The U.S. Dollar: Hyperinflation & Its Destiny in Our Current Monetary and Economic System

The Zero-Value Dollar and It’s Inevitable Destiny

It is difficult to miss the news and commentaries of late about the U.S. dollar's fall in value, the popularity and rise in gold value, whether or not we are making purchases, and the ever vigilant watch of securities (stocks). What we Americans do not understand is their relationship in our free market system. We might know they are related, but not why. Since the removal of the gold standard, two verities exist with respect to our economy. First, without growth, there is death; and, secondly, only in America do you save money by spending it. Both are unfortunate truths not intended by the Founders.

The latter is funny only in respect to checkout clerks who tell you that you saved $10 without reminding you that you spent $100 to do it. A video simulation, called "The Day the Dollar Died," illustrates what its producers believe will happen to the dollar in just a few short years from obsessive compulsive spending that leads to printing money.

The problem with the video is that many people will shrug it off as "gloom & doom" fortune telling. Others will feel overwhelmed and ignore it to preserve sanity. Education will help with both reactions. Not only is it not "gloom and doom", it is, in actuality, the end effect of removing a base value (gold & silver standard) from the dollar bill—especially when the point of removing it was to allow continued spending beyond means to pay.

The dollar bill holds no value in its own right. What Americans need to understand is that commodities are the only way to provide value to the dollar. Simplified: take all the goods and services traded with a dollar, divide that amount by the number of dollars in existence and you have the average value of the dollar. But there is a problem that interferes with that value: Printing money. Printing money increases the number of dollars against goods and services sold, which reduces the dollar’s worth below its actual market value. This causes inflation.

Under the gold standard, money cannot simply be printed. There is only so much gold. And therefore, only a set number of bills could be produced unless more gold was also produced. But remove the value, and printing money becomes not only possible, but also convenient. The gold standard was removed in the first place so the federal government could continue spending outside the value of the dollar—primarily by borrowing, rather than reining in their budgets.


Double Jeopardy

Because the bill has no value if nothing is purchased, the only way for a saved bill to be worth something is through spending it rather than any ability to build equity through the value of gold. Borrowing against savings accounts allows that money to circulate back through the markets by spending and the saver receives a portion of the interest on the borrowers’ loan in return. If money in saving accounts are not moved—if it sits idle—the money could not produce value. There must be borrowers and constant spending in order for our saving system to work. If it doesn’t grow, it dies. There is no such thing as simply maintaining. It is why savings assets do not stay idle in banks. Your money in a savings account is actually invested by your institution in order to preserve and, hopefully, increase the dollar value. Your money is also “sold” to other entities that provide equity assets that, under certain market conditions, might make more money than simply investing in securities, with a small portion of the gain, either way, returned to the saver in compensation for the use of their money for something tangible. Hence, in America, "you only save money by spending it."

But the day you pull your money out of a savings plan it also pulls the investment. It is like "calling" a loan. Hence, the reason the federal government tries to maintain balance between the loan rate and flow of spending through the Federal Reserve and legislation monitoring banks. They are trying to prevent the inevitable breakdown of the system should too many people stop the constant shuffle of money cycling through the system.

The flip side of divesting comes when the dollar value drops through constant printing. Businesses suffer a bleed, usually a small, chronic one, that is out of their own control. They subsequently could go out of business through the fault of the government that prints money to solve its budget problems without realizing it. Homes also feel the pinch over time.

Here is what happens: The Federal government borrows money—a lot of it—then prints money in order to reduce their debt ratio. Basically, the point is to devalue Federal loans with the intention of giving them more money to “play” with. But they have also devalued our private money by it. Congress appears blameless in the dollar devaluation, in their estimation. Yet, in reality the process is tantamount to a very expensive tax increase—the very action they claim, heroically, to be avoiding—because more of your money is now needed for the same products (goods and services), and savings than prior to the government printing more bills. You and I must work harder to be able to acquire our same needs. In addition, the debt still needs repaying. Worst of all is Congress’ complete lack of realizing that because they devalued the dollar more (from printing), the government is also decreasing its own ability to pay for the same services it provided to the public prior to printing. Thus, they must borrow more, then print more, then borrow, print, and on and on. Through this vicious cycle we are able to see how inflation is not just created but keeps increasing. The deceptive game by Congress and the Fed is nothing more than the squirrel chasing its own tail. It’s constant use will lead to hyperinflation. —The scenario in the video.

The saddest indictment is not even bad economics, poor budgeting skills in Congress, nor a lack of foresight in pushing off debt for the future. It is the federal government’s willingness to sacrifice the Constitution, which requires the Federal government to manage, not eliminate, the gold standard. Were that still in place, the dollar would have a set stability of its own. Purchases would be on a need basis rather than by compulsion, savings would be actual equity in a commodity rather than a gamble against others to spend beyond their means. The states would not be in violation of the Constitution that specifically mandates repayment of debts with gold or silver. The gold standard was a control for government spending as well: Spend all your dollars, you are done spending unless you borrow. Reach you maximum ability to pay debt? You are done borrowing. Despite how many irresponsible legislators there are, most would avoid this situation to avoid the public ridicule and humiliation had they not been allowed to circumvent the system by destroying the base value of the dollar. The present system allows them to hide their actions behind a delay in consequences that are felt long after they have left the scene.


Symptoms of Monetary Illness and Coming Death

Over time, the build up of debt becomes insurmountable. One of the tell tale signs of rapid depreciation of the dollar is when the very commodity that used to back the dollar, gold, starts rising in value. Eventually silver rises as well. This is a strong indicator of the weak dollar and the lack of faith—some say foresight—of those who are in a position to compensate for the devaluation of the dollar by hording gold.

The higher the demand and subsequent value of gold, the stronger an indicator it becomes of the dollar’s devaluation. This is why we should watch the gold value, stocks (a primary engine of the spending and borrowing cycle), the inflation index, and the gross national product (GNP)—or the amount of “stuff” we buy. This quadrille of American economics should be learned and understood by regular citizens, as it will tell them volumes about what is going on in Congress.

The GNP is most important because when printing causes inflation, the natural counter offense is for consumers to reign in spending. This reduces the value of goods and services against the dollar, and a raise in the latter’s value because the demand for goods and services declines. But this situation causes recessions and depressions. Americans by in large, don’t understand that a recession isn’t normally caused by some consumer error, but is the byproduct of a reaction caused by the government’s printing of money that devalued the dollar in the first place.

This is where the scenario in the video becomes real time. The solution is twofold: Abandon this zero-value economic model and reinstate the gold standard. The other solution, even more important than the first, irrespective of Constitutional mandates, is force Congress and the President to stop spending obscenely. The combination of spending within budget limits and terminating printing of money is as solid a solution as the gold and silver to back it.


The World Economy in U.S Hands

To show just how far reaching this scenario is we need to understand that all other currencies depend on the value of the U.S. dollar for their value. Other currencies do not drop in value as a copycat of America because they have warm fuzzies about us. Their money is directly tied to ours. If the U.S. dollar collapses, so go all other currencies—unless other nations are wise to the situation and divest interest in the dollar. When you read of countries, such as China, scrutinizing our government’s spending habits, (read: printing of money to cover debts) you now know why. Their money is directly invested in our system which would naturally bring concern over their monetary system as well. This is also the reason current federal law allows goods and services to be bought with any currency you care to accept. Bartering goods and services is also allowed and considered currency.

Every American should be mindful of what they can do, independent of the government, as a solution and hedge against monetary collapse. The reality is that there are many—probably the majority—who cannot invest in gold and silver. In an economic/monetary collapse, gold and silver, as currency, would only circulate among those who already have it. Those without would have no means to purchase needs. I suggest a more practical solution that can provide initial relief to all: Invest in commodities that have no bearing on a monetary system. A supply of food, clothing, and other basic needs that can be stored might arguably be the most important countermeasure to a monetary collapse through the reorganization phase.

Albeit unlikely, the prevention of the problem in the first place would be more powerful: Elect only those who are committed to spending within the government's means, and observe and defend the Constitution, in part by reversing the Act that removed the gold standard. That goes directly to the intent of the general welfare clause, which they swore to protect.

Liberal Comments on Tax Cuts Reveal Communist Paradigm at Odds with American Capitalism

From the Huffington Post we read the following quote from Nancy Pelosi about the reauthorization of the Bush tax cuts, “‘Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit,’ Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said regarding the deal. ‘To add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America's richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit.’"

I hate to ever quote Rep. Pelosi on anything, since she rarely makes any sense. But since I heard the same comments from other Democrats and liberal pundits this time around, I felt it important to address the comment. It points out a few major flaws in the understanding and paradigm of some of the Democratic legislators’ of both Houses perspective on our economic system.

For one, the only way a tax cut can “ADD tens of billions of dollars [and] $25 billion to the deficit,” respectively, is if Representatives plan to continue spending those billions as if they were still in revenues. The whole idea is to allow Americans to spend and invest their money, rather than the government. The problem is not the tax break. It is the expectation that all will continue as planned without thought to modifying behavior. It is the same as saying, a breadwinner who decides to put aside money for his or her children's college education is creating debt to their household, because they plan to spend the same amount of money, irrespective of putting some aside for someone else. That makes no responsible sense.

Moreover, the claim that the tax break benefiting “only the wealthiest 3 percent,” (assuming that is accurate), will not create jobs is a paradigm a socialist would make, because it assumes that it is the government that creates jobs, not people. This is absolutely false in a free market—capitalist system such as ours. The very name, capitalism implies precisely what that wealthy group will do—provide capital. That means, investing in buildings, machinery and other assets including human capital—more jobs.

To say that allowing Americans to control there own money is not going to help the economy speaks volumes about the socialistic mindset of those saying it. It is to completely ignore the fact that Americans make the economy run—not the government. This brings us to one more statement—a criticism by Democrats about “trickle down economics.” It is said that it does not work. I agree.

I’ll explain: Trickle down economics implies that the money is the federal government’s to begin with. Again, a socialistic point of view—even to the extreme of communism, where the government owns all, including the incomes of all people; and, even the people themselves. Trickle down economics means money comes from the government to the people. That paradigm has beguiled us into believing, unwittingly, in a socialistic perception of our economic system, by feeling a sense of gratitude to the government for giving us back our own money, or allowing us to keep a certain amount of it, rather than taking all of it.

Indeed, the reality in our capitalist system and our republican form of government, is that there is no such thing as “trickle down economics.” The money and assets are ours. Money is paid UP to the government. Whether constitutionally appropriate or not, is not the debate this time around. The point is, money goes up the rungs, not down. It was never theirs to begin with. Nor is the balance after taxes.

To apply “trickle down economics” to companies is the same. Allowing companies to keep more of their money, thus their effect eventually reaches the smallest of budgets, is, again, a system that does not exist. It is the typical American that keeps businesses going. Patronage, trust and competition, IE: choices, are what provide economic acumen to businesses, big and small. Again, the flow is from the bottom up, not the other way around. The government reducing the tax burden is not a gift. It is to step out of the way, rather than being the major competitor to the free market, to companies and individual consumers.

One last issue: I sincerely hope that Pelosi is correct that the tax break will help 39,000 of America’s richest families.” That would mean, 39,000 of America’s most able companies will be hiring employees. Thirty-nine thousand businesses will have more leverage to improve our country’s economy! 39,000! Does Pelosi actually realize what she said?

Terrorist attempts pose questions of who, what, where of future attempts to jump when they say jump

AP reported at 2PM Eastern Time on October 29, 2010 ,separate and simultaneous terrorist scares occurred late Thursday evening calling upon FBI and officials to search multiple planes and one truck in Chicago as part of an investigation of packages originating in Yemen, but flying out of London and Dubai, respectively. Routine searches brought forth the packages, which were addressed to religious sites, including one synagogue. Based upon the nature of the equipment found--an ink cartridge with wires and powder, officials are looking at these attempts as a "dry run" for a possible real terrorist run.

They might be right on target with that assumption. But the assumption begs a more important question; Is the FBI creatively considering places "outside the box" of typical targets that still meet the goals of terrorists? How much manpower will be required of the FBI for further "dry runs" in preparation for the real thing? Remembering the history of Pearl Harbor, espionage revealed that New York was in imminent danger of attack by Japan, but while all eyes were on the East Coast, Japan struck it's closer target, Pearl Harbor, behind our backs. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not stupid. They know that the US will not have a blind eye for its own. And they are most likely privy to the notion that event such as attacks on U.S. soil make excellent political opportunities.

With every "dry run" terrorists learn more about the methodology and capabilities of our investigative networks. It is much like watching footage of the opposing team's games to learn patterns and game strengths and weaknesses. The more footage, the more learned. The more learned, the more counter defenses can be planned and strategies for success implemented.

But one has to wonder just how many false wolves the hunter must run after before the real one sneaks in to grab Granny while the hunter runs to all the wrong places? It is a strategy that is disconcerting. While threats are being sent to places like Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, one has to wonder, as with New York in relation to Pearl Harbor, whether the real targets will be far from usual, far from expected, but far from insignificant. Houston is such a place. Port cities are vulnerable. Technology centers are vulnerable. Aerospace and science centers are vulnerable. Global market centers are vulnerable. Highly populated areas are vulnerable. Energy producing areas are vulnerable. That puts Houston conspicuously, but likely overlooked, on the list of top targets. With this in mind, it would be very intelligent for citizens everywhere, but especially in metros like Houston and Los Angeles, Corpus Christi and San Francisco, to consider whether such methods as 'virtual strip searches via x-ray machines--machines that have not been tested for their radiation safety, especially those who are at risk--or a highly intrusive physical "pat down" resembling sexual assault to some are really effective as terrorists pop from one flitting place to another in a game of cat and mouse.

TSA: Modern gestapo creates damned if you do fly and damned if you don't policy

NPR reported this morning that 80% of Americans are "fine" with the Transportation and Safety Administration (TSA) whole body image scanning, or "pat down" procedures. I, for one, would like to examine those numbers and the credibility of such a poll. But regardless of the numbers approving or somewhat approving the measures, the 20% who oppose it are the people the founders were concerned over and the reason we don't have a democracy but a republic.

TSA has, by the Administration's directing, effectively taken away all rights upon purchase of an airline ticket. And they said that much. On the video accompanying this article, aired on CNN, one can hear the TSA manager say to the protesting passenger-wannabe that when he bought his ticket he forfeited his rights. Forfeiting of rights? Where exactly is that on the ticket? Or even in terms of purchase prior to paying for the ticket? Where is that in the Constitution?Unlawful search and seizure of a suspected criminal is, not just a faux pas, but against the law. Where is it exactly that the Federal government via TSA or any other bureaucracy has a right to supersede and override laws of search so to reduce the rights of common, ordinary citizens and visitors to this country far below that of suspected criminals?

This unsuspecting passenger was detained after refusing the pat down, the whole Body Imaging (WBI) scan and his flight. The TSA official wanted the person's contact information, specifically his full name, his address and phone number--for his own best interest in order to move on, the official assured. The man, wanting to leave and get on with his life, questioned how it was in his best interest, as the TSA officer suggested, since as far as he was concerned the incident was over and he was trying to "move on". The response of the officer is telling.

Now nothing more than a victim, the former passenger is told that they need his information so TSA can contact him for the case they will be filing against him. Then the officer agrees that the man cooperated with them.

What the TSA official is not explaining to this now former airline passenger is that their rules claim a ticketed customer has the right to refuse the invasive pat down or the whole body x-ray scan only by refusing to take the flight. If the would-be passenger refuses either scrutiny, he/she can be fined $11,000. The caveat to refusing the flight is that he or she must refuse before being selected for the inspection regardless of whether they decline to fly or they suffer the $11,000 penalty. One spokesperson for TSA explained that once the process begins, there is no backing out, even if TSA itself tells the objector to leave the airport. Most of those selected for further examination are selected at the time of ticket purchase. Tickets are coded randomly (or not so?) to choose passengers for hightened searches. (I know, as I have been one of those in the past. I was fortunate. It was before WBI and pat downs of the sort TSA has now implemented. My ticket, I learned, had a special bar code that was a signal to the inspector to pull me out of line for additional screening.) According to TSA's statement, in theory, once one realizes they will be subject WBI or pat down they are subject to the fine if they evade search by cancelling their flight. In the case of the man in the video, since he went through the line and declined the extra searches after being selected, and also he was asked to leave the airport by TSA, he is still subject to the $11,000 fine!

TSA's reasoning on this is that if they let the person go, they are potentially allowing a terrorist to escape.

To say that the public needs to be actively involved in the legislative process to restrict the Federal government from violating Constitutional rights and paradigms, such as: right to warrant for search and seizure, innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc., would be so obvious as to not need saying. The American public must call the shots. It is the American way. Unless we want to see gestapo style living conditions and loose all our rights, it is an imperative.

For the first time, I am actually aligning my views with the ACLU, who is vehemently arguing the validity of such searches and the damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't approach to travel by the TSA.

Studies show that the kind of searches the TSA is conducting are ineffective in deterring terrorism. What has been found effective are surveillance and monitoring of patterns of movement and behaviors of both groups and individuals. In addition, the very method denounced as unfair, here, has proven most effective: "racial" profiling. The deliberate strip search of a child as seen on video (YouTube.com) is absurd. This kind of abuse of Americans is traumatising enough for adults, but horrifying to children. It begs the question: Who is the terrorist?

Here is a link to a list of the airports with WBI equipment in operation. Another site has a list of airports currently using the equipment as well as the kind and when, and where those airports use them. This site also includes a list of airports not currently using WBI equipment.

Keys to Communist Party Success: Methods of "Changing" America in their own words

The Democratic Party: Communism’s cloak

Two years ago I wrote on my blog that electing Obama would prove to be, not just a disappointment to Republican voters, but also a betrayal to Democratic ones, as they were duped into believing Obama stood for freedom rather than bondage by government.

Obama is not a Democrat as much as a socialist and potential Communist. The Communist Party agrees.

But I was partly wrong and stand corrected by that party. I should have included the current leadership in Congress of the Democratic Party as well as many executive appointed Obama point men. Without correction at the polls the Federal government is precisely on track—albeit a slower one than they wish—down the path of Communism. So says the Communist website:

"If the grand alliance that elected Barack Obama comes out in full force to vote we can stop the Tea Party/Republican takeover and continue moving forward."

From the pool of those elected rise the teams that facilitate an Administration. What you vote for now, either feeds solutions or feeds problems.

The Communist Party is methodically courting the Democratic Party. And says so openly. The Republican Party is a lost cause to them. While the website was full of inaccuracies and flat out lies in a propaganda blitz, a reading of certain articles, such as the speech given at the Communist Party Convention, reveal much, on and between the lines, smooth talk and propaganda aside. (Thankfully we have world history to show the true colors of Communism's full cycle to failure.)

In its national convention, Communist Party Chair, Sam Webb counseled:

"I say 'stay attuned to the thinking and mood of the American people' because that is the point of departure as far as building broad united action is concerned. What we think and how we say it to a larger audience is important and necessary for sure. In fact, our message is needed now more than ever.

But we should not make the mistake of assuming what we think is necessarily what the American people think and are ready to fight for" [emphasis added].

All true, the words leap off the page. What he is saying is, (like the website) don’t tell people everything about the Communist ideology. Tell them the part that sounds good. Then we can persuade them to join our forces. And let us continue to use the Democratic Party as the mechanism for mutual goals.

Webb continues:

"Nor should we make the mistake of thinking that what unites working people and their allies and what they are ready to fight for is a static target. What energizes people today can easily give way to something of a more radical nature tomorrow."

Meaning, keep your heads up and eyes open for inroads. Look to adjust to the crises of the moment, because that is how the Communist ideology works. And hope for radicalism (read: willingness to revolutionize the country). Heads up and eyes open is precisely what the American voter must have.

Infiltration or Indoctrination: It is all the same to the Communist party
We come to the crux of the Communist Party methodology:

I would argue that a relationship to the Democratic Party at this stage of struggle is a strategic necessity and later on probably a tactical requirement. It also isn't at loggerheads with the struggle for political independence.

The first part of this statement is self-explanatory. The latter is a disturbing one, if one understands the history of Communism and freedom-liberty; and their opposition to each other. “Loggerheads with the struggle for political independence” the hope that some day in the future the ideals of communism can stand on their own without piggy-backing on the Democratic Party.

Properly organized and united, the working class and people's movement can win and utilize positions in the government and state apparatus to bend public policy, institutions and agencies to the advantage of working people and their allies and create the conditions for more radical changes.

The emphasis (italicized words) in the above two paragraphs comes directly from the original transcript. A read of the Communist Manifesto will translate for Americans the meaning of “working class” and “people’s movement” all which were used by leaders such a Hitler, who proved that the only worth of the “working class” is in facilitating whatever the government deems important for it’s good — not the people’s.

Hence, people are referred to by the indifferent term of “the masses.”

A reform-minded president - and certainly one who has "Transformative" ambitions - is only successful to the degree that a mass and militant insurgency is part of the political mix.

In January 2009, Chair Webb made these remarks:

“[An] economic recovery plan must include not only a sizable and sustained economic stimulus, but also far-reaching political and economic reforms [that] have any chance of resuming a developmental growth path that is robust, sustainable (in a double sense: economically and environmentally) and favors the interests of the working class and its allies."

Study of Webb’s writings concurs with the Manifesto: “developmental growth path” means socialism. “Favoring the interests of the working class and it allies” is fancy double speak for the Communist Party and the government they design.

How Obama fits the agenda

In his 2009 outline to facilitate the goals of Communism were these that correspond to action by Congress and the Administration: In brackets is listed the corresponding action of President Obama.

* Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives. [TARP; FannieMae; FreddieMac; AIG]

* Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.

* Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs—something that the New Deal never accomplished. [Stimulus; Cash for Clunkers; Small Business stimulus]

* Strengthening of union rights in order to balance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas. [Bill to consolidate work’s voted into one union vote; elimination of secured private ballot]

* Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests. [Multilateral Agreement for the Establishment of an International Think Tank for Landlocked Developing Countries, NY, 09.24.2010; Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights, NY, Dec. 2008].

* Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.

* Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands [moratorium on oil platforms in the Gulf who have violated no permits or statutes; one of the first initiatives Obama enacted with unequaled Executive power was a moratorium on Gas drilling in Utah—holder of the one of the largest deposits of natural gas and shale (oil)].

* Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into “no profit” zones [public education that included early morning childcare, wards of the state; UN treaty “Rights of the Child”; Obamacare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act)].

* Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure [The Obama administration's promotion of Green policies dominate grants; TARP; ending war without winning].

* Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations, on the one hand, and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace, on the other. [Oct.2010, Obama agreed to give China America’s top secret technology with military capabilities; then Obama sent NASA administrator to China to ‘negotiate’ space technology “sharing”; Disarmament Treaty 2010].

* Full-scale assault on global warming [“Global Warming” treaty].

* Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and [“Global Warming” treaty; See ‘Trade Agreements; there are actually many UN treaties under this guise currently under construction].

New model of economic governance needed [“Global Warming” treaty].
Mid-term elections carry the burden of accomplishing the goals of an Administration. In this election the question begging the people as they go to the polls is whether they will elect public servants willing to accommodate and cooperate with “a reform-minded president who has transformative ambitions,” as the Communist Party plainly puts it, to reach their goals of changing the United States of America.

Other reading in full text used for this series of articles:

http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

http://cpusa.org/a-way-out-of-the-deepening-crisis/

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/communist-party-hails-new-obama-era

War between Obama, Parties & grassroots- tea parties to define strategy

We should expect the next two years to be a lame duck debacle. Except this year does not follow the historical pattern of cycles in politics. I predict this will be one of the bloodiest two years in American political history, but not totally a lame duck era. Obama will struggle to find a way to convince the pubic of his viability for reelection. The Democratic Party will maneuver any and everything in site against the Tea Party because they believe it is the flying carpet holding up the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party will preoccupy their time with finding more (Tea Party) candidates than other parties, dedicated to, in particular, Jeffersonian philosophy. They will keep their noses clean because Tea Party folks and grassroots America are cleaning house—literally.

Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried, but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.

Here we go: Today an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.

Obama might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, Obama stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.

Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.

If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.

The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of Tea party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.

Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.
.

Texas Rep fighting Obama intention to give China NASA's space secrets

October 13, 2010-Congressman John Culberson, representing the Houston area sent a blunt letter to Barack Obama, objecting to the President's attempts to give away top U.S. NASA technology to China. Obama is sending NASA Administrator, Charles F. Bolden Jr. to China to "begin a dialogue on human space flight cooperation between NASA and the China National Space Administration (CNSA)."

The President did not receive ratification from Congress for any such negotiations, but, of his own accord, sent Bolden to China this week. Culberson's two concerns, both founded in Constitutional basis, are that the President was not authorized by Congress to make such a pact with China, and that it is a breach of National Security.

When referring to any duty outlined in the U.S.Constitution, the Founders expected that foremost in decisions would be what the intent of any action would be, making it plain that they must follow the purposes of the Constitution. According to the document that the Federal government is required to protect the states from harm (Art.I Sec.8; Art IV, Sec.4). Additionally, the duties assigned to each branch assure that there is a consensus in those intents. For example, two different places in the Constitution reiterate the need of the Senate to approve treaties created or signed by the President. The President cannot make treaties of his own volition. Several clauses lay a claim to protection by the Federal government to the states. Under the Constitution (Art II, Sec.2), treason is defined as an act of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

President Obama has already stated his intention to give China the U.S. top technology that has the capability to produce chemical and other warfare tools. Every past President as a security issue has guarded those technology trade secrets.

Obama's highest technology give away in China trade agreement spells disaster for Houston area

September 26th, 2010 9:00 pm CT.
Containing millions of carbon nanotubes, the NASA biosensor can alert inspectors to minute amounts of potentially dangerous organic contaminants.
Photo: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/ps_1.html
"The New American," reports* a disturbing and irrational policy by Obama, who plans to share the nation's top technology secrets with China instead of curtailing their thievery. The technology, forbidden by several past administrations, includes "sensors, optics, and biological and chemical processes," all of which are “identified as having inherent military application".

Obama claims trade will be from private "enterprise" to "enterprise". (But as the article points out, there are no private enterprises in China. There is only China.) Just how Obama plans to expedite this arrangement is curious. It is highly conceivable that he would order U.S. companies to comply with the agreement, even if they 1.) Created the technology and weren’t obliged to give it away; and 2.) Felt it was very un-American (read: treasonous) to divulge such information.

The effect of such a policy is chilling: Many Houston companies are in jeopardy of economic disaster. Demand for products with such technology produced here can be lost to China's manipulative marketing. Their price point can lead to destruction of our export of like products and future products. Even the Houston Technology Center, Texas' largest technology "business incubator" ** for emerging new companies will likely suffer significantly from this give-away. The non-profit organization, which has been responsible for job growth, promotes and funds technology in areas of energy, science, nanotechnology, and NASA/aerospace. It's tremendous success is likely to be derailed along with its clients, if emerging companies know that their innovations will be confiscated at their expense and handed to a highly questionable ally. This is not trade but capture and execution. That may be China's definition of free enterpise, but it certainly is not America's.

Additionally, with a direct exchange between "enterprises" comes knowing who made such technology and where companies are located. Those become vulnerable military targets by China or any allies with whom they also "share". It creates security risks in the Houston area and across the nation.

Fortunately, we are not China. The People run the government here. Texas, as the 15th largest economy in the world has phenomenal power. Filing yet another suit, with an injunction against Obama and the administration, would be a start.

Additionally, Obama will significantly loose comrades in the Congress and may face impeachment for, among other things, aiding the enemy, if we exercise our voting rights. Giving a thief the goods is not a better solution than pre-empting their attempts to steal them.

* http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4559-obamas-china-trade-solution-give-them-our-hi-tech

**http://www.medindia.net/health-press-release/80-Gulf-Coast-Emerging-Technology-Companies-Positioned-for-Investment-81497-1.htm

Vet Affairs grades of U.S. Reps unfair & misleading

The problem with reading statistics or a rating system when trying to research candidates and issues is that virtually nothing is as it seams, popularity polls excepted. Rating, or grading systems that declare a candidate--and most likely an incumbent because they have a voting record--does or does not support a particular group, issue or policy can be very misleading and blatantly unfair.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran Affairs (IAVA) recently graded all U.S. Congressmen and Senators in an evaluation of how well each supported the military and veterans. The report, entitled, "Find out who in Washington really supports our troops and veterans," grades on a score of A to F, using 18 key legislative acts for Representatives, and 12 for Senators as IAVA criteria, with each act in support of IAVA earning one point. The claim from the title and the grading are not only unfair but deceptive.

On the face of it, such grading systems seem legitimate. But the reality? As they say, the devil in the details.

For one, while the report claims no bias to party affiliation there was a distinct divide between good and bad grades among party lines. Democrats got better marks than Republicans. Since Republicans are traditionally more supportive of military, war actions and the needs associated with troops and veterans, it begged the question, "Why?"

A read of the bills themselves--even a read of the summary supplied on the IAVA website--explains and is telling but not a surprise. Bills used as criteria were not necessarily for the specific needs of the veterans. For instance, HR.2346, confusingly called "the Supplemental Security Act," and the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle Act" is a bill the IAVA claims is about stop loss insurance, but actually includes measures for "Cash for Clunkers," and moving terrorists and other war criminals from Guantanamo Bay to the States. But where no political maneuvering occurred, such as in H.R.1211, a bill for better care among female veterans, the vote was unanimous.

Additionally, there is a key flaw to the way in which grading was done, which adds to the deception. Using the same scoring a school would use for grades is not an accurate portrayal of the legislator's efforts because of the way the point are divided into respective grades. F grades are based upon agreeing with the IAVA half the time. While 50% for learning purposes might be fair to determine failing to understand a concept with competency, giving a failing grade in support of a cause, when in fact, half the legislative issues were supported is hardly failing. Failing in supporting legislation should be just that, a total failure. There was no one who did not support the IAVA in some issues. Even Paul, arguably the most conservative of the bunch, and Brady voted for just shy of half the measures, but each got "F" marks, as if to suppose they never supported veteran or military legislation at all.

What ever area of Texas or the country a citizen is, it would be well advised to take such scoring systems with a grain of salt, or research the bills, together with their representatives entire record, to really know the score.

Is the Right to Secede Really the Issue?

The question of whether the states have the right to secede from the Union has been circulating even before the two most independently minded states of Texas and Alaska joined the union. Since the question has recently been brought to me again, it seems an appropriate discussion, since it appears to be an enviable power that states seem to hope for and in that context we approach the conundrum: Do the states have the right to secede?

First, the Founding Fathers were quite aware of the right for a people to abandon their present form of government in the hopes of instituting another to preserve their God-given rights. After all, they did precisely that by seceding from England. That is the impetus behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The basic element is indeed a right. It is also a bloody one.

The Founders discussed at length the nature of the newly reformed Republic in the context of earlier problems with such a loosely formed Federation—and the Confederation was barely that. Problems such as balancing protection of the states enjoined, with their mutual independence. So, the Founders created a federation of states where the central government was obligated to protect the states as sovereign republican governments. The Constitution created a much stronger bond than the previous one under the Confederacy. It provided needed protection from invasion that left the early United States vulnerable and provided even better protection from neighboring states that would have a tendency of bullying smaller states. In return the constitution provided the central government power to collect revenue (that would be taxes) in order to facilitate those duties for, and on behalf of, the states.

Thus, the United States government is obligated to protect the body of states and protect the unity of states. This might not sit well with those who say, “Well then, what of the original right to secede— was it a farce?” Indeed not. But before further explanation it is fair to say that while many people will blame Abraham Lincoln for the bloodiest battle in U.S. history, the civil war—because he reasoned a state could not secede as it is part of the union and therefore the union as a whole owned the states, he was not the originator of that reasoning. The Founders were.

The Founders devised a governmental system that gave every opportunity to address grievances to the government. There are double-digit numbers of checks and balances to the U.S. Constitution. And the powers are clearly expressed. Whatever policies the Federal government creates must be applied only to those duties. The creative way in which those duties are dealt with can be varied and broad, but still within the confines of those duties, depending on the need but always staying within the intent of the Constitution. Among them is the duty of the Federal government to protect the right of states to a Republican form of government. (That one clause, alone holds within it three checks on the balance of power.)

This does not contradict the right to secede. The Founders knew that, since men and their fellows enjoin the basic right of freedom, including devising a new system of government or leaving it if the former is not viable, they had to ensure that there would be no reason or want to secede. They devised a government that allowed redress, improvements when wrongs were committed and modifications where needed in order to remove the need or want for secession, because they knew precisely how horrific and perilous secession was. Hence, the real question is not, “Do the states (and thereby their people) have the right to secede?” but rather, “should they secede and at what cost?”
The ultimate question is, “How wise is it to secede?”

Because a state wants to secede, does not mean any of the other states will welcome, encourage, or support the movement. In fact the opposite is likely to happen. Furthermore, there is no written right or process for secession in the Constitution, like there is for adopting a new state or territory. Furthermore, the Federal government itself is likely to vehemently object. And as we have seen of late where the federal government is suing states trying to adjust and repair the deliberate neglect of federal duties, it is more probable that the Federal government will physically and legally oppose secession. It would result in war. The history of secession shows it to be a bloody one. Is there a state willing to risk extinction? And if a state were to successfully secede, what then? As a, now unprotected country, that former state would bear the burden of it’s own protection—from other well-established countries and even possibly formerly friendly state-allies. Even a state the size of Texas or California would find it most likely impossible to defend itself against military might or an aggressive culture. In fact, the civil war came about not because there was no remedy but because the remedies were not honored. In the first place, the southern states broke an agreement—a compromise—set in the Constitution with the dissolution of slavery included. Without honoring the specially designed system that was focused upon unity, there was nothing left but a bloody battle for secession.

On the other hand, with all the powers appropriately applied, remedy, redress, and corrections in policy are all provided for and encouraged through Constitutional means. It isn’t that the Founders wanted to force the states into a governmental prison—tyranny-quite the opposite. It was that they wanted to provide every avenue to prevent the terror of such a violent way of solving a problem, to which they were personal witnesses in the Revolution. Thus, the only reason left to secede is simply the lack of honoring the system as designed. It would be far more wise and prudent to use all resources in restoring and using the system as designed and testing the system as such, before contemplating the alternative during a period of neglect.

War between Obama, Parties & grassroots/ tea parties to define strategy for 2012 General Election

We should expect the next two years to be a lame duck debacle. Except this year does not follow the historical pattern of cycles in politics. I predict this will be one of the bloodiest two years in American political history, but not totally a lame duck era. Obama will struggle to find a way to convince the pubic of his viability for reelection. The Democratic Party will maneuver any and everything in sight against the Tea Party because they believe it is the flying carpet holding up the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party will preoccupy their time with finding more (Tea Party) candidates than other parties, dedicated to, in particular, Jeffersonian philosophy. They will keep their noses clean because Tea Party folks and grassroots America are cleaning house—literally.

Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried,
but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.

Here we go: The same day I wrote this entry an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.

If Obama is smarter he might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, he stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.

Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.

If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, the latter which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.

The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of the Tea Party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.

Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.

National Debt Becomes Bad Math with Bad Intentions for U.S. Constitution

Looking only at the major financial moves of the Federal Government shows a disturbing intent toward an ominous and foreboding outcome. Most Americans feels this anxiety. But how many Americans realize the ultimate potential result of this type of spending and capital confiscation policy?


Before adding up the math, there need to be a very basic review of our Constitutional government: The Federal Government was never set up to support--literally, the programs and projects it is currently involved in. The states were designed to carry on the policies directly for the people. The Federal government was designed to have a simple scaffolding to support the states only, not an intricate one designed to support the rights and beyond, the needs of each state's people.


As such, there are some key powers and duties assigned to the Federal government. Of those were lots of military--eight of the eighteen clauses are about the military and protecting the states; protecting inventions--intellectual property; providing and maintaining "post roads and offices"--providing for the mail; international commerce; uniform rules for becoming an American; bankruptcy laws; punishments for specific crimes that have a larger than state effect; taxes on the states proportional to their population; and, so forth. But there is no duty to provide health insurance, or other social services. That is prohibited by the limits imposed under the Constitution but not prohibited by individual states to enact if they saw fit.


With that said, now let's look at the legislation or executive mandate, already enacted and on the slate to be enacted. Remember, most of this is not news. We're just doing some math here:

• TARP I (Old news, of course, but this is the beginning of the biggest mess of bad math: The people now own 60% of GMC, and Chrysler along with FreddieMac, FannieMae, and many large banks, whether they wanted to investment or not.) The cost of this program's projected expense is claimed to be $30 billion--including a "pay-back" from AIG stock all Americans now own.


• TARP II (More...) Supposedly included in the above figures as of October 5, 2010.

• Fannie & Freddie: $5 trillion



• Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, a $30 billion bill it, allows "preferred stock and other financial instruments from eligible institutions (Small Business Lending Fund Program)," which doesn't actually go to just businesses, but primarily to banks with the oral agreement and assumption they will lend to small businesses. Weird, the Act grants money to businesses such as the Horse Industry, where buying a horse allows a person up to $500K.



• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also coined "Obamacare," forcing everyone (except McDonald's), to buy health insurance that limits their care; decides when they die; whether their particular cancer warrants extended life; pay for someones abortion whether they believe it conscionable or not; and more.)



• Infrastructure Acts: There are several proposals: HR 6246 gives North Dakota millions for rural development. Don't let the infrastructure title fool you, this helps build homes and so forth too. A news brief just announced Obama's interest in a $1Billion infrastructure bill to repair the 'nations crumbling bridges and roads."
  

There are other budget busting expenditures, of course, but the purpose here is to illustrate a map. A very destructive map. The infrastructure bill Obama is pushing (as above) is designed to "create jobs" just as all the other "stimulus" bills have claimed to do. None of the previous attempts through this means have actually produced the jobs expected. It has increased the per capita debt in this country to explosive--more like implosive levels. The burgeoning spending spree is causing a collision course with two economic brick walls: An unsustainable debt--which most people realize; and, the hot-off-the-press printing of money. The two combined will eventually cause a collapse of the Government.

Do you see the concern I see? Our current national debt is growing at an astronomical $4.17 billion a day! It is currently at over $44,000 per capita of debt. That does not include entitlement program debt. Add another $107 trillion for that. It is estimated that, if we proceed only with the current pace, adding nothing more, the debt will hit 90% of the country's GNP in nine years! Currently, about 60% of the nations income goes to taxes. There is only 40% left to go before we reach a completely Communist system where all goes to the government and the government dictates who, what, and why people get income, goods, and needs met. If the plan is accelerated, a collapse comes more rapidly. At that point, a state of emergency will call for a "new government" to fix the problem since capitalism didn't. (When in reality capitalism was abandoned in order to create the crises.) As long and there is a pen and a check to write on, there is debt to increase. The end goal is not in producing jobs, nor even buying American votes, but in the final collapse of the free market that will signal the end of our system of government. The history of all nations with this system proves the demise. The present administration seems to be banking on it.

The Cycle of Politics Tests True Freedom and Liberty

It is an unfortunate phenomenon that the cycle of politics brings power-wannabes to the surface at any given opportunity. Their language bongs like an unwanted and unwarranted foghorn inviting war rather than remedy. Hence the repeated rhetoric that doesn't make any more sense the second, third, or forth times it is said, than it did the first. Their hope is that in the repeating, it will eventually be accepted. It's not a behavior reserved to liberals or conservatives, but anyone wanting their day in the sun and an opportunity to postpone the sunset.

I wrote this as a comment after one of my Facebook friends voiced her objection to vitriolic attacks by people who did not like that she did not agree with their views. Meanwhile, another friend was suffering the same battle from one who called him an "idiot" because they did not agree with him. I too, have witnessed this disturbing behavior: On one occasion a person shoved his religious card down the throats of people engaged in a conversation on my Facebook page so badly; calling everyone who did not agree with his perspective bigots, lacking spirituality, and insinuating they were not living their Christian religion if they did not agree with him, that one of my friends actually folded up shop and left Facebook all together. She had had enough.



In all three instances, insults laid at my friends came from Libertarians—not the traditional “liberal Democrats”. Just after posting my comment (quoted above), which did not point to any one person, as you see, the Libertarian Party withdrew 'following' me on Twitter. I had to laugh. But my comment, not addressing any singular entity or person, is simply a matter of truth about people’s behavior in general. To see that it bothered someone is telling. Are they promoters of “power-wannabes”? To be clear: This article is not about the Libertarians or any particular philosophy, per se. I myself have been categorized as a Libertarian. * (I am not, but am actually a Constitutional Republican, and a Centrist/Classic Liberal, which is someone, who follows the Constitution as the Founders prescribed.)Common sense tells me this scenario could have as easily happened among any persuasion in politics or other arena.



But this set of actions brings up a critical point about the failings of American politics: There seems to be great misunderstanding about what our freedoms entail. It is ironic that there are those in general who espouse freedom, but believe insults are freedom. It is additionally ironic that some of those—even some who use insults while espousing pure freedom—want to destroy Federalism, which is the very character of the Constitution that protects us.



To understand: the Constitution provides to the Federal government key powers to protect its states. Then, the states are at full liberty to protect their respective people. And that in a nutshell, is Federalism. I would warn everyone to beware of anyone espousing personal freedom and denouncing government as inherently evil, when it is only people that can be evil. We do not need revolutionaries—people desiring to overthrow the government. We do not need a coup d’etat. We need to defend the Constitution. The attitude of removing government from us will actually destroy our freedoms and leave us with no protection at all. We do not live in a pure and innocent world where all understand the nuances of self-government. Hardly. And the present circumstance bringing this article demonstrates the point.



Every two years I make this plea: Look beyond the continual rhetoric. As usual, it is running rampant as a river torrent in spring. But unusually, the rhetoric is chameleon-like, taking on many forms, and changing as the circumstances require. Some in every faction—liberal, conservative, (or the ‘ultras’), religious, or via a political philosophy—are using similar words that arrive at very different conclusions as a way to entice people to support their or their group’s power. But because the sound bytes are similar, but the conclusions are not, arguments degenerate to winning people over through insult. As if intimidation would work as a form of conversion. I'm not talking about the candidates, though they are not exempt. I'm referring to typical American activists.



We must be careful in our scrutiny of people volleying for their causes. It will fail if we observe words only, without noticing behavior—or worse, notice and justify it. We are doomed to repeat history by it. For many who wave the flag of liberty now are no better than history showed headband waving "Hippies" and “the anti-establishment” of the 1960s to be, who simply sought to break rules, laws, and social mores they did not want to oblige; No better than the Communists, like Castro and Hitler, who promised solutions for all, but ultimately only provided them for themselves; Or even those such as Catherine the Great, and FDR who espoused national leadership based in freedom—at least until they were the leaders.



Beware: Liberals are not the only ones selling snake oil. Republicans and Democrats are not the only ones gaming the system. Activists are coming forth from everywhere seeking control and their day in the sun and it matters not as much which group they are among. The real test of genuineness will not be just in “what” they teach of freedom, though there is treachery there too, but in the “how” of them. ** That requires not only that we understand Constitutionally based Federalism and espouse the freedoms it supplies, but that we honor it with the greatest and best character. Anyone who does not understand that does not qualify as an expert or leader of our system of freedoms and should not warrant our listening ears.



As Samuel Adams said,

...If we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves."

*The concept of a pure state of natural man, as many Libertarians espouse is not
a close possibility in our present, mortal state. The concept is legitimate; the
practice is not. —Hence the reason for the Constitution, which protects most and
best, but not absolutely, our rights.


**Take the Tea Party and 912
movements for example, who demonstrate peacefully, without insulting others,
creating hostility or inciting anger among the people, or mocking decency. All
the while getting their point across about freedom. This is the essence of true
freedom as designed in the Constitution—self-governance.

BE GRATEFUL

If you're a Democrat, be grateful for a Constitution that does not prohibit a Party system.

If you're a Liberal, be grateful for your Constitutional rights allowing you to speak your mind, even if it's against a Republican form of Government, guaranteed in the Constitution.

If you're a Communist, be grateful for a country that allows you to preach a doctrine opposing the very freedoms you're using to destroy it.

If you're an extreme Libertarian, be grateful you are at liberty to turn the other cheek at offenses to other Americans for "freedom's sake," because someone else has run out of other cheeks and is fighting to protect that right for you.

If you're a Conservative, be as grateful as the Democrats, Liberals, Communists, and Libertarians; and, exercise your rights by working as hard to preserve the Constitution as other groups are at removing it.

If you are a Republican, become a Constitutionalist, rather than just a Conservative, so everyone can still be grateful for their rights.

Federal Behavior Verifiably Bizarre

Federal Behavior Is Verifiably Bizarre

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [Art. IV Sec. 4].

The solution is the problem in the eye of the Obama Administration.

It's a good thing Arizona's Governor knows the Constitution and has tenacity to support it. The Federal government is taking their time preparing for a law suit against the state for enacting almost exactly the same law that has been in the federal law books for 70 years. That is, with the exception of two big differences. Arizona's law is actually less stringent because it includes a clause against racial profiling where the federal law does not; and, Governor Brewer has every intention of enforcing the law where the Federal government has proven they are not.

There are actually three places where protection against invasions are in the Constitution. Two dictate a duty of the Federal government to protect each state, and one allows states to defend themselves against invasion by their own accord (Art. I Sec.8xv, Art.IV Sec.4, and Art.I Sec.10iii, respectively). Coupled with the 10th Amendment providing to the states and people absolute rights not specifically prohibited in the Constitution (Art.I Sec. 10), the idea of the federal government suing a state trying to defend itself, especially when the federal government isn't, is absurd. The behavior of the Federal government is becoming so bizarrely indifferent to the states and the people that this latest intent becomes unsurprising.

But the threat of suit by the federal government says much more than indifference, of course. It squeals an intent by those in federal power to harass and intimidate Arizona into relinquishing it's rights. Considering the mentality in Congress and the Obama Administration that the pen is equal to our cash flow, perhaps this administration believes they can outspend Arizona on this issue, in an effort to eventually silence the state. Or, it may be that those in the Obama administration want to send a signal to other states as well, not to tangle with this liberal oligarchy.

This action will be a test, not of the federal government, but of the people themselves and their respective states.

The absolute counter solution:

All governors, with their Attorney's General, must understand that not only are they not prohibited from demanding action from the federal government to protect their states, but not doing so will only encourage an insatiable appetite for federal (even world) power by those in office at that level presently. Meanwhile, the United States hemorrhages from the effects of invasion since all the states feel the effects of defunct national laws.

They should rally. Arizona should not only be prepared to defend her rightful stand, they should counter sue for non-performance and breach of contract in a class action. Other states should pile in on this one, since the security, safety and sovereignty of all states is in jeopardy. A class action will send a signal to this group of dysfunctional leaders that the states and people know their rights and the Federal government's duty.The Constitution is indeed a Contract. The United States must be united if we are ever to retrieve our Republican sovereignty as a nation of states again.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law: and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time [Art.I Sec.10vii].

Yesterday, I listened to a panel of four "experts" sharing their opinion about Pelosi's newest expenditure--a $16,000 (not a misprint--Sixteen thousand dollars) per month rental office space in a posh and elite business district of San Fransisco. The building was built and owned by the Federal government. Half of the panel were disgusted by the expenditure. The other half vindicated it. The reason for the justification? One, Speaker Pelosi was third in line behind Obama for the Presidency. My answer: And? Your point is? Excuse me, but I like the idea the Founders came up with, of a government owned and run by the people, not an aristocracy. This "expert's" comment clearly shows an aristocratic mindset.

Another argument was because the building, federally owned, would sit empty if it weren't for the Speaker's lease of it. My rebuttal is multi fold: First, Pelosi's monthly rental is being paid at tax payer expense. The building was also paid for at tax payer expense. So, the great and diligent taxpayer pays for this space TWICE! Secondly, common sense is that you don't solve the problem of a too high vacancy rate by renting the space back to yourself; you get rid of it! The bigger question is, why does the government own a building in an elite business district rather than a more modest and economical district which would have been far better use of the people's money, in the first place? Furthermore, if elected officials must rent space, it would be far better for the federal government to sell virtually all office space--eliminating financial liability--and allow needed leasing to be done through the private sector.

One last justification on behalf of the Speaker was that, as the speaker, she was entitled to it. What? Which country is this? One has to wonder if we have digressed to precolonial English aristrocity or switched silently to elitest Marxism, when we allow this kind of privilege to accelerate for decades. Who more than the highest leaders should be setting the example to other leaders of how to be a good steward of the people's assets than the Speaker? Instead, we have a belief that the aristocratic leaders of this free nation qualify for unimaginable extravagance, most people in the world--even this people, cannot wrap their minds around.

It is important to understand that experts, on any side of an issue, simply represent the thoughts of the public. So, it isn't unreasonable to be disturbed by the philosophies that reveal themselves above, even if they are held by a few rather than the many. If the philosophies above disturb the public as polls, Tea Parties, and other rising groups suggest, then they had better rise to the occasion and use their power now by combining their efforts in one objective--to return accountability and responsibility as the Constitution laid out. Additionally, states cannot idly sit back and watch what happens to a fellow state. They, too must rise to the occasion and rally behind their bullied sister states.

There are no innocent bystanders, in United States governance.

To...secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America [Preamble].

The problem: People v. US Congress

I got a notice of the DISCLOSE Act last week. For those who don't know or understand HR 5175, it is, in summary, a bill that tightens the ability of the public to support a candidate unless qualified through a larger organized group, such as a union. It is targeted toward small business, who don't make use of unions, and unregistered groups such as Tea Parties who support or promote a particular candidate. Of course it just happens that the bill only applies to traditionally conservative, mosly Republican affiliations. It is sponsored by Representative Van Hollen (D-MD) and about 130 other Democrats.

Despite testimony on Capital Hill by such citizens as well-respected Constitutional attorney, Eugene Scalia, the bill passed through committee and is scheduled for House vote. It is certain this bill will be stricken down in the courts. That isn't the point or strategy according to many. It is to stifle and tie up the free speech of the public until after the elections in November. This is such a violation of public trust, it's bazaar gumption is more in line with a Clancy inspired reality show.

The solution is held in the preamble: the People must live the Constitution.

If, despite the people's objections to this legislation, the Congress and President pass this into law anyway, as it has done with regularity since Obama took office, it may prove to push movements like "The Tea Party", (which actually include members from all parties), sick of taxation without representation, to formally organize into a legitimate party. That may prove to backfire the intended purpose of the legislation, creating the largest, most powerful party/lobbying force ever.

One way or another, the people and states must work together to become sovereign again, because there are no innocent bystanders in United States governance.

List of Constitutional Infractions Coming Soon: The Right Wing of the Eagle airs soon, more info coming.

Utah's Lobby Law: Making the People's Voice Mute? Candidate Mike Lee, the test case

The Utah State senate race is heating up. News was spread, during the open voting period, and just prior to the Primary election in Utah, that one of its candidates violated state statute, when, about 18 months ago, he spoke to state senators in committee. Lee, a constitutional attorney, was asked pointed questions in regard to one of his clients at that time.

Reports are that Lee had saught advice and permission regarding his intention to field questions and give information pertinent to a bill involving his client. He sought this advice through the Governor's offices. Lee was reportedly told that speaking in this regard did not require registering as a Lobbyist. Lee went forward with his testimony.

Now, many months later, opponents to Lee's philosophy are airing that he violated state statute.* The statute is quoted as, "communicating with a pubic official for the purpose of influencing the passage, defeat, amendment, or postponement of legislative or executive action." One senator, Dan Lilinquist, said that if one where to use this definition of lobbying, Lee was, indeed doing just that.

What is a quandary to this writer is how in the world, no one has noticed the obvious defect in the law, not Lee! The Constitution specifically provides for a Republican form of government to the states, as cited in Art. VI, Sec. 4. Republican means "by or through representation." If Utah is serious about obliging its laws, then every person, who involves themselves in the civic and political process, who is not a registered lobbyist, IE: a professionally paid "lobbyer", is breaking the law.

This is a ridiculously vague statute that smacks in the face of The People in their ability for redress to their government; a right implied in the Declaration of Independence, the preamble of the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment, which clarify the State's and The People's rights.** If you have ever attended a committee meeting, or other scheduled pubic legislative hearing, the presiding member, usually the Chair, will invite anyone present an opportunity to speak to the issue at hand. Additionally, the law provides that hearings are required as a matter of procedure, to invite the public to speak to major policies, including school issues, and so forth, on the state level and down to the community level. The present law, if it has been correctly quoted in the media, actually entraps ordinary citizens for charges of violating statute becuase they have not registered as lobbyists!

While Mike Lee opponents, and some media websites with an agenda, might believe they have successfully exposed Lee to some dishonest disposition, they have, in actuality, brought to light a major Constitutional flaw in Utah state law.

This writer hopes those in the Utah legislature will, in good faith to the citizenry who has a right to speak on any policy, take to heart the importance on remedying this Constitutional faux pas.


* Among opponents spreading this news is a web-based organization called, "Media Matters". The name would imply that this organization is concerned about falsehoods or other issues of deficiency in the media. Nothing could be further from fact: Media Matters is an organization focused on an agenda of lambasting only conservatives in the public arena.

** Utah refers to its newly renovated and restored Capitol as the "People's House".

“LET FREEDOM RING!”

Though Memorial Day is officially over, I cannot help but post this timeless message from a friend of mine: Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General. *



In the solemn oath, “I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United Sates against all enemies foreign and domestic”- LET FREEDOM RING!

In the proud “Off we go into the wild, blue yonder;” “Anchors away my boys;” “Over hill, over dale;” and “From the Halls of Montezuma;” and in every “Oo-rah” “Hu-ah” “Atta-boy” and “Semper Fi”- LET FREEDOM RING!

In the wail and warble of the sirens of emergency responders rushing to protect and to serve; (and the heavy breathing of firefighters and police officers running up hundreds of stairs on Sept 11 as everyone else was running down) - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the halls of justice with the rap of the gavel and with every “objection,” “if it please the court,” and “we find the defendant….” - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the “voice of the people” rolling off of Capitol Hill with every “will the representative yield?” “point of order,” and “all in favor say AYE, opposed, NAY”- LET FREEDOM RING!

With every “Dear editor, I am appalled!;” “Thanks for taking my call;” and “In my opinion;” and in every phone call, email and letter to an elected official - LET FREEDOM RING!

In classrooms across this nation with the squeak of chalk on the board, the swish of pages turned in lesson books, and children proudly declaring, “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” - LET FREEDOM RING!

In every “play ball!’ Crack of the bat, and “Take me out to the Ball Game!” Every “Da-da-da-da-ta-da, CHARGE!” and “Boooooozerrrr!” Every “GOOOOOALLLL!” Every “Let’s get ready to rrrrrrumbllllllle!” Every “Touchdown [pick your team]!”- LET FREEDOM RING!

In the most quiet and solemn place of all, the voting booth – LET FREEDOM RING!

In the buzzing of the bedside alarm that roles us out of bed and sends us to work every day to create, innovate, improve and provide products and services that enhance the quality of life - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the roar of the combines and harvesting machines, the zip, zip, zoom of the Interstate, the hum of the turbines, the cacophony of the assembly line, the ring of the bell followed by the din of the stock exchange, and the lonely echo of the night train delivering goods from sea to shining sea - LET FREEDOM RING!

Through whispering pines in the woods and templed hills; the sssshhh of amber waving grain; from the babbling of small brooks to the roar of mighty rivers; in the call of the wild, the nocturnal hoot of an owl and screech of a bald eagle - LET FREEDOM RING!

As the sun settles out over the Great Salt Lake, and families gather around the dinner table, with the saying of “Grace,” and in every clink of glass, “please pass the salt,” smack of the lips, and every story and joke and tease - LET FREEDOM RING!

In every newborn baby’s cry – LET FREEDOM RING!

Every time someone mentors an at-risk youth or young single mother, coaches a little league team, or serves on a soup line - LET FREEDOM RING!

With every “rip” as a charitable donation is torn from the checkbook, and in every “plink” of a coin dropped in the Salvation Army bucket in unison with the clapper of the bell - LET FREEDOM RING!

In each “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to help other people at all times - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the scent of fresh baked bread or cookies as they are offered in welcome to new neighbors, a hand extended in friendship - LET FREEDOM RING!

In every smile, hug, hand-up; with all arms extended in fellowship and brotherhood, and every shoulder made wet from tears of the comforted - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the sizzle from the backyard BBQ, the splash in the pool, the metallic tunes from the circling ice-cream truck, and the crackle of fireworks, all intermingled with the laughter of children - LET FREEDOM RING!

And as music swells the breeze from the sweet string of the twilight concert in the park; the proud cymbal, fife and drum of the marching band; by every voice raised in harmony, “My country ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims pride, From every mountainside - LET FREEDOM RING!

As mortal tongues awake in conversation, and with every “I’m sorry,” “I forgive you,” “I’m proud of you,” “I love you!” - LET FREEDOM RING!

From each pew, pulpit and sanctuary in every church, temple, mosque and synagogue across this blessed land - LET FREEDOM RING!

In solitary, humble prayer on bended knee, with bowed head in gratitude and supplication to that great Author of Liberty - LET FREEDOM RING!

And last - though foremost on this Memorial Day - in the muffled hooves of the horse-drawn caisson baring the body of one who paid the ultimate sacrifice; the proud and powerful report of 21 guns; the grateful piping of “Amazing Grace;” and the mournful hum of taps - LET FREEDOM RING!

Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General, is one of 20 State AG's across America engaged in the current battle against the decay of State Sovereignty that is given through the U.S. Constitution. A lawsuit presently before the Court, declares the unconstitutionality of the health care bill just passed by Congress and signed by the President.

*(Posted verbatim, less any spelling errors from the original text.)