Refections on Research: Studying Eastern Europe Since the 1989 Revolution

The Process of Research: Vetting Qualified Sources 

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


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

Progress Report: Vetting Proper Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

References

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

QUIT TINKERING WTIH AMERICA

“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

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?

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.