working in the US who lost his job because of the coronavirus. He was sending $300 a month to his family in Guatemala. If Pelosi and McConnell admitted Guatemala, that man would not complain. He and his family could move to any one of 51 states and earn up to $15 an hour. Many unemployed Americans speak Spanish and might move to Guatemala and take one of the thousands of new jobs that would open up in Guatemala as American government units and private businesses develop in the new state. It’s worth chatting about over lunch. The Constitution doesn’t mince its words. It gets right to the point. It dropped a power on the head of Congress that makes possible right now a radical transformation of the whole world. For good. All the past efforts to transform the world were bad. Very bad. This one is good. It would definitely be good for Guatemala. And even for Germany and France. It’s worth at least chatting over.

Daniel McNeill

www.amazon.com/author/graceisall 

A Worldwide Union of States

Anyone anywhere in the world should have the unalienable right to live and to work and to have full rights as a citizen in any state in a great union of states worldwide. How can any American disagree? Why should we not believe that millions of people will be able to move freely some day from state to state worldwide? We can do this now now in our union of 50 states and we should try to add new states. The men who wrote the Constitution did not mean that the right to universal citizenship should be restricted to our original 13 states. In Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution, they wrote, “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.” And that is what the Congress did. Over a period of 200 years it admitted 37 new states. Was any American belittled when Hawaii was admitted in 1959? How can it not be of momentous importance to us and our descendants if another 25 or another 50 states are admitted to our union? People from every race on the planet are already living among us in our states with the right to full citizenship in any state they choose. They come to the US to develop themselves in a political environment that guarantees them universal rights that are denied  them in their native states. Their states should also become parts of our union. Nothing will develop any state anywhere as well as union with states whose central government forces states to govern their people democratically and to allow them universal freedoms.
Daniel McNeill
www.amazon.com/author/graceisall