The Right Wing of the Eagle

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.)

A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL TEAPARTY ALERT.COM: Boehner 2, Obama 0

2011-09-03T19:21:00.003-05:00

Reprinted from a email newsletter, sent Sept.3, 2011, I received, I have but few words to say:
I laughed audibly for more than a few minutes over this. I love the Constitution, don't you?!

Boehner 2, Obama 0

Such is the scorecard after their latest skirmish, when Mr. Obama, former professor of Constitutional Law, ignored the basic concept of three separate and equal branches of government and demanded to give an address before a joint session of Congress. Speaker Boehner, former tavern-owner and night-school graduate of the University of Cincinnati, refused permission and forced the president to slink away with his tail between his legs.

Not surprisingly, the liberal media was outraged by Speaker Boehner's upholding of a very basic Constitutional provision. The New York Times could barely hide it's disdain:

Any hopes that a kinder, gentler bipartisan Washington would surface once Congress returns after Labor Day were summarily dashed on Wednesday when President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner clashed over, of all things, the date and time of the president’s much-awaited speech to the nation about his proposal to increase jobs and fix the economy.

In a surreal volley of letters, each released to the news media as soon as it was sent, Mr. Boehner rejected a request from the president to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at 8 p.m. — the same night that a Republican presidential debate is scheduled.

In an extraordinary turn, the House speaker fired back his own letter to the president saying, in a word, no. Might the president be able to reschedule for the following night, Sept. 8?

For several hours, the day turned into a very public game of chicken.

By late Wednesday night, though, the White House issued a statement saying that because Mr. Obama “is focused on the urgent need to create jobs and grow our economy,” he “welcomes the opportunity to address a joint session of Congress on Thursday, Sept. 8.”

Liberal commentator Cenk Uygur was nearly apoplectic, writing (spelling isn't changed):

President Obama has now changed the day of his address to Congress to accommodate the Republicans. They were having a GOP presidential debate on the original date he picked. So, Boehner told him to move his speech. He is the president for Christ's sake. Of course, they should have accommodated him, not the other way around. But as usual, President Obama bowed.

So, this leads to the eternal question of whether Obama is just weak or if he is a brilliant strategist who has been playing rope-a-dope all along. I am so silly that I still had hope. My hope this morning was that Obama was laying a trap for the Republicans. He picks a day for his speech that is the same as the GOP debate. Then if Boehner says he won't let him give the speech on that day, he seems so petty and harsh.

That way, either the president gives his big speech on jobs and bigfoots the Republican contenders or the Republicans look disrespectful and petulant for turning down the president. Well, if you're playing rope-a-dope, that's not a bad manuever. But it turns out that's not what he was doing at all. He just stumbled into this problem and then stumbled out when he let Boehner dictate when he could and could not have his speech. That looks so sad.

You see, if you're playing rope-a-dope, at some point you have to actually swing. When your opponent has worn himself out knocking you around the ring -- you counter-attack. But that counter-attack is never coming. We're holding our collective breath in vain.

In other words, Liberals can't decide whether Obama is a brilliant strategist by caving to Boehner's demands or if he might actually be as weak as Conservatives have been saying from the beginning. Either way, Speaker Boehner has done a masterful job of exposing Obama's lack of savvy and leadership experience. Yet another round goes to the Speaker.
.

Address:
611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #260
Washington, D.C. 20003-4303

History is an excellent teacher...

2011-08-31T10:31:00.004-05:00

History is an excellent teacher. It is a ledger that calls black black and red red. Learning from it depends on if the record keeper has an eraser.

It seems in today’s political world erasers abound and there are plenty of people hoping that if they can remove certain parts of history they can help recreate the ideas and events that failed in the first, second and even third go-around. It begs the question, “why?” Why would anyone want to deliberately deny certain facts of history on the record—facts that taught great lessons from failure and success? –Facts that sculpt who we are or what we become? The answer is simple: Although history, the record of a group of people, typically, demonstrates how many ideas failed that group of people, it does not necessarily show failure of an individual.—At least not until after the system failed. And sometimes despite overall failure of a practice for the entire body, success on the individual level prevails. The gamble for personal gain and achievement, even if at the expense of the body on which the attempts are being made, is a lucrative temptation few sociopathic and narcissistic minds can resist.

As governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt was conservative. But once in the oval office, he blanketed the nation with the largest federal programs, plans, sweeping changes in judicial power resulting in growth of executive power, and tax schemes ever amassed at one time in our history. In a nutshell, Roosevelt, while he didn’t begin that process, certainly put America on the map as a socialistic tyranny. Among his many socialistic ideas were road projects and other work projects to increase employment statistics. He expanded taxes, including hefty inheritance taxes that included five new kinds of tax: inheritance, estate, succession, legacy, and gift taxes. History has shown that government projects to “create jobs” during the depression failed miserably to achieve any notable and significant improvement in the economy. Likewise, all other plans to build the economy via government intervention have shown that significant improvement did not in reality occur. Overseas, the Soviet Union, and then Japan as late as the 1990’s, also collapsed under the stealth assumption that government economic prowess—socialism–would bring prosperity. It did not, but collapsed under its own weight.

Liberals will accuse conservatives of not having a “plan” for economic expansion and vitality. In that accusation lays a fundamental paradigm, which is actually not in sync with the Founders and Framers of this country. That paradigm expects that all “plans” originate in the government. Believers that the government must do something hold a paradigm that says the government must do something concrete and tangible in order to say they are actually doing anything at all.

What is being overlooked is the converse paradigm that no plan by the government is indeed a plan. It is based upon a philosophy that allows the People to come up with their own plan. And that is a plan. Thomas Jefferson taught, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” In addition, Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” The intent of the Constitution and its impetus, the Declaration of Independence, promises that all people have a sacred right and obligation to pursue happiness in their own way.

So when Democrats and liberals lay charges at conservatives that they are somehow derelict in their service to constituents by not offering their own concrete “plan”, it is a deception on the intended purpose of the Federal government. It also produces serious side effects that run opposite the claimed intention of such concrete “plans” by actually perpetuating and compounding the problem. When government expands it does not help the free market system, since it dictates what to do. Bur rather, it becomes the economy’s main competitor and a parasite.

Frustration builds when leaders implement historically failed policies. It is a signal of something other than public good because it does not make sense. We have a U.S. President who is so bent on fulfilling his own agenda he will lie to Americans, foreigners, and even himself about historical circumstances, results, basic premises of our society, and projected outcomes in order to achieve those goals. Recall, for instance, when Mr. Obama commented that Islam has always been a part of America’s history? That is a blatant lie. It is so far from truth it borders on science fiction. An extremely small percentage of individuals came from both Jewish and Catholic faiths. And Islam, as well as other unrelated religions played no part in American history. But injecting that statement into American history can justify inclusion of such things as Islamic ideals, –Sharia Law, or mass support for a modern day Muslim Conquest.

Another lie, related to the first example, is Mr. Obama’s comment that America is no longer a Christian nation. That is laughable on its face. While America is certainly a “melting pot”, Christianity is far and away the dominant religion of this country. As of July, an ABC News poll noted that 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Only 4% were Muslim, Buddhist, or even Jewish. The others declared no association. Moreover, Christianity, the bedrock of our social norms and mores, is deeply rooted in this country’s common law foundation.

I suppose we could get derailed with a plethora of “stories” and misinformation this President has a chronic habit of telling, but the examples will serve as an indication of Mr. Obama’s panache for manipulating facts as a means to an end. And more than telling lies, are the deceptions this president conjures when omitting what he is doing, as he is with his infamous Executive Orders. Unfortunately, lies are not the end of this president’s achievements.

To add, he cheats the system he has sworn to uphold in order to fulfill his personal objectives. In fact, Mr. Obama cheats so badly, that one has to wonder how long this has been going on in his life. With every president there are times of arguable indiscretion. Those are noted because they are the exception. But with this president it is the norm to ignore the rules.

For example: Mr. Obama just signed an Executive Order version of the Dream Act—you know, the amnesty bill that didn’t have a flying elephant’s chance of passing the House? So, Mr. Obama circumvented the entire Constitution and the Congress by writing his own legislation on it. There is no provision for the president to legislate via any method, including executive orders. It is an impeachable offense as it runs opposite to his oath of office. The Constitution is quite clear: Article I, Sec.1 reads, “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Sates, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” But nearly all of Mr. Obama’s Executive Orders are legislation. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has no interest, nor the education, to notice the violations.

The consequences to this behavior are worse than implementing a historically failed practice that is bound to end the same as all previous attempts. One such endeavor falling into the latter category is the Healthcare Act. While the president will use Massachusetts as justification, their system has failed to work as intended. The former socialist block knows full well the myriad of problems associated with a fully implemented government healthcare system. Canada now has nowhere to go to have critical procedures done, such as lifesaving surgery, now that America’s system is no longer available to them in a fully functioning free market.

But the worst of lies and cheating comes in rationale to justify poor public policies such as those related to our economic system. A list of those poor decisions is unnecessary. Americans know what they are—(TARP, ignoring CUT,CAP, & BALANCE, etc.) and the latest, passing a bill to raise the debt ceiling which not only garnered the ire of the public but Standard & Poor’s who, along with Moody’s has warned for months that raising the debt ceiling would not remove the threat of credit rating drops. S&P dropped the United States rating from AAA+ to AA+ immediately following passage of the debt ceiling deal. To that, another lie: Mr. Obama’s public statement in reaction to this was, “…this is the United States of America. No matter what some agency may say, we have always been and always will be a Triple-A country.” The statement had the ring of someone who was saying, “How dare you!” “Some agency” isn’t just any agency. That agency has within its power to rank the United States based upon its behavior. Mr. Obama’s attempt to ignore this is deceit in itself—if not to all of us, certainly to himself. It doesn’t appear he either understands or cares about the players in the game or the rules.

Even those are not the real problem. And nothing I’ve noted is news. Unfortunately, the policies that history would otherwise prove idiotic, brought by lies and cheating, are not the most profound problem and have not created the worst outcome. But these symptoms are only exacerbating it. Those are produced by a byproduct of them. This by-product is that most people cannot figure out what the President’s agenda is exactly. He is unpredictable. The reality is: Americans don’t trust this president—neither his ability to honor them with the truth nor in his leadership capabilities or intentions.

Because of this, money is deliberately withheld from the markets. Businesses hold back for fear that Mr. Obama’s actions will stifle, or sabotage their free enterprise efforts. Consumers are holding back because the market is so unstable they neither predict Obama’s moves nor the economy. Investors are not investing here and savers not saving because they fear their money will suddenly disappear.

The President can say his policies are helping all he wants. But saying it doesn’t make it so. What Mr. Obama needs to understand is that his agenda is not working despite erasing the record. Regardless of whether people know the history of programs and plans such as his or not, they are not responding nor obliging his objectives as the compliant citizenry that the President expected. People know he has a big fat eraser and they can see that he is “fudging” the books. No matter what is erased from the ledger of history, it won’t change what is in the till.

MoveOn.org Video’s Anti-American Agenda

2011-08-27T14:06:00.000-05:00

As originally printed on US Daily Review
24 August 2011

By Sheryl Devereaux, Contributor, US Daily Review

This article exposes the agenda of a new video, which has been inconspicuously masked using innocent classroom children to promote its paradigms and plans. It is produced by MoveOn.org, with whom Mr. Obama has been shown to be affiliated.

In a classroom setting, nine children, no doubt feeling privileged to be included in a “TV” production, presented ten objectives for "American progress".

The video, found on YouTube, is called “Contract for the American Dream”, and is produced by MoveOn.org. What is so ironic about this is the fact that there is already a contract with America for a dream: The dream is “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The agenda being presented is far from constitutionally sound; and it appears that neither the children nor their parents are aware of it. Secondly, they are, I’m certain, quite unaware that all of the points are part of the Communist Manifesto. The ten key points to MoveOn.org objectives are listed below with the corresponding point from the Communist Manifesto following.

1. Invest in Infrastructure. From the Communist manifesto we read, “Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.”—State, meaning national government. Infrastructure is not listed as an enumerated duty of the Federal government except as it pertains to post roads. An argument could be made to say roads that assist in postal carry could be partially justified on the Federal level. But there are arguments against that as well. For the most part, it is a right of the states to develop their own infrastructure. Article I Section 10 does not forbid it, but the Federal Government is limited by the 9th and 10th Amendments as well as the last clause in Art.I Sec. 8, to only those duties in that Article.

2. The Federal government should create jobs—and ‘green’ ones to boot. Our history of innovation was outstanding because creative minds were left to create as they dreamed, not as the government dictated. That is what a free market society is. This goal echoes the Communist Manifesto, “[that] the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. [Emphasis added]”

3. We should INVEST in public education: The Communist Manifesto claims there should be “free education for all children in public schools…”

4. There needs to be uniform health care—specifically “Medicare for all”. Vladimir Lenin said, “Socialized medicine is the keystone in the arch of the Socialized State.” He later implemented such a public institution.

5. Right to assemble and “work is equal opportunity for all”. Note the careful phrasing of this sentence. The Communist Manifesto stipulates that there must be “equal obligation of all to work”.

6., 7, & 8. Remove the cap on social security tax; realign tax brackets and make the rich pay more; and tax “Wall Street”, respectively. The Communist Manifesto stipulates the government should produce “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax”. Moreover, it clarifies that, “the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.”

9. We should prohibit companies from having any political say. Note that number 5 above is a mandate by MoveOn.org (on behalf of this administration?) to support unions. Why should they have power to entice workers —and I use that term with great latitude, (think: uniform “block vote”) — then forbid companies a voice? There seems to be a lack of checks and balances here. To the video’s statement that public persuasion should be reserved to “Americans, not companies,” we could argue tit for tat: “Americans not unions”, then. Their goal goes against the Founding Fathers who believed factions were an imperative to liberty, but that their power needed to be checked. James Madison said factions were integral to liberty as a form of freedom of speech.

10. The video argues a need to protect and renew “Democracy…elections for all, and a pathway to citizenship.” We are a Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy is nationalistic. We are a Federation. –A huge difference. To the point is the irony of an organization that has been sanctioned for election and campaign violations to speak of fair elections, as in the video. We see echoes of their previous objectives in the joining of these two intentions: “elections of all”, and a “path to citizenship”. MoveOn.org has been implicated in more than one illegal or fraudulent election. We have a “path to citizenship” already. It is called immigration and naturalization law

The Humanist Manifesto, the work of John Dewey, who was claimed as the foremost genius of our modern public school system, is eerily similar to the Communist Manifesto, in supporting the ideals of the latter. Both desired to achieve their mandate through the public school system, away from parents, of which the video seems to be evidence.

Sadly, since there is such a gulf of ignorance on the Constitution, most parents and the public will gloss over this video as innocent because the innocent is presenting it. It is another tragic irony that we have become so gullible from our ignorance, yet our friends from former Communist countries look on with jaws dropped and eyes fixed and dilated from stunned dismay that after so many years of fighting Communism we may be on the brink of embracing it.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Bio: Sheryl Devereaux is a prolific writer and researcher, speaker, and radio commentator on the Constitution and public policy. You can listen to her show, Foundation of a Nation on allfiredupradio.net or find her on facebook and twitter @sheryldevereaux.

Why Mr. Obama scares Lou Pritchett & me

2011-08-26T15:00:00.006-05:00

This open letter is being posted here from Lou Pritchett via links through my email. I add three of my own at the end.

By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO
THE PRESIDENT*

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an
Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management... Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to
Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and
Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
Any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
Visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
Don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America '
Crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
Country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
With a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
Living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics
Against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
Opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
Omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
You do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
Conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

*Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8-years.

Lou Pritchett

[He scares me too for precisely the same reasons and three more: ]

He scares me because he doesn't care a flying leap about the Constitution as he writes legislation from his desk via Executive Orders;

He scares me because he deliberately waits for Congress to adjourn, again in violation of the Constitution, so he can slip in cronies he already knows won't pass muster with them;

And, He scares me senseless because he lies about every freaking thing there could possibly be to lie about, for what looks like the shear entertainment of it.

*
*
This letter was sent to the NY Times, but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed
Is that good men do nothing... It's happening right now.*

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp (the above is correct according to Snopes…..)

Obama's Economic Plan Makes Him Poster Child for Deficiencies in American Math Education

2011-06-30T18:58:00.011-05:00

It is clear that America has been deficient in teaching math to our youth. The generation first at historical risk to this problem has now grown up and we can finally see the completed cycle of illiteracy, as those publicly educated youth are now dominant in the work force. No study needs to be done. No survey taken. It is evidenced in our leaders en masse. The most notable of those could be the poster child for math illiteracy--President Obama.

Wednesday, in a press conference, the President demanded aloud to the Congress regarding the upcoming 4th of July recess and the debt ceiling debate,

…You need to be here. I've been here. I've been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden
and the Greek crisis and--you stay here. Let's get it done."

If Mr. Obama is claiming that he has been working on the debt and budget crisis and that they should be too, he did a very poor job of conveying that message during the telecast. In fact, he conveyed the opposite. By his own admission he said he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden and the "Greek crisis"--not the spending crisis.

This may not be construed as bad math, except to say it is poor reasoning and some will claim he is hypocritical. But that is not all there is to it. On the heels of saying this, Mr. Obama justified increasing taxes among the rich because, "you can afford it…You'll still be able to ride on your corporate jet: you're just going to pay a little more…"

First, the reasoning of saying that one can to afford more taking by the government is like saying the robber has a right to steal from you because you (or the insurance company) can afford to replace what he/she takes. It is neither sound nor legitimate to take something from someone because in someone else's eyes the other person can afford it. --How ridiculous an argument. If it were a correct principle it would empty our jails. Thieves, robbers, collusionists, conspirators, larcenists, et al. would be allowed to plunder our neighborhoods and businesses so long as (at least in their minds) the victim could afford the loss more than the perpetrator could afford not to pull the heist. But again, that is not the worst math. It's just very poor reasoning.

Where Obama gets in trouble (again) is in his challenge the Congress to stay and duke it out with him on the budget, with which he also offers his solution for them to pass: A solution, by the way, he claims Americans won't mind and will endorse. Pass a bill to provide loans to businesses, he says. Now, why would anyone want to pay more taxes so he/she would have to then borrow on the very money they were just forced to give to the government? This is seriously bad math. Imagine if your neighbor told you to pay them $5000, then you turned around and borrowed the very same money back--with interest. How ridiculous a formula for economic success!

Secondly, as Mr. Obama stated himself, the money is not for every business. No. It is only for those businesses that build roads, highways, possibly windmills, and solar panels, etc. or involve "free trade agreements," as the President put it. In other words, his solution is to only grow that part of the economy that he deems good--roads and foreign trade under such pacts as NAFTA. These government loans require the citizen-borrower to surrender their interest, ideas, and visions about what kind of business to build to Mr. Obama's. Take it or leave it.

When you add up the math and actually account for his words, the stark reality of what Mr. Obama is offering leaves Americans on the short end of the stick. Very, very bad math.

I got a Happy Father's Day letter from the President of the United States Sunday. Did you get yours?

2011-06-21T12:31:00.006-05:00

I got a "Happy Father's Day" email letter from a very unlikely source Sunday--the President. Yes, I did say from the President--of the United States. Did you get one? Apparently, Barack and I are on good enough terms that he feels comfortable sending warm messages to one of the more conservative people on the planet, and one who battles against most everything he does on Constitutional grounds. It's just an example of respecting our differences, I'm sure.

I would have been more generous in sharing the warm greetings with you on Sunday, had I wanted to ruin your Father's Day. I recognize some of my friends are liberal--quite liberal. But I am pretty confident that all, or nearly all of you would have thought this Sunday's greeting was in pretty poor taste. Some of you may have argued that it was nothing more than any other President would have done--Republican or Democrat; so, so what? Except that I have never gotten an email "Happy Father's Day" greeting from any past president of the United States, to say nothing of one that half way down the letter starts to propagandize about a program for absent fathers and giving away free tickets to “Pops” everywhere to take their kids to the zoo and the symphony.

To top it off, Barry invited me to sign his Fatherhood Pledge. Right. I'm a single woman. I suppose I should be impressed, flattered, and obligated to sign the "Pledge". But I am wondering why Barry didn't just cut to the chase and ask me to go phishing with him Sunday.

I see that I have another message from the White House today.

Constitutional Students Unsuspecting Prey: Cyber Commentary on Party Politics As a Case Study

2011-06-01T18:27:00.026-05:00

From a previous article entitled, American Studies: The Lost Art of studying the Constitution, we read:

for generations there has not been an emphasis on the thorough study of the Constitution…[thus] the current interest and resurgence in studying and defending it is problematic. One would naturally consider this interest good, since we have had a long sabbatical from such. The problem is that there is such a prevailing illiteracy on the subject that genuine students studying from a knowledge of nothing assume, upon learning a little, knowledge of everything.

To add: the real danger lies in those who then proclaim, upon the above, to be authorities on all things Constitutional.

Improper study leads to dangerous teaching and improper application.

A proliferation of Constitutional litter across cyberspace has prompted me to address, albeit one at a time, the erroneous, assumptions, misinformation and downright fictional statements and conclusions spread on so-called Constitutional websites. One of the many so-called authorities--an authority that, upon investigation has neither the following nor the integrity to acknowledge their lack of longevity in the genre--recently claimed that the Founders hated politics and parties, and further claimed that the two would bring faction to the country and lead to tyranny. Then they professed their affinity to such assertions, claiming them as truth. To call their assertions "truth" is in itself deception. And were this lone, virtually insignificant website alone in its practice of blurting out mere words without substance to collaborate them, they would fade into cyber-oblivion and into obscurity without notice or damage. Sadly, I use them as an example of the proliferation of such nonsense, having a mix of poorly assumed concepts and themes that creates nothing short of misunderstanding at best, and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts at worst.

The facts are that while the Founders were very concerned about the power and influence of factions, they knew factions were inevitable and thus needed heavy checks and balances against their potential power in order to protect the Republic and it's republics from democracy (read: oligarchy, tyranny, etc.). On more than one place I have read, claims that parties did not exist with the founding of this country, blamed Alexander Hamilton for the existence of parties, and offered Pres. Washington's farewell address as proof that the Founders were totally against parties and factions. Additionally, there are some who use the terms "parties" and "factions" as one and the same.

The fact is George Washington did hold contempt for the adverse effects of parties. But he is the only President in the history of the United States who did not officially declare a party affiliation. Before reviewing the facts surrounding parties, politics, and the Constitution, it is critical to discuss the peril caused from groups using the current vacuum of Constitutional knowledge as a door to their own notoriety or even an attempt to build a power base.

Are they a fraud or authority?

There are hundreds of so-called Constitution groups throughout the Internet and on networks such as Facebook, all claiming to be experts in the Constitution. Beware. Any group who refuses honest discussion and/or refuses to answer direct questions is, and should be, open to suspicion. To refuse discussion is to violate the very tenet of the Founders in--not just freedom of speech, of an enlightened intellect, which they so much admired and worked to imbue. Any group that does not follow the example of the very men they claim so boldly to know intricately about should be dismissed. The Founders, no matter how diverse their perspectives were, by in large respected eachother's opportunity to question with directness and learn from the collective knowledge and intellect of the whole. In this way, education is shared and application is stretched. There is nothing virtuous in censoring a perceived opposing view in order to quash discussion--or worse, propagate one's own power. Honest sharing of knowledge requires a genuine care to listen to opposing views, irrespective of how vastly different or similar those views may be. To do anything less is to contradict the very literacy the Founders espoused, and condone the entrapment of ignorance--even, as in this case, by force.

This alone is not enough, however. True Constitutionalists can back their points of view using the very same tools the Framers used, the Rules of Construction, imperative to creating legitimate policy, law, and constitutional themes. In addition, a thorough study of history, such as the Founders had, and thorough understanding of their words--in their proper context, are essential ools for the true Constitutionalist.

Under this foundation, we launch into a study of factions, parties, policies, and their relation to the Constitution.

Faction is evidence of the health of liberty.

'Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. '~James Madison, Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787

An illiterate teacher of the Constitution has used this portion of an entire thesis on the subject to claim proof that the Founders wanted to dismiss factions wholesale across the land. Those who believe so are misreading the statement. The emphasis is not on ridding society of factions but on curtailing the possible violence of it.

So let us look at the intricacies of the Framers own words, from the Federalist Papers, for clarity:

First, factions are not defined as parties. Madison clarified in Paper No. 10, what is a faction:

"…whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed [sic.] to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
(Emphasis added.)

In other words any group joined for a common cause that differs from others, whether individuals or a group is a faction. Unions are a faction, as well as political parties and PAC's, lobby groups, shareholders, private non-profit organizations, pubic groups, various corporations with or without a spokesperson, even churches and family associations, social groups, and so forth are all factions.

Understanding the meaning of factions, then, it would seem impossible to rid society of them. Indeed, they are inherent: People by nature join into groups of like minds and sociability. In light of his own definition, what more did Madison say to lend understanding to the relationship of factions, the role of government and people within a society? Were the Framers really bent on removing them from society? What did the Founders actually say about politics and parties? We must have courage to study the entire text and context of historical records if we want to know our origins and identity. Otherwise we are not searchers of truth, but con-men, willing to deceive the future for a romantic fantasy about the past; and leaving ourselves and others to stray from the original point and, in this case, the teachings about factions in relation to who we are and who we should be.

In reality, though the Founders did indeed loathe the negative effects of factions. They also knew it was not only impossible, but flatly wrong to rid society of them.

In one of the most simple and straightforward messages to the American people, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison addressed these very issues in two Federalist Papers, No. 9 and 10, respectively.

Both Hamilton and Madison, in reverse order, explain the problems associated with factions. But while Hamilton has been blamed by some for the initiation of political parties (and every other currently perceived nefarious element) in America, it was actually Madison who explained the verity of all factions (including parties) and how they needed to be kept in check while, not only allowing them to exist, but supporting them as an indication of full liberty. At length he explains:

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs [sic.] of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

In other words, the easiest resolution to the negative effects of factions--not factions themselves--is to either force the elimination of factions, or only provide everyone with one view of the world. He explains:

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. [Emphasis added.]

To be plain, Madison here is saying that it would be a ridiculous action to claim liberty for all people except those that assemble of a same mind and purpose. (Note also, that he likens politics to animal life, clearly meant to be good and naturally existing.). Factions, as part of politics are the essence and embodiment of liberty, as it frightens government and permits people to assemble. To rob a faction of liberty is to rob all of liberty. Madison continues:

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. [Emphasis added.]

Again, to explain, Madison guarantees that to remove factions--of any kind--is to remove liberty; and even so far as to threaten those basic rights of property, (through being one kind of property, down to the varying forms of property all arising out of our unique perspectives and desires). To remove the latter is to remove all of the former, taking away a person's right to share their tenets with others.

To go further, Hamilton, in the previous commentary, No. 9, explains further the misguided teachings some on politics, factions and the meaning of the Constitution. Some seem to equate politics and party as the same. Others separate the Constitution from politics as if neither is either the same as, nor in anyway related to the other. As was cited above, the Founders, represented by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, via the Federalist Papers, at least, did not see it that way. Politics, factions and party were not all one and the same, and the Constitution was indeed considered a political document. Contrary to the notion that the Framers hated politics and wanted nothing to do with it, the Founders embraced politics as a necessary instrument of free people. However, as Hamilton observed and explained, politics prior to their time was deficient in handling the vices of factions but of late had so vastly improved that the Constitution could function with these political perfections. (While Hamilton haters would argue that his paper should be dismissed because it was Hamilton who wrote it, one cannot repudiate the fact that the Federalist Papers were written with the consent of the body that endorsed the new Constitution, including Madison who worked co-jointly in the Federalist Papers purpose, but whose perspective varied from Hamilton's as well as others.)

Hamilton's words verbatim from Federalist No.9:

The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.

In one fell swoop Hamilton answers the debate of whether the weaknesses of a free government, which includes all threats to a republic reducing it to a democracy--factions or otherwise--can be kept in check. And what he describes as politics is embodied in the very document they created: the Constitution.

Additionally, some take the assumptive position that because there is no mention of parties in the Constitution; it means there was no intent to include them in American life. Indeed their disdain for current politics has left them thinking, without due study but upon their common sense, that surely the Founders had no place for parties. These people fail to apply the Rules of Construction to their criticism. The void of party mention in the Constitution could and actually should lead one to the very opposite assumption--that they were indeed included--even if he had not broached the topic in the Federalists, a simple reading and very basic understanding of the Constitution tells us that precisely this opposite is an assumptive right. The Constitution specifically states that all rights and privileges not relegated to the Federal government (in Art.I Sec. 8) are the State's and People's respectively. That would include the privilege of participating in a form of faction--even a political party, as was stated by Madison--because liberty grants it.

To those who hold that there were no political parties at the founding of this nation, and to those who blame Hamilton for instigating parties, a refresher in early American history is apropos.

As has already been noted, parties are one kind of faction, but not all factions are parties. Madison who defined factions has already given clarity on this point. Secondly, were the existence of parties about who 'started' them as the ultimate political criminal, the debate would be over. A party of one, is one. Were the statement true, "Hamilton started the first faction,"--and it is not--we would not have parties today. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. If there were no others to oblige the idea, it would have died a quick death. The facts are that a claim that Hamilton created factions in America is outlandishly and undeniably false.

Understanding our current situation: The Real history of parties:

The Founders brought with them from their mother country the Tories and the Whigs. Parties in England actually started in the last 1600's with the violent debate across Britain, from Scotland southward. Two main factions--parties with some similar ideals and some different ones emerged. Both were rooted deeply in religious perceptions desiring to change religious intolerance of opposing royalty verses the crown. Stemming from the defection from the Catholic Church and the subsequent creation of the Anglican Church, both were against what the monarchy and parliament had become, but took separate paths of philosophy to manage and modify the crown.

The medieval days of the Monarchy were, as evidenced through the commoners, relatively even and fair-handed. But the monarch evolved into a self-absorbed dynasty focused upon self-preservation rather than service. Originally the Lords and the Crown represented the land heirs of the combined Kingdoms. Commoners--Septs--were protected under the providence of individual royal clans and their land holdings. But to be fair, Britain had a bi-cameral congress that included representation of the Commoners as their voice directly to the government. In this way, it was held, that fair representation would be honored.

Torres and Whigs sprouted from the disenchantment of the commoners to their representation. In brief, while both wanted improvement, each differed in their approach. As their voices grew, and a century turned a corner, Americans were quite abreast of their homeland's growing voices.

Americans took part in the debates of their home-bound Englishmen, writing pamphlets anomalous to support of rebels in their mother country, such as John Wilkes . Early writings from Whigs on the insults by the monarchy showed a festering canker for the Colonists, who saw the actions and increasing control of the King and parliament as an affront to all things liberal, and protecting inalienable rights. The Tories, also known as Loyalist, were in fact not so loyal. While, of the two they were more persuaded to a monarchical system, it like the Whigs, was formed in the 1600's as an answer to aristocratic and monarchical abuse. But unlike the Whigs, who wanted more voice for the commoners, the Torres wanted to reverse the current trend, restoring to their Monarchy, the fair-hand from nearly a century past.

The party voice of England resulted in a resolution to modify Parliament with more equality. It was done by party discussions alone, without a single drop of blood spilled. Forever, history has recognized this revolution of government as the Glorious Revolution.

The fear from Founders of the vices of parties was actually formed, not from Tories and Whigs, but from parliament itself, hitting a high point from the 1760's, with an English rebellion (not to be confused with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the outcome of which the English made great strides toward balance in the compartments of their government), to the time of the American Revolution, a decade later. As England grew, and the government with it, the Colonist witnessed an abuse wholly intolerable--which actually created the foundation for their objection to taxation without representation.

At the turn of the 1770's parties in Colonial America were quite vocal. The reality, like it or not, was that from the rise of a party system in England, forward from the Glorious Revolution up to and especially during the mid-1700's came many important doctrines of liberty that the Founders ruminated upon in the formation of their own society. A question of aristocracy became obvious.

Huge discrepancies in representation showed British townships and cities were literally and totally unrepresented. Meanwhile, vacant cities had representatives assigned to no one. The question belied, "who were any of them representing?" Parliament's answer was that representation was considered a comprehensive approach to the entire nation. Thus a representative from the House of Commons from one area was supposedly representing another. This is tantamount to a faction--the House of Lords--controlling one segment of population against their will to the benefit of the faction itself, which was, in this case, the government--a party, or whatever the particular interests of the misaligned representatives were.

The Colonist saw this as a blatant insult to their voice. The balance they sought for and achieved via parties in the Glorious Revolution dissolved into one conceited puddle of government mongers once again. One faction--the aristocracy--had become a monopoly in collusion with the King. With this understanding we can see why the Framers were so adamant that many--not one or two--checks and balances were in place, to manage the voice of the people, their individual republics and the security intended by the confederacy on the whole.

While this is not an exhaustive treatise on the American party system and its evolution, it is important to understand a very basic and limited, but factual accounting of parties in light of various misunderstandings floating across cyberspace and hard-copy--such as a belief that there were no parties at the founding of this country; and that Hamilton was the creator of the first American party.

American parties evolved from English groups--aligning philosophies--not power. Tories, Whigs, Federalists and Anti-Federalists are examples--each speaking to the specific balances afforded in the newly created Constitution. But those soon evolved into further philosophical divisions--still defining Constitutional ideals rather than amassing power. After the new Constitution was written Federalists remained and with that the Republican Association emerged. These became the two most dominant thoughts in American politics, at least until Jefferson ran for President. Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton were all originally Federalist thinkers. And while George Washington professed no official alliance to one party, his actions and practices, along with his recorded words, all show he was indeed a Federalist.

One of the first official American parties was named with Thomas Jefferson, as a Democratic Republican, sometimes referred to now as Jeffersonian Republican. He defected from the Federalist thought during the fracturing debate over a National Bank, during Washington's tenure as President.

If the student of the Constitution, and all things genuinely American--it being, not just a republic, but a Constitutional (confederate) Democratic Republic, will read and study in full context, they cannot be fooled by those, whose agenda includes curtailing the broad study and discussion of the entire spectrum of commentary and teachings from the Founders for their own motives, whatever those may be.

To be fair: Certainly any group which espouses a vague and even fictitious speech on the Constitution is a prime example of the thorny journey the American public and enthusiastic students trudge through, innocently seeking knowledge from a base of nothing. They painfully endure bad education in a desperate need to understand their own roots, what their government was, what it is now, and what it will take to return it to those nearly perfect roots.

The Corruptor's tool: Preying on the ignorance of the people on little known clauses of the Constitution.

So it is that we must acknowledge that this article would fail in its purpose without a discussion concerning parties and what the founders actually intended in supporting the liberties of all and every kind of faction. While it is true, as referenced above that the founders knew factions were both inevitable and that their negative effects needed to be guarded against in order to preserve opposing factions and especially the People themselves, they also witnessed first hand the devastating consequences of no checks and balances, as Hamilton so precisely explained in No. 9 as well as was documented above in the party history. The construction of the Constitution was designed to preserve the most liberties as effectually sound for all people. But, irrespective of their many erroneous statements, if the main complaint by those opposed to party factions in general were about the evolution of the vast power of political parties in today's American government, would they have a legitimate complaint? Certainly.

Referencing the intent of the Framers, then, we must address a disturbing condition contrary to the intent of the overall framework of the Constitution that is little known and even less respectfully obliged. While there is much talk about the abuses of the Commerce Clause found in Article I, Sec. 8, very little if any notice is being taken to a more obscure clause of the same article, that is no less effectual.

As a foundation, it is important to understand that Section 5 of that Article, clause ii allows the Legislature to set its own rules and govern its own integrity by its own scrutiny. In order for this section to work effectively, the people must be ever vigilant in both their understanding of the Constitution and what their representatives are doing. After all, the people are the main and virtually only check on the House of Representatives. (Likewise it was for states, in relation to the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment. Now it is the sole, ominous responsibility of the People to be experts in their knowledge and political skills in order to keep both Houses in check. And now there is nothing in this regard to keep the people in check.)

The Congress, as stipulated in the Constitution, sets its own rules. Both Houses of Congress, protected by the Constitution, have provided parties, originally as a voice, to control the affairs of both houses under the rules. The dominant party has the right to determine the House leadership and chairmanships in both houses, respectively. These, subsequently, determine what legislation goes forward from the committees.

Clearly this was not the intent of the Framers--any of them--to have parties, a major faction, controlling either house of the Congress. That goes against everything they stated in assuring checks and balances in government, providing that no section of the public be bullied by another in the form of a faction. What the Congress has done with rules is a flagrant violation of the intent of the Constitution to keep the abuses of party factions at bay. In fact, representatives of the people, either wittingly or unwittingly through ignorance of the Constitution, have opened the doors wide for faction to control the country. Americans are partly unaware that the rules are the impetus behind the powerful party structure. Legislation that represents the people is denied or approved by the prevailing party of power. This is the precise situation that raised the angry Colonists ire over 'virtual' representation as opposed to actual representation, when some representatives in the House of Commons were not actually representing anyone, but rather Parliament itself, viz. the Lords' dominance. When Colonists first wrote pamphlets against the lack of proper representation it was with a view of England. But the problem eventually came the way of the Colonies as well. Hamilton neither implemented the party system in America, nor did he create the party methodology to politics. The former was an evolution of philosophies in accordance with the Constitutional ideals, originating, as already said, from England. But Andrew Jackson did the latter.

It was not until Andrew Jackson that the nation saw a party directly influence politics for the party's sake. As has been stated, prior to this time, a party, as a faction, was a voice. Jackson was the first president to veto legislation, not on Constitutional grounds, but solely on party ideology and platform. The party evolved from a voice to a power machine. Until that time, party affiliation was more an alliance between the opposing ideals of the Constitution rather than actual power. From Jackson, an era of party dominance has evolved into a massive faction likened to the impetus behind the English rebellion in the 1760's and subsequent rebellion by the Colonists in the '70's on what they saw as representation from somewhere vague to no one in particular but in the best interest of the government itself as the dominant faction.

The Constitution and its intent hold the answers.

Sound familiar? It should, when we do not learn from history viz learning it, we are doomed to repeat it. One answer to this dilemma is to insist Congress correct the abuse of faction power primarily via political parties. Short of a Constitutional amendment, an act of Congress, on the demand of the People, could stipulate that parties cannot control committees or the appointment of the House Speaker. Add to that the restriction of any other faction that could possibly monopolize the legislative rules process and this would reflect what the Framers had in mind from the outset. And to assure that the proper interests of the people are upheld, qualifications for committee appointments, and especially leadership positions within those committees should be determined by individual worthiness, rather than party or other faction affiliation.

The primary issue at hand is not party control, however. It remains, and will so, that it is the critical need for proper and truthful widespread education of the People of their Constitution from the perspective of those who created it--not revisionists. Otherwise, their ignorance will make them prey to every whim and desire of groups who, under the Framer's definition--however ill conceived--are a faction. Without a concerted effort to study by the People, every manipulation by their elected representatives to garner power through the parties, rather than hear the voice of the People will continue to prevail.

Sources for critical reading:
Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay, Madison
The Great Republic: A History of the American People, Bailyn, Davis, Donald, et. al.
Political Parties in the New Nation, William Chambers
The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, Noble Cunningham

A Case for 10th Amendment Sovereignty: Texas dukes it out with the Federal government over TSA personal violations that are against state Penal Code

2011-05-25T19:14:00.005-05:00

The City of Houston has three major international airports, Houston Intercontinental, Hobby International, and Ellington. TSA security teams search at all three airports using the Whole Body Imaging machines and physically invasive pat downs which TSA officers are "trained" to touch private parts four times. It is an unfortunate event that the general public is not standing up, wholesale, against such procedures that are far from within the Federal government's authorized duty to conduct. This is a violation of Texas Statute which defines sexual assault extensively, including coersion by force of threat. If a person refuses this abuse, TSA, under its rules will fine the person $20,000 and restrict their movement by forbidding the person to travel.

Because of the conflict and gross violation of the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments, three bills were introduced in the Texas Legislature with heavy bi-partisan support: HB1937, HB 1938, and HCR 80 deal with the dignity of persons traveling and reaffirm state law which protects citizens from sexual assault, including acts forced by coersion upon a person under threat. The bills also reaffirm the 4th Amendment that requires legitimate warrants from probable cause. (The TSA rules provide absurd penalties as mentioned above, plus possible jail time.)

Because the Texas legislature understood its role in enforcing laws that the federal government has no true jurisdiction on, a notice (read: threat) came from the Department of Justice, warning the legislature to kill HR 1937 or "consider the consequences." Senate sponsor Dan Patrick, moved to pull the bill.

This is quite unfortunate and causes wonderment, in light of important opinions defending the sovereignty of states to legislate, and the federal government's Consitutionally prohibited power to do so to the states. And one has to wonder why the state, on behalf of millions who travel in and out of Houston Intercontinental, Hobby International, and Ellington has dumped at least one of the bills, HR1937 instead of defending it. All good sound bills, this issue promises to return on the same or another form.

In an Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997, Printz v.United States, Justice Scalia, speaking for the panel to reaffirm both the 4th and 5th Amendments and especially the 10th Amendment, said,

>...the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Id., at 187.
The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Id., at 188. [Emphasis added.]

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution clarifies what the Framers expected and was again reaffirmed in the 1997 case:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

There are no caviats, exceptions, or exclusions. TSA under the federal order of President Obama clearly is not within Constitutional jurisdiction. The amendment further clarifies:

...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This clause of the amendment guarantees that innocent citizens are just that, innocent. Probable cause is not the same as "possible cause." The Framers (and Founders, who are not one and the same), were quite aware of flagrant violations of the people at the hands of their governments. "Possible cause" was the standard from which they bolted--knowing that governments who seize the people out of fear overcome them through tyrany.

The Fifth Amendment says, "No person [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due precess of law," which prohibits TSA from restricting their movement without conviction of, or suspiscion of an actual crime. (Recall the absurdly severe penalties for not complying to sexual abuse.)

The Tenth Amendment grants all rights to the states and people not specifically assigned to the federal government.

So when the Federal government claims national security as the precepice behind their assaults upon the people, it is a huge offense to the people. In the apt words of Constitutional researcher, Rob Natelson,

"Wow. This looks like someting that (Roman Emperor) Septimius Severus would have sent to the local officials...It reminds one eerily of the kinds of communications that started to come out from the Emperor to the local cities of the Roman Empire, beginning the course of the ultimate destruction of local government."

Citizens of Houston and elsewhere should write their Texas legislators regarding all three Resolutions requiring that HR1937 be revisited next year and the two remaining bills be defended.

We are not in Rome.

Less of the same is still the same

2011-05-18T21:29:00.002-05:00

A recent article by the Heritage Foundation cites Representative Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the budget by nearly $6 trillion, $5.8 trillion, to be precise. The report also indicates Ryan's plan will eventually provide vouchers for health services in lieu of Medicare, "(approved by the government, of course)," by 2022. While the Representative's budget reduction plan is admirable for what it does, it also profoundly demonstrates a frustrating problem that all Constitutionalists see, for what it doesn't do. There is no loss of ideas floating around, claiming to be unique, avant garde, true conservative, and a return to the Founders ideals but in reality are nothing less than the status quo.

Contrary to what was designed, the system we currently have is a National, not a Federal, one. It is a somewhat socialistic, not a capitalist, one. And all the answers to date, seek to remain in the systems that are destroying us, rather than look at the blue print--the Constitution--that would give us a completely different set of solutions, answers, and paradigms. Ryan's plan--touted as the most conservative--does not remove a national system to restore the U.S. to a Federal governmental system. It simply attempts to make it smaller. If Americans want true improvement, they must look beyond reducing the size of government to changing the nature of governance back to the original intent.

There is not one idea currently being forwarded that removes our current socialistic system. Instead they simply act as a mechanism to slow down the system. The problem is not that we are going to fast (or even too slow) but that we are on the wrong track. In other words, today's solutions, while they may indicate a dramatic move to the right, no more demonstrate thinking outside the box than if King George backed off of blocking the harbor from other ships selling tea, but still refrained from giving the colonist what they really wanted, true representation and liberty--the freedom to live as they saw fit without intervention by the government.

Let us understand a couple of important paradigms that are missing in today's dialog on solutions. First, our choices are not "all or nothing," where if we stop programs such as federal Social Security funding, it means, over night, people will be, almost literally on the streets; And, if we stop federal funding of education, education will stop; if we stop road construction, roads will no longer be built; And, if we stop nearly all programs on the federal level, those programs will stop being provided. This is wrong thinking. The solution is not whether we want the program or not, but whether the states want the program or not. The federal government, under the Constitution has no choice in the matter of most bureaucracies: it just isn't within its jurisdiction to provide them. Period.

The only way to truly reduce federal spending to constitutional levels is to remove all programs and departments from Federal control to the states. While this idea might cause some to see black before their eyes believing the federal government to be the provider that removing the current provider is to remove the service, it is actually not the case.

Education, Road/Highway Construction, grants of all sorts, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Commerce, Health and Disease control, the Sciences/ Arts, Industry and all manner of funding for anything not listed in Art. I Sec. 8, nor prohibited in Sec.10, should be shifted to the state level. Dictating to the states that they must submit a transition plan to Congress to take over all of these bureaucracies that Congress has been funding. Since laws created on the federal level have actually forced virtually every bureaucracy upon the states , transitions would be relatively simple, given that they already exist. Congress need not, and indeed should not, approve state plans, but only observe that each state has come up with their own plan. Each state should be free to continue the departments on their individual state level, or phase any number of them out. But the money for these bureaucracies also stays with the states. Economy 101 will show that getting rid of the middleman will automatically reduce the expense of these "services". The Federal budget has thereby, just been drastically reduced--not by a few trillion dollars, but many trillions. And the states, shaped by their individual cultures and people will become more distinctly unique as the Founders expected.

To illustrate: Let's say hypothetically, that the federal budget for education is $400 billion. That is $400 billion that is first paid to federal employees for administering to each and every state, regulating each and every state, and dispensing funds according to how its dictates those funds. Because of the overwhelming size, this will take the lion's share of the budget, say, perhaps, 35%-40% of the budget. Once that level of staff is paid, money goes to the states for their staff, perhaps 20%, which varies according to the demographics of each state. Once those are paid, money finally trickles down to where legislators and bureaucrats claim the money goes--the classroom., which sees the remainder of 40% of the original budget. These numbers are simply to illustrate a point of how the dispersement works. Along with this dispersement system comes the mandates by the federal government, who sees no classrooms in person, yet tells the states and their respective local schools what they shall and shall not do according to legislators, not educators or parents. This is not news, yet we have not removed the department but only created a monster of it since its inception in 1965.

Social Security, arguably the grandest sacred cow in federal government is also the most destructive. Its Ponzy system actually bleeds the government like a parasite. Because so many people would be affected with a blunt termination of the system, it leaves many thinking the system must continue federally. This is simply not so. The system can transfer to the state level where each state could determine whether to phase out the system all together, privatize it, modify it, or continue it without the "middleman", regulating it as they see fit for their individual citizens.

All this arguing over the budget, and how much to cut where, reminds me of an incident when I was about 10 years old. While visiting at a friend's home, I and several others gathered around my friend's sister who was crying over a serious error in judgment she made to a painting. She decided to remove the object of distraction from the painting--it just didn't fit. Comments flowed in from everyone about the color she was mixing in preparation to repaint, and remove the error. One said her color was too dark. Another said it was too light. Being an artist myself, I simply looked at the painting and said the color she mixed depended upon where she started to repaint over her mistake. The problem was never about the right color, but where she was painting. Likewise, if we argue about how much to cut from the budget but don't realize the problem with the budget is only secondary to the fact that what is being budgeted simply doesn't belong there in the first place, we will never solve the problem.

The American Gardeners View of Obama's Head in the Sandbox Deceptions

2011-04-15T10:56:00.019-05:00

There is a beauty to gardening. Gardeners are thinkers. And they are honest. They have to be. There is no way to lie or cheat at gardening. One is forced to plan, prepare, solve problems and work honestly else the evidence will be overwhelming that one has not done so.

This is my first year putting in a garden at this home. It has been quite an adventure. The large corner of the yard I designated for the better part of my vegetable garden is the domestic equivalent of a modern archeological dig. Part was apparently a mechanic’s junkyard. And another part was a former sand box. That is perfect, I reasoned, because the native soil, black as the ace of spades and pretty thick with clay, could use a bit of “sandy loam”. So I spread out the sand and turned it under. To my surprise, were many little toys—sandbox type of toys to which a two to four year old child would gravitate. My mind wondered.

I was transformed back to the day of my own children and their sandbox, which was, ironically, right next to my gigantic garden spot full of salsa type vegetable plants. I planted tomatoes galore, onions and peppers—a variety to give ample opportunity to create several kinds of salsa. My children’s sandbox, on the other hand, was far from an instrument of productivity.

It was the playground for vice and trouble. On one occasion, my children, in collusion with a neighborhood of children, decided to build a bon fire in the sandbox resulting in flames high enough to reach the branches of the towering trees above it. “What were you thinking?” I asked. “Uh dunno,” came the silly reply from not one but all the indicted children. Neighbors were sent packing. My children were banned from the pantry where matches were kept. Everyone was grounded from playing with cohorts for a few days. Suddenly my mind snapped back to an even older memory.

My oldest son, using his bubble lawn mower, nearly went over the edge of a steep embankment on our property, leading to a river at the bottom. As the weight of his small lawnmower overpowered his even smaller body, I turned my head in time to see him begin to slip over the side. But I caught his leg on the way down and pulled him up. Panic-stricken and trying to regain regular breathing, I asked, “You know you are supposed to stay away from the bank of the river: What were you doing?” “Uh dunno,” came the puzzled reply, as if nothing had or was nearly about to happen. My mind leapt forward to another day.

My boys were teenagers now. Bored out of their minds one day, they decided they were going to head to the high school near a relative’s home to play. (It is probably important to know at this point that my children were with those same co-conspirators from days gone by and bonfires raged in the back yard.) Thinking it a clever adventure they decided to enter the school. It did not strike then as odd that it was nighttime, dark, and the school was locked and abandoned for the day. Soon after they left, they were home again—after security showed up to investigate a possible burglary. I couldn’t resist, “What were you thinking?”

“Uh dunno.”

Reality is a rude alarm clock. There I was, raking and leveling my garden, taking out a periodic toy. After I finished preparing my garden with the right soil for it to flourish, I laid out a schematic, planned my strategy for keeping one kind of crop from being invaded by another and preventing contact with related crops so no cross-pollination would occur. Nothing is worse that a squash-flavored cantaloupe! Planning of plants that are different from each other but could work together to the advantage of the garden, rather than fighting for space and light, I arranged taller crops behind shorter ones that need more sunlight; and in front of those, like lettuce, that need a shield from heat by the piercing sun. This would assure that my plants would flourish, I reasoned.

It got me thinking: There are some basic, simple rules in nature and gardening: Take the time to plant well what you actually want to reap: Don’t put plants that aren’t good for each other together. Water. Get rid of the weeds. Be watchful of intruders, like birds, bugs, squirrels and other apparently ‘harmless” animals that would love to rob you of your booty. Then harvest when the time is right, when fruits are ripe and vegetables are tender. My mind flashed to the conundrum of less basic and apparently more convoluted issues, like the latest news of what is going on in the Middle East, and in particular Libya. It has become blazingly clear that if there ever were a slogan this President could use for his catchall style of governing, it would be “uh dunno”.

The war, oddly called Operation Odyssey Dawn would have been better named Awkwardly Done. It is doomed to add to the string of failed wars over the last four plus decades. As it is, Odyssey Dawn is code for “Operation Uh Dunno.” Mr. President, exactly why are we in Libya? Americans are bewildered and thinking “uh dunno.” The President has been mostly silent—body language for “uh dunno.” Mr. President, what is your international policy? Do you have one? Because Americans don’t know what it is. Nor does the rest of the world, it seems. His policy—or lack of a coherent one—is all over the map. “Uh dunno,” describes it. Well, Mr. President, could you at least give us an explanation for getting U.N. approval on this Libyan attack? Why did you do that instead of approaching Congress? “Uh dunno.” My mind flashed back to little boys with blank faces showing stunned surprise that I would ask such a question, when I knew the answer. Of course, like children caught in their stupidity or their vise, Obama really does know why he does what he does. The problem is that the honest answer would lead him to permanent grounding. And he knows it. So a sophisticated diversion of slippery-tongued diatribe is what we get. —In other words, “Uh-dunno.”

I pondered to myself, the “why?” Why would anyone want to look stupid, or be suspected of incompetence when they were not? That answer came easily. The Constitution.

The Constitution holds no ruthless penalty for stupidity or incompetence, other than the humiliation of a failed attempt for a second term—knowing, at least expecting, as the Framers did, that the People would fire an incompetent president. But the Constitution does have penalties for deliberate sabotage of the nation’s welfare, loss of national security, rape of liberties, and designing a deliberate attempt to surrender the country to another. At its worst, that is called treason.

If it were just a lack of expertise in one area, I would not have gotten so irritated as I thought and hoed. Many presidents, have difficulty in one realm of their duties or another. But this is neither an issue of incompetence nor a lack of thorough forethought. In fact, though I’m certain that the President, in some respects may innocently be a bumbling buffoon, maybe, I would rather give him better credit. He deserves it. What he seems to be is more a mixture of many faces: bumbling, as he touches his nose to the dirt in an awkward bow to—up until that moment—equal foreign dignitaries; defiant toward the Constitution, many times twisting it; and other times completely ignoring it, such as turning to the U.N. rather than his constitutionally appointed council (we call the Congress) for a determination on war. He was cowardly when averting the Senate on significantly important administrative posts; was a bully when leaping on a chance to attack one of his own states—the border state of Arizona, infested with a deeply oozing canker from invasion across the international border—when trying to defend themselves against that invasion, (which the Federal government is Constitutionally bound to protect from insurrection and invasion, by the way). But then, when another state, Utah, creatively legislates to violate and usurp Federal control and jurisdiction of immigration so they can create an open door for illegals to enter before May 11, 2011, his Cabinet is conspicuously silent. If one were not watching copiously they would find Obama’s policies dizzying.

It is not simply that Mr. Obama is being guided, instructed, and persuaded by those who have unscrupulous designs, irrefutable as that may be as days pass and evidence piles, but that he has layers of personal protection while he rapidly maneuvers the United States into the hands of not one, but many enemies—most notably the nations of Islam weirdly combined with Communist cabinet members. Creating—or allowing—this kind of chaos will provide the ultimate fertile ground Obama is planning for that a bumbling buffoon could never methodically plan.

I let my garden rest. Rather, I rested from gardening. But when I returned days later, weeds were emerging, and it was clear I needed to guard my tender crops from the ravaging hunger of blujays, robins and obese squirrels, who had begun to pick off seeds. Easily done, I thought. A couple hours later, synthetic look-alike snakes rested among the crops. That kept the invaders out. Again, I recalled the condition of America that Obama has put us in. I remembered a new report of another accosting by TSA of a little girl, and I beat the weeds with my hoe.

The new TSA policy of Whole Body Imaging that displays invasive detail of the anatomy, and “pat-downs” that are demoralizingly intrusive to the point that any other citizen who engaged in the same behavior toward another would be sentenced for sexual abuse and have a nice term lease at the state penitentiary are examples of Obama strategy. I believe he is testing the waters to see just how submissive and ignorant of their rights and dignity Americans are. It is imperative in determining the best opportunity for an easy revolution of the government—dissolution of the Constitution that the people would accept with little revolt. Granted, TSA policy is a wholesale violation of the 4th and 5th amendments, to say the least. But the ignorant-on-its-face montage Obama displays to the public and the nefarious pattern that is emerging show two different faces of the man. To Obama, the fact that Former Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, who is also owner of The Chertoff Group that markets Rapiscan, a major provider for whole body imaging machines, and periodic companion of Obama on long distance trips, it is another “uh dunno” moment. What else would he do under the guise of national security, to nurture his collusionist courtship along with other financiers such as George Soros, the latter who makes his millions at the sacrifice of people and countries? Yet, he refuses to close or protect the borders or improve immigration policy. And makes statements regarding businesses where he may have no friends, such as this one, directed to the oil industry, referring to eliminating their tax breaks, “They’re doing just fine without [it].” But we’re not.

To add, research shows effective preventive measures for terrorism are found in other segments of the travel process and among specific profiles, which have nothing to do with color and everything to do with a pattern of intent. Most terrorists are discovered far back in the early process of booking the flight and further back, to the process of entering the United States or an ally country long before standing in a line of passengers politely awaiting a forced violation of their person. The President’s pattern, once appearing ignorant, confusing and inconsistent, is clearly emerging. The pattern is simply to practice fascism in destroying any semblance of constitutionality in our nation. If he can say, “uh, dunno,” he escapes the charges and sentence of treason, or at the very best, the heavy arm of Congressional scrutiny in an impeachment hearing.

But the President’s tactics underestimates the response by Americans and thus the outcome of his plans. Americans will fight the invasion of their garden irrespective of a gardener who says he intends to take good care of it, but his actions show a completely different objective. It would be like claiming to protect the garden by hoeing the sandbox instead. Either he is stupid, or he believes everyone else is.

The irrational stream of actions appear inconsistent, but following the stream, as with this latest escapade in Libya, is consistent to his purpose but without thought to the real outcome of that purpose. It is not the one Obama anticipated he will achieve. What he is actually doing is tantamount to planting a packet of seeds everyone thinks will be watermelon, Obama thinks are beets, but are really dandelions. It seems obvious that Obama wants Americans to believe he is engaging in a democratic crusade similar to Bush’s freedom cause in Iraq. Putting aside the obvious difference in how the two engagements came about—one through Congress and the other blatantly ignoring it and the War Powers Act of 1973, (read: Constitutionality), Obama is, at the least, in serious need of some good old fashioned agrarian know-how. Take the time to think through the entire outcome. Don’t put us in a bad spot. Find allies to help us grow, rather than bad associations that make us fight. Give us lots of room to grow. Get rid of pesky varmints that want to invade our territory; and don’t allow future intruders to invade our space. Make a plan that can be seen by everyone with an expected result.

While this would be the strategy of someone who really wanted success, it is not Obama’s. The President is not a gardener. In fact, his strategy is akin to deciding to deliberately do everything possible to destroy the garden so he has a reason to buy the high-rise condo instead. Which is actually what the purpose of all the bungling is. Fail for an opportunity’s sake.

The latest crisis is no less confirming of all the previous ones. Because conservatives in the House promised their constituency they would work to balance the budget and significantly reduce government spending now and over time, House Republicans have refused to approve any budget that included large amounts of spending and that does not support those promised cuts. This, as the news—so well covered said, led to a standoff and possible shut down of government. An opportunity arose: The President called the Senate President, House Leader, and other key negotiators together to his office to work out a deal. A day after this visit, the sides agreed and a budget compromise for that spending bill was reached. But Mr. Obama declared after the announcement that he would veto it. —He is hoeing the sandbox and not the garden. Another budget bill is coming forth, with barely any budget cuts. It will undoubtedly lead to another impasse. Even though Mr. Obama has insinuated that there will be no debate about “family planning” (code word for abortion), this latest bill reduced Medicare and eliminates spending to Planned Parenthood in lieu of huge budget slashes. It is the bill Mr. Obama has insinuated he will veto.

My mind meandered through time to numerous Obama lapses of clear thought. During his campaign, then Senator Obama declared that closing Guantanamo was not only the right thing to do but insinuated that there were no excuses why the facility was still be open, as it would be an easily accomplished task to close it. There were no excuses. Keeping it open was tantamount to crimes against humanity. But now, two years later, the President has not only left it conspicuously open but finally said it would remain so.

His solution to a burgeoning budget, an atmospheric climb in debt, inflation, and unemployment all have had one solution: More government is the answer, he declared with believable conviction. What that meant, as Vice President Biden so aptly stated to defend his boss, is borrowing to reduce debt. The pen is mightier than just about everything, it seems, (even sound math and the hoe), especially when signing bills for spending. The so-called stimulus proved to do nothing more to the economy than increase the tax burden upon the backs of babes yet to be born and line the pockets of those same huge organizations and financiers. Undaunted by minor details, Obama got his magic pen out again signing more legislation for more free money in further stimulus that stimulated nothing short of American rage. Ignoring Congress’s Constitutional duty by attacking another country—and supporting the side with the worst radical Islamic group; stifling the economy by sabotaging budget bills; placing moratoriums on certain industries without cause, resulting in doubling in gas prices since he took office; a chronic misuse of his authority as Commander in Chief, and on and on, all hinge on one answer: “These things take time,” he has said. Translation, “uh dunno what I’m doing.”

It occurred to me that Mr. Obama had never gardened a day in his life. If he had, he would have appreciation and integrity for the simple truths life—they apply to running a country. —Take time to plant well what is best to reap; don’t put us where we don’t get along and will fight to grow. Keep out invaders—don’t let them take over our land. Start and end with a plan. Get rid of intruders threatening life and preventing growth and opportunities to be productive. And understand that there is no cheating in the garden: the evidence will reveal the gardeners intent.

A few supporters of Obama will say he is no different than past presidents. Of course we know that to be untrue by the pattern of their policies, not a cherry-picked decision here and there to compare. Past presidents, on both sides of the isle, pale in comparison to Obama’s deliberate pattern of pretending ignorance and sometimes incompetence through constant “uh dunno” answers and actions, as protection against the greater and deliberate destruction of America’s Constitution. This can be seen through the flagrantly obvious: No other president in the last century has had the advantage of a very vocal American population willing to defend the Constitution as Obama has had at his disposal, despite his apparent unwillingness to hear them. It is no wonder, really. While Americans are gardening and can see with plainness this evidence of the work, Obama is in the sandbox. The saddest part is that when The People ask the President why he is in the sandbox, he will say, “uh dunno,” even though we really know precisely why.

Federal Shut Down not a Solution to Budget Discord

2011-04-06T14:32:00.009-05:00

If the House of Representatives does not come up with an interim budget bill, the Federal Government will technically shut down after this coming Friday. Of course, the chances of that happening are not particularly high. But suppose it did?

Proponents of shutting down the federal government rally behind the idea that the federal government is so ridiculously large and the debt toll so debilitating that doing so is justified. But those who advocate this strategy lack imagination to what that could mean. The Federal Government is actually mandated to perform certain tasks as defined in the Constitution. Which means that as much as 'de-funding' is a mechanism for stopping unconstitutional acts from moving forward, negligently letting the Federal Government shut down--including departments mandated by the Constitution are, in theory, unconstitutional.

We know most liberals don't want the Federal Government to shut down. But this situation brings forth a compelling argument by conservatives opposed to letting the Federal Government shut down as well. For one, whether conservative or liberal it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to ignore its responsibilities to the states for the post office, postal roads; patents, trademarks, and copyrights; protection from invasion or attack, maintaining the various branches of the military--which also includes, by the way, those in harm's way overseas in the newly created war against Libya. A shut down would also include stopping proceedings on bankruptcies, regulating money (that would be our economy), inferior courts (Federal courts in every state), and stopping all funds to states' departments that are not funded from previous interim budget bills. Putting aside whether those are duties expounded upon in the Constitution or not, stopping then would result in stopping state budgets as well. Not passing an interim bill would also include, of course, closing of the capitol.

While it is easy to sympathize with those who are disgusted with the bloated federal government--its size, its cost, and its usurped power--balanced only by its generalized stupor of reason, it is neither effective nor productive to resolving those problems by a shut down of the Federal Government. A shut down is not a solution to the problem of overspending or unconstitutional behaviors. This strategy is like instituting a binge/purge program to loose weight. The problem remains.

Consider these scenarios with a shut-down: First and foremost would not be my postponed letter from Aunt Betsy, but enemies that, knowing exactly what we do--have the advantage knowing that a possible shut down may be eminent--could take advantage of such a weakness. Attacks would not be followed by defense, unless the federal government didn't have to call foreword any reserves, nor promise income not already dispensed through the previous temporary budget to other military personnel.

In addition, states would pay dearly. Never mind the point that many state budgets consist of Federal mandates forcing the States into unconstitutional functions. The point now, is that they are funded in this manner, and there are citizens of various states, that will suffer instead of those culpable. State roads and highway construction and maintenance would suffer. Schools would suffer immensely, since much of their funding comes through money appropriated based upon NCLB compliance. In part or in whole, everyday functions that go thanklessly unnoticed, or cantankerously cursed--but still a thoughtless given, will stop.

A federal shutdown is also expensive. It will lead to the exact opposite result that the shutdown--like a massive demonstration--was expecting to produce. Regardless of whether we want less government interference--and that is the goal, if we look at the directives in the Constitution, the solution cannot be an all or nothing approach to a Federal Government. That would be to step back in time to the pre-convention era, during the Confederacy, when the thirteen states were suffering from lack of funding on the federal level. No services to the umbrella of states were able to be performed. And the states were in jeopardy of attack for lack of protection. Government confusion resulted. That battle has already been fought. That war already won. The solution already created.

Neither the problem, nor its solution, is an all or nothing conundrum. Rather, it is simply a matter of the will to govern according to the intent of the Constitution, void of irresponsible frittering away of American resources. A shut down is the American constituent's lazy-man solution to the problem, for it requires nothing of them, just as it requires nothing of their representatives. The real solution is for Americans to step up, speak up, and inform their representatives that they must responsibly fund the Federal Government or someone else will be appropriating money instead. We cannot afford any other options.

Lawmaking Conundrums: Understanding the Relationship Between the Policy and Underlying Principles that Produce Good and Bad Law

2011-03-24T02:21:00.010-05:00

One of the most fundamental problems with lawmaking is the ability to see the difference between the underlying principles and how the practice of those principles is applied to law. The practice of principles is what becomes policy. Ignoring or misunderstanding how an idea becomes the practice–can be as bad as a misguided principle.

When the sides of an issue brew debate about their ideology in support or defense of a bill, it usually circles around all accusing the other sides of misguided principles. Debate degenerates into attacks that scurvy politicians, whose nefarious intentions are designed to rob and plunder society or destroy Constitutional ideals, have based a certain piece of legislation on some lack of correct principles or even a deliberate derailing of our constitutional foundations. Since usually all sides play one Constitutional card or another in their defense or attack of another viewpoint, it becomes a dizzyingly moot point of debate for most people. For those bills that are seriously flawed Constitutionally—and we could discuss many here—there is obvious evidence of a serious need for education by the American public (from whence legislators come) on Constitutional studies. We will lay that discussion aside, noting that an article illustrating that need was previously written by this author.

Sometimes the rhetoric about a principle is so thick, legislators—and the public—cannot see straight enough to realize there are other reasons a bill is bad: It may not be a matter of a bad ideal but a bad way of going about it. Upon scrutiny, this may consequently reveal an even larger principle that was overlooked. There are several reasons for bad policy slipping through the legislative process. And they have to do with skill sets.

One critical skill needed to differentiate good legislation from bad is the ability to see ahead what will happen upon taking the steps engrossed in a bill. I taught my children, when young, to play Chess . The game requires of its participants the ability to look at all possibilities of their actions and their opponent’s. It is the perfect trainer for anticipating multiple cause and effect actions. It also trains players to think well in advance to prevent losses. A perfect example of this lack occurred last year when the City of Houston had a resolution on the November ballot relating to the city’s serious flood problems.

The idea of providing a mechanism for controlling flooding is good. But the way the bill was written lacked foresight. It gave a spending minimum but no maximum, with 20 years to spend—carte blanche. The bill did not specify which sections of the massive city would be affected. And while it provided a formula for calculating the new tax, the mayor, who had a great part in creating the bill, insinuated that no one would be exempt from the tax, including already tax-exempt entities. The bill passed on the claimed idea of providing needed infrastructure rather than being rejected for its enactment policies–or total lack of them. After the fact, public hearings are being conducted to establish what should be done, but the final decision is the Council and Mayor’s to make. Because policy was ignored, the perceived principle was trumped when a more fundamental one manifested itself–that elected officials could have absolute power, with no caveats, over the people. This was obviously not the intention of the public that voted record numbers of elected officials out of office on the latter abuse in that very same election. They simply did not have the skills to see how the policy impacted future moves.

Another reason bad policy is implemented is about bad math. It isn’t enough to understand the principles. It is not enough to think through the various ways a bill will play out. One needs to hone logic skills and see when something doesn’t add up. If you asked a legislator what two plus two is, they would most likely roll their insulted eyes, and wonder why you would ask such a question when the obvious answer is four. But many times we look at ”five” and don’t pay attention to the fact that their original equation was two plus two–not two plus three.

And while these specific examples are fresh today, there are plenty of similar examples from year to year. The problem is chronic and universal. (Hence the need for understanding.) And thankfully for the intent of this article, only, there is an ample supply of examples. Here is another one: The Texas legislature is currently considering House Bill 3451, produced with the idea that good nutrition is vital to the health of people; and that tax dollars should not promote poor nutrition. It could hardly be doubted that these are sound principles. But, using those principles, the bill forces those in the food stamp program to restrain from purchasing foods the government does not deem fit for consumption, prohibiting foods with “minimal nutritional value”. That sounds logical enough. And it sounds like a wholesome bill. But there is a problem with two plus two equaling four. It doesn't. The bill lists a plethora of unhealthy dietary ingredients and their supposed health conditions that result. Sodium increases high blood pressure; sugar leads to diabetes; fat and high cholesterol lead to heart disease, and so forth. The problem is those correlations aren’t necessarily accurate. Some people actually have a reverse problem to high blood pressure, needing high volumes of salt intake. While the arguments in the bill relate sugar to diabetes, it does not acknowledge that sugar—usually candy—is needed for diabetics on insulin to balance their insulin intake or they can go into insulin shock. The suppositions also do not account for differences in body metabolism and so forth. While they are generally true, they are not specifically so.

The bill also raises questions about whether those on food stamp subsidies should be penalized for such. Will potato chips hit the banned list? If a family barbecues hamburgers, should the traditional chips that go with the nutrition be banned? What about the hamburger its self? Based upon the opening arguments for the bill, those would be banned as well because the fat may cause clogged arteries and an eventual heart attack. To what end will the government go, if this bill passes, in determining what foods are good and which are not? Two plus two is not adding up to four here. This policy could actually cause as many problems as it solves and be dangerous: For those with the less common opposite conditions than sited in the bill, the damage caused could potentially create more health problems and consequently more Medicaid or Medicare expenses on the back side. Very bad math.

The policies created in HB3451 expose a larger principle to challenge: In the face of a public demanding less government interference, it assumes that if the government is in a citizen’s business, it should be in it even more, and to whatever extent it deems justified, rather than the opposite stance of less interference. It brings up the question: Can the government decide to increase its interference because it is already interfering? —Bad math, bad Chess playing, and bad lawmaking.

But other governments–states, municipalities and counties–are certainly not immune to this kind of problem. A bill just passed in the Utah State Legislature is a masterpiece of bad legislation and should be the model for text books teaching public policy. A set of bills claiming to prevent and remedy illegal immigration problems, and complaining that the federal government is doing nothing, is so latent with the sort of problems mentioned above that it will more than likely do anything but eliminate illegal immigration. Inspired by Arizona’s tenacity, HB116, part of the Utah Compact, goes far and beyond the imagination, creating its own guest worker program, collecting federal withholding taxes of illegal aliens and allowing anyone and everyone so long as they can get to Utah before sometime in May of 2011 to reside there.

To hone in on specific illustrations, let’s pretend there is no controversy over the legitimacy of guest worker programs on the whole, and no argument about the Constitutionality of federal income tax so we stay focused on problems with policy. A state with a guest worker program at all becomes problematic. In theory, a state could actually be culpable of harboring fugitives with its own guest worker program, if they provide an incentive for illegal aliens rather than following a federal program. Crossing not just the U.S. international border, but other states’ lines to get to Utah violates other state’s rights to manage illegal immigration by their laws. Utah does not have the right to force other states to oblige illegal aliens crossing their land to make their way to Utah.

Assuming the Federal Government would go along with this without accusing the state of encroaching upon its duties, the basic premise of the bill goes against the clause in HB70 that states there shall be no encouragement of illegal immigration. As we have seen already, what is not in a bill can be as problematic as what is in a bill. Because 116 has no set number of allowable work permits, it sets no limit to the number of illegal aliens that can come into the state to work, thus creating an open invitation for illegal aliens to come to Utah. Not even the Federal Government designs guest worker bills in that way. Federal bills have a cap on numbers of participants in the program with a set of qualifications stipulated.

Whenever a law is designed to provide funding through the very problem it claims to remove, it is designed to perpetuate the problem instead of eliminating it. In this case, penalties, fees, and fines by the illegal criminal pay for the program. Thus, it needs criminals to fund it and keep the program in existence. Historically, this circular type of funding mechanism never manages to accomplish anything but perpetuate the bureaucracy, increase the government’s burden, and the taxpayer bill down the road.

Additionally, the way the law is written, the program will not receive its operating funds until after an illegal alien is found guilty.One is only called a criminal after due process. Fiscal notes define how much a bill will cost to start the enactment of a law, not how much it will cost over time to maintain it. The fiscal note claims there is no fiscal impact.That is not so. It cannot be so. There must be people in place–training for police, lawyers, judges, clerks, administrative personnel, and so forth–before the first incident takes place. The system begs the question: where do the initial funds to operate this program come from if there is no note to provide them? Extremely bad math.

Another section calls for a “mechanism” for collecting state and federal taxes but does’t specify what that is. Lacking specific details, and without specifying the “mechanism” in the bill, like the Houston Council and Mayor who have full power after the vote to do whatever they desire, a bureaucracy is going to have a hay-day designing what ever they want to increase their authority and power. Moreover, and more importantly, it is not in the scope of the state to collect or enforce federal withholding of any kind. This is going to be a jurisdictional and constitutional issue, and the federal government will not like the encroachment of its power. Not visualizing the moves this policy will cause will end in a check mate against Utah.

Regardless of who collects for these taxes, the policy creates a new level of bureaucracy on at least the state level and more than likely the federal level–the latter of which the state has no jurisdiction to mandate.

The bottom line is that there are some major constitutional, jurisdictional, and public policy problems with implementing UT HB116. There are so many policy problems that they overwhelm and even confuse what the principles behind them really are. It is critical for the public to understand the nuances of policy and lawmaking with respect to the principles in order to understand when their favorite issue is destroyed in the legislative process or the courts. More importantly, the public needs to understand how policies work in real life just in case a bad bill goes through because no one can add two plus two or play a good game of Chess.

(This article can also be read on The Moral Liberal.com; Examiner.com/political_buzz_in_houston, and soon to be posted to DIYgovernment.us/thinktank)

A Republican Form of Government: Wisconsin As a Case Study

2011-03-01T21:15:00.002-06:00

Every state should be sitting up and taking copious notes on the political situation unfolding in Wisconsin. What started as a fight between union and state is now far more than that and other states should take heed.

Clearly there is a debate on union power as a lopsided faction the Founders would have cringed at over the rights of individuals trampled by such. But that is a problem that pales in consideration of what is really at stake in Wisconsin as a case study for the rest of the states. Because 14 cowardly senators have gone AWOL on the state of Wisconsin citizens across the entire state are held hostage of the Republican form of government not only granted but also required of all the states in the U.S. Constitution. So important is this one universal government among all the states that the Constitution actually required the federal government protect all states’ right to it.

The 14 senators are not only acting in poor faith to their duty to represent their constituencies—as they are not taking a vote or legislating and their stand does not represent anyone, least of all their own constituents, they are preventing a representative form of government—a republican form of government—from being used in Wisconsin. Their acts actually are a form of tyranny, preventing a vote by other Senators wanting to represent their respective districts. They are violating their oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution, which expressly provides that republican government to Wisconsin.

This is even more complicated because the same clause that protects the state’s right to a Republican government specifies that the Executive branch defend that right. Another problem just availed itself: President Obama has come out in support of the unions, which by default means he has no intention of obliging Article IV, Section 4 stipulating he take action to support Wisconsin’s Republic.

But even if there is not a method of compelling and/or penalizing the AWOL senators in Senate rules, as stipulated in the Wisconsin Constitution, and even if the President of the United States is derelict in his office, Governor Walker still has recourse. He has the judicial system left and should, through the Attorney General’s office attempt to sue the individual senators for damages because they have infringed upon the constitutional right of every citizen in the state to a republican form of government.

This is a critical lesson for all other states: They should immediately enact legislation that penalizes any legislator with automatic expulsion and replacement who does not act upon his or her duty to provide a representative form of government for the people they represent, the state they are beholden to, and the United States Constitution they are sworn to support.

2011 Congress: Evidence of a brilliantly designed Constitution

2011-02-19T11:05:00.003-06:00

Founder Edmund Randolph, in the Constitutional Debates said:

Will not the people choose men of integrity, and in similar circumstances with themselves, to represent them? What laws can they make that will not operate on themselves and friends, as well as on the rest of the people? Will the people reelect the same men to repeat oppressive legislation? Will the people commit suicide against themselves, and discard all those maxims and principles of interest and self-preservation, which actuate mankind in all their transactions?

Unfortunately, the history of the last century has shown what happens when a citizenry ignores the self-inflicted wounds of apathy that Randolph argues against. One might argue that, defending the power of the House to direct election, and thus representation of the people—as a counter to the representation of the Senate on behalf of the states—was ill-conceived, or at least a naïve notion. That was at least until Friday, February 18, 2011.

Elected by the people from virtually every state across the nation in the preceding November election of 2010, the House of Representatives took remarkable and historic action. They refused to fund major sections of many departments within the Executive branch, mostly created by more liberal past Congresses. The Healthcare Act is not funded. Planned Parenthood, responsible for the bulk of nearly a half million abortions yearly, was not funded. The EPA was not funded. “Pet-projects” in districts of the Representatives supporting these measures were not funded.

While some are saying conservative representatives, as a trade off to liberals, voted to ‘defund’ projects and entities within their own districts, it may actually show Representatives’ understanding of the very concept Edmund Randolph spoke to when defending the right of the people to direct representation. The Representatives are subject to their own actions. Additionally, critics are viewing funding from the eye of socialistic paradigms, assuming that if the government doesn’t fund a project, it simply will not happen.

But contrary to the illusion portrayed by President Obama in his State of the Union address just a couple weeks ago that government funding is needed for innovation, great inventions, ingenuity and progress from our past were not projects funded by Federal grants. They were funded through the non-governmental ingenuity, imagination, and creative—sometimes very patient—collection of resources individuals and private enterprise could muster. The current House of Representatives understand this.

All the above give understanding then, to why this band of courageous legislators are cutting spending anywhere it is deemed either inappropriate, irresponsible in the context of Constitutionality, or fiscal nonsense for the government to continue to support.

But the most phenomenal occurrence is this: A witness that our Constitution works. The Congress’ most recent action proves the beauty of a highly complicated and well thought out system of checks and balances between, not just the three branches of our government, but the powers of our country: the People, the States (via the governors solely, since the 17th Amendment has rendered the Senate impotent to represent the states as originally designed), the Executive Branch (namely, the President, himself), the Senate, the House, and the Judiciary. While past Senates and Houses of Representatives, may vote in unconstitutional acts, and the President may promote them, even actively push them, in the end it is the people’s representatives who have the last say. They have been given sole power not to act on Acts of Congress. No other branch can stop the House from not acting. No other power can force the House against the will of the people. And while a president may impose his or her own agenda upon Americans, either directly, through deceptive actions or usurpation of their power, or indirectly via unfamiliar U.N. resolutions even supported by the Senate, or “closed door” legislation” (read: “back-room dealing”), in the end, the answer back on funding, may be “no, and end of debate.”

So, while Americans may slide, to suffer the consequences of neglect, current history answers Randolph’s questions, “Will the people reelect the same men to repeat oppressive legislation? Will the people commit suicide against themselves, and discard all those maxims and principles of interest and self-preservation which actuate mankind in all their transactions?”

Ultimately, the answer is no.

Our Reality

2011-02-17T16:34:00.003-06:00

Not every reality is worth sharing. But some realities are imperative.

I was listening to NPR this morning. Granted, it is usually pretty liberal and I take many reports with a grain of salt. But this morning there was one interview that intrigued me. It was with Tina Brown. Tina Brown, best known for her work with the Daily Beast and Newsweek, which are now one, had made a recent visit to Russia for a special project.

It seems some creative and entrepreneurial spirit here decided Russia needed a dose of good old-fashioned American First Amendment enterprise. A group of producers decided Russia was ripe for a reality show. When it aired, they discovered an interesting thing about Russia: They wanted no part in it.

It seems that part of their cultural paradigm is to disbelieve any reality as reality. While in America, we know some of reality TV is scripted; we also are entertained by the spontaneity of the overall experience. For many Americans--depending on the show's subject--reality shows are mere amusement; while, for others it is more akin to watching a bullfight, where the matador is the object and his prey hasn't a clue why it is in the ring with the man throwing spears at it; and still others might see it as a looking glass of their own emotions. But to Russians, growing up with the media as nothing more than propaganda, watching such a show is a frustrating exercise of wondering what the point is. Tina Brown was amused.

As Ms.Brown put it to NPR, with half a chuckle I her voice, "they just rolled their eyes" and "shrugged their shoulders." Suffice to say the idea of reality in Russia failed.

The nature of ethnocentrism.

The interview recalled to my mind my undergraduate prerequisite courses in cultural anthropology. All societies have certain characteristics in common. These integral components are what keep each culture viable. But beyond that, there are some cultures--some societies--whose basic paradigm suggests more. They believe their society is the right society, and they are duty bound to 'help' other societies understand that. This phenomenon is called ethnocentrism--a belief that one's own culture is the predominantly right--or perfect one, and therefore should be imposed upon others.

America, very guilty of such an endeavor, is not alone, however. Many cultures throughout the course of time have suffered from the same social malady. Usually, but not always, it stems from a religious belief that God has ordained them in their circumstances. This would be true of America, whose Judeo-Christian founding was certainly all about religious freedom and God given individual liberty to live as consciously driven. Ironically, the very religious sects who established themselves early in the Colonial, and pre-Colonial periods were just as vehement about their society's rightness, as the one they escaped. One main difference is that most of these sects, the Puritans, and other original Protestant sects, were not seeking to convert others, but to simply live in their perfect communities. But they did expect everyone within their community to live "in conformity." There are, however, some historical 'hot spots' of zealous Puritans who expected nearby areas to live as they. The religious persecution of the Quakers at the Bay Colony is one of the more profound historical examples. It was something of an "elbow-nudging" behavior akin to roller derby, for the most part. Again, it was ethnocentric.

Our heritage is our culture.

But the reality is that the original concept of freedom of religion has been modified over the course of 200-plus years. In reality, each group coming to America felt strongly that they had the right course and spiritual stream heavenward, hence, their need to find a refuge to practice that stream. They did not, however, believe that everyone should come to America to practice their favorite religious philosophy.

So, interestingly, while America has abandoned its early religious ideal of a place where expatriates of England go to escape worshiping as the King demanded, it has not surrendered the paradigm that America has the right culture. It is still ethnocentric. Moreover, America has come to be known as the big brother solving the world's issues through its own binoculars. When another society asks for the assistance, it is not ethnocentric. It is charity. When we shove our philosophy onto another society, there is trouble. We are seen as invaders. Likely, we are seen as confusion as well. Many societies simply do not understand a representative form of government. (We barely do.) To expect they will understand our efforts to "save" them from the travesties of their law, or dictatorial governance is ignorance of understanding that, while they may not be happy in their circumstance, they also do not understand ours or how to get here. We are ethnocentric in expecting that simply through our perceived rescue to them, they have the ability to change from their current paradigm to ours in one clean sweep.

We are not alone: Even from biblical times ethnocentrism existed. The Tribes of Judah and Ben (considered the Hebrews) thought little of the other Ten Tribes of Judah, and blamed the latter's capture into Samaria on their unrighteousness. One hundred thirty years later, the Southern Judah, befell the same fate as the Northern. Interestingly, in modern excavations of Hebrew tells, thousands of pendants with the pagan goddess of fertility embossed upon them were discovered. It correlates with the Biblical texts citing the God of the Old Testament who is repeatedly admonishing Judah to stay clear of idolatry. It appears that the Southern Tribe of Judah was not as pure as they had perceived of themselves. Though, certainly they were justified through their cultural perceptions.

There are plenty of societies whose ethnocentric behavior has mandated an Empirical order: One that means, like America, we expand our philosophy beyond the eyes' view. While, for the most part, America, until late, has not used force as an excuse to expand its view of social mores and morals upon others, there are many in history who have used brute force to expand their view of the world. The Huns, the Muslims, the Catholics, Nazi Germany, Japan, all are examples of societies that took part in an expansionist ideal of their society by force. The problem, if not already obvious, is that no society is blameless, or perfect. Some are more enlightened than others. The latter of which can be determined when observing the treatment of their own people. Those whose oppressive paradigms severely damage people of their own society, yet desire to expand their view by force upon others will ultimately cause reparations rather than enlightenment. History has made a note of it.

There is a more powerful way.

The question then, becomes, how is good will expanded? If a society is more enlightened than another (and cultural anthropologists would argue whether that is possible--or a fair analysis--since it requires one society to subjectively define another), how do they teach, mentor, or persuade another society without blatant ethnocentrism? Is there such ability? Or, should all societies stay strictly to themselves and leave others to their own paradigms, even if their own philosophical view requires 'spreading the good news" or their system and culture?

The answer, I feel, may go back to the start--with fortifying the essential elements of all societies. Those elements--characteristics, if you will, are: Enculturation; the ability and desire to pass along to the rising generations the beliefs, mores and morals of their culture; Universal language; the vested establishment of a main, universal language as a binding tie; Religion, the importance of believing similarly in a Higher Being whose dictates are universal to all in the culture; cultural modes and mores, the expected, yet oft times unspoken ways in which we conduct ourselves in public and in private; propagation, the ability and desire to carry on through generations, the people of that society; adaptability, particularly to outside forces, which threaten the viability of the culture, such as natural and unnatural calamity and devastation, war, invasions of all sorts, and so forth; and lastly, to support a system of order (governance).

Cultural Anthropologists discovered long ago, that these seven elements are essential to each other, and exist in all cultures. They are intertwined. If any one of these elements begins to unravel, they will all eventually fail; and thus, the society will dissolve. If a society is truly enlightened, living it with vigor and commitment is the singularly most effective way to ensure its success. It is also the most effective way to instill in other societies the enlightenment and "rightness" of that society. In other words, other societies will copy the example. For instance, prior to 1798, there was no other national constitution such as that in the United States. It was the first. From it, however, over 200 other nations have since copied the idea of our constitution in some part or form.

While those nations may not have copied verbatim the system held within our document, many elements have pervaded elsewhere. As America lives her founding principles, and as we rebuild losses in the links of societal elements that make up our American system and culture, our influence upon other nations is worthy of emulation without throwing it upon others.

In addition, America, to preserve our inheritance of her specific culture, and in order to sustain our viability, must, in our effort to thrive and adapt, be vigilantly on the look out of other cultures whose system of order holds a devastating paradigm to America by invasion of any kind. The Huns are no longer a threat. Hitler's regime ended. But Communists pervade throughout the world, and in America, where they are bent on destroying our unique economic system and liberties. Fundamentalist Islam would have America living Sharia Law, rather than the Rule of Law--that based upon Judeo-Christian morals and mores. Some Libertarian groups, though they would claim otherwise, are a threat to our heritage, which, while built upon principles of liberty, is also beholden to Rule of Law, and a shared culture with England to soem degree.

So long as America is a land to covet, she will be a land in danger of loosing her cultural elements and character. But more importantly, she must oblige--from within--those elements while respecting other cultures. To do anything less, may bring the kind of response that Russians did to reality they don't see as reality. Would that we would never roll our eyes and shrug our shoulders at the reality of America's cultural character.

Sources:

Living Ideas in America, H.S. Commager; Harper Bros. NY 1951

http://www.academicamerican.com/colonial/topics/religion.html

Making of America, C. Skousen; National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1985

The Great Republic, Bailyn, et.al; D.C.Heath & Co, 1977

Research writing in Colonial History, Brigham Young University; 2001

Dismissal of Mississippi Case Did Not Dismiss Unconstitutionality of “Obamacare”

2011-02-04T15:11:00.007-06:00

While I had not read the brief yet, it was not surprising that the latest court case against the federal Healthcare Law in Mississippi was dismissed. (I have since read the brief.) In truth, it is not only fully understandable; it would not have been prudent to do anything otherwise than to dismiss the case. Contrary to the media hype, or whatever comments may come from the federal government about a victory, this case was actually not about the constitutionality of the law. It was about the specific loss to a number of individuals who filed the suit. While the issue of constitutionality is still an ominous, looming concern, the principle of the laws constitutionality was not considered and thus, cannot be considered a victory for the Administration on those grounds.

What Americans who have not been in the court system, nor studied or observed it first hand, need to understand, is that law suits are not necessarily dismissed because they are frivolous, or without merit. Many times it is simply about the strategy of a complaint and how it is presented in argument. In this case, the argument was that certain individuals, through the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, would incur loss because of the Healthcare Law. This is extremely problematic from the outset. District Courts are designed to hear concrete evidence. The matter at heart in the Healthcare Law is actually one of the abstract—the principles behind the practice as laid out in the Constitution. But District courts are designed for the practice of the principles.

For instance, if a crime is committed, evidence of the crime is brought to court. Whether the case is won or lost is not as must about whether the crime was actually committed, but whether sufficient evidence—the concrete—was brought before the court to render a guilty verdict. Nor is it about whether the law is a just one. One cannot take a neighbor to court because one suspects the neighbor will rob them, even if they just might. There are no facts of loss to support such a verdict. We don’t convict people on possibility, but upon what has happened.

The same holds true for civil cases. I may bring a suit against my neighbor because I suspect they are drug dealers and therefore the value of my home will drop because of the unsafe and undesirable element, but I cannot prove that is the case without substantial evidence. Indeed, hypothetically, just the opposite may be true. I might attract drug dealers to my home as a ‘safe haven’ neighborhood for them to do their dastardly deeds. And they may be willing to pay more for my home than I would otherwise get. While that scenario is not likely, it cannot be ruled out. Since I cannot prove a loss, I won’t be awarded, nor action taken in my behalf, based upon my concerns. They are not concrete and I don’t have sufficient evidence to prove my theory. However, I might call the police or press charges against the neighbor, provided I can bring forth enough evidence for the police to file a criminal warrant—such as being in the home, knowing where the drugs are, and to whom they have been sold

Hence it is with this case. The bottom line on this case is that there was not sufficient concrete evidence to show that a loss was imminent or already occurring. For instance, there are several loopholes in the Healthcare Law, as the exact wording puts it, “exceptions,” to those who are subject to the law. They are:

1)persons who are subject to certain religious exemptions;
2) persons who are not lawfully present in this country; and
3) persons who are incarcerated. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d).

Additionally,

“Minimum essential coverage” is defined as health insurance coverage obtained through certain government-sponsored programs, eligible employer-sponsored insurance plans, or other eligible insurance plans obtained through the individual market. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(f)(1).

But the law also has certain other loopholes. And here is where the judge would have the most difficulty deciding in favor of the Plaintiffs. Even if an individual is not among those exempted from the law, no penalty can be imposed for those who cannot afford medical insurance, or those whose income is so low that they are not required to file an income tax return, or

…members of Native American tribes; 4) those who experience only a short gap in coverage; and 5) those who, subject to the determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan.” 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(e).

The above clause in the law allows a wild card that cannot be substantially determined unless the conditions are in play. Hence the reason the court used the legal term that the case criterion were not “ripe” under the above circumstances: It is too early to tell just how the law might incur a loss for the plaintiffs. The facts of this case were that one plaintiff is currently insured through an employer. Hence, the federal Healthcare Law would appear to have no effect upon this person, thus no apparent loss. Another person did not have a medical insurance plan and did not want one. But there was no evidence showing the loss if this person was required to have it.

The judge wisely reminded the plaintiffs that they had 30 days to modify their original complaint. This is a hint. The judge did not even consider the constitutionality of the law, on its own merits. He had no opportunity, since the way in which the complaint was brought allowed him no way to progress to that point, as in the Florida ruling. If the Plaintiffs want to succeed in this case, they must show the concrete loss, as other cases that have won have done.

It is possible for the plaintiffs to show this, but it may be an uphill battle. For instance, if the individual who currently has insurance knew that once the Healthcare Law was instituted, his employer was going to mandate that everyone have coverage, whether they wanted it or not, or be fired, that could possibly show the loss needed, provided the employer was willing to go into court and testify to that fact. Testimony is considered fact, thus the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s employment might warrant loss, provided all other “what ifs” were eliminated against the plaintiff’s complaint.

While the court ruled to dismissal, but granting 30 days to redress the claims, the Obama Administration could hardly call this a sound success toward solidifying the legitimacy of the Healthcare Law. Its constitutional legitimacy was never the point of this case.