To What End, These Memorials Be?

I read with interest the history of Memorial Day this morning.[i] While it was a practice from state to state, it was recognized officially first in 1873 as a state holiday of New York. Its purpose needs no introduction: Americans are well acquainted with the tradition of remembering her fallen heroes of wars past and wars present.

Hardly a living American soul is untouched by those who have served unhesitatingly (or even hesitatingly) in the most horrific of circumstances on her behalf. War is ugly and a travesty upon Humanity. But Humanity would be less of one without an acquiescent bow to her guardians of defense. I am left wondering, is there something lacking in the memory?

Is the point of a Memorial to preserve the memory? To what end are our memories preserved? A memory nestled solitaire serves no purpose. A memory with any sort of value embeds a conviction of emotion, which in turn compels action. If a memory produces enamoration, we’ll preserve the thing that caused the memory. If a memory carries with it anger, or hurt, we will seek to prevent the memory from ever again being replicated. Wisdom would foster doing whatever is necessary to prevent the same situation from arising. Arguably the most powerful memories cause an indelible change to our character—one that is eternally lasting.

Such are the memories of Memorial Day. Whether their donation of the ultimate sacrifice for American’s sakes is accepted or rejected by destiny, our feelings for those who have offered it should produce more in us than flowers by the granite marker's side; and another reason to create memories of the best neighborhood barbecue. They should instill, and then preserve, the thing that was worth preserving—that which gave worth to the memory in the first place. Otherwise, the memory is vain; and nothing more than a fictitious hypocrisy, a blatant sanctimony. Real memories compel production.

Let us go to the beginning—where early settlers became the first to sacrifice to the future development of this nation. Surely, that history is flawed, filled with humans doing the best with unexpected realizations far from their romantic notions of fleeing their Motherland for a better, more promising life. They faced battles with native residents, famine, disease, the worst of elements, forsaken refineries and gentlemanly courts, ethnocentrism and prejudice, and stability to bring a future of idealism to their descendants. They set the stage for social paradigm shifts.

The rebels of the Revolutionary war, having little more than faith in God, George Washington, and an ideal passed along to them by nearly a century of evolving paradigms about freedom, suffered the same contradictions of the early Colonists. This time, the circumstance was war. The Revolution teetered between creating the most prolific real estate for liberty and killing an ideal stone dead. Its memory should produce in every American since its time a fire to protect what was devotedly produced for our sakes, and at great personal and accumulated peril--a legacy of inalienable rights that before that time, no government either unquestionably acknowledged or protected.

Nearly a century later, the Civil War became the bloodiest battlein United States history.[ii]When the dust settled, there were more than one million casualties. More than half, about 620,000 died. Putting brother against brother this war left mothers with bleeding hearts, incapable of doing anything to quash sibling rivalry. The War threatened not only to split the nation apart but the very fiber of society—the family. With more than another century passed, has America remembered the lessons of that conflagration?

World War I was the first “industrially produced” war. The rapid fire of an automatic machine gun made warfare more efficient. Ironically—and fortunately, this war did not outpace the Civil War in casualties. It did not even come close. For that we must remember World War II.

World War II is the war of infamy. 61 Million Souls[iii]were lost in this war. America’s tally was half what it was in the Civil War. But the toll across the globe was staggering. Russia, alone suffered a hellish loss, with 2/3 of their losses in civilians. What lessons do the memories produce for us of these two global conflicts?

The Korean War brought the first modern concept of warfare for Americans—governance by an international body outside the United States. It netted the first failure to achieve what was intended and expected—to win. Excepting the Civil War, from this time forward guerrilla[iv]tactics, rather than gallantry and chivalry in battle were the game plan. All was not "fair" in war again.

In the World Wars, if your opponent was not equally armored, particularly fighter pilots, a foe would tip a hat or a wing and retreat because it was not considered a fair (equal) fight. Additionally, there was no question who your enemy was; each side, as had been done for centuries, identified themselves in full dress and colors. Guerrilla warfare, the system of battle since Korea, designated everyone in camouflage fatigues to blend with the landscape. It used psychological strategy as well as a no holds barred, unconventional approach to assault and defense. What do the memories of these wars produce? Indeed, in war strategy, we have evolved. But as human beings, have we learned from the American Revolution and instilled the original ideal as we have progressed through time?

Clearly, we have engaged in justified wars and in some that have confused us. Some have reiterated the virtues for which America was conceived. Others have questioned our integrity—or constancy—as a nation of ideals. The question as we remember those who have passed on, and who paid a price, either small or great on our behalf is to what end do we remember? We must not only remember the people, but what they stood for—what they knew they stood for.

America, arguably, is at a crossroads to either protect or abandon the first intentions and expectations of Colonial heroes. We must learn from our memories what will help us to avoid repetition of sins past, and increase tenacity to preserve those qualities behind the noblest actions. Anything else is nothing more than vain and ill-defined memory.

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Let our memories cause us to commit to what needs doing this Memorial Day in the same way those who first sacrificed for this country, and those subsequently, that future memorials will hold less loss--by war or incivility, and more of their intention by their sacrifice, as Lieutenant John McCrae so poignantly pleaded.

---

[i] http://www.usmemorialday.org/backgrnd.html

[ii] http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm

[iii] http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm

[iv] http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/defn/guerril.htm

Romney Emails Show Need Of Voters To Scrutinize Media As Much As Candidates

The public has an admirable argument about the preponderance of media spin, especially during the election cycle. There seems to be no end to the bizarre news—if one could call it news—that supposedly claims to give proper information to the public. Every current GOP candidate has been fodder for the media that conjures up news that really isn’t what they claim it is. There are no exceptions: Pick a candidate, and the media will find some strange news to create from him/her. To be clear at the outset, this is not an article claiming to endorse Mitt Romney or any other candidate. This is an article that shows an example of obvious propaganda by the media, and Romney is the immediate target.

Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, is
under fire by media for using personal email
as Governor despite being lawful and
showing tenacity for conservative government

Credits:Americasright.com

Case in point is the Houston Chronicle’s own odd piece, entitled, “Election 2012: Romney used private email as governor,“ that they published today, March 10, from an AP bulletin published yesterday. The Chron, following the swath of media outlets using the AP article, tries to lay a claim that Romney was doing something devious, or questionable by using his personal email for transmissions that the newspaper claims were government business.

To be fair, both the AP release and The Chron.com state that there is nothing illegal in Romney's use of private email. No kidding. So, what is their point? Both articles, one simply mimicking the other, imply an improper action by the Governor, turned Presidential Candidate. But a read of the actual emails makes one wonder, even laugh, at the media attempt to display some poor character on behalf of the Governor. In one of the emails, Romney clarifies what message he would like sent in a press release,

…I’d rather lead with something which underscored the dangerous path the legislature is heading down, rather than the pork and waste. E.g., ‘I cannot in good conscience agree to spending money from the rainy day fund in a year of record high rvenues [sic.]. The spending in these bills would put Massachusetts on the same road to ruin we’ve been down before.’

…I’d like to really get the message out that what they are doing is a huge departure from fiscal discipline and that if we go down that road, big problems—like deep cuts to local aid, education and higher taxes—are sure to follow.

‘The last time Massachusetts got into financial crisis, it was because the state spent most of the record high tax revenues that came from capital gains. But unlike today, the legislature then was wise enough to put away some of the money in the rainy day fund. Today, we are seeing the same record high tax revenues coming from capital gains and the legislature is not only spending it, they are draining the rainy day fund at the same time.’

In the email, Romney, showing obvious humility, suggests the person to whom the email is addressed could do a better job of writing the point Romney makes. The email does not lend support to some sort of impropriety. Instead, beyond humility amidst ability, it shows qualities of frugality and genuine concern for the welfare of the state. Had the email displayed some demeanor contrary to the Candidate’s current claims to conservative attributes, we would have reason for alarm. It would show him as something other than what he has claimed. The fact that this is a private email indicates a candid moment of clarifying his concerns. Had this been sent through an official email—a publically recorded memo—we would lay accusation that the Governor was deliberately trying to appear pious and play the part of the hero against a spend-thrifty legislature hostile to his heroic expectations. Rather, because it is a privately sent message is conveys just the opposite: that he is simply using the most efficient means of communication to expedite an already scheduled press release relaying his concerns.

In another email Romney sent via his personal email, he comments on an editorial by the Boson Globe that heralds the Governor’s attempt to preserve the rainy day fund, but that also suggests Romney should pass the burden of balancing the budget onto the next Governor because of it. Vetoing the rainy day fund would cause a possible shortage that Romney can avoid dealing with if he simply passes the difficulty on, the Globe suggests. But Romney emphatically refused to saddle the incoming governor with a budget out of balance. Again, one has to wonder why the media would make this out to be a somehow questionable action by Romney because it was not sent via an official government email address. What is actually demonstrated by Romney is good character, not bad, in an unwillingness to pass the buck.

What is learned here is that the reader must be vigilant in closely scrutinizing conclusions by media in comparison to the actual facts—even facts they cite. (Perhaps, by citing them reporters expect no one will check the sources.) The reader must evaluate whether source documents are consistent with the claims made in the report. In this situation, to distinguish any troubling difference between the public and the private persona, and as in this report, (and I would wager, in most) actually showing a consistency with a claimed virtue by the candidate. More than anything, AP and subsequently, The Chron.com and a whole host of outlets, expose their own questionable character when unwittingly documenting the legitimacy of a candidate’s character, contrary to their own headline and body of text that they spin and negate the facts with.
Stephen Braun, who wrote the piece for the Associated Press, misunderstands what he thinks he was conveying through his own sources. In his own report,

‘Any time public business is being done electronically, whether its public or private email, the public should have a record," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which tracks how states deal with electronic data and other records. "When you use private devices to do public business you remove public accountability.’ [Emphasis added.]

We know from this quote that all emails should be public domain because a representative for the media says so. This is evidence of an article designed solely to promote the cause of the reporter to his/her bottom line to gain easy access to documents otherwise legitimately unobtainable. To his credit, Braun does acknowledge that states are split on whether private and official emails should be treated the same. But that is as far as he goes, (except to note some individuals of notoriety who's emails have been protected by the courts), all the while claiming private emails are nefarious.
Additionally, Braun’s final statement, which Houstonians should be observant of as representing the spin of media, again shows his own inability to see the point he is actually making with quotes such as this one about an unofficial email,

By November, intent on finding an offsetting $425 million in appropriations cuts, Romney wrote Fehrnstrom from his campaign email account that he was considering negotiations but inclined toward a budget battle that would ‘let the fur fly.’ Romney wrote that ‘this is about getting spending under control for the state and a new administration.’

Romney ordered $425 million in cuts that month, slashing medical, social service, education and public works programs. But he backtracked on some reductions because of public concerns.

Obviously, the mainstream media, who took this AP report and flew with it, doesn’t have a clue about the larger behavior they exposed in Romney while criticizing him for a minor infraction that is arguably not an infraction at all. Does it strike anyone else as odd that the media is suggesting that Romney has something to hide in these emails, even though the emails do nothing less than show Romney’s actions as Governor are consistent with his campaign promises of responsible governance, frugality and refusing to pass the buck?

As campaigns come to Houston, it is incumbent upon all voters to learn about the candidates, not by listening to tweaked articles by major media outlets, but by digging deeper to the original sources to see the candidate and his/her actions without the vertigo of the spin. Indeed, Texans would do well to scrutinize the media as much as the candidates to avoid these dizzying reports. Houstonians, as well as Americans at large, should understand the real implications from such articles as this one about Romney. It can, has, and will happen to any candidate, especially when they are the biggest target.

Ultimately, the media’s message here is not about Romney but about their own inability to step off the merry-go-round.

(Originally published on Examiner.com/political-buzz-in-houston, 3.10.12)

 

 

     

     

Texas plays key role in Primary Election as the "Stoker"

(As first published in Examiner.com;  by S. Devereaux, Houston Political Buzz Examiner)

Have you ever ridden a tandem bike? If so, you know that the most powerful teammate, the Stoker, sits in the rear position. While the Captain, in forward position is responsible for steering , warning of hazards ahead and balance, the Stoker, in the rear position is the engine—the power of the team. Most of the forward thrust is dependent upon the stoker because the total weight of the team and their bike requires the most strength to propel the entire tour fastest and with the most endurance by this team member.

This physics principle can be applied to the American Primary election process. It was a mystery why the National GOP threatened heavy hitting states like Texas and Florida with the loss of half their delegates if they moved their primary elections forward in order to have an early say in who should be the Republican nominee. Why would the GOP bully its own members with such a penalty? It seemed a massive control issue; But it becomes clear why once we run the numbers and envision what would happen if a state the size of Texas, (carrying four of the largest cities in the nation within its boundaries—Houston, fourth in the nation, and not too far behind are Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin) were to have an early primary. It is nothing more than applying the principle behind successful tandem biking.

Let’s visualize the numbers and how they would play out with a large state like Texas (or Florida) at the front of the primary elections. Then we’ll look at those numbers from the opposite spectrum with a late Primary.

There were about eight Republican candidates for the first primary election in Ohio. If that Primary were held in Texas, at least three scenarios present themselves as possible outcomes. For one: Because of the diversity of voters in Texas, it is possible that the election could be rendered moot, with no distinct winners or losers. That would mean that a Primary in Texas actually provided no significant contribution in narrowing the field and bringing forth a front runner or two, or forcing one or two to the back of the pack enough to compel them to drop out. The candidates would simply move on to the next primary as if it was their first.

The next scenario could be to produce a significant pack of followers that came out to vote for their candidate en masse. If that were possible in a state the size of Texas, the result could—and most likely would, based upon the few incidences in the past—net an extreme candidate in either direction, liberal or conservative, depending on the tenacity of an organized group to vote as a pack. In my observation, this is historically what happens with this kind of “block vote”. But this is no small task. The Tea Party groups in Texas are as diverse as the state is large. In Houston alone, the number of Tea Party groups is well into double digits and they are equally diverse from each other. One might support one candidate, and down the road another will support someone at the other end of the Republican spectrum. Historically, a group like this that has success voting as a pack tends to be a specific candidate’s own followers. Historically speaking, these groups tend to be extremely loyal and driven, which creates the base force behind organizing with enough community strength to dominate a primary election. Assuming the rare historical pattern existed this time, it would net a candidate with the most extreme views in one direction or the other as a front runner, which stands a good chance of sabotaging the general election with a candidate lacking the ability to connect and draw a broad and diverse coalition of voters to win the General election. The purpose of the primary would be frustrated.

The third scenario shows the nefarious side of Primary politics, and probably is an indication of what the concerns the National GOP have with massive states like Texas. Texas is not only diverse but has open primaries allowing any voter to participate in the Republican Primary, even if they are actually affiliated elsewhere, like the Democratic Party. Open primaries create perfect prey for opposing party members to vote en masse for someone who they see as easy competition their own candidate can defeat. In Houston, some districts are solidly Republican while others are just as determinedly Democrat. Remember, the purpose of a Primary election is to prepare your party with a candidate that can win in the General election. That means bringing forth the candidate that can best beat all opposing parties’ candidates. Texas is not so red that it is impossible for Democrats to overwhelm an open Republican Party election with sabotage, helping choose a candidate they are certain their own best candidate, not just could, but would defeat. Houston serves as an example of the party diversity. So this scenario is the most dangerous of proposals for a state like Texas—and especially in a city with wide diversity of party politics like Houston.

Understanding these scenarios, now, let’s run the numbers in the other direction. First, we need to understand that the traditional states that lead off the Primary elections are also traditionally pretty liberal states—Ohio and New Hampshire come to mind. This means Republicans in these states are more likely—but not guaranteed—to be more liberal. But South Carolina is far more conservative, having a record in the past eleven elections of only voting for one Democratic Presidential Candidate (1976). These states are also small in population. They are numerically and culturally more likely to vote similarly—in a tight pack—than a much larger state. Their closer affinity assists in honing in on specific candidates above others, thus acting as a housekeeper to clear the field more rapidly than a larger state could. Additionally the two more liberal states are more likely to choose a candidate closer to the middle on the philosophical line who can draw the other side toward their party’s candidate once in the General election. South Carolina acts as a stop-gap election—a cork, if you will—preventing a too liberal candidate from emerging as the front runner over a moderate one, thus keeping a tender balance as the candidate selection moves forward.

This strategy results in a candidate that may not be the ultimate candidate of choice in a state that is very conservative, or one such as Texas whose electoral strength would reasonably demand a “right” to determine the candidate for the entire country—if they could pick just one. But what it does is allow the big gun states—like Texas—to make the final determination. These states become the Stokers that propel one before all the others in what’s left of the pack. While it may seem an insignificant task to choose from the remainder of the narrowed field that others determined , once the election rolls around to them, these states are indeed the muscle in the back seat, that have the strength and endurance to propel the very best finalist to the front to win the race.

Allen West Speaks on NDAA: Wanna Buy Some Swamp Land?

Allen West might want to consider apologizing for his lack of due diligence to his constituency and every audience, including the world wide one that views YouTube to whom he spoke about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  A recent YouTube video clip of Mr. West speaking at a Tea Party event in Florida proves two things: One, Mr. Allen West doesn’t appear competent to be a legislator of any kind; secondly, he is a living example of why we have a problem with bad and even unconstitutional legislation in America.  He might as well have been conducting a seminar on the keen art of buying and selling swamp land in Florida.

In a clip, Allen West finally sets record straight about National Defense Authorization Act.wmv; West reads the summary of the National Defense Authorization Act which states that the bill is specific to Al Qaeda and other terrorists and not to Americans. West also emphasizes no new powers are given to the Federal government. He then goes to page 657 and reads verbatim the paragraph that exempts Americans from Military Custody. (West says he is reading page 657, but he is not.) In fact, he is actually reading on page 430, Section 1032b (1) of S1867 or page 266 Section 1022 of HR 1540, which he read as follows:

…(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

11ment to detain a person in military custody under

12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

13 States….

West challenges the audience to tell him where in the bill there is anything suggesting something different than this exemption. I wish I had been there:  I read the bill. One has to wonder what West would have done had someone in the audience known anything about the bill. Perhaps they didn’t bother to read it because they were expecting West to be the expert to guide them.--So much for the value of expert guidance.  So, to his challenge is the following, from S1867 and HR1540, Sections 1032 and 1022 a (4), respectively, the paragraph just preceding--and specific to--the one he read, (cited above), reads:

          (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
          2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
          3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In
          4 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
          5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
          6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
          7 interests of the United States.

It is not difficult to understand that the waiver in the paragraph he didn’t read is specifically referring to the one he did considering the use of Paragraph b “(1)” which includes the language about “the requirement”.

Mr. West introduced himself as a qualified expert on the bill, as one who sits on the Armed Forces Committee.  Hmm. Did Mr. West know what was in the bill but simply defrauded the audience? Or did he do what notoriously happens on the Capitol: he didn’t really read the bill?

This public incident should be an embarrassment to Mr. West.  To be amply fair to him, we should err on the side of charity and conclude that he isn’t nefarious but, rather, careless and/or naïve. Sadly, either way, he has done a great disservice to his constituency, the audience, and those of YouTube. All legislators make mistakes and holding someone’s entire political career in the balance for one bad blunder is probably a little harsh.  But when a legislator qualifies himself as a credentialed expert because—as in this case for example, he serves on the Armed Services Committee—and then publically renders a verdict on the bill, spreads that through the general public, a higher standard and expectation must be adhered to.

Beyond West’s exclusion of the facts in the bill--as bad as that is, this incident illustrates a larger issue.  It shows two significant paradigms that must change as part of a strategy to mend our political and societal problems in America.

First, Americans need to lose their naiveté and start reading bills themselves. The Constitutional debates include specific discussion that legislation should be short and clearly understandable to the average citizen. (Tongue in cheek: this bill is short—shy of 700 pages and obviously understandable given all the debate. Of course it helps to read the entire bill.) Moreover, Americans seem to believe that somehow those who represent us are more intelligent than we are. This example with West is not an exception, but more the rule.  It would behoove Americans to expect that if they can’t read a bill, (excluding summaries as “the bill”), it’s likely their representative can’t either. Americans should make it clear that if they cannot get through a bill, it doesn’t get passed. Period.

Secondly, any legislator or any person who reads the summary under the assumption that it equates to reading the bill is both naïve about the bias of summaries and lazy. This cherry picking of the bill to emphasis what the summary says is precisely why we have bills that are improper, inaccurate to their intent and/or in denial of the Constitution outright. 

Sadly, this is precisely the kind of misguidance that is leaving the American public in a dizzying state of confusion and disenchantment with their own politics. Allen West has some explaining to do and it better not equate to selling proverbial swamp land in Florida.  More importantly Americans have simply got to stop buying swamp land.

Mirror Mirror on the Wall: A Constitution Designed to Reflect American's Paradigms

Displays a need for a truly New Year's Resolution.
[as originally published on www.USDailyReview.com by S. Devereaux]

The issue at hand is our collection of paradigms and what those are doing to curtail the restoration back to the government as it was intended because we fail to recognize—or believe—that  the images in government that we disdain are painful reflections of ourselves.  Modifying paradigms is a bit more difficult than losing a few pounds as a New Year’s resolution.

For instance, Americans claim they don’t want the “good ‘ol boy” in office. They want the “regular Joe”.  Yet, when seeking those who are qualified for state or federal offices, they look at those already in elected office.  What part of refreshing founding principles is that?  The Founders knew that Senators needed to be the more educated of the two houses of Congress.  But they also perceived the Representatives as coming specifically from among the people.—both, actually, but Representatives especially. That House was specifically intended to have neighbors representing neighbors.  Their close affinity to their own was reason for election every two years—taking turns.  

Senators, who were supposed to represent the States needed more higher education, not because they were superior to their fellow Congressional electors, hardly; but because it was hoped that their additional professional and educational experience would provide the analytical skills needed to decipher the complex needs of a state government.  Neither house, however, was specifically intended to be filled by those whose qualifications demanded elected office experience. That is an invention of modern day nationalistic philosophy.

Another ready instance: The lion’s share of Americans want government to rein in spending—in particular, debt. Yet, the people have the highest foreclosure rates in history, and a consistently high rate of personal indebtedness.  Irrespective of government interference in the mortgage industry that produced the “mortgage bubble” and encouraged bad mortgages with over-valued property, people should know what they can and cannot afford. Common sense is expected. Enticements or none, we cannot point an accusing finger demanding a different paradigm from those that represent us when we, from whence they come, do not follow the same prescription.

Still another example:  I recently worked on a grassroots project where multiple committees had specific roles.  After a time, I found that a couple of individuals took it upon themselves to hijack the responsibilities of others in order to orchestrate what they wanted in certain areas over that of others who had been assigned those tasks.  When I questioned why they were not respecting the assignments as given, one of the two answered that they just wanted to make sure the project was successful and ‘things’ got done—“for our country”.  I wonder: Exactly what part of this paradigm, built on circumventing others’ duties is different from Obama circumventing the powers and responsibilities assigned to Congress that he usurps through Executive Orders, and implementing specific Departments of the Government do this bidding--and what’s worse, putting into place programs that pilfer each person’s opportunity to do for themselves?   In both scenarios the paradigm claims to “Save the Country” by robbing opportunities of others through control. 

If we Americans truly want the federal government to make the improvements (I cringe to use the word, “change”) needed in bringing us in square with the intention of the Constitution, we need to be taking a serious look at our own thinking and subsequent behavior.We won't be finding anyone soon in the highest office with a paradigm any different than our own.

To that end, then, what can be done to get us back to those original paradigms?  We don’t have the luxury of as many years to restore them as it took to distort them or our Constitution.  But for starters, we can look first at ourselves for behaviors we see in government, then change it, rather than justify it.

The most profound actions we can take are not in the realm of the government at all—though they are part of American politics:  American paradigms mean looking out for the needs of neighbors and family, so the government has no input there. Americans should study their Constitution, “for our country,” then pass it along, so the government cannot fool us about its role.  Fellow citizens should be looking for ways and means to help another build their abilities, not take their opportunities from them.  Indeed, the most powerful paradigm shift is in accepting that American government means living in a way that is mutually beneficial, and then finally taking turns representing each other.

I suppose this whole issue of paradigm change could best be summed up in the late Michael Jackson’s tune, “Man in the Mirror” and Disney’s wicked queen and her magical mirror in Snow White: Both illustrate the very paradigm lacking in most of us to truly improve our government:  In America, government is a mirror image of and truth teller about oneself, whether we like it or not. Changing the paradigm is truly a New Year’s challenge worth undertaking.

A Dying Day of Dignity for American Liberty: Congress stoops low to give President Power to declare Martial Law

Tuesday marked another day in dying dignity for Americans.  The Senate, everything short of wisdom and sanity voted nearly unanimously for the Defense Authorization bill.  Known primarily as a fiscal bill—a bill to allocate funds for the next couple years for defense measures, it also modified the procedures for handling terrorism. 

Confusion abounds about the intent of the bill: Does it rob liberty and due process from American Citizens or does it not? The answer is actually both.  Well, sort of.  The truth is that the bill does indeed take Constitutional rights from Americans.  Robs them blind, actually. But the wording of the act cleverly disguises this stripping.

In Sections 1032 to 1037, which defines the requirements of military custody—that would be another name for martial law—one paragraph states that a future paragraph is exempt; they call it “waived” from the exempted status it seeks to list.  What is that paragraph?  The one that says Americans are exempt from martial law. You are reading correctly:  The latter paragraph is an exemption, along with another one exempting lawful resident aliens, from detainment of custody by military, but the waiver that comes before it reverses that exemption in any situation the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State says warrants it.  This is suspect, particularly because the “lawful resident aliens’” rights remain in tack—escaping the waiver of the exemption—meaning their exempted status against detention and so forth, remains, even when American status does not.  This is just insultingly bad math to Americans who have been betrayed wholesale by the very people in whom they put their complete trust for their liberties.  

To make matters worse, the Senate and House are attempting to reconcile their differences between each house’s versions of the latest Defense Authorization bill.  Given that the House version has none of the liberty robbing clauses in it, that fact that they are working with the Senate on a compromise indicates a willingness to give up some of American’s inalienable and constitutionally enumerated rights for the sake of this compromise.  A compromise on liberties is in violation of the Constitution that both houses are sworn to protect. Giving any part of any of them away is tantamount to a breach of our Contract with them in that document.  Clearly the Federal government has an obligation to protect the states from insurrection and invasion and to preserve liberty in this country.  Any measure, however, that takes one from the other is not well thought out policy.  This nation has and always will be the land to covet.  Absolute security is not reasonable, nor expected.   A police state, which in theory is the only way to preserve absolute safety—at least from all other threats besides the government itself—is wholly against the intent of the Constitution, Colonial America, and the vast understanding of the Founders on the principles of freedom.

Unfortunately, the two Houses of Congress met to work out a compromise on their differences. Note, first, however, that the House version contained no such insults to liberty. Their version on the bill was strictly an allocation of funds. So, exactly what compromise were they intending? A compromise of liberty? Indeed. Today, the House passed a "compromise" version of the Defense Authorization bill. And what was the compromise? The House of Representatives added the precise text in question, including the so-called "waiver" of the "exclusion". The one difference is that the call of national security no longer is decreed by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State, which was bad enough. This bill, however goes one step further into the twilight zone of American Horror: This bill gives the president--that would be paranoid Obama--the power to declare such a national security threat to call up Martial law. This power goes to the same man who in November 2011, said it is necessary to provide indefinite detention of people suspected of planning a crime.

To make matters even worse, the Library of Congress is now keeping a complete record, going back to Twitter’s inception, of all tweets.  That is right; Twitter is now under the auspices of the Library of Congress.  This would be a ridiculous, nearly laughable sight to the Founders of this nation, were they not pained by the sharp barbs from constant rolling over in their graves from such a gross departure from the Constitution on a daily basis; and here, of the purpose of the Library of Congress.  To wit: the Library of Congress’s purpose is in support of one of the enumerated duties of the Federal government, to protect the property rights of those who produce and invent: trademarks, patents, and copyrights. The catalogue system we have is derived from and then stored in the Library of Congress.  Never was there a thought or purpose to cataloguing comments or statements publicly posted on a private site.  The LOC is celebrating their intentions by claiming that they will be seeking the most informational and beneficial comments.  To what end? 

One can only wonder.  But then, too much wondering could be construed by this Administration as spying, and we know from Sections 1032 to 1037 of S1867 where that will land us.

[Another form of this article first appeard in USDailyReview.com on Dec. 13, 2011]

REMEMBERING BARNEY FIFE: OBAMA SPEECH AFTER ASIA-PACIFIC SUMMIT

(Published in US Daily Review 11.14.11 by Sheryl Devereaux)

Barack Obama reminds me of Barney Fife.

Fife was ready to pull his unloaded gun, hands trembling, from his holster in a minute if he could look like the hero.  When his boss and best buddy Andy Taylor was looking, he was especially brave; at least he was hoping he could convince others he wasn’t the skinny-cat coward he truly didn’t want to be.  But then Andy, in his wisdom, would let his pal look the part of the hero.  Fife was especially funny when he talked tough; in a no-nonsense authoritarian voice that everyone but him knew was empty of authority, “Nip it. Nip it in the bud.”  These days, when President Obama speaks he sounds so much like that icon of idealic society, Barney Fife, that I can close my eyes during one of his speeches and see the face of Barney lip syncing Obama’s words.  True to form were his comments on Sunday to America—the perfect “nip it” speech—not his first, but clearly in his classic form.

He told China to “grow up”:

"Most economists estimate that the renminbi is devalued by 20 to 25 percent. That means our exports to China are that much more expensive and their imports into the United States are that much cheaper," Obama said.

"There has been slight improvement over the last year partly because of U.S. pressure but it hasn't been enough. It is time for them to go ahead and move toward a market based system for their currency."

Right.  This is from the President who topped every past President in generosity to China by giving them an absurd –even treasonous amount of high technology—an amount no other President, left or right of the line dared—in sane or insane moments—to give China.  These were not the traditional gifting to China of past presidents, but technology that our capitalist companies created by private enterprise ingenuity designed to improve lives across all spectrums of the industry but are held as top secret even to their competitors. When combined they forge unyielding military power—“sensors, optics, and biological and chemical processes, all of which are identified as having inherent military application." This is from the President that has made history for the number and amount of government take overs of private industry, the largest interferences in the capitalist system. Even Democrats fear his competency.   This is from the President who has created policies that have increased the government’s debt and spending to an incomprehensible amount.—all definitely not signs of “a market based system”.

Obama said America welcomes “the peaceful rise of China”.  What?  Clearly this is more evidence that Obama is out of touch with Americans.  Obama used the word, “rise”, not any words such as “improvement of living standards,” or, “its peoples’ success,” etc.   The use of the word, “rise” is chilling.  A Barney Fife style faux pas—the kind that happened when Fife was schmoozing with jailers or kibitzing with disguised thugs.

Some of the funniest Fife moments were when he was caught in the act of doing something tremendously stupid:  Most comical of Obama’s statements was this remark, "We're going to continue to be firm that China operate by the same rules as everyone else," Obama said.  Continue?  Apparently Obama is confident that Americans didn’t see his overtures of tech giving, or that he ordered NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, to China to begin “negotiations” last year on giving NASA technology away to them.  

Thanks, “Barn”.