Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘asia’

Since the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania in the 1800s and the easy conversion of oil crude to a usable product, there has been concern over who will own the market share of production and refinement. With the advent of industrialization and the greater need for a fuel source more plenteous than whale-fat kerosene, oil crude sources have become increasingly important. The great powers of Europe in the 1800s all sought their sources and fought each other for additional markets for their industrial concerns as well as fuel sources and additional raw or rare materials. The post-WWI powers found themselves stretched and unable to manage their acquired empires and hegemonies. These imbalances in markets shared, stretched military and commercial resources, and the greed of certain suppliers and underwriters led to eventual conflicts again setting up the dominos for WWII. Japan attacked US military capabilities in Hawaii as a precursor to further inroads into China and southeast Asia to get at oil fields and other raw goods that the US embargos denied Japan.

A united Germany opened an eastern front, breaking treaty agreements with the USSR. Germany found the industrial and military might of the UK Empire more taxing on German industry than they first thought possible. Germany went after the oil fields in southern USSR, Iraq, and Iran. Germany failed in its attempt. Although winning the conflict, USSR failed due to manpower and industrial losses. The war raged on, manpower, raw and rare resources deplete, Europe eventually came to an end to war. Maps are redrawn by the victors and the victors cannot cover their gains.

Europe and Asia are greatly ruined by war. Only the US stood out as an industrial nation that could still produce due to relative limited impact to its infrastructure by WWII. While oil and resources are plenteous in the US, other economies must be propped up. Raw, rare, and oil crude resources are exploited by US businesses. The US found itself the sole major power in the global economy. The natural arrogance of a post-war victor was translated into business as returning soldiers become executives.

The post-war soldiers of the USSR returned to their empire to find themselves able to still use those ’emergency powers’ to control a population trained in serfdom and atrocities of under-supplied war efforts. These Soviet leaders created a slave state under the guise of ‘communism’ and rebuilt Mother Russia into the Great Soviet Bear. Soon there are two great competitors for the idealogical marketshare and the actual marketshare: USA vs USSR. The reach of communism was rapid and effective for toppling weak governments. The tools developed under war with the Axis powers and centuries of intrigue with European aristocracy lent themselves to application in creating new, subordinate soviet states. The rest of war-weary Europe saw the rapid growth of soviet communism as the threat it was but could only mount a token argument against it. The US was pulled into the cold-war against communism as a ‘threat to the US way of life’ and as a threat to market share. Wherever the soviet reach went, the market closed to the US goods and services. Now, the USSR began its reach into the oil reach regions of southwest Asia and north Africa. The US and allies had to act and ‘protect’ those ‘sovereign’ nations from further soviet encroachment.

Those foreign oil markets were being protected to retain US commercial and parasitic interests in those markets. If the US bought and protected their oil the US could sell US goods into those markets and exploit monopoly styled market share.

With the effectiveness of the Marshall Plan and the US economic mistake of forgiving lendlease, those effected most dramatically by WWII and post-war regional conflicts have become market competitors to the US economy. The problem in that foreign competition is C-level managers of US businesses continued to operate as if they still retained 75% of the world’s market share. When in reality US businesses only had 30-40% of the world’s consumer economy. Parasitically, the US had been its #1 consumer customer. Then as market share began to erode as post-war recovery kicked into high gear, global dynamics in economy were not closely scrutinized for longevity results.

Lessons were not learned by US industrial giants as Japan’s dramatic turn and foresight in industry occurred through the 1960s and 1970s. Europe remained divided and was a prime market for US goods until the fall of the Soviet Block. Now the US C-level managers and national government leaders had yet to recognize the declining market share of US goods with the increase in product quality from its former dependent nations.

It is anticipated that when China turns the corner in its government shift from totalitarian oligarchy to a free-market oligarchy controlled government, the US will have a greater competitor than Japan and western Europe ever were.

Prediction if current course is continued:
The US will implode from greed and mismanagement and lack of foresight by C-level managers and government leadership to become a 3rd tier nation; and China, India, Japan, and the Koreas will take the lead economically. Europe will not be a contender in the mix due to inner squabbles, mismanagement, greed, lack of unity, and the same C-level shortsightedness afflicting the US. South America and Australia as yet are under populated and under industrialized. They will have neglible impact. Africa, sadly, still has too much disunity and hatred for its own people to become unified and turn a corner.

The post-WWII Marshall Plan and supporting efforts have dramatically worked. Nations that were pushed back into pre-industrialization due to war have become industrial giants and vibrant economies. There are many hands in the pie that is the global market for goods, services, raws, rares, and energy resources. Success in the 21st century will go to the nation or nations that are able to recognize their position within the global market and strategically work a plan to position themselves as leaders with many dependents. It is no longer a game of ‘margins’ and double digit growths for stock valuation projections. It is a game of market capture through innovation, strategy, effective tactics, and social acceptance [in that local market].

Failure means absorption or desolation. Success is planetary dominance. Yes, my friend, we have come to that stage in Earth history where it is possible in the next few decades to be a ‘Terran’ presence rather than individual sovereign states.

How do we choose to be that then?
….
See also: http://exm.nr/fSEuji

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Essays: Church and State … There Can Be No Separation

by Dave “Doc” Rogers

 

There has arisen in recent years a resurgence of ‘anti’ Church rhetoric and that mainly surrounds the oft misquoted sources for the term ‘Separation of Church and State.’ That misquoting most notably starts with the US Supreme Court in their 1878 decision Reynolds v. United States whereby they misquote President Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut.

 

Litigants are typically not historians nor are they English majors. Preferentially, they will choose those bits of English stated commentary that best support their position rather than looking at the content and intent as a whole. The onus is upon the hearer or reader to validate intent and use rather than present their stated arguments in validation and contextual truth. It’s not lying if it is omission and it’s not lying if you don’t tell the whole story. It is deception through omission but that doesn’t get prosecuted too heavily.

 

What they do not tell you is the why things were written. What other missives were penned or pressed or lived that lead to the decisions made, voiced, penned, pressed. Sadly, American education seriously lacks in this area. Okay, caveat. Maybe it was just my educational experience that was sadly lacking through the institutions in whose classrooms I sat for instruction. But, I seriously do not think so. I have observed too many and discussed the processes with too many “students” to accept my experience as unique.

 

In this essay, I will explore what are Church, State, separations, why, and why it cannot be. It will be perspectives based but more broadly than most protagonists would like it to be. A chasing of truths rather than personal agenda, if you would allow.

 

Let us build a foundation, shall we? Let us start with Jefferson since most arguments like to use his statements as a head of state and co-penner of things constitutional or otherwise around the formative years of the United States of America.

 

Thomas Jefferson, the third POTUS, was an integral instrument in the language of the founding ideals of this country. He served Virginia, the Continental Congress, the Federation, and the United States well and in several roles. One of his roles was as Secretary of State under the Washington administration. This role was influential upon him as it had him traveling to Europe to interface with the kingdoms there to gain their support and recognition of the fledgling USA.

 

The state of Jefferson’s Europe was one divided by kingdoms, principalities, and churches. In some cases, the king and kingdom were subservient to the church and church leaders; in others, the king was titular head of the church. This is the world to which Jefferson was thrust and lived for a span of time. He saw first hand the effects of a ‘state’ that controlled the ‘church’ and a ‘church’ that controlled the ‘state.’ Neither situation was desirable.

 

At this point in human history, there really had not been a form of government like unto what was being put forward by the USA. Certainly, there had been forms of democracy but nothing to the order of the “Grand Experiment,” as the US’s government was being referred. Rather than having a singular sovereign or even a patron class, all citizens were considered equal. Yes, even in the original documents it was inferred all Man; however, economics and politics changed the verbiage to what would be acceptable for the fledgling nation to stay together. That last bit is a different argument for a different time.

 

Jefferson returned home more fully convinced our constitutional government was a correct form of government. His efforts as a statesman, governmental minister, Governor, Secretary of State, Vice President, and President bear that out.

 

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, famously known as one of the amendments within the Bill of Rights, states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

We will key on the phrase ‘shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ This statement was included in the US Constitution due to the influence of the State in religious matters elsewhere in the world. Basically, in other countries if you were not of the ‘approved’ religion then you could be jailed or sentenced to death. And, that happened frequently in Europe, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. So having the freedom of religion in the USA was keenly important to the people who lived within the fledgling nation. Burning or imprisoning heretics became illegal.

 

In the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, there is mentioned in Article 11 the statement that the USA “…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen…” This statement was made due to the climate of the times. In recent memory of the Muslim people, the ‘christian nations’ of Europe declared holy war against the Muslim people, so the Muslim people were getting even. The ‘christian nations’ were those governed by the christian church that ordered them to go. The USA argument was it was not a ‘christian nation’ governed as those others were. It didn’t help. There was still war until Jefferson’s term as POTUS. But, the term ‘christian nation’ does not apply to the USA. Its government is not ‘christian.’ Its population is.

 

The treatment of individuals by a government is a concern for the citizens of the USA. Their relatives still in Europe are still being persecuted for their particular brand of religious belief; oddly enough, for variations in Christianity too. So, at the time of penning, the letter to the Danbury Baptists Association, there was still concern that the government would forego the commitments of the Constitution and institute a State religion as with most countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America outside of the US. This Jefferson addresses in the main paragraph of his letter.

 

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

 

Reference:

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, source Library of Congress

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

 

The ‘separation’ so mentioned was to keep the State out of the Church; not keep the Church out of the State. You would never be able to convince a bunch of Baptists that they have no part and parcel in their government, but Jefferson could convince them as POTUS that the government would have no part or parcel in the directing and controlling of the Church; or in their case, Baptists in Connecticut.

 

That has sense been misinterpreted.

 

There is a well funded, vocal, vociferous, minority segment of the US that opposes in the strongest terms possible Christianity. I am not certain of the sources of these animosities, in majority. They probably predate me anyways. Suffice it to say that they do not like the Judeo-Christian god and they think it is ‘cool’ to bash, naysay, negatively prey upon, and generally deride anything that has to do with this Judeo-Christian god. I really think it has a lot to do with the basic tenants as stated in the Judeo-Christian Bible more than anything else. That is a different argument for a different time.

 

The vocal minority would have everyone believe that most of the founding fathers of the USA were atheists, agnostics, deists … anything but Christians. They are actually wrong, but believe by volume they can shout down their opposition and rewrite history to their versions. I have discovered that those who protest too much are compensating. Me? I just refuse to be shut up anymore. You are going to have to deal with that, not me.

 

David Barton and his partners at Wall Builders [http://www.wallbuilders.com] are working to clarify some of those misinformed, partially mentioned, or completely overlooked statements.

 

Now we get to the Church and why there can be no separation from government … no separation of the Church in government but yes to separation from Government in the Church.

 

First, what is the Church? At the outset, it is not an international organization headed from a far with oversight of earthly governments. That doesn’t play so well in the USA. What it is is people. Bad English but it clarifies.

 

When we as a people forget that the Church is the people, we fail. There is a parallel and I think therein lies part of the confusion.

 

The Government is the people. The Church is the people. But … this is important … the Church is not the Government and the Government is not the Church. Whew… chew on that for a bit.

 

To better understand the Christian concept of Church, you have to look at the sources of the etymology … word usage. The word ‘church’ shows up in the New Testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible. It is the word ekklesia. This word denotes a called out or called up group of equals who sit in decision and nominate/elect their leaders. Without this turning into a Bible Study, one of the aspects of the Messiah was that the government would be on his shoulders; hence he had an ekklesia of his own. As Jesus said, his government was not of this world, so his ekklesia was not for this world either. There is another aspect to Judeo-Christian theology. They were given a mandate at the outset of Man to rule, reign, and have dominion over this world. If you get enough of these people together, they will need earthly organization or government.

 

For the purposes of this essay, the Church is one body of people whose membership can also be within the body of people who provide oversight and governance. Therefore, I argue there can be no separation of Church & State. The State has no right or authority over the Church by the mandates of its constitutional amendments. The authority of the Church consists and is limited to the rights of its individual membership to seek out and pursue governance for themselves; and within the USA that governance is in accordance with the Constitution, its individual and entirety Amendments; and the Constitutions and or Charters of individual States within the entirety of the USA, its municipalities, frontiers, territories, and commonwealths.

 

As Abraham Lincoln famously closed his Gettysburg Address, “…; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” 

 

Source:

Library of Congress Online

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits.gadd/gadrft.html

 

For establishments of argument, the Church is a body of believers of a religious practice and not an alien governmental body influenced by an external, earthly head of an alien state or governing body. In like manner, the Government is not an instrument unto itself but is respondent, accountable, and consistent of its legal citizenry regardless of race, creed, color, religion, or national origin. The dictates of governmental documents hold those many and individual citizenry serving within the Government at the same liberty and constraint that it provides and withholds to all its citizenry. The Church can be in the Government. The Government cannot be in the Church. The Church does not have rule over the Government except by those individual and severally members exercising their due processes as ordained to them through this Constitution of the USA; and the Constitutions and or Charters of individual States within the entirety of the USA, its municipalities, frontiers, territories, and commonwealths.

 

With that said, the Church is not, cannot be, separate from the Government of these United States of America. Anything contrary to this position is actually unconstitutional by USA constitutional standards.

 

Accept it.

 

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: