American Studies—The Lost Art of Studying the U.S. Constitution

What and why

American public schools require instruction in American history. But they lack the essential study of what makes Americans distinctly American. American Studies is, in a nutshell, Constitutional Studies.

There is no significant difference between America and other societies and governments without noting this definitive and peculiar difference. (The two terms will be used interchangeably in this article.) And because for generations there has not been an emphasis on the thorough study of the Constitution, the current interest and resurgence in studying and defending it is problematic. One would naturally consider this interest good, since we have had a long sabbatical from such. The problem is that there is such a prevailing illiteracy on the subject that genuine students studying from a knowledge of nothing assume, upon learning a little, knowledge of everything. Though the concepts behind the Constitution are simple, the article itself is not so because the impetus and understanding that created it are not written in the document.
Laying the foundations of study

The first rule of logic—whether in math or reasoning, such as debate—and in study, is to never assume anything that isn’t a proven fact. Assumptions lead to misguidance and are the basis for incorrect premises. That is a treacherous practice.

If I assume the Constitution is designed from today’s perspective, or, conversely, to be taken only in the context of what is precisely, word for word, written in the document—nothing more and nothing less—I most assuredly will misunderstand our nation’s purposes. The former will lead me to assume I can do anything with it. The latter will lead me to assume the Constitution is not the sum total of many premises and paradigms with impact upon its formation. Unfortunately these are poor assumptions that will lead to a false premise, as they are not based in fact.

The fact is: the Constitution actually is the sum total of many premises and cannot be understood effectively without an understanding of those. These are some of the premises: The founders appreciated the culture from whence they and earlier immigrants came. But they also revered the teachings of several master philosophers, common law and all the rules of construction, Judeo-Christian religious mores and morals, and a thorough understanding of world history. Copious study of the Constitution will give understanding of our government and country. But it is not enough. We must understand these.

We must put ourselves in the footsteps of the Founders, reading their sources, their words, and their actions to discover the purpose and intent of the Constitution when the document was crafted, and after, when applied to proposed Acts of Congress. To that, we must add the early opinions of Justices, who added their input when a stalemate occurred between the states and Congress. These show the original role and purpose of the Supreme Court.

We will focus on those aspects least known or understood by the body of Americans: Common Law, Rules of Construction, and study of journals of various debates, and the legislative record to demonstrate the importance of a broad study of events, concepts and the people who created them in an effort to truly understand American Studies.

Common Law

Common law is described as that law, whether by judge or by tradition, that governs a people in their social norms and mores. It is not the letter of law, but the expected behavior through enculturation. What those are at the formation of a country or government determine the purpose and define the meaning of a law from that time forward. In the case of the United States, common law was actually English judicial precedence, combined with English customs, social norms and mores. It is misguidance to believe the Constitution separated the United States from its English roots. It did not. It was actually quite the contrary.

The Founders considered it a subconscious “given” and only acted to improve upon their roots. But that is not visible in the reading of the Constitution. It must be understood through study of several primary sources, such as Elliot’s Debates, Cooke’s Reports, and other journals in the early years of America, as well as the legislative record and documents. Common Law from England is not obsolete. It is still often used to support the basis of law in the U.S. Just one example is in the definition of criminal recklessness or destruction. The American definition changed following two English court case as late as the 1980’s forward, which modified the definition there first.

Rules of Construction and their import on Constitutional themes

Rules of Construction are simply those tools used to decipher the validity of a law or clause, especially pertaining to the Constitution. They are a consortium of reasoning, which, when combined, help determine what is appropriate law and what is not. Among the more common rules of reasoning are the Plain Meaning Rule (Literal Rule), which considers the meaning of a law by the regularly accepted language in the text at the time it was written and is not to be modified from its original form; the Golden Rule, found in Judeo-Christian Holy Writ, which is the basis for Natural Law and the subsequent Social Contract designed by John Locke reference by the Founders; The Mischief Rule—an important rule, it is at once critically ignored and the most abused method in determining the value of legislation. This rule questions the intent behind an Act. Does an act preserve or destroy the purpose of the Constitution? Does the legislation create harm to one over others—reducing the intent of inalienable rights? —And so forth. The danger in applying this rule is when a legislator applies intent, or a judge interprets intent in a way other than what was original, using instead his/her own definition of it. One must be familiar with all of history and the record in order to accurately assess whether mischief to the original intent will occur.

Even with the inherent flaws, this rule (coupled with the Common Law Rule) was most used by the Founders when deciphering the legitimacy of a proposed piece of legislation. Did it go to the intent of the Constitution? [Graham, Principles of Confederacy; pp6-11]

The Purposive Rule requires an understanding of history. Herein lays one of the fundamental laps in the Constitutional student’s education, to say nothing of most of our society who should understand the Constitution. Looking solely at the text of the Constitution without an historical narrative will most surely end in miscalculations and inappropriate legislation, to say nothing of Americans’ expectations. Two perfect examples lay in the ongoing debate about immigration, and in the resurgence of the theory that states have a right to “nullify” unwanted or unwarranted Federal legislation. To be clear, the scope of this discussion is in demonstrating the importance of thorough study of the Constitution as the basis of our American Studies. It is not a debate about the theories of nullification or the proper role of immigration law. That is saved for another day.

The former debate has led many groups to many varying conclusions. Some say immigration is not a federal responsibility because it is not literally listed among the duties of Article I, Sec. 8. They are using the Plain Meaning Rule, alone, for their interpretation. Others claim, by the same exact article and section that immigration is indeed included as a duty as it goes to naturalization. They are using the Mischief Rule to determine immigration law’s legitimacy. So too, are those who claim immigration is a natural action to oblige the mandate in Articles I, II, and IV, which protect the states from invasion.

Then, there are those who claim history proved immigration is not a duty of the Federal government at all because the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 declare it. This would be a form of the Purposive Rule except for one fatal flaw: the historical research into the purpose of immigration in relation to the Resolves of 1798 are not a thorough study of the issue or the Resolves. (We will discuss these Resolutions further when looking at the issue of nullification.) This rule is most difficult, as it requires in this day and age a high level of effort in researching all the history on any given issue. It is very easy to miss a critical historical fact or original perspective and thus miss entirely, a point or purpose in the Constitution, as research surrounding the Resolves demonstrates.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

In 1798, James Madison and his good friend Thomas Jefferson, one the governor of his state of Virginia, the other Vice President and residing in Kentucky secretly constructed a lengthy list of perceived infractions by the Federal Government regarding a number of issues, including immigration and silencing insults laid at the President (The Alien and Sedition Acts). Their list culminated in the resolutions. But the two parted ways on one main issue. nullification, which demanded and declared a right of states to nullify a federal law it deemed unconstitutional was the brainchild of Jefferson alone. Today, proponents of nullification and immigration laws on the state level only, and opponents of federal immigration legislation will cite the Resolves as their justification. There are inherent problems with using the Resolutions as support of any position, however.

While some of Jefferson and Madison’s grievances were well justified—those concerning curbing freedom of speech, for one, the two make some remarkably large errors in their arguments. In the Virginia Resolution is this statement:

…powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that ‘the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808;’ that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens:

While James Madison, in this segment of one resolution, claims the states have a right to immigration laws using this phrase in support of “migration of alien friends,” and Congress has none, he was a partner to the construction of the Constitution, and clearly knew the clause to which he refers regarding the “migration and importation” of people was referring to slaves and part of a compromise to end the practice of slavery by 1808. Madison knew the intent of that clause, spoke to it, himself, but knowingly ignored the Mischief and Purposive Rules in crafting his resolutions. The student of American Studies, having read both Madison’s notes and Elliot’s at least, will notice that Madison misuses the clause, understanding well its intended purpose as solely in regard to the slave trade and its eventual dissolution. That fact was cemented in the record to which Madison contributed, including this commentary about The 1808 Clause:

It were doubtless to be wished that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account either for their restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly unbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished.

Concurrently, in the Kentucky Resolution is this: “the [Alien Act]…exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government.” Jefferson destroys his argument using the Plain Meaning Rule to justify his objection to new immigration laws enacted in Congress. Using a literal meaning rule to argue against the immigration laws automatically condemned the Resolutions themselves for usurping a power delegated to the Supreme Court—not the states. The Supreme Court declared it so. Neither did the other states actively support the Resolves. Madison, Jefferson, and their state legislatures were grossly outnumbered by the rest of the nation, who simply did not buy their arguments.

Some supporters of nullification will claim Jefferson was elected to President to remedy the Alien and Sedition Acts, and that as President, he successfully reversed those. While it is true that as President he pardoned those sentenced and jailed, Jefferson had nothing to do with the reversal of the Acts. Those Acts expired through a Sunset Clause, (which was customary in legislation of the day), on Mar. 3, 1801.

If a student of the Constitution is familiar—as they should and must be—with the debates of the Convention, and understands rules of construction the Founders used, they will dismiss the resolutions as, not only obsolete, but invalid. Madison, sideswiped the intent of them by ignoring the history of the Debates, even though he himself was not only party to the discussion but also vocally encouraged Federal involvement in state slavery immigration—contrary to his later stand with the Resolutions that the Federal government had no right to interfere in immigration. Thus, the student of the Constitution inquiring whether the Resolves of 1798 are justification for the states to nullify an Act of Congress will understand them to be an incredible source in support of nullification, and against federal immigration law.

The popularity of worshiping some Early Americans and vilifying others is of interesting note. This is caused from the lack of thorough reading about all the initiatives, comments and efforts of all the Founders. Case in point: The art of American Studies requires reading enough to note that while Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, he was not an author to the Constitution at all. He was in France. Yet, he is often quoted as a reference to the clauses and intent of the Constitution as if he were a major contributor. His comments were an afterthought—film critic commentary. Jefferson was a Founder but not technically a Framer. It would be excellent literacy for the student of American History to avail themselves of all the Framers who contributed during the Convention.

Additionally, the student of American Studies will recognize that singling out one Early American hero as the unquestionable resource for all things American and Constitutional is relegating the United States, not to the inspired consensus of a body of great and diverse men—thus creating balance, but the single mind of one. This defies the beauty of the American system that takes into consideration the efforts of all as the necessary injunction of our government. Thomas Jefferson was not “The People.” Nor was Washington. Hamilton was not a rouge charlatan. There were many great, and some under appreciated, contributors to the construction of the Constitution, who need to be completely studied. All of these men were imperfect but combined they were genius. Schools must provide and encourage thorough reading of our history, rather than cherry picking pieces, or worse, focusing upon little known and even less consequential records that are more politically correct than historically compelling. Effort to deeply study what actually makes us American will help us gain a proper perspective and understand the full intent and merit of our great American heritage.


Sources:
Elliot’s Debates
Madison’s Notes
Cooke’s Reports
The Federalist Papers
Kentucky Resolution of 1789; Thomas, Library of Congress
Virginia Resolution of 1789, Thomas, Library of Congress
Principles of Confederacy; John Remington Graham, Northwest Publishing Co. SLC]
First & Second Treatise of Civil Government, John Locke
Blackstone’s Commentaries
Thomas, Library of Congress: www.Thomas.LOC.gov

(Note: Sources hyper linked in text are not listed directly above and are for the reader’s easy access to information in the context of this writing, but not recommended for thorough study.)

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.
.