The Right Wing of the Eagle

Fix or Farce: Obama Imposed Federal Employee Minimum Wage Increases Will Wage War on Citizens Working in the Free Market

2014-01-28T13:41:00.001-06:00

There are rumors Pres. Obama plans to increase Federal employee minimum wage via executive order. One could argue whether Obama actually has the authority to do such a thing. Additionally, Congress, if it had the will, could legislate federal pay according to the market so it does not come into conflict with it. That aside, since doing something about it would require men (and women) of resounding character, let us get to the issue of minimum wage and how it effects the economy.

Raising the Federal employee minimum wage will cause:

MORE Federal debt to pay the wages;

A reason to justify Federal spending;

A reason to increase the debt ceiling;

A reason to increase taxes;

A sense of entitlement from employees (whose wages already average higher than the free market for the same work.) who have not earned a raise: This is counter intuitive to motivation based upon excellence. Conversely, left to its own devices, the Free Market System actually grows income better and based upon value of productivity which in turn spurs economic growth naturally. The graph below shows historical numbers in times of growth calculated without minimum wage interference and those with interference by government. Notice, particularly, the steady incline with greater momentum when productivity (Free Market) governs minimum wage levels versus mandated minimum wages. Also notice the erratic spikes and adjustments caused by government intervention in the federally mandated minimum wage. Thirdly, notice the counter productive drop in real wages, meaning that over time the costs of living outpace the wages in the government mandated minimum wage history.

Proponents of raising the minimum wage believe raising the Federal employee minimums will signal states to follow suit.

In reality: The Federal government (which is not actually part of the Free Market System) will become an even greater competitor against the Free Market. That means you and I and everyone else you know working for anyone other than the government will struggle as businesses struggle with unfair and illegitimate competition.

{Cr for caption: Rgcombs]

History shows a number of negative market conditions prevailing every time minimum wage is increased: 1.) Either companies must cut expenses somehow; or they must raise the costs of goods and services to cover the costs of doing business. This ultimately hurts those at the bottom most.
Defenders of minimum wage will argue that actual low income (real income) doesn't really soar with minimum wage increases so the effects are negligible. I cant argue this point: In fact, I agree: Minimum wage increases do not solve low income problems. They maintain them.

This is because minimum wage also increases inflation throughout all other wages. All incomes will will rise to distinguish value between skilled and unskilled labor. Proponents of minimum wage increases claim that very few people in the US actually earn minimum wage. They fail to acknowledge the effect on higher wages when the minimum wage is forced to increase. Put again, forced minimums only increase the entire spectrum of wages, leading to nothing more than inflation and causing frustration among the poorest sector of wage earners. Were this not so, low or unskilled job wages would have already caught up to the wages of higher skilled jobs.

History also shows a pattern of slump in the economy whenever the wages are mandated to increase. Defenders of minimum wage claim because increases are small, the effects are negligible. They do not account for the effect on businesses that survive on low pay and unskilled workers. These businesses also have a rapid turnover and higher training expenses because their workers are unskilled (retail businesses for example). Their argument is completely moot with the current intention to raise minimum wage at least $3 in one hike.

Moreover, history shows employment growth slows with mandatory wage increases. Businesses recoil. Growth and hiring slow or stop as they adjust to the forced added expense. (Notice the spikes, then sudden drops, in the graph with every forced wage increase.)

Ultimately, the only one that benefits from minimum wage increases is the Federal government via income taxes. This effect is not lasting as politicians do not slow spending.

This is not a fix, it's a farce. Numbers don't lie: People lie about numbers. It pays, literally, to note the difference.

American Political Perspectives under Scrutiny: Are You Sure You Want Term Limits?

2014-01-06T13:48:00.000-06:00

Every few years there is a resurgence of interest in a Constitutional Convention with an array of amendment proposals. A favorite is the idea of term limits for Congress. The argument is drawn out of the frustration by Americans dissatisfied with the lack of responsiveness by their representatives; and perceived poor performance of the bicameral legislature.

Term limits may force legislators back into the private sector to earn a real living. But they will also guarantee revolving representatives. The understanding of which should be reviewed for its consequences before promoting the measure.

Are Term Limits All They are Quacked Up to Be?

For an example of how nefarious term limits are we need not look any further than our current Administration. The term “lame duck” is often associated with an incumbent president in the second—and final—term, where the president is at odds with the legislature or has no motivation to work with it. Thus, he is ineffective and unaccountable to anyone. Without accountability there is no motive to do either what is morally right; or, what the constituents who vote expect. It is the sole reason President Obama can and has successfully circumvented the constitution by rerouting legislation via Executive Orders, etc. Those without any moral compass have license when they know their term will end. The incumbent on his last term is more than a lame duck. He can be a constitutional menace—an engineer who has no need to stop politicizing the public against their will, knowing he will be free from the freight train by the time it rams into a brick wall. Superficially, term limits appear to reduce the apparent misgivings of long term incumbents. But what is not observed is that in limiting terms, we actually limit our voice. As for reducing collusion, corruption and so forth: Term limits do not stop an outgoing elected official from orchestrating the perpetuation of his agenda with the next candidate.

Speeding Up the Political Revolving Door

The problem just mentioned is a greater unseen menace than the original problem that leads many to believe term limits will resolve irrational legislation (such as “Obamacare”) and lack of constitutional representation. The unseen—and dangerous—appeal of term limits is that it gives license to individual Americans to operate on auto-pilot. An incumbent is automatically thrown out after a set number of years. Political alliances that are now formed in the open will be formed behind the scenes by a systematic and automatic succession of politicians groomed and ready to replace the outgoing incumbent. This may seem efficient, but efficiency was exactly what the Framers were trying to avoid when they designed a constitution with more than 30 checks and balances incorporated within its body. It is not incumbency that is nefarious. It is the machine that can (but does not necessarily drive it.

While we may pay particular attention to the single politician-or a single party, we forget that this politician (and/or party) was promoted by someone—and many “someones”. Term limits render the public impotent to stop the machinery running behind the scenes. Rather, they promote a stronger system that reduces the unique power of our republic that is by and for the people. When one candidate is elected, a body will immediately organize for a successor to maintain the body’s power. This goes far beyond the current overgrown power of party politics, but balloons collusion by many factions vying for power through government by validating the system. If Americans are disillusioned by party politics and collusion now, wait until we have term limits. All the problems disdained by the public now will become an automatic revolving door under term limits as the element of surprise is gone. Term limits provides regularity, not honesty and representation. Free from term limits, the people decide how long an incumbent remains, not a system, and particularly, not this system. Irregularity of incumbency—vis a vis: unpredictability in elections—actually thwarts the automatic calculation and systematic orchestration of groups seeking power rather than service to the Constitution they swear to uphold.

Who’s Steering The Ship?

Term limits puts voting on auto-pilot, hardly what the American public needs given their growing laziness. Ours is a republic specifically designed to be run by the people, who appoint representatives that identify their unique and specific concerns from state to state and district to district, respectively. Our involvement is what makes us free. But as far back as this Republic began there were concerns about how effective this form of government would be. Among others, Benjamin Franklin worried that the American constituency would not be up to the task, instead resolving to political laziness and indifference in civic affairs. Therefore, anything that can exacerbate this malaise, such as putting us on auto-pilot, must be avoided like the plague it drives. Secondly, we must end pointing fingers of blame.

One point of blame is laid on heavily financed elected officials signaling collusion and corruption—because they listen to deep pocket campaign contributors. That may be superficially relevant. But elected officials are not elected by deep pockets contributors: They are elected by their constituency. Without the substantial voice of their constituency many elected officials vote based upon contributions who do voice their opinions. This is not the fault of the elected official or deep pocket supporters. The absent constituent must put their finger down: This is his fault. Elected officials who are being told what to do by constituency will not routinely vote contrary to their dictates, knowing if voters put them in office they can just as easily take them out. Elected officials vote according to the wallet when the constituency is conspicuously absent from duty. With no other voices to guide them, they have nothing to fear, knowing also that most will be absent in the voting booth also. When the people speak their minds and are actively engaged in the American process corruption is prevented. Unless of course, the constituency is corrupt.

A Compass and a Rudder

To prevent a wandering, mindless, and greedy constituency takes propagation of our American tradition. The argument that America is based upon a lack of tradition is a mistake. George Washington was so concerned about the progeny of American perspective and its ramifications for future elected officials that he believed—and espoused—a national school teaching the principles of the Constitution as imperative to America’s future. This oft-quoted section speaks to his concern:

[T]he assimilation of the principles, opinions, and manners of our country-men by the common education of a portion of our youth from every quarter well deserves attention. The more homogenous our citizens can be made in these particulars the greater will be our prospect of permanent union; and a primary object of such a national institution should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic what species of knowledge can be equally important and what duty more pressing on its legislature than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?[i]

Designed to be our compass and rudder, Washington was encouraging a national school for the cause. He also suggested a national academy for military training and education.[ii] Arguably, a national school devoted to the teaching of our republic, while not unconstitutional given several clauses that could support it, does not mean it is wise as it holds many troubling problems of its own. The greatest concern, in light of an indifferent public, would be whether such a school could withstand the temptation of corrupted bureaucrats forging an education of their own making. That is, after all, exactly what has happened to public education beginning with John Dewey in the ‘30s and growing exponentially since nationalization in 1965.[iii] On the other hand, there are those with a smidgen of knowledge, who, once gaining it, believe themselves to be experts. They may have a rudder, but have no compass, nor the capacity to know which way to steer.

A nationalized school teaching founding doctrines and our heritage is not the answer. But it can be argued that states should be teaching those; and mandating them to be promoted for perpetuation of their respective states and the union, as President Washington suggested. A curriculum for every year of education should be standard. Texas has such a requirement. Graduates of public institutions of higher education must fulfill four core courses in Texas and US constitutions. This however, is merely cursory. Yearly teaching of constitutional ideas in conjunction with world history for perspective requires consistent study throughout the education years and beyond.[iv]

This brings us back to the real problem: Poor representation is merely a symptom of political laziness. The remedy for poor representation is not term limits, but an active and knowledgeable public. In depth knowledge of American constitutional concepts and accurate historical perspectives, derived from thorough individual and institutional study of the founder’s own words and works, is half the remedy. The other half is constantly speaking up, not just in the voting booth, but between elections directly to respective representatives. Americans should run from the concept of term limits unless they would like to add one more chink in the shackles of political laziness that got us in this predicament in the first place.

[i] Eighth Annual Message of Geo. Washington, Dec. 7, 1796.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/49149656/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act-of-1965#sthash.MVANep0d.dpuf. The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 copied the nationalization efforts of England and other European countries utilizing a nationalistic approach to education. While England, in particular had huge success in bringing 80% of their population out of poverty with a nationalized school system in the late 1800’s, it is equally important to note Britain’s public school system originated from a feudal-monarchical which eventually became a representational democracy in the 1960s. Nationalism is often a portal for governmental system transitions. For them it was a step away from that dual system. Given we have been a representational democracy since inception, nationalization of public schools was a step backward in 1965 toward a socialistic society.

[iv] Having formally and independently researched primary source documents of Colonial, revolutionary, post-revolutionary and US constitutional history for many years, I can attest that study of the American perspective cannot achieve a measure of proficiency without consistent study as an American lifestyle.

A Satirical Allegory: Politicians are like bugs..

2013-06-06T16:07:00.002-05:00

I've learned a lot since being in Texas: Big really is BIG here. If you never thought you were prone to sweat, come here and you will be. Southern hospitality abounds. And the difference between politicians here and elsewhere is the drawl. And because this is a big state, politicians are prolific--as much as its sub-tropical topography is prolific with an array of bugs.

I recently discovered I have a propensity to being totally creeped out by bugs. Politicians are a lot like bugs. They are weird, (and creepy), hide in dark places, and you can't often tell the good ones from the bad. Let me illustrate my point with a brief (true story) analogy:

The spider , its belly bigger than a half dollar, lost more than half its web thanks to me.

I was in my back yard (yes, in Texas) a couple nights ago when I suddenly walked right through a enormous spider web. Swishing it away and out of my hair and face, I turned around to see an appropriately enormous yellow spider with a huge round belly and white spots on it, furiously trying to repair the damage I just made to its bug collecting domicile. It and its domain were gone the next morning. So, I assume either the neighborhood Hoot Owl had a midnight snack or it relocated to a more hospitable neighborhood. I looked up the spider online only to learn that spiders--like politicians can be difficult to find. But I learned that spiders that make circular webs like the one I ran squarely into cause the most heart attacks due to the shock going headlong into encapsulating, gooey web fibers. You think?

The bug fell to the prickly pear cactus below.
A fate most of us would wish for many politicians.

Fully recovered from the previous night's run-in with a mammoth-sized Texas bug, I was grooming a Star Jasmine today that was taking over a window. It was so aggressive I had to take the screen off to pull the plant from between it and the window. No sooner had I done that when I was looking squarely at another bug. The thing was hanging on the jasmine vine for dear life. We were in a stare-down. Thinking like a constituent, I looked around for something to get rid of it with.
Next thing I know it is gone. So I carefully pulled the vine from its rooted position around the frame of the window, copiously searching for the big bug in the process. I didn't see it. A second later, I discovered that it was sneakily hiding itself in plain view, covering nearly all of the back of my hand!

I could hear my neighbor's windows rattle with my scream. The bug fell to the prickly pear cactus below.

Like some politicians, I know these bugs exist; haven't a clue where they are this instant, or whether they are good or bad; and don't know anything more about them than I did before I encountered them...except that I am totally creeped out by some of them.

Armed Forces Day: In honor of a legacy of defending liberty

2013-05-18T13:18:00.009-05:00

Armed Forces Day, always the third Saturday in May notes the combined duty and mission of the branches of American military in defending our liberties. Prior to 1949, each branch of the military was honored on separate days. But in August of that year, all but one branch agreed to combine their honorary days into one. The first year of Armed Forces Day, three branches of the military united leagues, the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Today, Armed Forces Day includes those three, plus, the Marine Corp and Coast Guard leagues.

When Harry S. Truman spoke of the first Armed Forces Day, conflagrations smothered the earth. Most noted, and one of the major impetus for the show of unity and strength of our military were attacks by communist entities. One in particular stuck in America's craw—the Chinese Communist Government seized two buildings American purchased prior to that communist regime and owned outright at the time of confiscation. Along with Red China, Austria, East Germany, Burmese, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and the Soviet Union were entangled in expanding communist efforts. The Armed Forces Day intended to demonstrate the patriotism and unified strength of American military might despite the world's circumstances.

That first year, May 20, 1950, the theme way “Teamed for Defense”. Each year the combined leagues chose a new theme. This year, the themes are “Strong and Resilient” and “Prepared to meet any challenge”. The combined themes suggest a focus and mission different from more than a half century ago. Enemies were clearly visible then.

Today, the enemy is transparent, elusive, and evolving. The combined leagues’ challenge to be “strong and resilient" and, "prepared to meet any challenge” is indeed a daunting task. Americans of all backgrounds surely must rise to salute a contingency that often does not know what enemy will surface at any given time. They are our country’s first line of defense. Their vigilance and support of the country at their own peril cannot be ignored lest we lose the right to call ourselves Americans. In fact, they pass on a legacy they did not create.

The pride and passion to defend the land of liberty came by the sacrifice of those very first defenders, the troops of the Revolutionary Army. Scraps of clothing—if you can call it that—barely covered their war beaten bodies. The soles of their feet were their shoes. They had none other. Most came from impoverished families promised a salary, food, and clothing in exchange for defense of the rebellion.[1] Most learned loyalty, American compassion, and undying faith in a fledgling country on the trail. Many died of wounds. Many more died of exposure, starvation, and the darkest of plagues at the time, small pox. In the end, the army persevered.

What many including King George, and perhaps even the Colonists themselves, failed to realize is that a hundred fifty years of Salutary Neglect created, promoted, encouraged, and propagated a nation of fierce defenders of liberties. The military exemplifies the tradition, its nurture, and naturally American tendency in us all. It deserves our utmost allegiance and support.

God bless America and her troops.

[1] There are numerous accounts of men and women who joined the Revolutionary Army against horrendous odds. The most complete journal of that experience is of Joseph Plumb Martin who recorded every campaign of his engagement from 1775-1783. Martin, Ordinary Courage. Ed. Martin. Wiley-Blackwell. 2013

Do US Trade Deficits indicate the downfall of US manufacturing, production and economic decline?

2013-05-13T08:53:00.000-05:00

Trade Deficits and Trade Mechanisms: The power of Currency

If ever there was a demonstration of the Fallacy of Composition it would be with the way we look at trade. This term, "Fallacy of Composition" is a condition where part of something that is true is mistakenly assumed to be true for the whole of something. In this case, it is to assume that a trade deficit is indicative of our competitiveness abroad and our economy in general. The way we are assessing the trade deficit leaves the public (and politicians) in fear of being overtaken by other countries. Outsourcing and manufacturing by American companies to countries where labor is extremely cheap by our standards leaves many feeling threatened by the perception of an inevitable shriveling of our job market while developing nations grow in our stead. With these concerns in mind, the purpose of this article is to explain the mechanisms of trade at work, including what the public sees but does not understand; and a myriad of things they do not see—indeed, are never shown—that, were they seen and understood, would alleviate unjustified fears of an America with diminishing returns on export investment versus import spending. Additionally, this article will discuss the health of America’s trade dynamics by looking at the operations of an American global company.

Double vision

Let’s start with what is seen. When we talk publicly of the trade deficit, we are typically shown two totals with which to assess our position in the global market. One is the total of what we spend overseas and the other is the total of what others spend for our goods. The difference between the two is either a trade surplus--we sell more abroad, or a deficit--we buy more, simplistically speaking. The latest figures for income and outgo of trade were published May 1, 2013. USA Today reports, “Exports fell 0.9% to $184.3 billion as sales of machinery, autos and farm products declined. Imports fell 2.8% to $223.1 billion, led by a 4.4% drop in foreign petroleum.” The conclusion made in the article, based upon this small shrinkage in the deficit gap, is that Americans will have more money in their pockets to spend on stuff. [1] It appears that there is also a general assumption that we are losing money when our imports exceed our exports (deficit). The article continues,

U.S. exports to Europe are down 8% compared with the same period in 2012, reflecting the impact of a recession in the 17 European Union countries that use the euro.

The European Central Bank announced Thursday that it was cutting its benchmark interest rate to a new record low in an effort to stimulate growth in the 17 countries that use the euro currency. The 27-nation European Union is the USA's largest trading partner.[3]

The conclusions are wrong-headed for several reasons.[2] It would be hasty to jump to conclusions how the European economy has shrunk or why. But, based upon the last sentence, it is implied, whether by the writer or by the ECB, that the drop in our exports is caused by the European recession. He draws a correlation that while our drop in exports could have an affect, it is not necessarily so. He does not consider that both markets could be changing independently of each other due to internal fluctuations in their respective economies.

To understand: The Balance of Trade is simply a circular flow of currencies. It is separate and different from each country's economics. Balance of trade is not the comparison between exports and imports (income and outgo of cash--receipts and payments). Those are not on opposite sides of the balance sheet. They are on the same side of the balance sheet. Together they represent the current of payments for imports and exports. The other side of the balance sheet is Capital assets, what we and our trade partners get from each other. Capital assets account for our investment in foreign goods, bonds, securities and so forth; and likewise foreign investments in ours. Herein lays the balance of trade. It follows the algebraic equation, which is the cardinal theory of accounting: What is done to one side must be done to the other because they both exist and their ratio to each other must be maintained.

If not manufacturing, then what?

In truth, though it is not readily seen, our manufacturing industry has stayed remarkably consistent for over 80 years.[5] What have not stayed consistent are our population and our efficiency in production. Population and production have outpaced creation of—and need for—more manufacturing jobs. Thus, we think we see manufacturing jobs disappearing. It is true that this causes a net decrease in the percentage of manufacturing jobs. But our output has soared since 1959—nearly quadrupling.[6] Purchasing power derived from productivity, not trade or a deficit, is the measure of economic prowess. In fact, the deficit shows our ability to buy more stuff than anyone else. It also shows our ability to borrow for it. But it does not represent jobs. They are unrelated. In fact, a trade surplus might indicate others want to borrow our money but it may well signal that our dollar in ratio to foreign currency is undervalued, or that we have lost purchasing power due to domestic unproductivity, or by poor policy.[7] And while the total number of manufacturing jobs has declined (percentage wise), it does not follow that the total number of jobs has declined respectively. By creative destruction jobs have developed in other sectors beyond manufacturing.

It’s important to understand unseen advantages we have over other countries. We earn more and our cost of living is moderately less than other industrialized nations.[8] We do not see that real income (not nominal income) has dramatically increased since the better part of the last century. To the question of where our jobs are if not in manufacturing: We actually do create manufacturing jobs. For every one of our jobs, we create four other less skilled but important jobs in manufacturing, which combined equal the income of our one. We mostly outsource those to other nations.[9]

The lack of lesser skilled manufacturing jobs here pushes our working sector to develop higher skills. This creative destruction is sorely overlooked. Our focus in the production cycle is on invention, creation and service. Those skill-sets provide us far more income and are actually more productive than the jobs we outsource. Without even seeing it, we are expanding creative destruction here and abroad. In other words, we are no longer domestic inventors of gadgets but global inventors of products and jobs for others around the world to grow into.

From shoes to autos: 69 is a powerful number.

In 1996, Viet Nam opened its economy to free market enterprise. Within a year of five Nike plant openings, tension and consequent scrutiny arose from factories in Ho Chi Minh City, especially. To understand, NIKE,Inc. has mastered the system of outsourcing via subcontractors, meaning that plants are independently owned; and produce Nike products by contract. When NIKE,Inc. moved into the labor force of Ho Chi Minh City, the minimum wage was $42 monthly. Today it is $112.60. That is unbelievable poverty by our standards. But it is a 300% increase in income in 16 years,[10] more than a 17% increase per annum, and nearly double the hefty national inflation rate.[11]

But Ho Chi Minh became a hotbed of controversy. Expose΄ after expose΄ detailed the atrocities of the factories. Everything from paying below the minimum wage, 12 hour days up to 7 days per week, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, to child labor were incessantly arising from investigations. Still, Phil Knight, President, CEO and Founder of Nike took a hands-off approach to the problems. The root of the problems lay with Vietnamese culture which had been practicing these behaviors as an agrarian (rice) farming society.[12] Western European societies saw the behavior as wholly unacceptable and they demanded Nike do something about it. Nike, by then a hugely successful global entity, ignored the outcry and boycotts. That is, until its revenues plummeted by 69%. Sixty-nine is a powerful number: Seeing his corporation in a tailspin got Knight’s attention. He not only changed his philosophy on enforcement of the (until then, mostly ceremonial) Code of Conduct, he created a global mentorship for countries around the world.

The critical point here is that neither foreign manufacturing jobs nor a trade deficit caused the near collapse of Nike. Politics did. Today, NIKE, Inc. owns nearly half the world’s shoe market, plus over 900,000 products—most produced outside the US. Nike contracts with over 600 plants around the globe, of which more than a third are in Third World counties.[13] Not seen, however, are the results of their global footprint.

As manufacturing goes, shoe making is on the lower end of production skills, utilizing mostly assembly line tooling. High skill sets for production include invention and manufacturing technology and automation such as electronics and cars.[14] A few years ago, South Korea thanked Nike for its pivotal role in advancing its labor force skills and asked them leave. As their president put it, the nation had reached its goal of skilled laborers (of shoes) and wanted to advance their workforce skills further.[15] Because of improved knowledge about how to operate manufacturing the country expanded it placement in the high tech world.

Their skill level has advanced to the point that the 2013 Hyundai Elantra [16] is out-pacing demand by competitors including the perennial favorite, Toyota Corolla. There is no evidence that their advancement has created a burden upon our country. In fact, what can be seen is the positive relationship between rising countries and already developed ones. When emerging markets elevate their standard of living, boosting their purchasing power, it elevates ours as well.[17] It goes largely unseen that international trade is an asset to our economic success. Nike philanthropy in Third World communities in health, education, sports, and leadership programs for the rising generation, especially, is not indicative of trade and trade deficits as destructive.

Moreover, Nike’s business model includes hands-on training for over 50 countries producing Nike products. Four expatriates per factory assist in oversight and training to insure proper working conditions. Leadership training held at the global headquarters in Oregon provides classroom instruction. Subcontractors from 47 countries attended the conference in 2012.[18] NIKE,Inc. has more than 1 million employees in the US and around the globe.

If trade has any impact upon the American economy, it must be seen as a highly profitable one that improves the entire global economy and their societies, despite the inability to understand the bottom line of the double ledger.

[This article was originally a memo I wrote for a class on ethical economics culminating from research and long standing principles of economics. The class was part of a project under the direction of Dr. Jim Granato, Dir. of the Hobby Center for Public Policy, University of Houston.]

[1] Crutsinger, Martin, (Associated Press), “U.S. trade deficit falls to $38.8 billion”, USAToday. 2 May 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/02/trade-deficit-march/2128791/ There was no date source citation from an economist for the conclusion which the journalist drew. It is apparent from the article that the writer knows to combine a number of economic facts, but it is also clear he doesn’t know what to do with them or what they mean. The scope of this paper is too brief to critically discuss all that he says. However, certain parts of his article will be used illustratively as this report advances.

[2] It is enough to say all the indicators Crutsinger includes have merit in a discussion on economics but he makes no association between them pertinent to the subject of trade deficit. A full discussion of them is beyond the scope of this memorandum.

[3] Crutsinger, Martin. “US Trade Deficit…”, USAToday, 2 May, 2013.

[4] Krugman, Paul, Pop Internationalism. MIT Press, 1998.

[5] Roberts, Russell, “Does the Trade Deficit Destroy American Job?” George Mason University, Nov 2006.

[6] ibid

[7] Krugman, pp42-46

[8] The U.S. ranks 3^rd in the world in purchasing power but less than average on the consumer price plus rent index. ( ̴137:60) http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

[9] Krugman, pp46-52

[10] Wage Indicator, Western Governors University. www.wageindicator.org/main/minimum-wages/vietnam

[11] Runckel & Assoc. ,“Vietnam’s Labor Problems Amidst it High Inflation”. http://www.business-in-asia.co/vietnam_workers.html.

[12] Norberg, Johan. “The Noble Feat of Nike”, The Spectator. June 13, 2003.

[13] www.Nikeinc.com

[14] Guntrie, Doug, “Building Sustainable and Ethical Supply Chains”, Forbes. Mar. 9, 2012

[15] There are two remaining Nike plants with a total work force of less than 20 in South Korea.

[16] I own one and can attest to the reliability of the car and the demand, having had offers by multiple car dealerships who have asked to purchase my car outright with no strings attached to purchasing or trading it for another. They just need the car. http://cars.findthebest.com/compare/191-399/2011-Toyota-Corolla-5-Speed-Manual-vs-2012-Hyundai-Elantra-GLS; http://www.thecarconnection.com/compare/toyota_corolla_2013_choices; http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1075169_toyota-corolla-vs-hyundai-elantra-compare-cars; http://www.newcars.com/reviews/toyota-corolla-vs-hyundai-elantra-sedan.html,

[17] Krugman, 52.

[18] www.Nikeinc.com

Fear vs. Knowledge: Which will prevail with sequestering?

2013-02-28T21:06:00.000-06:00

          Fear is the nutrient of ignorance; and vise versa. A people who by deliberate negligence or unwitting apathy is starved of knowledgeable to the purpose and mechanisms of their government and society will fall prey to leaders who will feed them a diet of fear in order to fulfill their own interests rather than the real needs and concerns of the society.
         It is no wonder that Congresswoman Maxine Waters can publicly say that the sequestration due tomorrow will cause a catastrophic collapse of the Federal government with the loss of 170 MILLION federal employees' jobs. There are, according to reports only 150 million federal employees throughout the entire United States. Maxine Waters needs to refresh her math skills.
        However, it does signal a larger, more ominous problem. Maxine Waters constituents are ignorant. Not in a social way, mind you: but they either don't have decent math skills also, they are unaware of the facts, or they cannot read or don't care to read news. Sure enough, Maxine Waters, who has been a representative in Congress for 20-plus years will be reelected.
        The situation is merely a symptom: Waters is not the problem. We, the constituents, are. Our own lack of knowledge is the well-spring for opportunistic leaders who are not only not following their constituents, they vacillate between dangling carrots and threatening poison if we don't follow their "lead".
        Unfortunately there is no small shortage of such manipulations of the public. One could argue the Founding Fathers also used fear to warn the people. There is one difference between the use of fear then and the use of fear now. They lived through the warnings they disseminated. There has been a shift from warning to conjuring. The former based upon experience, the latter upon imagination. While each was intended to move the people to action; the action intended by each was vastly different in purpose.
       Today, we experience fear as a virtual world of literalness based upon the surreal of politicians aiming to fill empty minds with wilting flowers of rhetoric by bad math and bad logic. President Obama is claiming that the sequester will destroy budgets: Children will go off insurance; severe loss of fire departments and police forces will leave us unprotected; education budgets, including Head Start will end; and a myriad of other vital functions will die with the sequester. But knowledge is king: A quick view of the graph of federal spending versus the sequestered reduction of it kills all fear of a collapsing government. Quite the contrary.
       On the other hand, is there a time when fear is valid and real--based upon knowledge? Certainly, this is the concern of the Founders and the impetus behind the framing of the Constitution with its multiplicity of intertwining checks and balances. I would argue that this is not fear, but repulsion. Once one has put their hand on a hot burner, fear--the anxiety of the unknown--is replaced with wisdom by experience. Greater than experience are those who learn by that of another so to avoid repeating the offense. Their knowledge brought wisdom. Thus, while the Founders warned of the ills of an illiterate and ambivalent society, it was not fear but wisdom that they disseminated. The graph above proves the point. It's knowledge does not invoke fear--but action to the gravity of our federal spending. This knowledge should, in the good conscious of every American provoke a sense of duty to speak out about the absurdity of our fiscal direction. A call to Congressmen, Senators, and the President is in order.  Note-taking on who responds is imperative. Searching for future leaders armed with knowledge--not fear--is the outcome.
       Ezekiel Cullen, a leader of the Texas Republic, a Congressman and Supreme Court Justice in the 19th Century is remembered and his words memorialized on the exterior facades of multiple buildings at the University of Houston. His convictions are written on one facade saying that a free people is a knowledgeable people. On another, "Intelligence is the only true aristocracy in a government like ours and the improved and educated mind has and will ever triumph over the ignorant uneducated mind."
        Indeed, ignorance feeds fear. But knowledge will continually prevent the captivity of ignorance that poor leaders hope for and great ones dissolve. The Americn public can appease shouts of doom that would have them in fearful nightsweats, by feasting at the banquet of easily acquired knowledge that provides wisdom rather than fear.

Hostess Twinkies die before bankruptcy Thank you Unions for such great acuity

2012-11-18T13:21:00.002-06:00

MOURNING THE EMPTY CALORIE DESSERT: More than a week ago, one morning I decided that along with long hours of study and prep for several papers, I would share my gratitude to the fine Union members who have ruined what I hoped would be a legacy of splitting open Twinkies, licking the innards clean of their cream then devouring the cake; to say nothing of Ding Dongs and chocolate Cupcakes that will forever be absent from the bribery system of millions of dads--Remember: "Dad is great, he feeds us chocolate cake," (Bill Cosby). (Never mind how long it takes them to decompose in the landfill--they do just fine in human digestion.) But now, not only can we appreciate the efforts of the Union for their personal sacrifice on behalf of the economy but for bolstering the entrepreneurial spirit that is selling their former product for multiple times their value when they were picketing. Good job, guys. May you enjoy dreams of fruit pies and powdered donuts while standing in line for your unemployment check and food stamps.

The good news is that Little Debbie is going to grow gangbusters now as the only empty calorie fix for the 50's, 60's and 70's generations.

2012 Presidential Election: Restoring American Standards in November

2012-10-26T13:07:00.000-05:00

2012 Presidential Election is the opportunity to restore our standards: Bengazi the Ultimate Proof that Obama Standards Are Substandard for Americans

Frankly, I find Mr. Obama's behavior and treatment of the Bengahzi affair as heartless and offensive. I do not understand how a President--of all people--could blow off security for his own; say the loss of dutiful patriotic Americans is "not optimal"; then lie over and over about what anyone who can read or see knows is a cover up of negligence and subsequent insensitivity. Obama seems beyond either remorse or empathy. As Brett Baer said, "It is chilling." I would add sickening.

I understand the feelings of the wife of one of those lost in the attack who doesn't want her husband's untimely death politicized. I feel for her. I hope she understands that her loss represents a loss for all of us; The truth is, it was our loss. The situation exposes some serious misunderstandings between Obama and Americans. We want answers. We want to do better. Find better. We want to remove the problems. It cannot ever occur again, or we--not terrorists--will be our own worst enemy.

The problem is partly that we voted in someone who I think most who voted for him thought had an understanding of American social norms and mores. Calling your political foe "a murderer," and telling a group of elementary school children that he is "full of $%*&;!!" is beyond the pale. I can’t imagine what he is thinking: Any respectable person would set a better example.

I am confident that even if the majority of Americans do not know much about their own country's formation and Constitution, they DO understand common decency and care for human beings.

There is still hope in the world. Good people abound. After a political drought, one of them, a rather unpretentious, but highly successful man, will take office in January. I'm confident, expecting he will be imperfect, but caring, that we will be much safer and deaths of Americans will not be chillingly swept aside as "not optimal."

He will rise to the occasion. We must rise to the occasion too, and together we will be partners, imperfect, but looking for ways to make the world better because America is better.

Thus, I have a plea for Romney—and all future Presidents: Expand your care, honesty, and drive to these areas, and we will do likewise:

1. First, protect us by protesting the Constitution: Please do not make executive orders that legislate—no matter how tempting or how good the motive appears. Take your plea for good legislation directly to the people who will back you in Congress. You can honor this request first, by removing all of Obama’s Executive Orders and sending anything worthy (?) to Congress to address.

2. Next, understand Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Opinions and make yourself very familiar with their rulings: The Obamacare ruling is a good case in point and place to start. It DID NOT uphold most of the Act. Quite the Contrary, no part has authority to compel private citizens, states or businesses. Most people don’t know this. It is, however, upheld as a tax. The Constitution provides for that—and only that part that is a tax—as Roberts affirmed only that much. So, if you are going to do anything to that, make sure agencies and bureaucracies do not overstep their authority here, thinking that since Americans are widely ignorant of the outcome of that SCOTUS case, they will comply with unconstitutional actions. Do likewise for all other SCOTUS Opinions.

3. Shrink bureaucracies! Just shrink them. Get rid of unfair, unconstitutional, unyielding, and oppressive policies.

4. Return to the states what is theirs: Acknowledge their duty and sovereign right to govern the affairs of their own people in education, social issues, and all areas not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal government. We will hold you to this one especially, since you have already promised it.

5. Keep drinking all that milk, we need your backbone: Retract our position in the UN. You can start by making our soil off limits to the UN to inspect ANYTHING. They have no right or authority to decide anything about our affairs. We Americans like sovereignty and we expect you to protect it. We don’t want the UN taking anything from us. If we inspect our own voting polls, so be it. If we do not, so be it. Whatever we do, we will do it together as Americans. That goes for other intruders as well.

6. Protect our free market system: Back off businesses and return government employees to private sector jobs. Of course free markets are integral to free societies; We will hold you to this promise too.

The world holds much that is good. We have the opportunity to go forward, learning from the Benghazi debacle, and many poor decisions before it, so the loss of four trusting Americans' lives are not in vain.

Fact Check: Details of Bureau of Labor Statistics Own Data Contradicts Unemployment Numbers Released on Heels of Obama Debate Failure

2012-10-06T22:36:00.000-05:00

(A note to the reader: if the tables in this article are too difficult to review, you can access the tables directly from the original source by clicking on the respecitve tables written in green.)

The old adage that numbers don’t lie definitely applies to the latest statistics released a day after President Obama miserably failed to detail successes in his administration over the past four years in his first Presidential debate with Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, Mark Twain's famous claim that, "There are only three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics," also applies. The labor statistics released claim that, while there was a net decrease in jobs available (by 30,000) from the previous month, August, the unemployment situation improved by .3%. Strange math; but it is consistent with the month just preceeding it. From July to August, the number of jobs created plummeted 40,000 (Table 1, line 2012). Yet, again, the unemployment statistic was said to have improved by .1% irrespective of the drop in jobs. It is difficult to reconcile the percentage in decline of unemployment given the close relationship between the two conditions.

I was curious what the pattern for the two conditions is for all the previous months. Perhaps this seemingly undo relationship is validated by a pattern previous to those. A careful study of the data is compelling. Indeed it is blaringly not the case that the just released data is coherent at all when studying the previous pattern. Take a look at all—any—other year or combination of months and the story becomes a conundrum. The statistics make it both quite clear how the two work consistently and in direct harmony with each other while causing a clashing contradiction as to how the labor department has come up with their decrease in unemployment when the jobs are not there to support it.

For instance, if we look at 2011 in Table 1, we see that for the months of January through April there was a substantial number of jobs created, though from month to month a steady increase in jobs slows considerably; 100,000 from January to February; 26,000 more from February to March; and, a fourth of that again from March to April. Accordingly, Table 2 shows us the logical correlation of unemployment going down as the jobs went up.

Table 2

National Unemployment Rates, 2008 - 2012

	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	April	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.1	7.8
2011	9.0	8.9	8.8	9.0	9.1	9.2	9.1	9.1	9.1	9.0	8.6	8.5
2010	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.9	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.8	9.4
2009	7.6	8.1	8.5	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.8	10.2	10.0	10.0
2008	4.9	4.8	5.1	5.0	5.5	5.6	5.8	6.2	6.2	6.6	6.8	7.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Again, looking at the reverse situation, from April, 2011 Jobs produced plummets by 200,000! From April 2011 through to September the numbers are low and are indicative of corresponding increase in unemployment for that same period as shown on Table 2. This pattern is consistent for all previous years and is especially poignant for years 2008 through 2010 where numbers of jobs created were drastically in the negative. A situation that does not precede this one until going as far back as 2003. And those dismal numbers pale in comparison to the number of 2008-2010. While the economy was shriveling, the unemployment rate for those same years, month to month show a direct and expected increase in the unemployment rate.

There are two significant facts that need mentioning. Note that with the exception of two random months, in all months previous to Mr. Obama taking office, jobs were created, either modestly or substantially, (since 2003). It is not until after Mr. Obama takes office that the economy—as shown in both numbers of jobs created and the unemployment rate—tanks, and in a devastating way. Additionally, the amount of consecutive years of, not just declining job growth, but actual job loss is significant. Not even in years 2002 and 2003 do was see such devastation. What is the point? Mr. Obama did not inherit an economic mess.

The next significant fact comes from the last two months of jobs created. Both July and August numbers are preliminary, meaning they are not necessarily the factual numbers. (Don’t ask why July’s numbers are preliminary in September.)

This leads us back to last week’s jobs and unemployment numbers following on the heels of a miserable defense of his presidency in the first Presidential debate. Now, take a look at Table 3, below. Notice the job numbers for September 2012. (Don’t ask how they are able to chart October, November and December yet.)

The cliff is astounding. Telling as to the facts of the unemployment situation, the graph does indeed show explicitly that what was released to the public a day after the debate was, in fact, inconsistent with the data.

By now, it should be clear what these tables mean. Tables, by the way that are public: They are the government’s own data.

One: The information as announced by the Federal Government a few days ago is not consistent with its own data.

Two: Given the data’s overwhelming pattern that says when jobs fall, unemployment rises, and when jobs increase unemployment declines, the current correlations as released a few days ago are not accurate.

Three: Table 3 (the graph below) shows clearly the data released on unemployment is not consistent with this chart showing a devistating economic downturn in September.

Four: Mr. Obama did not inherit a depression upon taking office. Indeed, he did not inherit anything of the sort. He created it. And, yes, in terms of building something, he did it all on his own.

End of debate.

Table 3

Term Limits: The Answer or the Problem with Leadership in America:

2012-09-09T17:07:00.000-05:00

What is so bad about term limits anyway?

Sound reasoning or reasons?

My guess is that most Americans are grateful for the 22nd Amendment that restricts the number of terms a President can serve to just two. Indeed, many await the additional limitation to terms for Congress as well. It sounds reasonable to prevent elected officials from becoming permanent fixtures of the government--"career politicians" as is so often coined. At the time of its referendum, the amendment was brought by fear that a President--President Roosevelt to be precise--would assume greater power by becoming the habitual default president--more akin to our then enemies in Communist regimes where only one choice was present for election.

But as with the majority of amendments to the Constitution, the 22nd Amendment has caused, or has the potential to cause, more damage than solutions given opportune circumstances. A few heads might be tilted at this statement; perhaps there are some raised eye-brows. After all, who, in America would want perpetual control of the government to fall into the hands of one, as was feared with FDR? Unfortunately, like other amendments, when that amendment was proposed, the people forgot who had the ultimate say in any elected official in US government. Not much has changed to fix the amnesia.

The Framers of the Constitution spoke to the concept of term limits in Convention discussions. In fact, they seriously considered it as another check to one branch having dominance over others. The check that won out was The People: In the end, it was far more important to the Framers--even critical--that ultimate say went to The People to determine the term length of any president. The Framers felt it unwise to reduce their power to an automatic default vote.

Let’s ask the obvious question: Does term limits actually provide the solution to the problems associated with excessive terms; or even poor leadership--or even more, nefarious actions of a president?

Table Tennis, Anyone?

Actually, no. In truth, in any given term, one set of the population will dislike the actions of the President; then, in another term, another set will dislike the actions of a different president--all based upon their political persuasions. Each side will argue that the other side doesn't know what they are doing. Each side will defiantly assert their intellectual superiority of conscious and policy over the other. Which group has the right perspective? Term limits only serves to stop those whom we disagree with ideologically, philosophically, and/or policy-wise because we see their view as nefarious to the central well being of our country and ourselves. The effectiveness of term limits does not actually answer the question of who is a bad president and who is not. Term limits serves as reassurance that one party will not dominate (read: control) policy over another for more than eight years. Who has not felt confident that, if nothing else, the policies of Clinton, Bush (either one), Ford, Carter, and any president after F.D. Roosevelt can only do another four years of damage? One of the problems with this attitude is the "ping-pong" affect of bouncing from one party to another and back again, every eight years. This is a symptom.

The disease is that we lack faith in our own ability to choose wisely either our President or policies based upon correct Constitutional principles. We acquiesce to the system do our job for us. Curtailing potential damage by a bad officeholder through controlling how long they can be in office is best resolved by VOTING, not by limiting our power to vote. So said the Founders. So the ping-pong symptom shows that, while we are hoping to curtail another's stupid choice for president (that is obvious to us), the 22nd Amendment actually cuts short our own right to vote as well. Put another way, and opposite of the Christian injunction, term limits means what we do to others we do to ourselves. So, the first bad outcome of term limits is arguably the worst: that we are actually limiting our power to rule our government. This symptom and disease is the common criticism of term limits. But our current circumstances demonstrate the disease of term limits in a much more sinister way.

Throughout most of the over two hundred years of existence we have taken for granted the idea that the Constitution requires all officers at all levels throughout the entire country to promise by oath to defend and protect the Constitution that gives equity among us. But what happens if someone decides, once in office, they are not inclined to observe and honor that oath?

A mad duck hunter is worse than a lame duck.

We are at the precipice of answering that question. Mr. Obama has already, and repeatedly stated he does not have any loyalty to the Constitution. Indeed, he has openly declared it is a defunct document of outdated ideals. In this one way Mr. Obama has lived up to his words. In fact, at the Democratic National Convention, it was stated in their platform that the Democrats’ intention is to pragmatism. The political definition of pragmatism is the act of doing what is expedient according to the leader’s interests without obliging a pattern of rule of law. The unpolitically correct, but truthful word for that is fascism. Under these circumstances term limits are most destructive.

Consider the condition of a “lame duck” term. The term denotes the inability to make progress by leadership either in legislation, execution of the law, or any other legitimate governance. With a fascist leader, a second term creates the flip side of a “lame duck” term. For a fascist, term limits provides fodder for their objectives because they have four years to do whatever they will, despite the will of the people. They no longer have any reason to fear a negative response from the people since they will be automatically terminated. Caution goes to the wind as does any remote observance of Constitutional rule of law. Term limits create an avenue for the fascist to reap as much mayhem to a free nation as their physical stamina and the pen will allow.

With the exponential growth in violating constitutional checks and balances that Obama has produced by abusing Executive Orders to create rather than execute laws (as per both Art I, Sec 1 and Art II, Sec 3 of the Constitution); by publicly denouncing the Constitutional authority of Congress; by using bureaucracies as a personal way to bully, threaten, harass and otherwise cajole states and groups of individuals into doing Mr. Obama's desires, allowing him four more years is tantamount to a license to increase this parabola to an irreversible extent. A leader—a president—who can do whatever he personally desires without answering to either the People or the Constitution can destroy every other liberty we believed we ever embraced quite rapidly.

The greatest frustration by a free people of governance may be a "lame duck." But the greatest destruction to them is the political equivalence to a mad duck hunter with a rabid dog killing every bird in the pond. To prevent the mayhem that term limits can cause under this circumstance, the people must stop Mr. Obama's opportunity for a second term. The idea that somehow term limits gives us some assurance that whatever a President does can be automatically stopped eventually is a highly dangerous assumption built upon ignorance and no working knowledge of world history.

Will the People or Term Limits determine out future?

Even more, term limits for all federal offices, based upon the precipice before us, represents (with little imagination) what our country would look like without fear of retribution by the People. In such a situation, given that there is no one presently stopping Mr. Obama from flagrant constitutional violations, (probably because they don't know for certain that what he is doing is one*), I seriously suspect that we would not recognize our country in four years. There is very little reason to hope of fully repairing and restoring the massive destruction associated with Obama's practice of constantly usurping power.

The Framers of the Constitution took wise consideration that the best and fullest of liberties should grant more power and say to the People, through various protective mechanisms, not less. Though there are also checks and balances to offset the possible irrational opinions of the People, the duty of the People to vote someone out of office short of their term limits is the surest and most protective device the People have in limiting terms and the ultimate prevention of destructive circumstances beyond our control.

*(Until 2010, when Congress officially opened Session by reading the Constitution of the United States, an old statistic showed that from term to term, less than 2% of Congress had read the Constitution all the way through. This is not an admission that reading it once through equates to understanding it, however. But it is a start.)

Refections on Research: Studying Eastern Europe Since the 1989 Revolution

2012-07-23T15:10:00.000-05:00

The Process of Research: Vetting Qualified Sources

This piece was originally a progress report submitted to the Director of SURF (a Research Fellowship granted through the University of Houston Honors Department). The goal of this research is to determine from legitimate sources--primary sources and secondary sources, utilizing accurately, primary sources--the current progress of societies and now individual nations in comparison to their circumstances at the time of the fall of communism. This reflection piece focuses on the actual process of vetting proper sources in research and is provided as a small peephole into the eventual culmination of the research that will be presented in Fall, 2012 at the University of Houston.

As a disclaimer: the purpose of this reflection is to illustrate proper evaluation and logic in finding good sources of research. Thus, some facts mentioned here, which are not cited, will have proper citation in the actual research publication forthcoming.

Progress Report: Vetting Proper Sources

As an update on the progress of this research project, I thought it would be pertinent to review the process of vetting sources that I’ve been heavily engaged in for the last few weeks. This process will continue until I have, hopefully, filled my composition notebook to satisfaction with the material needed for proper presentation of the research.

There is a plethora of publications on the subject of Eastern Europe since the fall of Communism. I found hundreds online. I went to the MD Anderson Library to sort through the most plausible sources for the focus of this project. The shelves were lined with commentary, reports, assessments and historical contents from The Fall forward.

After a few hours of sorting through Tables of Contents and Indexes, I narrowed the field to fourteen books that I brought home with me. One main purpose of the books was to supplement and corroborate the many articles, and other publications written, some by the same leaders who worked for liberty—especially, but not exclusively, for religious liberty—prior to The Fall in 1989. Some of the same sources for Candles behind the Wall have been prolific writers in their own right since.

Some of the fourteen publications have been removed as good sources for this research. Two circumstances have arisen to disqualify them. Some material, though interesting, well written, and valuable, turns out to be off topic to this research. One book in this category is East to West Migration, by Helen Kopnina. This book is part of a larger project that includes many books in the Research in Migration and Ethnic Relations Series, published by Ashgate, Utrecht University, Netherlands. Upon glancing through the Table of Contents and the Index I thought this book would shed some insight into the struggles and triumphs associated with the reformation of national identities of Germany and the former Communist bloc. It turned out, instead, to be an evaluation of the effects of Russian diaspora—interesting and partly related, but not directly pertinent to this research

The other disqualification is for poor quality work that I believe is an unreliable or incredible source. That sounds harsh. But not all information is of the same quality; and while a certain amount of information must be included in good, stable research, quantity certainly does not supplant quality. One such book I disqualified is The Liberal Project and the Transformation of Democracy: The Case of East Central Europe, by Sabrina P. Ramet. Ramet produces a classic example of the historiographer’s worst nightmare: She overlays her own perspective to come up with an interpretation of history out of context with its era and other historical sources. One of Ramet’s problems is that she is an American who produced this book as her Doctoral Dissertation at Texas A&M, remote from the actual scenes and scenarios she judges. The facts as she bears them are in sharp contrast with a long standing history and sound reasoning found in many other works.

For instance, Ramet has an entire chapter on the blight of women since the fall in a deterioration of opportunities, respect, and status. In the chapter entitled, “The Fate of Women in Post 1989 Eastern Europe,” she states authoritatively,

There are confirmed reports of a tangible increase in domestic violence throughout this region in the years after 1989, which one observer attributes to ‘increased alcohol consumption…’ But this approach provides…an incomplete explanation of the rise in domestic violence since the collapse of communism. A more complete explanation would also mention

· The delegitimation of communist ideology and, with it, the communist claim that gender equality should enjoy a priority.

· The increased activity on the part of traditional ecclesiastical institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, and Slovakia and the Orthodox Church in Russia, Romania, and Serbia, to the extent that they promote a traditional role for women in which women are urged to see themselves essentially as servants to their husbands and children.

· The influx of neo-Protestant and New Age religions, many of them subscribing to extremely inegalitarian models of gender relations...[Ramet, 92]

Ramet makes several obvious and not so obvious mistakes in her clearly biased—if not inflammatory—assessment.

First, she notes the disdain for communism as a lack of appreciation for communism and then concluding that such an attitude results in crime. She does not substantiate her unrelated claims. It is true and documented that there are problems with domestic abuse, human trafficking and mafia-like crimes and corruption. It is also true that religious activity has increased. But to link the two as tandem rather than parallel situations is faulty analysis. The author also fails to recognize documented religious activity for scores of years prior to the fall that, in books such as Candles behind the Wall and others, record the severe sacrifices for liberty leaders of these and other churches have made in hope of eventual freedom to worship as one chooses.

What Ramet sees as a burden, the people of the region see as opportunity. For instance, Ramet does not acknowledge documentation that says women worked under communism, not because of a sense of women’s liberation, but of necessity: The family would not survive without the mother’s additional employment. Thus the mother could not be with her children even if she wanted to. She also doesn’t mention the reason, as explained in the Communist Manifesto and the words of Marx, why women should be considered equal workers, which has nothing to do with the individual and innate value of a woman. Nor does she acknowledge that we may not be privy to accurate statistics on crime prior to the fall because that information was restricted. There were many such passages as the one cited above in Ramet’s work. Again, she often makes claims, but then does not follow with substantiation of those.

Suffice to say, the book fails to gain merit as a serious source of evaluation of the circumstances of Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, there are pockets of information and outside sources she includes that have merit. But because of her poor historiography, they become moot.

On the other hand, there are authors such as Timothy Garton Ash, author of nine substantive works and countless articles and essays. His credentials include writing for The Guardian and New York Book Review. His definition of himself, I think is quasi-historian-reporter of politics. His definition of the latter term is “the history of the present.” His works come not only by way of gilded credentials but excellent and thorough research that substantiates his conclusions—when he gives them. He summed up nicely one of the best credentials of all for a researcher/academic in his latest work, Facts Are Subversive. In the Preface he explains

To be there – in the very place, at the very time, with your notebook open –is an unattainable dream for most historians...Imagine being able to see, hear, touch and smell things as they were in Paris in July 1789. If have an advantage over the regular newspaper correspondents…it is that I may have more time to gather evidence on just one story or question. In Serbia, for example I was able to cross examine numerous witnesses of the fall of Milosevic…During the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, I was a witness to the drama as it unfolded. [Garton Ash, xvii]

Nothing replaces a primary source document in value to the researcher.

I suspect that a good portion—perhaps half the books I’ve chosen will not be appropriate for the project. Nor do I expect the research to be as I expected. Clearly, it has already changed from my initial expectations. I have no doubt that there will be information I am surprised by, perhaps hoped would be otherwise, but nonetheless use because it is well documented and substantiated, and therefore valuable. It is more important to be accurate, balanced and well documented in a smaller amount of material than taint the research with bias, confusion and previous poor research.—So, on with the vetting and the progress of the research.

Works Cited

Garton Ash, Timothy, Facts are Subversive. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2009. Print.

Ramet, Sabrina P., The Liberal Project and the Transformation of Democracy: The Case of East Central Europe. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2007. Print.

References

Von der Heydt, Barbara, Candles behind the Wall. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1993. Print

No Full Moon: But Political Election Cycles Lead Many to Witness Abbott & Castello-like Antics

2012-07-16T21:46:00.002-05:00

Even without a full moon, politics, especially in a frenzied election cycle, can bring out some odd characters, conversations and thought processes. To add, there is plenty of jostling for position, esteem and political clout-collecting, especially in politically rocky times. Roller derby style acts by "activists" seeking their day in the sun abound. In a nutshell--literally--politics does freaky things to people; such as, having Abbot and Costello-like conversations. You know the kind, "Who's on first, What's on second, I Don’t know is on third," and "Why is in the outfield." Politicians have no more monopoly on strange antics than they do on awkward speeches.

I just had one of those conversations with a “Facebook friend." This friend--a networking acquaintance--invited me to his "event" on Patcnews page. I went there but could not find out anything about it. I checked the latest YouTube video he posted; but the link was just a black screen. I inquired of a guy name Mark, who invited me to the "event," for some information. My mistake. I should have learned from Castello. After sending me the same link over and over with the same results, he asked if I could get on air; and asked if I wanted the call-in number. "The call in number to what?" I thought. I said, that was not a problem since I’ve been doing my own show for some time. (We were talking about YouTube but suddenly we were on to Blogtalkradio). The conversation digressed rapidly from there. He accused me of lying; said I was not the owner of Patcnews [really?]; said my show had never been on Patcnews [that would be an affirmative]; he was the owner, LLC; said he knew Sean Hannity personally...Yada, yada.

It went like this:

Me: Hi Mark,
Thanks for the invite to the Patcnews. What is the purpose of this page event? Thanks.

Mark: link to share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Low9FvKqzc

Me: OK, point [is] to post news we find applicable to patriotic conservatives? Then, July 18th is not really an "event" day? But this is ongoing, eh?

Mark: Yep Since the March 18, 2010 BP Spill that will always be with me

Me: Gotcha. But the link only shows a blank screen that doesn't load. Is there another link?

Mark: Yes Youtube

Me: I loaded the video that was posted today, and it says it is playing. It is neither buffering nor playing. Just sits with a black screen.

Mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Low9FvKqzc look again;

play now;

Play now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Low9FvKqzc look again

Me: Yeap that is one of four I've attempted to play. Nothing. Inputed Patcnews manually in the Youtube browser--page called Patcnews Channel comes up but none of the videos will load. Just black space while it says it is playing. Is there any chance your channel has been blackballed/censored?

Mark: Sheryl can [you] get on the Air Live ???? Would you like the Call in Number ????

Me: I'm assuming it is playing for you or you wouldn't keep encouraging me to try again. Nothing still. Please clear your cache and see if a fresh load plays, k?

Call in number is good. Is this an online show?

Mark: Yes Blog Talk Radio. Patcnews

Me: And yes, considering I have my own radio show, I can get on the air live. Ok. [is] the name the same on btr?

Mark: Yes. Where is your youtube Channel ??? I do all my Viedos (sic.) myself

Me: Allfiredupradio...also on www.allfiredupmedia.com under Foundation of a Nation

All Fired Up! Sharing Truth, Igniting America! ‘allfiredupmedia.com. Join us for daily talk shows focusing on Conservative Issues’

Mark: All Fried UP. This is Not good. I'm been on this before.*

Me: K. I searched Patcnews and Patcnews Channel and got a lot of most popular podcasts under other shows. ???

Mark: Not the Truth

Me: All fired Up not good? Huh? Not the truth?

Mark: All Fired up Not My Network Patcnews. All Fired up Not My Network Patcnews. Look I have a Facebook page For My Broadcast

[Mark deleted a link here, which was the Facebook page for his YouTube page.]

Me: Hmmm. that is true, I didn't say I was. I just said I could get on air-been doing it for some time. Did not mean to imply I was part of Patcnews. I can't even find Patcnews....yet. lol.

Mark: That is a Lie You where never Part of Patcnews. I'm The Owner LLC FCC I'm good friends with Sean Hannity. your Block now Sheryly (sic.)

Oh boy. I can't even blame this on a full moon.

As they say on Facebook, “Rolling on the floor, laughing out loud”—with Abbot and Costello.

*www.allfiredupmedia.com is a radio network of all conservative programming featuring: Military Monday, Betty Killbride; Words Matter, Mary Weeks; Conservative Connection, James Robbins (Sr. Editor of Washington Times); Foundation of a Nation, Sheryl Devereaux. Beatrice Wilson is Sr. Producer and Founder.

Accurate Analysis on Healthcare Ruling Evades Public: Time For Light to Shine on Truth of SCOTUS Ruling

2012-06-30T19:52:00.000-05:00

The fanfare of Healthcare Act supporters claiming that the Supreme Court Ruling validates the Act's constitutionality is quite overrated. It is as overrated as the wails of Healthcare opponents who expected sweeping statements of its unconstitutionality is a mournful loss of American liberties. In fact, nothing of these two parallel positions is accurate.

The Ruling by SCOTUS did not ignore the Constitution but affirmed it.

One problem is the tendancy of liberals to assume any lack of a dogmatic "no," is a "yes." Another problem is that many conservatives wanted the SCOTUS to affirm their conservative POLICY just as dogmatically, which would undermined the Constitution. Perhaps they expected SCOTUS to wipe the slate clean of Obamacare altogether. This is not the scope of SCOTUS--they determine the constitutionality of law, not irradicate it. In this case, it was a law so all-encompassing—and legally invasive, entangled in all forms of governance and consuming—that the only responsible way for SCOTUS to address the many issues was to thoroughly parse them out one by one. That they have.

WHAT PEOPLE ARE MISSING ON BOTH SIDES IS WHAT SCOTUS ACTUALLY SAID:

The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional.

Instead, what they did was discuss the most dominant themes. Thus, instead of a one-fell-swoop-decision, SCOTUS pointed out to America—read: reminded America—of the many checks and balances afforded in that great document. Among the many major points SCOTUS re-affirmed are these Constitutional paradigms:

1.) That Congress has the authority to tax.

There is nothing new here. (See Art. I, Sec. 8.) The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional. In fact, having read the document (only 60 pages), I can attest that what is being reported (by those who have neither read it, nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually misrepresenting the Ruling. What the justices said was constitutional was that Congress has authority to collect taxes. This is merely a reiteration of Art. I, Sec 8 of the Constitution. Additionally, they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of monies are, contrary to what supporters of the Healthcare Act have told the public, a tax. That makes Pelosi, Obama, et al. deceivers of Americans.

2.) The "regulating" referred to in Art I Sec 8 does NOT mean "create." Therefore, Congress cannot regulate a non-activity.

Congress cannot create new authority--only make regular those authorities already granted in the Constitution. (This goes to the Mischief Rule.)

The Court was quite vocal about the inappropriateness of Congress' attempt to create a power they have never had in legislating (read: forcing) citizens into action. This was clearly stated in the Ruling. (567 U.S. __2012, 21-27) Specifically, Roberts writes,

…the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem…People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them…Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.

That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. (567 U.S.__2012. 22,23)

Clearly: To this end many hoped the Supreme Court would, in simple terms, throw the entire Act out, or at least disable it sufficiently to render it null and void. Sadly, many are so enraged by poor information that they don’t realize that SCOTUS actually did, in large measure, do that very thing, as cited above. But in the process, also reminded Americans of their responsibility to act on their own authority.

3.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED that the power to control legislation by Congress lies with the PEOPLE--not SCOTUS.

Furthermore, the Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole Act out, saying that the sanctity of the people's authority to choose their legislation via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the people--not SCOTUS--to remedy the law. That is what was said. (ibid. 6,7) Apparently some are celebrating the assumption that the people will not exercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be enacted in the first place. (You might remember that the preponderance of Representatives was fired. I suspect, after this nod from SCOTUS, more is to come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow. That is, if people actually understand what SCOTUS said.)

The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel any one or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS has actually reinforced state and individual sovereignty and liberty, not slighted it.

The idea that Congress has created taxes against the will of the people is only partially true, at best. The verity is that Congress is elected by the people, thus what Congress does, technically and by Constitutional authority, has been sanctioned by the people. The people then, having the ultimate authority can “fire” the Representative or Senator who neither respects their wishes, ignoring their duty to representation, nor obliges the sovereign will of their respective states. This is true for any legislation irrespective of its relationship to taxes. (However, it is difficult to imagine any legislation by Congress as being unrelated to taxes.) Quoting one of the most arduous defenders of the Constitution, John Marshall, Justice Roberts emphasizes the difference between the constitutionality of passing an act and enforcing one. He writes

“Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down authority to pass [the] act in question [when] clearly demonstrated…[Policy judgments] are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. (567 U.S.___2012, 6. Emphasis added.

The people are responsible for finding those who adequately and accurately reflect their wishes. SCOTUS simply reminded—and more effectively hinted—to the people of their solemn Constitutional duty—that is not the Court’s. In other words, SCOTUS was not obliging to the people passing the buck to them.

4.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of the individual.

Justice Roberts writes that the argument held by the Government that they have the right to require our “participation” under the Necessary and Proper Clause is unfounded. While quoting from precedence, (McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418), Justice Roberts re-affirms, through the Mischief Rule, a fundamental doctrine of the Constitution, saying

‘…we have…carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution. [They] are not consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, and are not proper...Rather, they are…merely acts of usurpation.’ (ibid. 28)

Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained. (ibid. 29

…The commerce power…does not authorize the mandate. (ibid. 30)

Roberts further expounds on the constitutional principles behind the Necessary and Proper Clause, explaining its misuse by the Government in defense of “Obamacare.” (ibid.29)

5.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of States to determine whether a federal program is pertinent and applicable to their individual state.[i]

The Court made a clear distinction between mandating a state to comply if they opt in to Obamacare and penalizing a state for refusing to participate. Roberts says that they are not curtailing Congress’s power to require States interested in accepting Affordable Healthcare Act funds, to comply with their stipulations. But they cannot compel a state unwilling to participate in the Act either by requirements or penalizing them by reducing their existing Medicaid funds. This is of paramount importance in a time where the Federal Government has increasingly used forms of coercion on states through a financial choking. (ibid. 55)[ii]

The only main concern, which is clearly constitutional, if unfortunate in this case, (given Congress has the authority to tax), is the reaffirmation of taxing for Obamacare independent of the acceptance of health insurance. It is not the authority to tax that is at odds with Americans. It is, as this Court has suggested, that it is unwise to do so.

Conservatives, moderates, and even liberals who dislike Obamacare, should stop listening to sources, including main stream media, who don't know how to read--let alone understand--the Constitution, historical perspectives, or rulings by SCOTUS.

Just because SCOTUS didn't come right out and remove the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka “Obamacare,” all together, does not in the slightest give victory to supporters of the unconstitutionality of key parts of the Act. Quite the contrary is true.

It would behoove Americans to learn, first, to read the actual texts for themselves; and secondly, to know and understand constitutional tools such as Rules of Construction, historical imperatives, the many discussions and debates of the Framers, and so forth before believing anything they hear or read from, in particular, but certainly not limited to, main stream media. My concern is that some people would like it if Americans were not aware of what this ruling actually says. It is up to each individual American to circumvent this attempt, by being well equipped to counter nothing other than nonsense.

(I discussed some of the ins and outs of this ruling on a special of Foundation of a Nation the night of the ruling, June 28, 2012). You can listen or watch that broadcast at the network location: www.alfiredupmedia.com )

[i] Refer to 1995 SCOTUS decision written by Scalia re-affirming Marshall, re-affirming the Framers. (Also see Amends. 4, 5, 9, & 10)

[ii] In early 2012, Mr. Obama threatened the State of Texas that if they refused to oblige the abortion section of Medicaid, he would choke the state by withholding $35M in funding. Governor Rick Perry did not flinch. He said the State would find the funds elsewhere; and the Attorney General to Texas, Greg Abbott filed suit. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3995; www.foxnews.com/.../perry-blasts-obama-for-federal-funding-cuts-to-medicaid/ )

Reference:
567 U. S. ____ (2012) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

"I'm Sick of This!": Battle Cry of the Obama Fatigued

2012-06-18T21:54:00.000-05:00

“I'M SICK OF THIS!” I said in a Facebook post, and then related some of the comments below. Not to my surprise, several liberal friends appeared to render to Mr. Obama’s defense, by suggesting that the President’s contemptuous bark was justified. They went so far as to exonerate his latest action through past presidents such as Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. Obama's last press conference reinforced again the obvious intent of Obama to ignore his Presidential duty. The President's job is specifically to EXECUTE the LAW; not make it. See Art. II, Sec 3, "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and Art. I, Sec 1. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Emphasis added.)

Taking legislation into his own hands (again) is a gross violation of his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.

How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.Some have pointed out that the citizen, a reporter, who spoke out of turn was “conservative.”Whatever the pont is to that statement, he was rude. It does not follow that the PRESIDENT of the UNTIED STATES should be rude back. If he wants respect, he needs to be respectable. He could easily have done what many a President before him has done on BOTH sides of the isle; Ignore the man and get on with his speech.

To his speech then, which consequently included a response to the reporter. My point stands above: Policy or no policy—the President of the United States has NO authority to legislate. Ends do NOT justify the means—ever. This country was founded upon playing by the rules--unlike ANY other country. Mr. Obama is not willing to oblige and by his own admission is deliberately turning this country into anything but the Constitutional America that was founded.

That leads to a comment referencing the Emancipation Proclamation as further justification of Obama's misuse of Executive Orders, claiming that Lincoln did the same to free the slaves. I share a perspective base upon the history: The Proclamation stands as an example of executing the law, not making it. In that case, the Constitution itself, as the Supreme Law of the Land (Art. VI) was the law Lincoln was obligated in good faith to execute. One of the great divides between the states at the time of the creation of the Constitution was slavery. A compromise was designed where, by 1808, the slave trade would be abolished. The date was intended to provide enough time—a full generation (from 1789 to 1808)—for Slave States to adjust their lifestyle and economy to phase out the practice. Furtermore, Lincoln was obligated by his oath to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution.

In 1805 Congress began preparing for this phase out with negotiations on an Act to eliminate the slave trade by the 1808 deadline. To be clear, no actual legislation dictating the abolishment needed to be made. By admission in the Constitution, it was law. But legislation spelling out how and what penalties should incur would certainly be necessary and useful. The act abolishing slavery with the intent to be enforced in 1808 was signed into law in 1807.

Unfortunately, abolishing the slave trade did not result in a willingness to phase out slavery as intended. Instead, the South ignored the injunction and intention of 1789 contract by taking advantage of the perpetuation of massive slave growth internally-through plantation slave families. It was not until Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation that something was done. More than three million slaves—some records claim upwards of five million—were freed immediately upon the declaration, despite that the Civil War had already begun nearly two years earlier. An important note: By the time Lincoln had to deal with this issue it had become not just a massive philosophical and cultural divide between quibbling sides of the country, but a logistical problem with laws of one state encroaching upon the laws of another. A black crossing from one state to another did so at peril. The nation was becoming increasingly confusing and travel restrictive. War was ongoing—indeed in full throttle, irrespective of Lincoln’s further catapult with the Emancipation or his earlier declaration of war.

That fact is, in executing the Proclamation Lincoln was merely administering what was supposed to have already happened, an end to slavery. (Despite his own public indifference to either side’s position)*, by the time he made the Proclamation it was as much about settling a deadly case of sibling squabbles that were sure to end in a massive conflagration or the breakup of the most powerful and supposedly FREE country the world had ever seen, as obliging the Constitution. But a gentle balance between the intentions of the Founders in the original bargain and the sovereignty of states caused a major quandary—the largest of its kind of conflicting checks and balances to that date. Consequently, more than 50 years past the date assigned in the Constitution to settle the issue, the intentional procrastination created a festering canker because the intent of the Constitution was being sidelined.

There is a popular attitude of late to villainize Lincoln as the instigator of the Civil War. This is wholesale cherry-picking of history. The fact is, had the states with slavery obliged their end of the bargain on principle, rather than claiming states’ rights (which could have been an issue, except the states agreed to the compromise, and it was then not a matter of state sovereignty but honoring contracts), as a rouse to abuse human beings and hold them captive for the sake of wealth and empire, there would have been no uproar, no civil war, and no need for the Emancipation Proclamation. But that is not how governing goes. Mistakes and their subsequent adjustments occur constantly in the affairs of the public. As soon as we have a perfect citizenry, we might have a perfect policy.

That does not, however, justify deliberate breach of contract. Mr. Obama has breached his oath of office so many times, to such a blatant degree, and in such a method and manner as to smack the American public in the face.—It is a wonder we haven’t see him lifting his middle finger to us, like his liberal colleague, Harry Reid so famously has. His actions, none-the-less, indicate his attitude toward America. This latest Executive Order is just another offense to the Constitution that forbids the President from legislating.

*Records show that President Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but as a matter of public policy, he was neutral in hopes that the states would settle their differences rationally and peacefully. It was not until the matter was a crisis of stabilizing the nation that he declared a side publicly.

To What End, These Memorials Be?

2012-05-27T19:07:00.000-05:00

I read with interest the history of Memorial Day this morning.[i] While it was a practice from state to state, it was recognized officially first in 1873 as a state holiday of New York. Its purpose needs no introduction: Americans are well acquainted with the tradition of remembering her fallen heroes of wars past and wars present.

Hardly a living American soul is untouched by those who have served unhesitatingly (or even hesitatingly) in the most horrific of circumstances on her behalf. War is ugly and a travesty upon Humanity. But Humanity would be less of one without an acquiescent bow to her guardians of defense. I am left wondering, is there something lacking in the memory?

Is the point of a Memorial to preserve the memory? To what end are our memories preserved? A memory nestled solitaire serves no purpose. A memory with any sort of value embeds a conviction of emotion, which in turn compels action. If a memory produces enamoration, we’ll preserve the thing that caused the memory. If a memory carries with it anger, or hurt, we will seek to prevent the memory from ever again being replicated. Wisdom would foster doing whatever is necessary to prevent the same situation from arising. Arguably the most powerful memories cause an indelible change to our character—one that is eternally lasting.

Such are the memories of Memorial Day. Whether their donation of the ultimate sacrifice for American’s sakes is accepted or rejected by destiny, our feelings for those who have offered it should produce more in us than flowers by the granite marker's side; and another reason to create memories of the best neighborhood barbecue. They should instill, and then preserve, the thing that was worth preserving—that which gave worth to the memory in the first place. Otherwise, the memory is vain; and nothing more than a fictitious hypocrisy, a blatant sanctimony. Real memories compel production.

Let us go to the beginning—where early settlers became the first to sacrifice to the future development of this nation. Surely, that history is flawed, filled with humans doing the best with unexpected realizations far from their romantic notions of fleeing their Motherland for a better, more promising life. They faced battles with native residents, famine, disease, the worst of elements, forsaken refineries and gentlemanly courts, ethnocentrism and prejudice, and stability to bring a future of idealism to their descendants. They set the stage for social paradigm shifts.

The rebels of the Revolutionary war, having little more than faith in God, George Washington, and an ideal passed along to them by nearly a century of evolving paradigms about freedom, suffered the same contradictions of the early Colonists. This time, the circumstance was war. The Revolution teetered between creating the most prolific real estate for liberty and killing an ideal stone dead. Its memory should produce in every American since its time a fire to protect what was devotedly produced for our sakes, and at great personal and accumulated peril--a legacy of inalienable rights that before that time, no government either unquestionably acknowledged or protected.

Nearly a century later, the Civil War became the bloodiest battlein United States history.[ii]When the dust settled, there were more than one million casualties. More than half, about 620,000 died. Putting brother against brother this war left mothers with bleeding hearts, incapable of doing anything to quash sibling rivalry. The War threatened not only to split the nation apart but the very fiber of society—the family. With more than another century passed, has America remembered the lessons of that conflagration?

World War I was the first “industrially produced” war. The rapid fire of an automatic machine gun made warfare more efficient. Ironically—and fortunately, this war did not outpace the Civil War in casualties. It did not even come close. For that we must remember World War II.

World War II is the war of infamy. 61 Million Souls[iii]were lost in this war. America’s tally was half what it was in the Civil War. But the toll across the globe was staggering. Russia, alone suffered a hellish loss, with 2/3 of their losses in civilians. What lessons do the memories produce for us of these two global conflicts?

The Korean War brought the first modern concept of warfare for Americans—governance by an international body outside the United States. It netted the first failure to achieve what was intended and expected—to win. Excepting the Civil War, from this time forward guerrilla[iv]tactics, rather than gallantry and chivalry in battle were the game plan. All was not "fair" in war again.

In the World Wars, if your opponent was not equally armored, particularly fighter pilots, a foe would tip a hat or a wing and retreat because it was not considered a fair (equal) fight. Additionally, there was no question who your enemy was; each side, as had been done for centuries, identified themselves in full dress and colors. Guerrilla warfare, the system of battle since Korea, designated everyone in camouflage fatigues to blend with the landscape. It used psychological strategy as well as a no holds barred, unconventional approach to assault and defense. What do the memories of these wars produce? Indeed, in war strategy, we have evolved. But as human beings, have we learned from the American Revolution and instilled the original ideal as we have progressed through time?

Clearly, we have engaged in justified wars and in some that have confused us. Some have reiterated the virtues for which America was conceived. Others have questioned our integrity—or constancy—as a nation of ideals. The question as we remember those who have passed on, and who paid a price, either small or great on our behalf is to what end do we remember? We must not only remember the people, but what they stood for—what they knew they stood for.

America, arguably, is at a crossroads to either protect or abandon the first intentions and expectations of Colonial heroes. We must learn from our memories what will help us to avoid repetition of sins past, and increase tenacity to preserve those qualities behind the noblest actions. Anything else is nothing more than vain and ill-defined memory.

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Let our memories cause us to commit to what needs doing this Memorial Day in the same way those who first sacrificed for this country, and those subsequently, that future memorials will hold less loss--by war or incivility, and more of their intention by their sacrifice, as Lieutenant John McCrae so poignantly pleaded.

[i] http://www.usmemorialday.org/backgrnd.html

[ii] http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm

[iii] http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm

[iv] http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/defn/guerril.htm

Romney Emails Show Need Of Voters To Scrutinize Media As Much As Candidates

2012-03-12T18:58:00.002-05:00

The public has an admirable argument about the preponderance of media spin, especially during the election cycle. There seems to be no end to the bizarre news—if one could call it news—that supposedly claims to give proper information to the public. Every current GOP candidate has been fodder for the media that conjures up news that really isn’t what they claim it is. There are no exceptions: Pick a candidate, and the media will find some strange news to create from him/her. To be clear at the outset, this is not an article claiming to endorse Mitt Romney or any other candidate. This is an article that shows an example of obvious propaganda by the media, and Romney is the immediate target.

Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, is
under fire by media for using personal email
as Governor despite being lawful and
showing tenacity for conservative government

Credits:Americasright.com

Case in point is the Houston Chronicle’s own odd piece, entitled, “Election 2012: Romney used private email as governor,“ that they published today, March 10, from an AP bulletin published yesterday. The Chron, following the swath of media outlets using the AP article, tries to lay a claim that Romney was doing something devious, or questionable by using his personal email for transmissions that the newspaper claims were government business.

To be fair, both the AP release and The Chron.com state that there is nothing illegal in Romney's use of private email. No kidding. So, what is their point? Both articles, one simply mimicking the other, imply an improper action by the Governor, turned Presidential Candidate. But a read of the actual emails makes one wonder, even laugh, at the media attempt to display some poor character on behalf of the Governor. In one of the emails, Romney clarifies what message he would like sent in a press release,

…I’d rather lead with something which underscored the dangerous path the legislature is heading down, rather than the pork and waste. E.g., ‘I cannot in good conscience agree to spending money from the rainy day fund in a year of record high rvenues [sic.]. The spending in these bills would put Massachusetts on the same road to ruin we’ve been down before.’

…I’d like to really get the message out that what they are doing is a huge departure from fiscal discipline and that if we go down that road, big problems—like deep cuts to local aid, education and higher taxes—are sure to follow.

‘The last time Massachusetts got into financial crisis, it was because the state spent most of the record high tax revenues that came from capital gains. But unlike today, the legislature then was wise enough to put away some of the money in the rainy day fund. Today, we are seeing the same record high tax revenues coming from capital gains and the legislature is not only spending it, they are draining the rainy day fund at the same time.’

In the email, Romney, showing obvious humility, suggests the person to whom the email is addressed could do a better job of writing the point Romney makes. The email does not lend support to some sort of impropriety. Instead, beyond humility amidst ability, it shows qualities of frugality and genuine concern for the welfare of the state. Had the email displayed some demeanor contrary to the Candidate’s current claims to conservative attributes, we would have reason for alarm. It would show him as something other than what he has claimed. The fact that this is a private email indicates a candid moment of clarifying his concerns. Had this been sent through an official email—a publically recorded memo—we would lay accusation that the Governor was deliberately trying to appear pious and play the part of the hero against a spend-thrifty legislature hostile to his heroic expectations. Rather, because it is a privately sent message is conveys just the opposite: that he is simply using the most efficient means of communication to expedite an already scheduled press release relaying his concerns.

In another email Romney sent via his personal email, he comments on an editorial by the Boson Globe that heralds the Governor’s attempt to preserve the rainy day fund, but that also suggests Romney should pass the burden of balancing the budget onto the next Governor because of it. Vetoing the rainy day fund would cause a possible shortage that Romney can avoid dealing with if he simply passes the difficulty on, the Globe suggests. But Romney emphatically refused to saddle the incoming governor with a budget out of balance. Again, one has to wonder why the media would make this out to be a somehow questionable action by Romney because it was not sent via an official government email address. What is actually demonstrated by Romney is good character, not bad, in an unwillingness to pass the buck.

What is learned here is that the reader must be vigilant in closely scrutinizing conclusions by media in comparison to the actual facts—even facts they cite. (Perhaps, by citing them reporters expect no one will check the sources.) The reader must evaluate whether source documents are consistent with the claims made in the report. In this situation, to distinguish any troubling difference between the public and the private persona, and as in this report, (and I would wager, in most) actually showing a consistency with a claimed virtue by the candidate. More than anything, AP and subsequently, The Chron.com and a whole host of outlets, expose their own questionable character when unwittingly documenting the legitimacy of a candidate’s character, contrary to their own headline and body of text that they spin and negate the facts with.
Stephen Braun, who wrote the piece for the Associated Press, misunderstands what he thinks he was conveying through his own sources. In his own report,

‘Any time public business is being done electronically, whether its public or private email, the public should have a record," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which tracks how states deal with electronic data and other records. "When you use private devices to do public business you remove public accountability.’ [Emphasis added.]

We know from this quote that all emails should be public domain because a representative for the media says so. This is evidence of an article designed solely to promote the cause of the reporter to his/her bottom line to gain easy access to documents otherwise legitimately unobtainable. To his credit, Braun does acknowledge that states are split on whether private and official emails should be treated the same. But that is as far as he goes, (except to note some individuals of notoriety who's emails have been protected by the courts), all the while claiming private emails are nefarious.
Additionally, Braun’s final statement, which Houstonians should be observant of as representing the spin of media, again shows his own inability to see the point he is actually making with quotes such as this one about an unofficial email,

By November, intent on finding an offsetting $425 million in appropriations cuts, Romney wrote Fehrnstrom from his campaign email account that he was considering negotiations but inclined toward a budget battle that would ‘let the fur fly.’ Romney wrote that ‘this is about getting spending under control for the state and a new administration.’

Romney ordered $425 million in cuts that month, slashing medical, social service, education and public works programs. But he backtracked on some reductions because of public concerns.

Obviously, the mainstream media, who took this AP report and flew with it, doesn’t have a clue about the larger behavior they exposed in Romney while criticizing him for a minor infraction that is arguably not an infraction at all. Does it strike anyone else as odd that the media is suggesting that Romney has something to hide in these emails, even though the emails do nothing less than show Romney’s actions as Governor are consistent with his campaign promises of responsible governance, frugality and refusing to pass the buck?

As campaigns come to Houston, it is incumbent upon all voters to learn about the candidates, not by listening to tweaked articles by major media outlets, but by digging deeper to the original sources to see the candidate and his/her actions without the vertigo of the spin. Indeed, Texans would do well to scrutinize the media as much as the candidates to avoid these dizzying reports. Houstonians, as well as Americans at large, should understand the real implications from such articles as this one about Romney. It can, has, and will happen to any candidate, especially when they are the biggest target.

Ultimately, the media’s message here is not about Romney but about their own inability to step off the merry-go-round.

(Originally published on Examiner.com/political-buzz-in-houston, 3.10.12)

Texas plays key role in Primary Election as the "Stoker"

2012-01-21T04:00:00.000-06:00

(As first published in Examiner.com; by S. Devereaux, Houston Political Buzz Examiner)

Have you ever ridden a tandem bike? If so, you know that the most powerful teammate, the Stoker, sits in the rear position. While the Captain, in forward position is responsible for steering , warning of hazards ahead and balance, the Stoker, in the rear position is the engine—the power of the team. Most of the forward thrust is dependent upon the stoker because the total weight of the team and their bike requires the most strength to propel the entire tour fastest and with the most endurance by this team member.

This physics principle can be applied to the American Primary election process. It was a mystery why the National GOP threatened heavy hitting states like Texas and Florida with the loss of half their delegates if they moved their primary elections forward in order to have an early say in who should be the Republican nominee. Why would the GOP bully its own members with such a penalty? It seemed a massive control issue; But it becomes clear why once we run the numbers and envision what would happen if a state the size of Texas, (carrying four of the largest cities in the nation within its boundaries—Houston, fourth in the nation, and not too far behind are Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin) were to have an early primary. It is nothing more than applying the principle behind successful tandem biking.

Let’s visualize the numbers and how they would play out with a large state like Texas (or Florida) at the front of the primary elections. Then we’ll look at those numbers from the opposite spectrum with a late Primary.

There were about eight Republican candidates for the first primary election in Ohio. If that Primary were held in Texas, at least three scenarios present themselves as possible outcomes. For one: Because of the diversity of voters in Texas, it is possible that the election could be rendered moot, with no distinct winners or losers. That would mean that a Primary in Texas actually provided no significant contribution in narrowing the field and bringing forth a front runner or two, or forcing one or two to the back of the pack enough to compel them to drop out. The candidates would simply move on to the next primary as if it was their first.

The next scenario could be to produce a significant pack of followers that came out to vote for their candidate en masse. If that were possible in a state the size of Texas, the result could—and most likely would, based upon the few incidences in the past—net an extreme candidate in either direction, liberal or conservative, depending on the tenacity of an organized group to vote as a pack. In my observation, this is historically what happens with this kind of “block vote”. But this is no small task. The Tea Party groups in Texas are as diverse as the state is large. In Houston alone, the number of Tea Party groups is well into double digits and they are equally diverse from each other. One might support one candidate, and down the road another will support someone at the other end of the Republican spectrum. Historically, a group like this that has success voting as a pack tends to be a specific candidate’s own followers. Historically speaking, these groups tend to be extremely loyal and driven, which creates the base force behind organizing with enough community strength to dominate a primary election. Assuming the rare historical pattern existed this time, it would net a candidate with the most extreme views in one direction or the other as a front runner, which stands a good chance of sabotaging the general election with a candidate lacking the ability to connect and draw a broad and diverse coalition of voters to win the General election. The purpose of the primary would be frustrated.

The third scenario shows the nefarious side of Primary politics, and probably is an indication of what the concerns the National GOP have with massive states like Texas. Texas is not only diverse but has open primaries allowing any voter to participate in the Republican Primary, even if they are actually affiliated elsewhere, like the Democratic Party. Open primaries create perfect prey for opposing party members to vote en masse for someone who they see as easy competition their own candidate can defeat. In Houston, some districts are solidly Republican while others are just as determinedly Democrat. Remember, the purpose of a Primary election is to prepare your party with a candidate that can win in the General election. That means bringing forth the candidate that can best beat all opposing parties’ candidates. Texas is not so red that it is impossible for Democrats to overwhelm an open Republican Party election with sabotage, helping choose a candidate they are certain their own best candidate, not just could, but would defeat. Houston serves as an example of the party diversity. So this scenario is the most dangerous of proposals for a state like Texas—and especially in a city with wide diversity of party politics like Houston.

Understanding these scenarios, now, let’s run the numbers in the other direction. First, we need to understand that the traditional states that lead off the Primary elections are also traditionally pretty liberal states—Ohio and New Hampshire come to mind. This means Republicans in these states are more likely—but not guaranteed—to be more liberal. But South Carolina is far more conservative, having a record in the past eleven elections of only voting for one Democratic Presidential Candidate (1976). These states are also small in population. They are numerically and culturally more likely to vote similarly—in a tight pack—than a much larger state. Their closer affinity assists in honing in on specific candidates above others, thus acting as a housekeeper to clear the field more rapidly than a larger state could. Additionally the two more liberal states are more likely to choose a candidate closer to the middle on the philosophical line who can draw the other side toward their party’s candidate once in the General election. South Carolina acts as a stop-gap election—a cork, if you will—preventing a too liberal candidate from emerging as the front runner over a moderate one, thus keeping a tender balance as the candidate selection moves forward.

This strategy results in a candidate that may not be the ultimate candidate of choice in a state that is very conservative, or one such as Texas whose electoral strength would reasonably demand a “right” to determine the candidate for the entire country—if they could pick just one. But what it does is allow the big gun states—like Texas—to make the final determination. These states become the Stokers that propel one before all the others in what’s left of the pack. While it may seem an insignificant task to choose from the remainder of the narrowed field that others determined , once the election rolls around to them, these states are indeed the muscle in the back seat, that have the strength and endurance to propel the very best finalist to the front to win the race.

Allen West Speaks on NDAA: Wanna Buy Some Swamp Land?

2012-01-10T19:26:00.000-06:00

Allen West might want to consider apologizing for his lack of due diligence to his constituency and every audience, including the world wide one that views YouTube to whom he spoke about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A recent YouTube video clip of Mr. West speaking at a Tea Party event in Florida proves two things: One, Mr. Allen West doesn’t appear competent to be a legislator of any kind; secondly, he is a living example of why we have a problem with bad and even unconstitutional legislation in America. He might as well have been conducting a seminar on the keen art of buying and selling swamp land in Florida.

In a clip, Allen West finally sets record straight about National Defense Authorization Act.wmv; West reads the summary of the National Defense Authorization Act which states that the bill is specific to Al Qaeda and other terrorists and not to Americans. West also emphasizes no new powers are given to the Federal government. He then goes to page 657 and reads verbatim the paragraph that exempts Americans from Military Custody. (West says he is reading page 657, but he is not.) In fact, he is actually reading on page 430, Section 1032b (1) of S1867 or page 266 Section 1022 of HR 1540, which he read as follows:

…(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

11ment to detain a person in military custody under

12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

13 States….

West challenges the audience to tell him where in the bill there is anything suggesting something different than this exemption. I wish I had been there: I read the bill. One has to wonder what West would have done had someone in the audience known anything about the bill. Perhaps they didn’t bother to read it because they were expecting West to be the expert to guide them.--So much for the value of expert guidance. So, to his challenge is the following, from S1867 and HR1540, Sections 1032 and 1022 a (4), respectively, the paragraph just preceding--and specific to--the one he read, (cited above), reads:

          (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
          2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
          3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In
          4 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
          5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
          6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
          7 interests of the United States.

It is not difficult to understand that the waiver in the paragraph he didn’t read is specifically referring to the one he did considering the use of Paragraph b “(1)” which includes the language about “the requirement”.

Mr. West introduced himself as a qualified expert on the bill, as one who sits on the Armed Forces Committee. Hmm. Did Mr. West know what was in the bill but simply defrauded the audience? Or did he do what notoriously happens on the Capitol: he didn’t really read the bill?

This public incident should be an embarrassment to Mr. West. To be amply fair to him, we should err on the side of charity and conclude that he isn’t nefarious but, rather, careless and/or naïve. Sadly, either way, he has done a great disservice to his constituency, the audience, and those of YouTube. All legislators make mistakes and holding someone’s entire political career in the balance for one bad blunder is probably a little harsh. But when a legislator qualifies himself as a credentialed expert because—as in this case for example, he serves on the Armed Services Committee—and then publically renders a verdict on the bill, spreads that through the general public, a higher standard and expectation must be adhered to.

Beyond West’s exclusion of the facts in the bill--as bad as that is, this incident illustrates a larger issue. It shows two significant paradigms that must change as part of a strategy to mend our political and societal problems in America.

First, Americans need to lose their naiveté and start reading bills themselves. The Constitutional debates include specific discussion that legislation should be short and clearly understandable to the average citizen. (Tongue in cheek: this bill is short—shy of 700 pages and obviously understandable given all the debate. Of course it helps to read the entire bill.) Moreover, Americans seem to believe that somehow those who represent us are more intelligent than we are. This example with West is not an exception, but more the rule. It would behoove Americans to expect that if they can’t read a bill, (excluding summaries as “the bill”), it’s likely their representative can’t either. Americans should make it clear that if they cannot get through a bill, it doesn’t get passed. Period.

Secondly, any legislator or any person who reads the summary under the assumption that it equates to reading the bill is both naïve about the bias of summaries and lazy. This cherry picking of the bill to emphasis what the summary says is precisely why we have bills that are improper, inaccurate to their intent and/or in denial of the Constitution outright.

Sadly, this is precisely the kind of misguidance that is leaving the American public in a dizzying state of confusion and disenchantment with their own politics. Allen West has some explaining to do and it better not equate to selling proverbial swamp land in Florida. More importantly Americans have simply got to stop buying swamp land.

Mirror Mirror on the Wall: A Constitution Designed to Reflect American's Paradigms

2012-01-01T23:22:00.000-06:00

Displays a need for a truly New Year's Resolution.
[as originally published on www.USDailyReview.com by S. Devereaux]

The issue at hand is our collection of paradigms and what those are doing to curtail the restoration back to the government as it was intended because we fail to recognize—or believe—that the images in government that we disdain are painful reflections of ourselves. Modifying paradigms is a bit more difficult than losing a few pounds as a New Year’s resolution.

For instance, Americans claim they don’t want the “good ‘ol boy” in office. They want the “regular Joe”. Yet, when seeking those who are qualified for state or federal offices, they look at those already in elected office. What part of refreshing founding principles is that? The Founders knew that Senators needed to be the more educated of the two houses of Congress. But they also perceived the Representatives as coming specifically from among the people.—both, actually, but Representatives especially. That House was specifically intended to have neighbors representing neighbors. Their close affinity to their own was reason for election every two years—taking turns.

Senators, who were supposed to represent the States needed more higher education, not because they were superior to their fellow Congressional electors, hardly; but because it was hoped that their additional professional and educational experience would provide the analytical skills needed to decipher the complex needs of a state government. Neither house, however, was specifically intended to be filled by those whose qualifications demanded elected office experience. That is an invention of modern day nationalistic philosophy.

Another ready instance: The lion’s share of Americans want government to rein in spending—in particular, debt. Yet, the people have the highest foreclosure rates in history, and a consistently high rate of personal indebtedness. Irrespective of government interference in the mortgage industry that produced the “mortgage bubble” and encouraged bad mortgages with over-valued property, people should know what they can and cannot afford. Common sense is expected. Enticements or none, we cannot point an accusing finger demanding a different paradigm from those that represent us when we, from whence they come, do not follow the same prescription.

Still another example: I recently worked on a grassroots project where multiple committees had specific roles. After a time, I found that a couple of individuals took it upon themselves to hijack the responsibilities of others in order to orchestrate what they wanted in certain areas over that of others who had been assigned those tasks. When I questioned why they were not respecting the assignments as given, one of the two answered that they just wanted to make sure the project was successful and ‘things’ got done—“for our country”. I wonder: Exactly what part of this paradigm, built on circumventing others’ duties is different from Obama circumventing the powers and responsibilities assigned to Congress that he usurps through Executive Orders, and implementing specific Departments of the Government do this bidding--and what’s worse, putting into place programs that pilfer each person’s opportunity to do for themselves? In both scenarios the paradigm claims to “Save the Country” by robbing opportunities of others through control.

If we Americans truly want the federal government to make the improvements (I cringe to use the word, “change”) needed in bringing us in square with the intention of the Constitution, we need to be taking a serious look at our own thinking and subsequent behavior.We won't be finding anyone soon in the highest office with a paradigm any different than our own.

To that end, then, what can be done to get us back to those original paradigms? We don’t have the luxury of as many years to restore them as it took to distort them or our Constitution. But for starters, we can look first at ourselves for behaviors we see in government, then change it, rather than justify it.

The most profound actions we can take are not in the realm of the government at all—though they are part of American politics: American paradigms mean looking out for the needs of neighbors and family, so the government has no input there. Americans should study their Constitution, “for our country,” then pass it along, so the government cannot fool us about its role. Fellow citizens should be looking for ways and means to help another build their abilities, not take their opportunities from them. Indeed, the most powerful paradigm shift is in accepting that American government means living in a way that is mutually beneficial, and then finally taking turns representing each other.

I suppose this whole issue of paradigm change could best be summed up in the late Michael Jackson’s tune, “Man in the Mirror” and Disney’s wicked queen and her magical mirror in Snow White: Both illustrate the very paradigm lacking in most of us to truly improve our government: In America, government is a mirror image of and truth teller about oneself, whether we like it or not. Changing the paradigm is truly a New Year’s challenge worth undertaking.

A Dying Day of Dignity for American Liberty: Congress stoops low to give President Power to declare Martial Law

2011-12-14T22:24:00.000-06:00

Tuesday marked another day in dying dignity for Americans. The Senate, everything short of wisdom and sanity voted nearly unanimously for the Defense Authorization bill. Known primarily as a fiscal bill—a bill to allocate funds for the next couple years for defense measures, it also modified the procedures for handling terrorism.

Confusion abounds about the intent of the bill: Does it rob liberty and due process from American Citizens or does it not? The answer is actually both. Well, sort of. The truth is that the bill does indeed take Constitutional rights from Americans. Robs them blind, actually. But the wording of the act cleverly disguises this stripping.

In Sections 1032 to 1037, which defines the requirements of military custody—that would be another name for martial law—one paragraph states that a future paragraph is exempt; they call it “waived” from the exempted status it seeks to list. What is that paragraph? The one that says Americans are exempt from martial law. You are reading correctly: The latter paragraph is an exemption, along with another one exempting lawful resident aliens, from detainment of custody by military, but the waiver that comes before it reverses that exemption in any situation the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State says warrants it. This is suspect, particularly because the “lawful resident aliens’” rights remain in tack—escaping the waiver of the exemption—meaning their exempted status against detention and so forth, remains, even when American status does not. This is just insultingly bad math to Americans who have been betrayed wholesale by the very people in whom they put their complete trust for their liberties.

To make matters worse, the Senate and House are attempting to reconcile their differences between each house’s versions of the latest Defense Authorization bill. Given that the House version has none of the liberty robbing clauses in it, that fact that they are working with the Senate on a compromise indicates a willingness to give up some of American’s inalienable and constitutionally enumerated rights for the sake of this compromise. A compromise on liberties is in violation of the Constitution that both houses are sworn to protect. Giving any part of any of them away is tantamount to a breach of our Contract with them in that document. Clearly the Federal government has an obligation to protect the states from insurrection and invasion and to preserve liberty in this country. Any measure, however, that takes one from the other is not well thought out policy. This nation has and always will be the land to covet. Absolute security is not reasonable, nor expected. A police state, which in theory is the only way to preserve absolute safety—at least from all other threats besides the government itself—is wholly against the intent of the Constitution, Colonial America, and the vast understanding of the Founders on the principles of freedom.

Unfortunately, the two Houses of Congress met to work out a compromise on their differences. Note, first, however, that the House version contained no such insults to liberty. Their version on the bill was strictly an allocation of funds. So, exactly what compromise were they intending? A compromise of liberty? Indeed. Today, the House passed a "compromise" version of the Defense Authorization bill. And what was the compromise? The House of Representatives added the precise text in question, including the so-called "waiver" of the "exclusion". The one difference is that the call of national security no longer is decreed by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State, which was bad enough. This bill, however goes one step further into the twilight zone of American Horror: This bill gives the president--that would be paranoid Obama--the power to declare such a national security threat to call up Martial law. This power goes to the same man who in November 2011, said it is necessary to provide indefinite detention of people suspected of planning a crime.

To make matters even worse, the Library of Congress is now keeping a complete record, going back to Twitter’s inception, of all tweets. That is right; Twitter is now under the auspices of the Library of Congress. This would be a ridiculous, nearly laughable sight to the Founders of this nation, were they not pained by the sharp barbs from constant rolling over in their graves from such a gross departure from the Constitution on a daily basis; and here, of the purpose of the Library of Congress. To wit: the Library of Congress’s purpose is in support of one of the enumerated duties of the Federal government, to protect the property rights of those who produce and invent: trademarks, patents, and copyrights. The catalogue system we have is derived from and then stored in the Library of Congress. Never was there a thought or purpose to cataloguing comments or statements publicly posted on a private site. The LOC is celebrating their intentions by claiming that they will be seeking the most informational and beneficial comments. To what end?

One can only wonder. But then, too much wondering could be construed by this Administration as spying, and we know from Sections 1032 to 1037 of S1867 where that will land us.

[Another form of this article first appeard in USDailyReview.com on Dec. 13, 2011]

REMEMBERING BARNEY FIFE: OBAMA SPEECH AFTER ASIA-PACIFIC SUMMIT

2011-11-15T20:29:00.001-06:00

(Published in US Daily Review 11.14.11 by Sheryl Devereaux)

Barack Obama reminds me of Barney Fife.

Fife was ready to pull his unloaded gun, hands trembling, from his holster in a minute if he could look like the hero. When his boss and best buddy Andy Taylor was looking, he was especially brave; at least he was hoping he could convince others he wasn’t the skinny-cat coward he truly didn’t want to be. But then Andy, in his wisdom, would let his pal look the part of the hero. Fife was especially funny when he talked tough; in a no-nonsense authoritarian voice that everyone but him knew was empty of authority, “Nip it. Nip it in the bud.” These days, when President Obama speaks he sounds so much like that icon of idealic society, Barney Fife, that I can close my eyes during one of his speeches and see the face of Barney lip syncing Obama’s words. True to form were his comments on Sunday to America—the perfect “nip it” speech—not his first, but clearly in his classic form.

He told China to “grow up”:

"Most economists estimate that the renminbi is devalued by 20 to 25 percent. That means our exports to China are that much more expensive and their imports into the United States are that much cheaper," Obama said.

"There has been slight improvement over the last year partly because of U.S. pressure but it hasn't been enough. It is time for them to go ahead and move toward a market based system for their currency."

Right. This is from the President who topped every past President in generosity to China by giving them an absurd –even treasonous amount of high technology—an amount no other President, left or right of the line dared—in sane or insane moments—to give China. These were not the traditional gifting to China of past presidents, but technology that our capitalist companies created by private enterprise ingenuity designed to improve lives across all spectrums of the industry but are held as top secret even to their competitors. When combined they forge unyielding military power—“sensors, optics, and biological and chemical processes, all of which are identified as having inherent military application." This is from the President that has made history for the number and amount of government take overs of private industry, the largest interferences in the capitalist system. Even Democrats fear his competency. This is from the President who has created policies that have increased the government’s debt and spending to an incomprehensible amount.—all definitely not signs of “a market based system”.

Obama said America welcomes “the peaceful rise of China”. What? Clearly this is more evidence that Obama is out of touch with Americans. Obama used the word, “rise”, not any words such as “improvement of living standards,” or, “its peoples’ success,” etc. The use of the word, “rise” is chilling. A Barney Fife style faux pas—the kind that happened when Fife was schmoozing with jailers or kibitzing with disguised thugs.

Some of the funniest Fife moments were when he was caught in the act of doing something tremendously stupid: Most comical of Obama’s statements was this remark, "We're going to continue to be firm that China operate by the same rules as everyone else," Obama said. Continue? Apparently Obama is confident that Americans didn’t see his overtures of tech giving, or that he ordered NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, to China to begin “negotiations” last year on giving NASA technology away to them.

Thanks, “Barn”.

Resurrecting the Voice of the American People

2011-11-12T09:04:00.000-06:00

The Primary and General elections of 2008 have come and gone. And the Voice of Reason lies in state. It went down with a solemn and overwhelming vote for a promised cleanup of this country. What has become of this nation between then and now can only be described as utter confusion. This, in part is caused by the People--not the President. Sadly, voter turnout continues to display a shameful lack of either patriotism or civic duty. Where other countries--such as those where we are willing to lose our lives to defend their sacred right to vote--have citizens willing to risk all to state their opinion about who their leaders should be, we, for the most part, couldn't care less. In fact, we leave the decision to the very few to decide for us our leadership, yielding our responsibility and our interest to others. What if those who vote on our behalf have values that are opposite to ours? Apparently it doesn't matter. What if those who vote in our stead know little or nothing about how our government works? Oh well. What if they are connected to all the things we claim are the problems in our system? What if they need a translator to read the ballot? Too bad.

It is frighteningly too bad. In Houston, the fourth largest city in the nation, less than 13% turned out to vote in the November 2011 election. It was a "sleeper" by anyone's definition. But sleeper or not, the act of speaking one's mind should never be considered optional. To Houston’s mayor, an incumbent who just won her second term, the sleeper was to her benefit. After spending millions on her campaign and despite having relative unknowns for competition, she narrowly squeaked out a win. What would have happened if the other 87% had turned up at the polls? Or, even 50%? Surveys from before the Primary race showed Parker’s popularity dropping like an anvil—just above 30%, a statistical sign that she would lose the election. Instead, the low voter turnout may have favored her. This example is not the exception. Across the nation, elections have dwindled to virtually nothing.

In 2008, an election in Utah was won by 8% of the registered primary election voters, which retired one of the most statistically conservative Congressmen in the nation--Chris Cannon. Excepting James Hansen, Cannon's record included the highest number of passed legislation in the history of the state of Utah. But 87% of the state's eligible voters said "so what?" by not showing up to voice their opinion. So a minute cross section of society decided for the bulk of that district's citizens who was going to be their Congressman. While the winner of that race, Jason Chaffetz often boasts winning by more than 60%, it was 60% of the 8% that showed! Bluntly put, it was The Chaffetz People who decided for the rest of their district who would win because the rest blew off the importance of that election. As Congressman Cannon said it, "Chaffetz people came out and mine didn’t, the people have spoken." But that is, as they say, history--a history that continues to repeat itself as Americans have yet to recover from their apathy. The operative word is "yet".

While the numbers voting in primaries across the nation in 2008 were still extremely low--a pattern over many previous elections--an undercurrent was building. The Obama administration, liberals and the liberal media (meaning, THE media) act as if that undercurrent is a deadly rip-tide caused by the Tea Party movement. News of their contempt for the Tea Party people is also history. But a careful look around, across all political sectors, shows much more than a single movement emerging. Indeed, within the Tea Party movement itself, there is a diverse cross section of political perspectives that have come together with one force and one objective--reduce the size of the Federal Government. Translation: cut the spending, cut the control of states, cut taxes, cut the crap. But outside the movement, splinter movements, and other conservative movements have emerged. It is a focus that has proven to scare the bejeebers out of liberals. The obvious answer is to label (or libel) the Tea Party movement as a specific kind of people--"Bigots" to divide and conquer, "white" to split the vote, "paranoid" to divert attention from constitutionally destructive maneuvers, "extremists" to prove they are not normal, and "Republican, or former-Republicans" to put a party label on them. Nice try.

If anything, those attempts have only spawned the growth of American activism. Thus, a new strategy must be implemented to calm the grassroots rip-tide. That new strategy happens to be the oldest: Fight fire with fire. Now comes, Occupy Wall Street--the antithesis of anything Tea Party in a movement. Well, sort of. The movement has yet to be defined. In fact, watching a clip from Steven Colbert, who interviewed, with his classic sarcasm intact, two Wall Street Occupiers(OWS), should put to rest any questions about the legitimacy of this so-called (counter) movement's ability to define itself, produce any viable solutions, or prove it is anything different than the same 'ol, same 'ol in political griping and having a cause without actually having one. To be fair, OWS and past "anti-" protests are not the same. The Tea Party is actually an "anti-" protest. But even the radical protesters of the 60's--despite communes, and communism, "free love", and free drugs, as horrific as those "changes" were--would not have defecated in public for attention, or stepped in front of moving vehicles so they can claim to be victims, or create riots then innocently look around as if they had done nothing to start the conflagrations. Even the rioters of the 60's, and 70's had the strength of character to claim their role in them. –And despite their liberal and outlandish living--had a sense of dignity. So, while Soros, who funded Adbusters, whose president, Kalle Lasn (a Canadian), started Occupy Wall Street as a social experiment, expected this latest strategy to take down the insurgence of activism from regular Americans a notch or two, it will fail as well. The differences are far too glaring for the public to not easily promote conservative activism over the OWS mess. Another nice try.

Exercising our voice is the most important check in the Constitution and the most challenging to maintain. The fact is that there are people from all walks of life emerging from the ground sick and tired of an acid reflux government. The people may not see the ulcers forming, but they sure feel it in the gut! Unfortunately, there are still far too many Americans willing to blindly go their way without a single care about what is actually happening to their society. It is a frightening paradigm. Milk of Magnesia has been, at least up until now, readily available and pretty cheap.

This kind of American is like the cat, who believes that because its head is hidden--and it can see nothing--that its backside is safe when it remains openly and fully exposed. For this American, slowly but surely becoming extinct, their rude awaking is still at hand. Benjamin Franklin warned that apathy will destroy this Republic as our country's system will not survive if we are careless and cowardly. That has turned out to be prophetic with our current President.

Interestingly, rip-tides are caused from two opposing forces crossing over and under each other. One creates a strong push forward from the top while a vacuum-like suction from below pulls everything out to sea. Thus, riptides are the cleanup crews of beaches and shorelines. "Rip-tide" may be an apt and flattering description of the Tea Party and subsequent activism of the general population--cleaning up the system. It is no wonder apathy is the worst fear of Founding Fathers such a Franklin. Without it there is no rip-tide to clean up collusion, corruption, cronyism and so forth. It is also no wonder those involved in the latter fear the upswing in American activism. Instead of fearing the rip-tide, let us help it along with more water to increase the tide for the coming election.

Our survival as the Republic we were designed to be depends on our activism at the polls and in our daily opportunities to speak up and out.

QUIT TINKERING WTIH AMERICA

2011-10-17T15:12:00.005-05:00

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” GEO.WASHINGTON

One of the foremost geniuses of the Founding Fathers was their understanding of America as the place to come to, leaving behind the place people came from. This was and still is a distinctly different paradigm than prevailed then—and even prevails now—the world over. The prevailing idea then was to conquer another land. While the colonies were originally of that design---to bring England elsewhere—the kind of people who actually came to America ended up being a breed apart. They wanted to establish a new land free from everywhere else—not an appendage to another land.

That has made America the most independent of all countries, which in turn had made it the most fertile for putting ideas into concrete reality, the most ingenious at creating something apparently starting with nothing—which we now coin as the “American Dream”, and inventing from imagination rather than from a world-view cheat sheet. In short, the United States was and still is the land to covet for its distinctly unique characteristics.

The Founders were not unaware of this. Even in that day, countries would have picked off this fledgling nation had the founders not reorganized the need for a stronger protectionist federation of states we now call the Constitution of the United States of America. This built-in fortress system designed to proliferate that original independent mindset naturally led to a high standard of immigration policy. “Who are you and why are you here? And if you are not here to build America you are not welcome,” was the basis for immigration policy of the Federal government. It demanded that people have a purpose aligned to the purpose for which the United States was founded. If people were not in America to visit, nor invest in its mission, nor to become a productive citizen, they were not here. Period. Surprisingly this standard actually drew people from all over the world here to propagate the original intent. Moreover if foreigners intended on becoming citizens, they were required to create their own job—not take one from already existing Americans; to be of sound mind and body—yes, they had to have a general physical upon arriving here; and sign a docking list, identifying who they were, and from whence they came. They also had to have a sponsor--someone to vouch for their character.  This provided mechanisms to safe guard America’s character.

To be clear, this is not an immigration discussion. It is a discussion about the reliance upon the unique relationship between two American characteristics, independent thought and why we left our roots behind. The former required then and still does require now, an indifference to other countries’ policies and a surrender of them, while still allowing individuals the right to carry on their familial traditions within the larger content of their state and the nation. Hence, the phase, “melting pot” came to describe America as a fusion of many different backgrounds to one solidarity of purpose—freedom.

With a watchful eye upon intruders designing to covet America—either its land, people, industry, innate observance of freedoms, or any combination--that left only one viable hole for infiltration and destruction of American principles and ideals. Clearly America’s strength has always been in its ability to provide a view to the world of what works to the promise of freedom, thus inspiring other countries to that path.   But once America looks to follow, it is done in. The latter requires an eye on the very places of origin generations of Americans and future Americans have so willingly forsaken for purist freedom.  Moreover, when Americans become illiterate enough of their own grand system, the inherent differences between ancestral homelands and here becomes muddy. Therein lay the hole allowing for destruction of the Land of Liberty.

This settles us squarely on the present day dilemma. Our President looks to Scandinavian countries for a health care model; to the Middle East for a moral model; and to the UN for a social and model. But he fails to look to our own model—that created by the Founding Fathers—with any sense of value. Unfortunately, irrespective of whether the society agrees with a leader’s political sense, they are still, on some level, persuaded by it. Years of persuasion lead to generations that are either guided or misguided but it. It makes one wonder then, when a group protesting what the president himself also vilifies, how much of the groups energy or impetus is either driven or orchestrated by the leader. When that leader, in this case, Obama, looks for cues outside the country he is supposed to be leading, it naturally draws others from inside the country there are well.

To be fair: Mr. Obama is not the only, nor the first, president to drive his constituents off course. But he is the most profound example, having what appears to be no vision of America from inside America. His answer to America’s problems is for the Federal government is to tinker with and twist every avenue of American life. And if that doesn’t net the results he promises, tinker some more.   Americans have been persuaded over time to look elsewhere for instruction primarily because they haven’t been instructed in the principles of government that made their country not only unique but more powerful among nations because it was much different than anywhere else. Illiteracy in the original design of our nation is taking a severe toll. In our ignorant state, we are subject to all sorts of ideas, themes, paradigms, principles and policies contrary to how our system works. This supplanted instruction pervades so long as the proper buzz word is attached.—Words such as freedom, democracy, liberty, right or rights, and the most abused of them all, fair.

First of all, contrary to popular misunderstanding: Democracy and liberty are not synonymous. Secondly, we are not a Democracy.
Here is a case in point about our present state of illiteracy: To a group just entering the political arena is the anti-banking, anti-capitalism group staging obscene and incoherent rallies in, especially, New York City,—but not excluding other places. The rallying cry of this mob of variants on not one, but many themes, is fairness. This is the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” protest. Sadly this is a group of mixed agendas, most of them having nothing to do with a real cause, but simply an opportunity to display antics, and the baser side of humanity. These do not represent the vast majority of Americans; and their objective—whatever that may be, nor is it finding a voice of persuasion among most Americans. With no affection, they have been dubbed the “Flea Party”. But to the slender remainder of those protesting, the invisible minority who are there beyond antics—at least as the media is portraying them—their participation is simply evidence of the lack of understanding to the way our system was designed to work and how to fix problems in our society. They are relying on misinformation and a lack of training that assumes they will accomplish something from the antics, but are more than likely to only fester the problem.

Regardless of their objectives or cause, this body of protesters probably has no idea who is connected to this movement. One of the richest men in the world, and admittedly the mastermind in destroying markets the globe over, manipulating them for his own gain, says he is sympathetic to their cause of bringing down Wall Street and banks. That is George Soros. But making a statement of sympathy is not the same as involvement, until it is discovered that Soros is financially connected to the organization that initiated the movement, Adbusters. (One has to wonder whether Soros has made maneuvers of the market, particularly with banks, as he attempts another financial coup d’état of some sort.)

Adbusters CEO and Founder Kalle Lasn is the man behind “Occupy Wall Street”. His intent is fuzzy, other than to get a buzz from the power of inciting riots with predominantly irrational behavior. To promote the project, Lasn produced an ingenious advertisement—a tiny ballerina graciously poised atop the bull statue of Wall Street, amidst a background of angry invaders rushing toward the central objects in the ad poster. His purpose and what message he planned to convey? In his own words, Lasn boasts,

"There's some idea there, and the power of it comes from the fact that most of the time you'll never be able to answer what it is. It's just there. It's just a magic moment that you can feel in your gut that it's there, and you're willing to go there and sleep there and go through the hardship and fight for it. Once you start answering it too clearly then the magic is gone."

In less poetic and more direct words, Lasn, a Canadian, living in Toronto, Canada, is admitting to doing nothing more than manipulation for manipulation sake—or his entertainment, whichever is most poignant for him. The only cause is actually the movement itself: The movement itself supports only emotion. In fact, if one used any amount of intelligence, as Lasn readily admits—Lasn calls it, “answering it too clearly”—the cause disappears. This manipulation of public emotion is being demonstrated with prophetic precision. The protests are a gathering of unlike minds, but for one cause—to demonstrate that someone can harness American passion without any intelligible purpose or intent. The number of issues oozing forth from this pustule of demonstrations is numerous. Some complain they are out of work. Some claim banks are corrupt. Some say they pay too much for college tuition. Others claim unions should rule over businesses, and still others have so much disdain for services such as police, they defecate in public atop service vehicles. In a nutshell, Lasn is just tinkering with Americans, like marionettes.

Sadly, there are some who will attend these protests, tolerating the inane in hopes that their genuine issue is going to be solved through these anarchical outbursts. They are being duped.

Striking workers protesting outside their workplace will, to some extent or another, convince their employer to provide their demands: But Wall Street is not an employer.

When no businesses can be found hiring, some will create their own business: But Wall Street doesn’t create businesses for anyone, nor hire employees.

Citizens will head to city, county, state or even federal meetings to testify of improper, inadequate, or unjust public services with the hope that it will create legislation or eliminate the same, to remedy the problem: But Wall Street is not a depository for any such civic meetings, a provider of such services, nor a legislative body that can rectify the problem.

Wall Street is nothing more than an exchange system of owners of businesses. The only way to protest Wall Street is to not go there. The only way to protest Wall Street is stop investing in it. One who wants to stop banking corruption should turn their business elsewhere AND complain through their elected officials to stop tinkering with the system through excessive and sometimes downright weird regulations. The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are nothing more than symbolic antics given purpose by outside parasites piling high on the heap of anti-American paradigms. Anti-Wall Street is code or anti-Capitalism. Anti-banks is actually code for anti-property, which is actually pro-Marxist, pro-communist. Pro-public education funded by the government is again rooted in socialism, and most predominantly communism. Indeed, nearly every want implied from the collection of protesters ‘Occupy Wall Street” comes, not by way of Constitutional solutions already built in to our system—would we oblige them—but in ideals and practices—historically failed practices—from elsewhere, most notably from socialist and communist countries. The latest news is profound: The National Socialist Party and the American Nazi Party—both oxymoron of Americanism—have endorsed “Occupy Wall Street”.

The blame for the protests cannot go to Kalle Lasn. He is as much exonerated as the cause of the problem as Obama. Like Obama, he is feeding off the problem, but didn’t create it. Lasn may be a somewhat disturbed, manipulative puppet-master looking for ways to entertain his friends like Soros but the blame goes to two completely different but related sources. According to the Founding Fathers, Americans must focus their attention, first, to the cause of Americanism by protecting the liberties as originally designed, and secondly, to the propagation of the capitalist market that supports those liberties. But many of the protesters are crying that America should be copying the Scandinavian, former Soviet, East German, Cuban, Canadian, and Euro countries’ way of handling social services, the economy, governmental systems and every other aspect of American life. This is an indication that these Americans—and nearly all other Americans—have no idea that the source of our problems lay in abusing and flat out ignoring the system of government as originally designed. Many of the problems with our economic, scientific, societal, judicial, and other systems has directly to do, not with too little tinkering with the system, but too much of it.

Any protest worth defending with the first amendment will be one by literate, educated Americans who know when someone is tinkering with then or not.

Solutions lay in an honest resurgence of learning from the roots sources how our country is supposed to work. The more government involvement in fixing problems, the deeper into the abyss we go in the problem. A government solution to all of life’s problems draws Americans away from their roots, not toward them. This is the very scenario the covetous of America are hoping for. The solution is to reverse course. Don’t like Wall Street? Tell the federal government to get its fingers out of the pie. Don’t like Banks? Tell the Federal government to stop telling banks what to do. Had the federal government not tinkered with the mortgage standards, the bubble they created that subsequently burst would not have needed any further tinkering by the government. Don’t like being out of work? Look around at opportunities to create a new business. Don’t like the expense of a college education? Understand that anything of worth requires a sacrifice. Want more democracy—more direct control by the people? Then we are foreigners in our own land. We are a Republic designed to disdain mob rule. And above all, want more fairness? Then we don’t want more equality. They are not the same, and are in fact, opposites: The former requires an arbitrator, someone to decide what is fair, a subjective decision for us. All governmental systems claiming to produce fairness are those who will decide what that means. They are then our master.

Americans were designated to be our own master. Indeed, America herself was designed to be a country free from any world taskmaster, designed to provide the most independence from government. So quit tinkering with America.

Greece’s Misfortune: A Contrast to American Government the People Must Recognize

2011-09-26T20:44:00.009-05:00

Greece’s misfortune provides numerous teaching moments for America. Their circumstance is nothing to ignore: Greece is in dire trouble.

There is no question that the nation cannot survive on its own and will need money from another country in order for its own government to continue running. Plain capitalist economics provides very few options for an entity that is so flat broke. There are three options that I see: bankruptcy is one, or a merge with another entity, either voluntarily or in a hostile takeover by another. There is, actually the very rare third option, that Uncle George or Aunt Gertrude donate the money to their “nephew” in trouble with no strings attached.

While Greece is a country and not a business or person, its options are not too different. And while there is time for serious professional or light advocational speculation over their debacle, and which route—or combination of routes—they will choose, let’s put that aside for a moment to recognize a positive application. Greece is doing America a favor here. It is a lesson in both economics and government. Their situation reminds us that Democracies are no more immune to wobbly social economics than any other country’s government using socialism as its economic machine —all governments are susceptible but one—ours.

In all of history, socialism has proven to collapse the society it feeds off as money runs out over time. Without doing any math, history shows it to be so. The length of time before it does depends upon the combination of acts and controls but the end game is still the same. Monarchies, Dictatorships—regardless of style, Democracies, and Communists, by definition have no specific market preference. But America stands as the one lone exception. If was specifically designed to work with Capitalism.

American government, a constitutionally constructed Democratic Republic, is so custom-made that comparing the rest of the world to the U.S. is like comparing a Flintstone’s car to the first James Bond Austen Martin. If the people of America would adhere to the system, custom-created for them, and listen to the original group of coaches and referees who designed it, they would recognize whenever rouge elected officials try to destroy their economic system, Capitalism and interfere in their rights of freedom in tandem, or not.

There is no way to separate Capitalism from the two sets of liberties stated in our Constitution. To do so is to change the nature of our government. The first set, recognizes liberties that neither man nor government can interrupt or usurp without our permission. Those are the inalienable rights derived by none other but Divinity. The second set is vetted through that document, the Constitution and its companion predecessor, the Declaration of Independence, in order to provide states and the federal government power—not equal in relation to each other—to protect the first group of liberties. Any switch from Capitalism to Socialism in our government is an automatic erosion of either set of constitutional rights.

To be clear, the Founders never intended the Federal government to be completely disassociated from monetary discretion. But there is a whopping difference between monetary implementations and economic ones. The government needs money to run. But it is used on behalf of the people, not despite them. From the start of this government, there was debate on the role of government in relation to money and the economic system. The first controversial act of the Duo was in creating a bank. Oddly, that debate started over the issue of canals.

Their concern was whether it was appropriate for the Federal government to incorporate. Of course, the serious concern was that as a corporation the federal government would become a monopoly—the end game of socialism—thus controlling the economy. After passionate debate on both sides, Pres. Washington decided that it was in the best interest of the people for the government to find any and all ways possible to reduce the taxpayer’s burden from debt by creating streams of revenue through investment. –Hence the bank. In the end, his decision went to the intent of the Constitution to protect the people from the effects of government spending and borrowing and he incorporated to institute a national bank.

But the Founders also knew how fragile such an act was. It would take constant vigilance and control by the People to protect the bounds between monetary policies that leverage the people’s public money but also protect capitalism. The national bank was designed not to dominate other banks, but to one of many. The founders knew money policies must remain a matter of intent as they defined it, in order for government to stay out of the people’s business—literally. One turned head, one long blink, one sneeze by the people and their freedoms could be washed away if the economic system of socialism penetrating the protective shell of the Constitution.

Long passed turned heads, blinks, and sneezes, the people and their states are now gazing, eyes bulging, and mouths dropped at the changing nature of this country’s government through a full-on, complete move to socialism.

It is critical for Americans to study the nature of their uniquely custom made government to understand and recognize economic policies that go contrary to that design. Specifically, it is critical for us to see the relationship between Capitalism and our liberties. We are not Greece. We are not a Democracy. We have the only custom designed government system, that when followed, will never collapse from too much government, because both the federal government will remain small and therefore un-intrusive on the people’s economy.

It is both unfortunate and very clear that liberals, who by definition move away from the foundation of the country—as much as Colonial liberals moved away from their country’s foundation—together with this President , Mr. Obama, does not either have a foundation in American government and her history, or they do not care one iota about it. Most would believe the latter, but it is neither here nor there. The net result is the same. Mr. Obama’s newly submitted “jobs bill” is profoundly indicative of this lack of thought to the kind of country this is. This bill adds as many taxes in the form of “offsets” as it supposedly releases. Where Corporate businesses are provided the benevolence of no, or little corporate taxes they will lose credits in lieu of deductions and those deductions must take seven years rather than a little as two before. This allows more revenue to be taxed even though that money has actually already been spent on capital expenses such as autos, machinery, and in one clause, to planes purchased in the aviation industry; or failed drilling in the case of the oil and energy industry. This is horrifying economics as it stifles growth, rather than encouraging it. You might wonder why there are offsets in the first place. Where is that money going? To pay down the debt? No. That would be the only thing that would make sense of this. No, it goes to the jobs, Obama spoke of in his remarks to the Congress.

The 199 page bill provides improvements to over 35,000 schools, enlarges bridges and stretches of highway that, albeit more crowded than their early days, but they are not crumbling. One has to ask two compelling questions: First an economic one. Is it appropriate for the government to expand its projects in a depression, when money from all and to all sources is frightfully tight? Secondly, is it appropriate for the federal government to be doing school districts’ and states’ jobs? Indeed not! There is absolutely no clause or enumerated duty of the Federal government to do this. It is, in fact, the sole responsibility of the states’, according to Art.I Section xviii and the 9th and 10th amendments that clearly state all powers not specific to the federal government in Section 8 belong elsewhere. This bill is another major example of the detriment caused to capitalism when fundamental elements of the constitution are violated.

Conversely, the bill by the same name, filed four days prior to Obama’s bill that was produced by conservative representatives in the House simply removes corporate taxes. That is all. It is two pages—actually one and a half if one only read the text of the bill. There are no lists of jobs determined by the government to be filled; and no dictation of what schools districts and cities, counties and states should improve. There are no taxes configured elsewhere to regain what was lost in removing corporate taxes. The beauty of a bill of this nature, which will be extremely difficult for Democratic liberals to wrap their heads around, is that by leaving the plan as lacking in stipulations as this one does, it actually says volumes more on what it intends to tell American businesses. “Go. Do what you, as the ones in control of the economy, need to do in order to create your unique dreams, inventions, and help your companies grow.”

Contrary to current illiteracy, liberalism (in the form of socialism), in America, is not supportive of our extraordinary system. It would be if we were actually a Democracy–hence the confusion and the justification toward government involvement and intervention. But upon evaluating the differences, one must ask: Who would ever want to ride Fred’s car, when they could have their very own custom designed Austen Martin?

911: Commemorating that part of America that cannot be extinquished

2011-09-16T00:12:00.005-05:00

A survey of what the tragedy demonstrates about the American spirit.

9-11 reminds me of some unique and powerful qualities of America that exist nowhere else in the world.

One of the most important of those is dominantly overlooked, and quite honestly, underestimated by the rest of the world. The American people have a fiercely independent spirit that is the fuel that feeds our creativity, our ingenuity, and our determination to win at whatever we put our minds to. But most importantly, that fierce independence is what fuels the ability of Americans to defend another’s life before our own—sometimes standing up to anyone who wrongs us or our friends.

We have always been that way—as far back as this nation was conceived, and even in early Colonial days. Kind George also greatly underestimated that quality, not realizing until too late that those who came here from England were distinctly different from their countrymen. Japan, Germany, China, and many other countries have underestimated our fierce independence and what its produces, when after being attacked by them, we not only didn’t surrender but defended ourselves and all our friends. And one further: after overcoming our attackers, we have, without exception, rebuilt those countries.

I am reminded that Americans think nothing of sacrificing their lives for the greater cause. But Americans who sacrifice their lives do so to save other lives—not to take them. I am reminded that we as a people value life and liberty and that they don’t just go hand in hand, they are one and the same.

Tears still well up for me, when I recall—as if it were yesterday, the voices of unwitting heroes who willingly grounded their jet after they discovered it was to be the tool used to target the White House in an act of terrorism. They went to their deaths protecting their country as much as any soldier. Americans have that spirit of protecting each other and the whole! And our children grow up renewing that spirit.

I see that spirit just about every day in America. Just a couple days ago, two people announced over the internet that they would offer their ranches, with stalls, barns, and land to those needing a place to take their livestock, horses and any other animals caught up in the deadly fires of Texas. My children and I have had the humble opportunity to cook up turkeys, bake gourmet cookies and delicious pies and then trek downtown to feed the homeless in subzero temperatures on Thanksgiving Day. We were not alone. Scores of other families were there, sacrificing the comfort and warmth of their homes to give others a reason to be grateful. Americans flourish in making life better for someone else.

9-11 did not cripple America—nor stop our independence and spirit of taking care of each other. It renewed it! We’ll always commemorate that part of America that cannot be extinguished! The rest of the world may never understand it. But we do. They may look at us as consumed with worldly goods—and perhaps rightly so. But in the final analysis, Americans understand in their subconscious, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not found in shopping malls and luxury cars, but in the ability to help others, in our own way, not because we were told to by the government, or forced by anyone, but because our deeply independent wills desire to look beyond ourselves to someone else’s welfare.

That is what I see in 9-11.

(Originally published in US Daily Review.)