Verba volent, scripta manent - Software specifications and the governing of Nations.

Well, now that most of you are completely mystified, let me first assure you that we will unravel this "mystery", that being how software specifications (or any engineering specifications for that matter) have any relationship whatsoever with government.

I realize some of you already know what this is about, so I will ask you to bear with me for the time being. We may yet make a new "connection" for you - where government and specifications are revealed in a new light.

The Latin phrase "Verba volent, scripta manent" means "Words fly away, writings stay behind." Why is this phrase significant in the context of software specifications? Well, let us just say that without a written software specification - the product is undefined and remains solely in the minds of the visionaries who keep those designs private, within the confines of their own skulls. Under such a system, it is nearly impossible for software developers who implement these un-written designs – to get them right.

Likewise, without a Constitution - based on our Declaration of Independence - our nation has no specification for its form of government.

So it is with government. If no written "specification" (body of law in this case) exists, only the rulers comprehend the reasoning behind their dictates. When a software development or any other kind of engineering project - or a country - is run by word of mouth, we have the rule of a few - an oligarchy - by dictate, by fiat. The rulers under such a system, rule by fiat, may operate government according to any "design" they wish, whether it comports with natural law or mere whim.

This is what is known as the rule of men (wo-men as well...) and constitutes what is known as "democracy/Democracy". That is, rule by the voice of the mob - without constraint by any even semi-permanent written framework that has been thought out by studied minds who have gleaned the lessons of history and discovered how free nations are unmade and free people enslaved.

Our government was originally specified to serve the purpose of protecting liberty on an individual basis, applying just the right amount of "force" to ensure that individuals who violate others' rights - are restrained. Our founding fathers codified this form of government into a specification which is comprised of not only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (of which the Articles of Amendment - Bill of Rights are a part...), but many other writings as well, including both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They understood the phrase "panem et circenses" and how panem et circenses is actually a tactic to enslave a population. They also understood that democracy was the worst of all forms of government because it always leads to an oligarchy, the rule of a few men. The founding fathers understood that when you give rule of law over to men, eventually, only a few dominant men would constitute the body of law. Thus they were specific about the dangers of democracy. James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams understood this.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, astutely observed, “Democracies, have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" (Franklin)

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Adams

The founders aren't/weren't the only ones to understand the difference between Constitutional Rule of Law and rule of law by fiat, by dictate. That word, "dictate" is key, here. To refresh your memory:

Main Entry: 1dic·tate Pronunciation: \ˈdik-ˌtāt, dik-ˈ\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): dic·tat·ed; dic·tat·ing Etymology: Latin dictatus, past participle of dictare to assert, dictate, frequentative of dicere to say — more at diction Date: 1581
intransitive verb1: to give dictation2: to speak or act domineeringly : prescribetransitive verb1: to speak or read for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record2 a: to issue as an order b: to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively c: to require or determine necessarily <injuries dictated the choice of players>

Thomas Paine and Frederick Bastiat also understood the difference between a democracy and a republic, as did the following, who briefly quoted:

"Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors." — Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses." Mencken

"Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage." Mencken, also

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right... The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds." Mencken - he was on a "roll"

The other person of note who understood "democracy" and how democracy (rule of the mob) is engineered to give way to rule by men - was Vladimir Ilich Lenin who said, "Democracy is the most direct route to communism". Thus democracy is the most direct route to dictatorship under a few men who hold absolute power over a nation, controlling the flow of information in that nation. They hold the specification for their “government” inside their own rotten skulls and rule with power, not reason. Reason can be codified, it can be written down for all to see so that others can determine if its author is sane, if its author is in tune with natural law, in touch with a reality that includes the rights of others.

The point to note is that rule of men - is conducted by voice, by dictate. Constitutional Rule of Law - is carried out through a series and a system of checks and balances from a written body of law - a specification which was designed to grant government only enough power to preserve individual liberty, but not enough to become tyrannical. It is because we the people have long since abdicated our responsibility to keep government in check that we are now looking down the barrel of the North American Union - the spawn of NAFTA, why we have central banking (a mechanism to transfer wealth from the populace to the elites…) all of which (plus much, much more) were put in place by powers not beholden to our Constitution, the specification for our form of government - which used to be a Constitutional Republic.

In case you haven't noticed, that is NOT what we have now. We now have only the illusion of security with the illusion of liberty because we have let our government devolve into democracy many decades ago and the oligarchs are now in place, in full control of our lives, our economy, our health and welfare because we let ourselves be deceived and distracted away from our duty as citizens, the primary one being the requirement that we stay "connected" to the specification for our form of government.

An example of this is the use of the previously-mentioned "panem et circenses" that the Romans were quite familiar with when they destroyed their republic with the help of the citizenry - who were led to believe they should welcome democracy - which the elites then used to install their oligarchy. Emperor Commodus was one insane incestuously-conceived royal bastard outcome of this oligarchy -  his very name serving as the basis of the expression "our country is being flushed down the commode".  

"Panem et circenses" literally means "bread and circuses" - which the Romans employed under the valid theory that if you keep a population well-fed and entertained, they won't be interested in, nor will they interfere in the affairs of state - and will give up their liberties. So, the application of "panem et circenses" is intended to enslave a population by separating us from the SPECIFICATION for our intended form of government, keeping it out of our hands, out of our classrooms and out of our courts so that it eventually fades from our minds.  The point is that if a people are no longer interested in their own government and they fail to read the specification for the government under which they live, they are no longer qualified to hold the title "citizen".  Instead, they are mere peasants who are ruled by people who ARE interested in the affairs of state.  In the case of the American peasant, they become part of the problem of tyranny, carried out through the dictates of those who DO understand the founding documents content - and who choose either to ignore that content or to actively subvert it - as is happening on a global scale, today.  Peasants or "sheeple" are the dupes of traitors, those who work against self-government, the form specified in our founding documents.  Citizens, unlike the common peasantry - take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to see that the "Laws of the Union" are executed.  They uphold and defend the Constitution, even in the face of an enemy who has overwhelming force - the power of the state - on his side. 

Commodus

This brings us to the crux of the matter, which is the survival of Western Civilization, the survival of the first world in the midst of jungle, that “shining city on a hill” so often spoken of in years past.
The difference between the first world and the third world – is the ability to do engineering. That’s it. The whole thing. There’s really nothing more to it – other than the details of that statement, which are many.

The ability to codify reason, to present it to the people who will be governed by it (to check for sanity, for comportment with natural law and reality) is the ability to create abstract barriers that are more than mere parchment, but constitute the foundations of the epitome of civilization where the rule of law is agreed to by all such that all are protected under the law. Just because a barrier is abstract – doesn’t mean it isn’t valid and less than real. The statement, “[The Constitution] is just a God-damned piece of paper” couldn’t be more wrong and more disconnected from reality just because it contains ideas that lie beyond the grasp of some men to understand it. Yet, this statement has been spoken by many and carried out by many more who have the sense not to speak it aloud but who will nevertheless intentionally ignore or even actively subvert the American codification/specification of reason/government in favor of some other form.

One definition of Hell is "the impossibility of reason".  Without a basis in a set of immutable, constant principles and truths, there is no basis for reason.  Therefore, when we abandon the very principles upon which this nation was founded, we have thrown out all logic, all reasoning for the very being of our nation and we condemn ourselves to statist hell, for the foundations of our country are those that guarantee individual freedom, they are the principles of liberty - Anonymous

So, to briefly summarize, we have the following opposing systems at work either for or against our free state:

Like a software development project without a well-written specification, our nation does not function the way the “visionaries”, the stakeholders intended because we do not follow the “specification” for our nation - whether through apathy or intentional duplicity by a domestic enemy. It was extremely well thought-out and written with plenty of supporting documentation, but our current leaders have chosen to either ignore or undermine that set of “models” which even included a provision for scrapping the whole "project", should the “project leaders” get out of hand and start dictating functions that would work at cross-purposes to the “product”.

Our kakistocrats have chosen to either ignore or purposely nullify the justification for our form of government, how it is to be used and by whom, and for what purposes and also how it is to be implemented. Thus, they have also chosen to operate outside the specification (outside the law), ignoring reason, usurping power and taking us all down the path to perfidy with them. They are traitors to our nation because they refuse to follow Constitutional Rule of Law and instead opt for democracy and communist dictatorship where we all become mere slaves – especially to the system of centralized, fractional reserve banking that was created in conjunction with the income tax, a system that Karl Marx would’ve been proud of. (Actually, he described it as his “perfect system” along with Frederick Engels in “The Communist Manifesto”)

Fortunately, there is one man among all the current presidential candidates, who understands the distinctions between Words and Writings, Power and Codified Reason and all the other important distinctions that enable us to choose between third world existence and first world peace and prosperity. That man’s name is Ron Paul.

More importantly, people are waking up to his message that under our Constitution - which was designed to guarantee individual liberty by limiting government which is continually promoted and expanded by those who would rule us – we can regain our freedom. He understands the original purpose and intent of our founding documents and the wisdom of those men who codified them for each and every one of us citizens to keep, comprehend and hold so that we remain in charge of our own destiny rather than living in fear under some globalist, supra-national, extra-constitutional group of third-worlders who live on the sweat and toil of slaves. Ron Paul “gets it”, even if you don’t.

I also ‘get it”, both in terms of governance and software engineering. That’s because I’ve read “the spec” on how to write “specs”.

If you want Liberty under an American form of government, hire a man who can read, who can read the spec and can also comprehend it. That’s my advice.

Vote Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul2008.com

I know, I know. He's a Republican. But, you're voting for the candidate, not the party. That is to say, vote for him in spite of the fact he's registered under one of the two big "shell-game" parties, regardless. In this particular case, you should consider whether the candidate is a true American, instead of some globalist plant, which describes everyone else running for POTUS. This is a RARE opportunity to put an American in the White House.

In case you haven't heard about the other candidates, you need to do your research. Almost to a last one, they are beholden to the predominant Round Table Group known as the Council on Foreign Relations. The Round Table Groups were established by Cecil Rhodes - whose purpose in life was to resurrect the British Empire, specifically re-capturing the "colonies" of the United States of America as part of the Empire once again. The Brits have never stopped this campaign, even on the day of their surrender when Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington.

The CFR is about as American as Vodka and Caviar - and Britain ain't socialist, right?!

Also: If you want to read how our leaders haven't just accidentally strayed from the "spec", read "The Engineered Destruction of America".

Also see the article on Mike Huckabee's defection to the globalists' camp.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=211904

See this as well: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message484882/pg1 Almost to a last one, these candidates are not American, but GLOBALIST. You can't be a globalist without being a collectivist/statist and no American is collectivist OR statist.

Now, an educational video on the form of government established after our War for Independence and how it compares with other forms of government and the types of economic systems allowed under each.