I never finished this piece but there is enough here to adequately outline the issue.
THE TYRANNY OF THE SIXES
GARY YOUNG
2008, reviewed and posted April 30, 2024
In the Graves model of human behavior, the second most populated world view value system is Six. It is also the fastest growing system. I would now guess 6’s constitute perhaps twenty to twenty five percent of the US population. Why I have a chapter titled the Tyranny of the Sixes is because the portion of “bad 6’s” is also growing and because they have great influence despite their being only a few percent of the total population. As was pointed out in the Graves chapter there are good sixes but there are two types of bad
sixes, the real evil and the simply “bad.” It is the “bad” who while not intending to bring about ultimate chaos, do so as an unintended, although very predictable consequence of their actions.
I believe one indicator that what distinguishes most bad 6’s from the population of good individual 6’s is their propensity for “group think.” This is likely because these people seemingly do not have any ability for systems thinking, are incredibly naïve, and simply need group reinforcement to validate their error prone thinking. These “group think” believers are those who share the same “causes” as the group and show it by deep involvement. These “causes” usually revolve around “fairness,” human rights, protecting the earth, against any kind of authority, or rebelling against infringement on personal freedoms. In the end, their deeply flawed processes eventually lead to their utopian causes being hijacked by the truly evil.
It is also probably because so many bad 6’s have an “education” that they hold themselves as being “elite.” Another indicator of this fact and one of the more annoying attributes of bad 6’s is that they are absolutely certain that they know better than anyone else. This is why the section on education was included because it is the bad 6’s that utilize their superstitious knowledge to justify all things within their addenda. The section on education is also included to make it clear that while most bad 6’s have a degree, they are only indoctrinated and not really educated.
Yet another indicator of bad 6’s is the instant transition to “excessive expressive” emotional behavior when questioned or challenged. Words do not mean the same to these people as they do for the rest of the population. For example, not finding stock piles of WMD’s in Iraq translate into the President “lying.” It is because of these behaviors that the section on the Graves model has been included.
It is my theory that what is now regarded as the “Liberal collation” is made up nearly exclusively by bad 6’s and sometimes led of the very evil. Even though they are only a small percentage of the population, they have successfully recruited the “entitled” 4’s to their
cause. The result is a chillingly large percentage of the population that could seriously and negatively impact our future. “In fact, the Liberal coalition is frighteningly like the class structure of the European societies from which America diverged. A needy underclass [primarly2’s and 4’s], sending respect and obedience up to the privileged elite. The elite, in turn, dribble down bread and hospitals. Needy souls dependent upon charity for the sustenance of their bodies, in symbiosis with an elite of busybodies dependent upon giving charity for the salvation of their souls. It's not progressive, it's medieval. This is one reason why the liberal elite is so in love with Europe. There the two classes know their places and dance the dance without interruption by freewheeling hillbilly hayseeds [the independent minded 5’s and 7’s] that just want to be left alone. Europe is more liberal. Liberalism being a co-dependency. America, by contrast, still has a large middle class that values independence over co-dependence. This leads to considerable frustration of America's liberals, who cannot even 'imagine' how anyone would not want their help. So they are left -- in piqued disbelief -- to pore over exit polls to find how their pets were led astray, again. “Yeah, the answer is in those exit polls somewhere, My Lord." --Mac Johnson
THE REALLY BIG LIE:
What follows is how bad and Evil 6’s operated in the US in politics and international affairs. Concerning the events starting with the attack of 9/11. Think of it as an analogy on how the bad and Evil 6’s operate within other institutions such as business, government in other countries and with time, we will be confronted everywhere.
While the absolute number of evil 6’s isn’t very great, they are unfortunately aided and abetted by the merrily bad 6’s that all too willingly propagate their message. The root of the problem is that Evil 6’s also populate the far left of the political spectrum and because they can be so “shrill,” they are the most vocal spokespeople for the agenda of the left. Perhaps the best way to explain this is to examine the current strategy of the left, and that is putting the worst possible spin on everything the party in power is doing. This point is best summed up by a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “It has been a source
of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions." As usual, T.J. had it right and in doing so answered the question of why the left use such hurtful language.
Unfortunately the Evil 6’s on the left are relying on the REALLY BIG LIE and betting that by the next congressional and presidential election cycles, their lies will have been repeated so often they will be taken as fact. For example, one lie that is just one part of the really big lie is the issue of if the president lied about WMD’s.
Evil 6’s really do know that the president did not lie, but it suits their far left purpose to say that he did. Thus, the Evil 6’s perpetrate a REALLY BIG LIE and are counting on the bulk of the citizenry having the attention span and analytical skills of a gerbil and therefore won’t notice that they have been lied to by the left. Part of their strategy means that Evil 6’s miss no opportunity to say that Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and that was the sole reason to invade Iraq. Well, let’s look at some objective, verifiable facts that prove otherwise. But first, let us more deeply examine the conflict between the Western democracies and the most of the countries in the Middle East.
The western democracies and particularly those who place a special emphasis on liberty, i.e. the U.S. and our Allies, are at war with “Jihadistan.” Jihadistan is a word play on the many countries with names ending in “stan” and the term represents a borderless nation of Islamic Fascists comprising Islamist terrorist groups, sects and the secret support of certain Islamic nations. This is because the "Islamic World" of the Koran recognizes no political borders, so various factions find it in their interest to work together like a borderless nation. After the fall of Iraq, there is no definitively guilty nation left, and as a consequence, the western democracies are forced into conducting asymmetric warfare.
The more orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the Koran before the Medina) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder. Unfortunately there are very large sects
within the Islamic world that subscribe to the Mohammed’s "postMecca" Koran and “Hadiths” teachings. It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that routinely call for jihad, or "holy war," against all "the enemies of God” which conveniently includes all nonMuslims. These “Jihadists” thus constitute an enemy without borders -- a nation of "holy" warriors called Jihadistan. These “holy” warriors have been around for many centuries, and while the current Jihadists place blame on the early western “crusaders” they also manage to conveniently overlook the fact that the crusades were a response to Muslims spreading their religion around the Mediterranean at the point of the sword.
The Bush administration is careful not to paint Islam with a broad brush. However, the most productive way to engage and destroy the Jihadists and Jihadistan is to understand the enemy. Since the enemy is not a simple geopolitical entity like a country, we cannot use the historic symmetric-warfare model. President George Bush correctly noted in October of 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. ... This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion." Because we have little experience with asymmetric warfare, it will require us to go through a painful “learning curve.”
It should be noted that Jihad terrorism is also a type asymmetric warfare and had its origins with the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) almost 40 years ago. The PFLP Islamists first committed acts of terror against Israel, and then, working westward, against European democracies. Even though there were subsequent attacks on U.S. personnel in that region, such as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, we and our allies treated the attacks as criminal acts, not the war it was. It also was not until 1993 and the first attack on the World Trade Center that our homeland became a frontline in the war with Jihadistan, and we still thought it was criminal acts and not war.
On 26 February, 1993, Pakistani native Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and his gang of terrorists (who had entered the United States on Iraqi
passports under the control of Iraqi intelligence, and yes, Ted Kennedy and indeed, all Senators knew that) bombed the north tower of the World Trade Center. Their intent was to topple the north tower into the south tower and kill as many innocent people as they could. Their lack of engineering knowledge on specifically where to park their crude truck-bomb was fortunate because it didn't topple the building, even thought the blast created a six-story crater in the parking garage.
Some of the terrorists were captured and tried, but it wasn’t until 1995 that Ramzi was finally arrested while plotting to simultaneously bomb a number of U.S. international flights. Perhaps it was the arrest of Ramzi, but after 1995, al-Qaida Jihadis focused on American targets abroad including the Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. We still didn’t get it and so there was no reprisal from the Clinton administration.
In 2001, Ramzi's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the number-three henchman in the al-Qaida organization), and Ramzi's mentor, a fellow named sheik Osama bin Laden revised Ramzi's plan to use civilian aircraft for terrorist ends by using them as bombs rather than bombing them. On 09/11/01 we saw Ramzi’s decade of planning work all to well. With the exception of the left, America understood that we were at war.
On that Tuesday morning, the American people’s sense of invincibility ended. However, the real issue given the nature, planning and sophistication of the attack, was the far larger and chilling question that occurred to the all too few rational people in this country. That question is if these Jihadists were so willing to kill so many for their cause, was there any moral obstacles that would prevent surrogate terrorists from using WMDs? Further, would rogue nation states, under tyrants like Saddam Hussein, have any moral restraints in providing the far deadlier weapons of mass destruction? In short, what would prevent al-Qaida or other terrorist group from spreading a biological agent or even detonating a fissionable weapon in a U.S. urban center?
That question was now in the hands of President George W. Bush, whose administration had been operational for only eight months prior to the 9/11 attack -- a period preceded by eight years of the Clinton administration thinking only in terms of criminal acts and police action. True, there were a few token operations, but the administration was better characterized by inaction and appeasement of terrorists.
It was President Bush’s realization that the war being waged on the U.S. and its Allies could not be resolved diplomatically, by criminal police action, or could it be won defensively by trying to stop terrorist acts at the point of attack in the United States. He clearly understood that Al-Qaida and other elements of Jihadistan could be defeated only by hitting them before they could pull the resources together to hit us. It was the 19th century military strategist Carl von Clausewitz who wrote that: "The best form of defense is attack." In a remarkably short period of time, it was the pre-emptive strike against the Taliban and then Iraq that has keep the Jihadists off balance since 9/11. This then is the Bush strategic doctrine of preemption, the taking the battle to the enemy.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, who would never miss an opportunity to use the deaths of American military personnel as political fodder, who stated: "The war has made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism...." Yes, even Sen. Kennedy is right occasionally, and yes, since the fall of Sadam's regime, our forces have killed well over 15,000 Jihadists of which somewhere between one third and one half have come from other countries to fight the United States and our allies in Iraq. That is precisely what we want to happen because if these people are so willing to go to Iraq to fight us, you can be sure that they would come to the United States to “gloriously die fighting the Great Satan.” A major objective of President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption -Operation Enduring Freedom is to keep the front lines of our war with Jihadistan over there rather then here. Over there we have heavily armed, the most capable, best-trained and best-equipped solders in history. The “left” however, simply cannot believe that the Jihadists would come here to cause us harm despite the clear evidence of 9/11.
Why the attack on Iraq? Most people, even Ted Kennedy, recall that in 1991, Saddam Hussein signed a binding agreement of surrender as a precondition for the Collation to stop the attack during the Gulf War. It was Saddam Hussein’s subsequent violations of the surrender agreement which was, in effect, grounds to resume the military campaign against Iraq. After an incredible 17th UN resolution to disarm was flouted by Saddam, the Bush administration determined that Iraq would be a suitable, logical and defensible front line to bring the attack to Jihadistan.
Let us be clear about the U.N. Their last really effective action was the Korean War. It is the sixes of the left however, that want this group to be a truly world government, but without the efforts of the United States to do the real heavy lifting, the UN is absolutely ineffective. If there had been no US action after the 17th resolution, there would have been a 56th resolution, a 104th …. The proof of that was Rwanda, the UN did nothing, yet because the US did nothing either, the left blames the US. But when the US enforces the UN resolutions and thereby gives credibility to the UN, the left again finds fault.
It should be clear that Bush and the US are not just enforcing UN resolutions; we are looking out for “number one.” American forces are NOT, first and foremost, "fighting for Iraq's freedom." They are fighting for U.S. national-security interests and to a lesser extent, those of our allies in the free world which remain in peril. The degree of peril is only mitigated by our military might. It is also true that the objectives of freedom for Iraq, the US and our allies are inextricably bound. Our ultimate objective in Iraq is to establish what A. T. Mahan called a force in being by having a deployed presence in the Middle East. Mahan, a Naval Captain during the 19th century noted that “island” nations that could project power on the other side of the oceans had the luxury of running their own affairs. Those who did not or could not project power were routinely molested at home by other nations. Interestingly, even the Dutch, considering that the Netherlands was part of continental Europe, could project sea power and were therefore largely left to their own affairs. One notable example of applying Mahan’s philosophy was Teddy Roosevelt’s Great
White Fleet and the very effective doctrine of “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”
Times have changed and so has the nature of the threat so what we want to do is deploy military personnel, but primarily equipment to the center of the threat in order to surge in power as needed. That center is not Afghanistan because it is land locked with little infrastructure. Now that the Saudis have pulled our lease, that center is Iraq. My analysis is that once the new Iraqi government is seated, the U.S. will be invited to establish permanent military installations in southern Iraq. This presence is critical, given that it would place us in the heart of Jihadistan, with the ability to protect our national interests in the region quickly without having to respond via sea and airlift. This is similar to the Cold War strategy of stationing our troops in the Fuda Gap in Germany as a “trip wire” to discourage Soviet invasion. In fact, there are still something like 100,000 US troops in Europe that could be moved from where the threat isn’t to where the threat is.
Regarding the “big lie from the left” and the associated blather about Saddam's "nonexistent" WMD programs and stores. What now seems evident is that we don't know where they are and what we don’t know only constitutes what is yet to be known. We do know that Saddam had them and used them and we know that all he had to do to satisfy any number of UN resolutions was clearly demonstrate that he did not have them. There were twenty three “whereas” in the congressional resolution passed in order to support the invasion of Iraq. Of the twenty three clauses, fourteen had nothing to do with WMD’s and five were only tangibly involved with WMD’s. In the end, Even Nancy Pelosi knows that Saddam chose not to comply with either UN or congressional resolutions, but for her and so many others, ignorance is NOT bliss when it comes to WMD’s. Perhaps it is time for her to resign.
There are a lot of published sources, credible blogs of those who likely know, and well-placed sources in the region as well as other public sources that have indicated that the NSA and NRO estimated that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD
materials and components. At that time, one credible web site reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq's WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley."…”In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN's ruse.”
Now an analysis of the specific issue of if Bush lied. By early 2002, the intelligence agencies of ALL countries that have them and share their results, including France, Germany and Russia were SURE that Saddam had WMD’s. The leaders of both Egypt and Jordan told General Franks that they also were sure that Iraq had them and had both the plans and the intent to use them. This information was shared with first the committees on intelligence in both the house and the Senate, and shortly thereafter, with all members. This information was also shared with members of the UN Security Council that collaborated what member nations already knew from their sources. Ask your self the questions, how could President Bush possibly know that Saddam did NOT have them? Where could he have gotten such information, and in view of the overwhelming consensus that weapons were there, why would he believe any source saying they were not there?
According to recent findings, Saddam was not successful in his attempts to reconstitute his previously ambitious nuclear-arms program in 2000 and 2001. This meant that Iraq's research programs were falling short of the progress made by other terrorist states such as Iran, and as was recently discovered, Libya. In other words, Saddam's formal nuclear WMD research programs were in some disarray, but we do not know how much material and technological capability Iraq imported to support this program prior to 2002. We, as well as Ted Kennedy, know that Saddam was skimming the Oil for food program for the money necessary to reestablish the nuclear program and it has been made public that intelligence sources suggest it was very possible that Saddam had the
capability to construct as many as three crude portable nuclear devices prior to 2002. It has been proven over and over that the issue of Saddam’s buying “yellow cake” was true. He had only one use for this uranium ore and it wasn’t for making pretty yellow clay pots.
Of course, just one reason to have a base in Iraq is to become better at asymmetric warfare. To that end, Special Forces/CIA units can or possibly will “continue” search-and-destroy missions in the region, in for example, the Bekaa Valley, which is outside Iraq. As an ex “submariner” who understands the virtue of keeping one’s mouth shut, I don’t expect to hear or see much about missions like that, but I sure want to keep the Jihadists off balance and in disarray.
Why elections in Iraq and the establishment of a democracy in the Jewel of Islam was so important is precisely because democracy is antithetical to the tyrannical rule desired by Jihadi Sheiks. In December 2004, Osama bin Laden proclaimed, "Anyone who participates in these elections has committed apostasy against Allah" and before the elections, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qa'ida's "prince of terror" in Iraq, declared: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, [and that] is against the rule of God." These alone seem like overwhelming good reasons to establish democracy there. The sixes however just do not possess the level of reasoning to appreciate that out come.
A major strategy of the Bush doctrine is to spread the concept of greater individual liberty through the creating of democratic governments in the heart of the Middle East. The Bush doctrine proliberty pressures will undoubtedly counteract the advance of Jihadistan across the globe. The difficulty will be evaluating what constitutes success. There will be times when things don’t go right and our objectives must of necessity be limited. Further, it doesn’t really matter what “Europe” thinks, because on the Heritage Foundation scale of freedom, they have become so “entitled” that they are not very free, so what gives them the right to tell us how to pursue our freedom.
Something else to keep in mind. There are reports that the FBI estimates that as many as six Jihadi terrorist cells remain intact in U.S. urban centers, mostly on the East Coast. In addition, there are more than 1,200 terrorist-related investigations ongoing in the U.S., most involving individuals suspected of raising funds or recruiting for al-Qa'ida. It was just one such group that pulled off the 9/11 attack. Keep in mind that these groups have patience and have had about a 25 year head start. While the warfront with Jihadistan is in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jihad terrorists are still in the US ready and willing and probably working on another plan.
SUMMARY OF THE REALLY BIG LIE:
The Left finds it to their advantage to keep lying about the big issues and most of all, screaming that Bush lied. The facts are clear that he did not. There are not many legitimate reasons to perpetrate a lie like this because it undermines our future and places many more of our citizens at risk. The truly evil tell lies because somehow they think it will result in their return to power. Other world view sixes, such as the simple “bad,” repeat the lies because they do not have the analytical skills to see through the lies. Further, since so many have a collectivist and leftist world view, the lies support their vision of reality. The call to action is simply that those with a more balanced vision of reality must speak out. Speaking out is not all that difficult, as George Will said, “reason leads to truth.”
TYRANTS:
In general, the average WV 6 doesn’t like and has little use for individual tyrants. In business, the response to the arch typical tyrant is that the 6’s are the most likely to confront the tyrant, and if satisfaction is not gained, they are the most likely to leave the organization.
In the political arena, the leadership necessary to even become a tyrant is very dependent on where the majority of the people place their passions at any given time. This is to say, that the leader cannot
conjure up a mass movement because a leader generally cannot create the conditions which make the rise of the movement possible. People have to first experience an intense dissatisfaction with things as they are. When conditions are not ready, the potential leader, no matter how talented and no matter his or her cause, will remain without a following. This is the situational leadership model. All the most powerful leaders seem to make their entrance on the scene at the most crucial point in the course of a mass movement. In reality, they were there all along, and sometimes for very long periods of time before the needs of a mass movement exactly matched their skills and the movement needed them. In short, accidents and the activities of other people set the stage for the emerging leader before they can enter and start their performance. “The commanding man in a momentous day seem only to be the last accident in a series.”—John Morley. Indecently, Morley wrote the statement in 1904, which as you may note predates the rise of the “worst,” but most powerful leaders of the 20th century.
If you ask the question, can WV 6’s become tyrants, the answer is yes, but typically working as groups with the participation of other likeminded individuals. The first model that comes to mind is faculty senates at American Universities and Colleges. Why they can become tyrannical is easily demonstrated by their enforcement of politically correct behavior codes at these schools. This phenomenon is being played out at Harvard when “one of their own stepped off the reservation” by saying that there may be a genetic difference why Women are under represented in science and engineering. The second model is the phenomena of Chairman Mao’s “gang of four.” While none of the gang could replace Mao, they collectively carried on with what they thought were his visions such as the brutal “cultural revolution.”
THE ANOINTED:
This is an easy one for evil and bad sixes because they are so sure they are right about everything and thus it is easy for them to self anoint. Arthur Sleshenger Junior years ago said something to the effect that “government should make the decisions because the
American people aren’t smart enough to make them.” It was clear Sleshenger expected that he would be one of the decision makers because he was certain that he was smart as well as being part of the presidential team.
Good sixes on the other hand, don’t feel that they have all the answers, but are more than eager to work as a group to find answers. Again, because they are good sixes, their answers are generally very good because they effectively utilize group processing to find the answers.
LANGUAGE:
Words do not mean the same thing to “bad” and “evil” sixes as they do for the rest of us. Their language is usually strident, shrill and full of hyperbolae and extreme terms. The major issue for them once they use extreme terms for mild or moderate conditions, they then cannot logically process more extreme positions or conditions. For instance, a leftist six considers any person to the right of them on the political spectrum to be a Nazi. Once they think that way, they can make no further distinctions among those who are simply to the right of them and those that really are far right.
One example of how they use language to limit their own cognitive abilities is the adoption of the now politically correct term “homeless.” The intent is to offer a softer and cozier term for the very few homeless that have been experiencing a short run term of bad luck. By using the homeless term, it precludes the distinctions that were much more accurate in describing specific sub groups of the homeless such as vagrants, druggies, bums, alcoholics, mentally ill and such. This “dumbing down” makes possible solutions to the various underlying problems much less likely. How compassionately dumb.
THE POOR:
Taking the issue of the homeless to extremes is part of how the evil 6’s pull on the emotional heart strings of every one to do something. The following from Ben Franklin however, does place a more rational perspective on the issue: “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” Since the start of the Great Society, we have spent about $Three Trillion on the poor which for the most part has kept them there. The last thing the evil 6’s and the left want however, is for the problems of the poor to be solved because then society would have one less reason to “employ the services” of the left to fix the problem. That is of course why the evil 6’s and the left in general must insure that the poor are never really eliminated.
THE ANOINTED:
As a world view class, the 6’s probably have the highest percentage of college graduates of all the Graves classes. There is no way at present to know this for sure because 7’s also have a high percentage of graduates. What is known is that that the most shrill and strident of the 6’s have a very high percentage of college graduates because they tell you so. See the chapter on troubling education for more on the issue, but the explosive growth in graduates majoring in the “soft sciences” mirrors the growth in the self anointed. Absent the stress of measurement to absolutes, the self anointed proclaim them selves to be smarter than the rest of us.
HYPOCRISY:
“Things which are not” are mightier than “things that are.” This is from First Corinthians 1:28 and what it means is that it is far more compelling to seek a wondrous future than it is to preserve the family farm. Evil 6’s want you to “will” the farm to them collectively in return for them to show you the error of your ways and find the path to true happiness.
Evil sixes seem to have no problem with the politics of personal destruction because they are absolutely certain that their wonderful utopian outcome justifies the means.
POWER AND INFORMATION:
LIBERTY VS. CONTROL:
The fundamental issue with bad sixes is that they adhere to group values and therefore the concept of “individual” liberty simply is not something they understand. While they think they enjoy liberty, what they really enjoy is setting of powerful group norms AND the creation of the means to make all people comply with those group norms. This is summarized by the following from Thomas Sowell; “The left takes its vision seriously -- more seriously than it takes the rights of other people. They want to be our shepherds. But that requires us to be sheep."
The left seems to be blind to the greatest threat to their version of liberty. Since their version requires strong control to suppress “politically incorrect” behavior they seem to never consider what would happen if they fell from power. Strangely, one of the people who they demonize probably had the best answer. "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." --Barry Goldwater
Of course, the left in their infinite wisdom believe that the greater the government, the greater the benevolence. This is why they trample states rights in favor of the national congress and even trample sovereign rights in favor of the U.N.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the
regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
CHANGE:
TIME CONSTRAINTS:
PUNISHMENT:
TEAMWORK:
INDEPENDENTMINDNESS:
DIVERSITY:
AMBITION:
FUN:
ENTITLEMENT: