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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improper study leads to dangerous teaching and improper application.

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

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

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

Are they a fraud or authority?

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

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

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

Faction is evidence of the health of liberty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamilton's words verbatim from Federalist No.9:

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

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

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

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

Understanding our current situation: The Real history of parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Constitution and its intent hold the answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not in Rome.

Less of the same is still the same

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Uh dunno.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Shut Down not a Solution to Budget Discord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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