Federal vs. National Government

“I have always believed that it would be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-state commerce.”

–Theodore Roosevelt

This statement illustrates one of the fundamental fallacies that have become a part of our nation’s understanding of our government.  I am not speaking about the notion that government should have authority over all economic activity.  That is a natural extension of the principle about which I am actually speaking.  Notice that Roosevelt considered the Federal Government to be a National Government.  They are not equivalent concepts and, in the case of our constitution, the document which represents the Social Contract from which our government draws its rightful authority, the United States established a Federal form of government.

Equating these two concepts was not a mistake: it was a deliberate action designed to undermine the protections afforded by the Constitution.  In other words, we have been taught to think of the Federal Government as a National Government so people whose wish to control this nation could break the Social Contract we call the U.S. Constitution.  By definition, this is subversion, but that doesn’t matter.  If the people do not understand the difference between Federal and National, then they will not understand subversion – nor are they likely to care.  SO let’s look at what these two words actually mean and how one supports individual rights and liberty while the other destroys them.

Full Definition of FEDERAL

1archaic :  of or relating to a compact or treaty

2a :  formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government

b :  of or constituting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units

c :  of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinguished from the governments of the constituent units

3capitalized :  advocating or friendly to the principle of a federal government with strong centralized powers; especially :  of or relating to the American Federalists

4often capitalized :  of, relating to, or loyal to the federal government or the Union armies of the United States in the American Civil War

5capitalized :  being or belonging to a style of architecture and decoration current in the United States following the American Revolution

[NOTE: the definitions in red do not agree with the understanding of this term at the time of the founding of this nation, therefore, they represent a real possibility that the fallacies of etymology and equivocation have been inserted into this definition.]

In this definition, we can see that the change in what our founders understood ‘federal’ to mean has even infiltrated our dictionary definition.  In this definition, one could get the impression that a federal government is sovereign over the governments of its member States.  This is not the way our founders understood the concept of federalism!  They did not believe that, once joined, the federal government became the ultimate authority over the member States.  They understood the member States as retaining their sovereignty and that they remain in the union and, therefore, voluntarily submit to the authority of the federal government.

The notion that, once joined, the Social Compact cannot be broken is that of Hobbes and the European understanding of Natural Rights (which is based on man’s authority).  This is the essence of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.  But the founders of this nation declared that the people always retain the right to dissolve government bonds.  One need but read the Declaration of Independence to find that this is true.  The sovereignty of the People and the States was even protected in the Bill of Rights (see 9^th and 10^th Amendments).  This then casts some shadow of doubt on the dictionary definition’s reference to the American Federalists.  Over the years, the true history of who these men were and what they believe has been revised.  They did not advocate for a central government in the sense that it would be a National Government with ultimate authority over the States.  One need but read The Federalist Papers to find this truth, especially when read side-by-side with the Anti-Federalists.

We also have this evidence that, at the time of ratification, the founders understood that the States retained the right to secede from the Union:

The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers.

[We should be] determined… to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government… in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.

–both are from Thomas Jefferson

This is why the Progressive movement, first established as a Party by Theodore Roosevelt, at the time a Republican, started out to destroy and depends on the destruction of the Social Contract known as the U.S. Constitution.  Along with the notion of a “living document,” the Progressives sought to transform the public conception of the Federal Government.  This actually started with Lincoln, who is the President who should actually be credited with the destruction of the Constitution.  But the Progressives deliberately set out to transform the American peoples’ fundamental understanding of their government.   The continued to call it a “Federal Government,” but they started treating it as though it were a National Government.  So we should look at what a National Government is and how it differs from a Federal Government, especially ‘federal” as our founders understood the concept.

Full Definition of NATIONAL

1:  of or relating to a nation

2:  nationalist

3:  comprising or characteristic of a nationality

4:  belonging to or maintained by the federal government

5:  of, relating to, or being a coalition government formed by most or all major political parties usually in a crisis

[NOTE: the definitions in red do not agree with the understanding of this term at the time of the founding of this nation, therefore, they represent a real possibility that the fallacies of etymology and equivocation have been inserted into this definition.]

Notice how the notion of a National Government embodies the impression that the nation is identified by and defined by the government: as though the nation and its people are the government and the government is the people and the nation.  One way to understand the logical extension in this principle is to look at the actual name of a National Party/Government, the National Socialist Workers’ Party – better known as the NAZI Party.  The ideology of the NAZI Party was centered on the concept of Nationalism:

Full Definition of NATIONALISM

1:  loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :  a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2:  a nationalist movement or government

Nationalism is intimately connected to the ideology of Fascism.  Theodore Roosevelt promoted Nationalism, as did Woodrow Wilson.  Both men were founders of the Progressive movement, and both men wanted to destroy the constraints placed on them by the Constitution.

There is another important aspect of this general discussion we need to understand, as well.  One of the primary differences between the Communists and the Fascists is Nationalism.  Fascists cling to the idea whereas Communists reject it:

I don’t care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it. All this is only the road to a World Revolution.

The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.

–Both are from Vladimir Lenin

To bring this last point home and wrap this discussion, let us recognize the second fundamental difference between the Communist and the Fascist (both of which are socialist systems).  The Communist opposes private ownership of business, whereas the Fascist is willing to allow private ownership and operation of business – so long as those owners do the bidding of the National Government.  This then explains the difference between the Communist Progressives in the Democrat Party and the Fascist Progressives in the Republican Party.  The Communists in the Democrat Party oppose the concept of American exceptionalism and private ownership of business while the Fascists promote the Nation and private ownership of business.  Consider the debates you see in our political arena from the position of this understanding and see if it doesn’t start to explain many things that, beforehand, have always been chalked up to ‘incompetence.’

[NOTE: The “Federal Reserve” is not “Federal” in any way.  This is another example of Progressive word games designed to deceive.  The Federal Reserve is privately owned and was even established in a manner that allows it to operate independent from any direct government control.  It was only called “Federal” to give the impression that it is actually part of our government.  It is not!]