Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(3rd edition - May 2007) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
Civil wars have occurred in many countries over the past few centuries and if it wasn’t called a ‘civil war’ then it was an ‘uprising’ of some scope. If an uprising was successful then it is often re-titled a ‘revolution’ afterwards … such as the French, Russian and American revolutions. And, curiously, these things have happened to several countries more than once. We should wonder why this is so common. While we can better understand why one country might go to war with another… but civil wars, uprisings and revolutions are often mystifying even being aware of the cited reasons. Something usually seems amiss... but that's because the underlying (true) reasons aren’t usually addressed.
While the cited reason for a conflict might be good reason, logical,
something we might buy, there could have been dozens of believable
reasons at the disposal of the victors. The best is selected... often being a
matter of placing the blame on the 'enemy' and legitimizing the conflict. After
all, the good guys don't always win and the victors write the history books.
Some of the more notable revolutions and civil wars were the English Civil War (1642), The American Revolution (1776), the French Revolution (1789), the American Civil War (1861), the Mexican Revolution (1910) and the Russian Revolution (1917). As to uprisings worldwide, they are countless. While a revolution is the successful result of citizens versus the ruling authorities, a civil war generally means the leaders of the opposing sides were once part of the same ruling authority beforehand. A civil war means a split occurred and the opposing factions maintained control over a portion of the country in order to openly wage war against each other in a conventional fashion… whereas uprisings, without benefit of land or offices to begin with, generally utilize guerrilla tactics. Although 'civil war' is a 15th century term, I could find no internal conflict called a ‘civil war’ prior the English Civil War of 1642.
All of these terms mean internal fighting, citizen against citizen. Societies fighting amongst themselves is nothing new however, assuredly occurring even in the Stone Age. A term for ‘war’ probably crept into man’s vocabulary very early on... perhaps more than 100,000 years ago. Whether internal fighting had a label prior to recorded history is unknown but likely it did if it occurred frequently. Frequent occurrences, after all, will beg for a name.
So… why does in-fighting occur so frequently? After all, we’re talking about people fighting each other who are practically neighbors or perhaps distantly related. Most often they share the same language, are taught in the same schools, observe the same holidays, fish the same lakes, climb the same mountains and so on and so forth. While different customs and religions can be an irritant, they still ‘sorta know’ each other. Except in the Middle East, an insane asylum, whether citizens like each other (or not) often makes little difference, invariably wholesale fighting is about more important reasons. Oftentimes it isn't 'personal' at all.
On the other hand, sharing a country doesn't make a stranger less a stranger
or a foe less a foe. After all, not much value is placed on being a 'fellow
citizen'. So too, familiarity breeds contempt.
While the causes for these internal conflicts are most often attributed to regional or widespread injustices, or political power struggles, it's almost always the result of treason (the betrayal of a trust). And, it usually isn't treason on the part of those who rebelled, the insurgents, those who physically started the war, but instead treason on the part of those in control. Treasonous acts will cause these rebellions, revolutions and civil wars. In the end, it is usually about greed or power. Religious differences are rarely the cause of hostilities anymore except in the Middle East... the caldron of World War III.
While one could point to regional or widespread injustices as being the cause, or political power struggles, they are most often just the result (effect) of treason... although treason is not without reason (personal gain). If, however, a political power struggle was over ideological differences with no other agenda, then it would be the cause. The point is, it would be non sequitur to say the underlying cause for a civil war was due to an effect. While one could rationalize in that manner to arrive at 'a truth’, but to ignore the root cause is to ignore 'the truth'.
Ignoring the root cause is something historians, pundits and the media have a habit of doing however. For example, they might cite a political power struggle as the cause for a civil war but fail to mention treason was behind it. This applies to government acts of malfeasance as well, they always seem to refer to these acts in the softest terms possible... when this malfeasance, all too often, amounts to treason. To call it treason makes sense... doesn't it? After all, treason is defined as 'the betrayal of a trust'.
The U.S. government won't call it treason though, in fact they don't call anything treason. Nobody has been charged with treason since the Civil War, and then only a few. Not even convicted spies who were once U.S. government agents are charged with treason. Like the plague, it seems, the term is avoided. Instead, the government considers 'the betrayal of a trust' merely malfeasance... defined as 'wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official'. So, it seems, as far as the government is concerned, 'the betrayal of a trust' is no worse than showing up for work drunk. So why isn't there a public outcry? Perhaps this 17th century epigram by John Harington might explain:
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
Considering the number of federal and state bureaucrats, malfeasance must
surely be a common occurrence, at least not an unusual occurrence. Of these
occurrences, at least some are surely 'the betrayal of a trust'. While it may
not be called treason, a rose is still a rose by another other name. This is
the focal point.
Within any country born of idealism, an about-face invariably happens … in that justice, the cornerstone of idealism, slowly erodes away until virtually a police state remains. Nor are democracies immune. It may take decades or even a century or two, but it happens every single solitary time. It is due to treasonous legislators passing unconstitutional laws and the bureaucrats bending the rest. All are not guilty of course, most try to enrich themselves and impose their will honestly. But some, to get what they want, stoop to treason. Yet, to mete out the appropriate punishment, treason must be called treason ... not merely malfeasance.
About treason, unfortunately, the American Constitution states only this in Article III, Section 3:
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Accordingly then, "adhering to their enemies" (‘their’ means the ‘states’ as 'separate and independent' as was originally constitutionally intended) and "giving them aid and comfort" are the only ways one could be deemed treasonous according to the constitution… nothing at all was put forth about sabotaging or ignoring it. It was either naivety or a grave oversight.
The problem is that bureaucrats, at every level, aren’t fully living up to
the ‘intent’ of the constitution. It is curious why this wasn’t included as an
act of treason… unless the founders thought compliance ‘goes without saying'.
In other words, it was ‘expected’ these clauses would be fully honored. After
all, a constitution is a host of declarations effectively ‘chiseled in stone’…
being the most sacred vows mortal men can possibly make to each other. The
founders apparently believed it would be forever unthinkable to ignore or
convolute. It was a naive assumption unfortunately, later generations produced
those who do the unthinkable.
So, without harsh penalties for treasonous presidents, judges, congressmen and bureaucrats, eventually a constitution will be totally compromised. It is inevitable. Without teeth, a constitution will only last as long as good men rule… except bureaucracies ultimately weed out the good men. You can make book on it... without teeth good men and bureaucracies can't coexist, not for long. No, the framers of the American constitution didn’t do a good enough job… actually, they forgot the most important part. After all, grandiose declarations about human rights are hollow statements without the wherewithal to back them up.
During the past 3-4 decades, infringements on rights have accelerated to
a free-fall. While the federals are culpable, more-so perfidious today
are the states, except for a few, the short list being police harassment,
illegal roadblocks, illegal searches, blue laws, shotgun
rule and the punishment-style taxation on tobacco.
To impose a tax on a minority, smokers in this case, is an equal rights
violation. Tobacco taxes should be no greater than that imposed on a ten-speed
bike, cappuccino or insulin. It was not intended that the state should ‘engineer’
society… but rather to govern its people as-is.
While the lawmakers within America go about legislating laws to govern the multitudes, a practical concept in theory for peace, justice and security, there are scant few laws to govern the lawmakers, the lawmaking process and the bureaucrats. Due to Sovereign Immunity there is no mechanism to hold them accountable… without fear of prosecution a bureaucrat can exceed and abuse his authority, commit perjury and can trample on the rights of citizens at will. While they might not get re-elected or could be fired, that’s hardly enough of a penalty when you consider the damage often done to constitutional matters. And once precedents are set… it is usually lasting damage because courts rely heavily on ‘case law’. Legislators who routinely introduce unconstitutional bills is evidence of this total disregard. If they become law, it often takes decades before the courts will review and overturn them (if they do)... and nobody, nobody at all, is held accountable for those decades of unconstitutional law.
Suppose we treated other criminals the same way? If we did, then a killer might merely be reprimanded and a rapist told to apologize. And yes, traitorous presidents, judges, legislators and bureaucrats are criminals and should be treated as such. The same goes for prosecutors and police officers who violate our constitutional rights. In the courtroom, perjury is an everyday affair. It is clear, the greatest threat to America is not beyond its borders, but within. Americans do have guardian angels however... defense attorneys. Defense attorneys are our only shield against absolute tyranny. Without them, a constitution wouldn't last a year.
Unfortunately, the use of the term 'treason' is not in vogue anymore... not since the days of Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr, not since the screams of treason reached fever pitch prior to the Civil War. Fortunately however, it hasn’t been stricken from the dictionaries just yet (for being an outdated term). Neither has 'traitor'.
Due to a flood in China recently which killed up to 200 people, most of
them young school children, and due to the poor response by the local police
and officials, Xinhua news agency said the head of the police department and
the head of the Shalan township’s Communist Party have been 'detained' and
would be 'investigated'. It was also reported that the Governor of the province
said he would ask for 'administrative penalties' for this disaster.
Saddened by such loss of life, especially school children, the Governor (Zhang Zuoji) reportedly said he bears “unshirkable responsibility” as the Governor. The phrase ‘unshirkable responsibility’ has high-minded quality to it, almost spiritual… although curious why ‘unshirkable’ isn’t in my English dictionary. It is imperative we have such a word. We also need such an attitude.
We need a constitutional amendment to ban sovereign immunity. It would have the effect of making treason (the betrayal of a trust) the exception rather than the rule. It would be teeth our otherwise toothless society desperately needs.
Last modified: 03/06/16