I know, that question seems a bit, to say the least, provocative, but lately I have been considering all the strange legal things that the existence of our constitution did not hinder or stop.

All new ideas about the state of current affairs and the constitution came to me when I listened to a radio show host. Dave Champion of AmericanRadioShow.us made the point that the holiday we celebrated a few days ago with fireworks, waving flags and BBQs is actually commemorating a great act of violence. This surely is true, there is nothing nice and cuddly about a revolution.

But Dave, and I love to listen to his show, still sees the rift between the heroic founding fathers and the type of people who have the say in the US these days.

What if there is no difference?

We all know that we can't trust the history books as they are written by the victors. So let's forget all they say about the heroes of that time like for example George Washington. He could have theoretically been one of the biggest terrorists but would still be painted as a hero because he was the victor.

But we don't want to just throw a derogatory thought into the discussion, assume it to be true and then make conclusions from there. So, let's therefore say that he was not a terrorist, even though the King of England at that time would not have agreed with that statement.

Let us try to base our discussion on facts, as far as we can tell they are indeed facts. I thing no side is denying that George was a Freemason, and I think it is also common knowledge that freemasons have a far longer perspective on time. They are not limited by the idea of one life-time, meaning they would make their plans for much longer time periods.

They don't have to be done with an agenda in about thirty to fifty years. It does not matter if it takes two hundred years, as long as the desired result is reached.

Now, what was the objective some two hundred years ago? To get this King of England and his tax men out of the colonies, obviously. That goal was reached. I can easily imagine that a group of people, not that happy with this king, and discovering a huge new continent, developed the idea to make this their own land. It was certainly better to have territories away from a king who tried to keep everybody in line with his ideas of how the world should be.

So a war was in order. How do you win a war? You give everybody a reason to fight and risk his life, and freedom and sovereignty was a good buzz word to line up people who had mostly come to this country because they were suppressed in their old country.

Nobody follows a coward freely, so the instigators of that war had to set a good example. This good example lasts until today. Read these articles that again and again circulate on the internet, describing the fate to the signers of the declaration of independence. They suffered death and hardship for themselves and their families. But see this in the light that many of those might have had a perspective that was not restricted to one life time. Instead they were sure that after dying they would just turn around, and, having to grow up again and thus losing 20 years, they would continue where they left off.

This way it does not sound so heroic any more, especially considering that this long-time perspective was kept from most of the followers who were sure to risk it all.

Take another interesting fact that I extracted form the story about the fate of the signers: Nearly half of them were lawyers. And who is ruling America today without any consideration for the subjects they rule? I admit that was a rhetorical question. You know that most of our elected officials are lawyers and that despite the fact that they are not held in high regard and often not trusted. Except, obviously, in a situation where you need one - usually a situation that would never exist if there were no lawyers to begin with.

One last little bit about the break-away from the British Empire. In Britain, if you were of noble descent, you were a member of a better class of people. This concept had to be abolished during the revolutionary war as it was not compatible with the main ideas the war was fought over, and nobility nearly became a dirty word. But this is changing now. Many people still carry this admiration for a better class of people within. Why otherwise the interest in Princess Diana and our pseudo-nobility which we call celebrity.

You know the only noble title in common use in the US today? Esquire! And you know who is claiming that title, right?

After these thoughts I can not help but ask if the slow erosion of the principles of freedom as laid out in the constitution is a terrible thing that happens by accident or if this might be possibly by design - designed by people who think in terms of generations and centuries and not in years.

If this were true, then they are definitely winning. After only two centuries the old King of England is completely booted out and a new de-facto kingship is being established. A ruler who does whatever he wants without regards to the law of the land.

I guess I sounded a bit gloomy, didn't I? But there is a very easy way to handle this. We just have to use the same tools which is simply adopting a long term persepctive, or better even out-do this perspective and just not give any importance to the new kingship.

We can just laugh them out of office, or actually leave them there and do their own thing, because they can't really hurt us - NOTHING can hurt us. Once we get the perspective that these cute guys in Washington are really playing nicely and have a good time, we can let them play. Keeps them busy until it's time for dinner.