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.