“No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.”

I like it a lot

Sillik, this is normally where I shake my lowered head in disbelief; BUT, your lying word salad here is abnormally false (even for you — beyond simple stupid and ignorance). Your plain display observance is twisted beyond recognition. Those that declared their independence chose an existence harmonious to nature's law which would assure individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, peace, prosperity, love and truth. Such is diametrically opposed to the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's implementation of enslaving socialism, funny money / debt, and all else that is contrary to the nobility that is the child (children) of Eternity's King.

Mike,, Norwalk, don't understand too much of you're conveyance as usual.  Unity, unification, unifying is nature's harmonious intent, hence the UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA or UNITED ENGLAND, whatever unites, it all the same to the rational. Mentioning the component of King reminds us however that there, as it turns out, is  not much distinguishing difference with the Presidents, they both appear fueled by the same destructive class based properties. Kings and Presidents, neither appear to enable progress very effectively. We the people rule this country, world, always have, always will.  Voices, not votes, voices of ideas. 

Mike,, Norwalk, a colonial issuance of unification with the parent motherland, would have more effectively fueled appropriate emotions and designs of liberty and tolerance for the colony's slave population and other oppressed, then the declaration of separation as the declaration of "independence" turned out to, in reality, declare.

Sillik, your pridefully ignorant word salad can only be made from applying definitions from your god syndrome's dictionary for mentally ill children; AND, not reading history. By example: within nature's law (Declaration of Independence), each individual is equally "united" under said law. The King's form of the "man's philosophy" — "legal positivism" didn't / couldn't unite because of its class perceptions and warfare (much like socialism).

A statist form of government (like a monarchy or any form of socialism) and the American republican form are diametrically opposed to each other, each deriving their power from different sources— one by force and one by consent.

I will agree with you that a nation that accumlates an unpayable debt is hardly representative of the Constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government and is in fact a direct copy of a statist/socialist form.  Ever since the US traded its hard currency backed by gold and silver for interest-bearing notes, the die was cast, and the road to socialism (fascism rather specifically) was paved.

If only the people were not so un-educated, they would understand how they have become enslaved by this debt-as-money system — one of the core planks of communism, I might add.  There is no such thing as a socialist government without a debt-based currency, in fact, it is the ONLY way to pay for it (at the expense of ALL the people).

No, Mr Archer, I have to totally disagree with your summation in that the so called republic is basically periodically electing a temporary king, Camelot and all, very much similar to a monarchy which are both fascist forms, exemplified in there unequal resource distributions. Socialism's emphasis on equal distribution of resources totally rejects fascism.

Sillik, I don't think Archer would mind if I jumped in here to point out your religious dogmas ridiculous statement. What does, "equal distribution of resources" mean? ? ? Who is your god that will measure and make such distribution? Does each person get his / her own tree in the forest? How will your god divide up the many minerals in their varying forms? AND, FYI, fascism and communism merely differ by the means of their socialistic methodology of distribution.

Mike,,  Norwalk, Well, I totally OBJECT to you ever positioning yourself in the place of Mr Archer. Nature distinguishes us all with unprecedented unduplicated individual physical quantities and characteristics. We should be striving progressively to reach the corresponding advanced point on a social level. With the diverse nature and infinite quality of human growth and maturity in full force appreciated I could never assume that Mike,, Norwalk is conveying Mr Archer's feelings.  Diversity is infinite. We must learn to appreciate this phenomena. 

Sillik, hahaha / lolololol; no one ask you if you objected or otherwise to anything. I didn't attept to convey Mr. Archer's feelings. I simply entered your public dialogue to interject a bit of accuracy contrary to what you had stated. You regularly object to truth so your off topic / misdirection word salad here is an exercise in the norm.

Fred, I didn't expect you to agree, as you can always be counted on to defend 'socialism' while in complete denial of its utter failure in practice.  You absolutely support and extoll the virtues of national democratic socialism in your many posts.  The German acronym for such a party is N.A.Z.I. — fascism is just another form of socialism, as Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and the German people called themselves. 

I for one believe the fascists when they say they are socialists.  Communists are on the 'left' of the socialist scale, and fascists are on the 'right.'  Russia and Germany were at odds with each other because each competed for dominance in the statist political world.  Both claim to be 'democracies,' and both forms depend on authoritarianism to hold power over the people.  The 'anti-fascists' are most commonly communists.

Sillik, hahaha / lolololol; wrong again. Neither you nor I are superior / inferior one to another — sometimes, just more accurate.