Accurate Analysis on Healthcare Ruling Evades Public: Time For Light to Shine on Truth of SCOTUS Ruling

The fanfare of Healthcare Act supporters claiming that the Supreme Court Ruling validates the Act's constitutionality is quite overrated. It is as overrated as the wails of Healthcare opponents who expected sweeping statements of its unconstitutionality is a mournful loss of American liberties. In fact, nothing of these two parallel positions is accurate.

The Ruling by SCOTUS did not ignore the Constitution but affirmed it.

One problem is the tendancy of liberals to assume any lack of a dogmatic "no," is a "yes." Another problem is that many conservatives wanted the SCOTUS to affirm their conservative POLICY just as dogmatically, which would undermined the Constitution.  Perhaps they expected SCOTUS to wipe the slate clean of Obamacare altogether. This is not the scope of SCOTUS--they determine the constitutionality of law, not irradicate it. In this case, it was a law so all-encompassing—and legally invasive, entangled in all forms of governance and consuming—that the only responsible way for SCOTUS to address the many issues was to thoroughly parse them out one by one. That they have.


WHAT PEOPLE ARE MISSING ON BOTH SIDES IS WHAT SCOTUS ACTUALLY SAID:

The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional.

Instead, what they did was discuss the most dominant themes. Thus, instead of a one-fell-swoop-decision, SCOTUS pointed out to America—read: reminded America—of the many checks and balances afforded in that great document.  Among the many major points SCOTUS re-affirmed are these Constitutional paradigms:

1.) That Congress has the authority to tax.

There is nothing new here. (See Art. I, Sec. 8.) The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional. In fact, having read the document (only 60 pages), I can attest that what is being reported (by those who have neither read it, nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually misrepresenting the Ruling. What the justices said was constitutional was that Congress has authority to collect taxes. This is merely a reiteration of Art. I, Sec 8 of the Constitution.  Additionally, they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of monies are, contrary to what supporters of the Healthcare Act have told the public, a tax. That makes Pelosi, Obama, et al. deceivers of Americans.

2.) The "regulating" referred to in Art I Sec 8 does NOT mean "create." Therefore, Congress cannot regulate a non-activity.

Congress cannot create new authority--only make regular those authorities already granted in the Constitution. (This goes to the Mischief Rule.)

The Court was quite vocal about the inappropriateness of Congress' attempt to create a power they have never had in legislating (read: forcing) citizens into action. This was clearly stated in the Ruling. (567 U.S. __2012, 21-27) Specifically, Roberts writes,

…the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem…People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them…Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.

That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. (567 U.S.__2012. 22,23)

Clearly:  To this end many hoped the Supreme Court would, in simple terms, throw the entire Act out, or at least disable it sufficiently to render it null and void. Sadly, many are so enraged by poor information that they don’t realize that SCOTUS actually did, in large measure, do that very thing, as cited above. But in the process, also reminded Americans of their responsibility to act on their own authority.

3.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED that the power to control legislation by Congress lies with the PEOPLE--not SCOTUS.

Furthermore, the Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole Act out, saying that the sanctity of the people's authority to choose their legislation via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the people--not SCOTUS--to remedy the law. That is what was said. (ibid. 6,7) Apparently some are celebrating the assumption that the people will not exercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be enacted in the first place. (You might remember that the preponderance of Representatives was fired. I suspect, after this nod from SCOTUS, more is to come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow. That is, if people actually understand what SCOTUS said.)  is being reported (by those who have neither read it, nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually misrepresenting the ruling. What the justices said WAS constitutional was that Congress has authority to collect taxes. Duh, reiteration of Art. I Sec 8. Additionally, they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of monies ARE a tax. That makes Pelosi, Omaba et al decievers of Americans.

That point aside: The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel anyone or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS actually reinforced state and individual sovereigny and liberty. They were quite voca about the inappropriatenss of Congress' attempt to create a power they have never had in legislating (read:forcing) ciizens into action. This was clearly stated in the Ruling.

Furthermore, the Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole thing out, saying that the sanctity of the people's authority to chose their legislation via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the people--not SCOTUS--to remedy the law. THAT IS WHAT WAS SAID: Apparently somebody, somehow, believes the people will not excercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be enacted in the first place. (You might remember that a preponderance of Represenatives were fired. I suspect, after a nod from SCOTUS, more is to come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow.)

The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel any one or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS has actually reinforced state and individual sovereignty and liberty, not slighted it.

The idea that Congress has created taxes against the will of the people is only partially true, at best. The verity is that Congress is elected by the people, thus what Congress does, technically and by Constitutional authority, has been sanctioned by the people. The people then, having the ultimate authority can “fire” the Representative or Senator who neither respects their wishes, ignoring their duty to representation, nor obliges the sovereign will of their respective states. This is true for any legislation irrespective of its relationship to taxes. (However, it is difficult to imagine any legislation by Congress as being unrelated to taxes.) Quoting one of the most arduous defenders of the Constitution, John Marshall, Justice Roberts emphasizes the difference between the constitutionality of passing an act and enforcing one.  He writes

“Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down authority to pass [the] act in question [when] clearly demonstrated…[Policy judgments] are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. (567 U.S.___2012, 6. Emphasis added.

The people are responsible for finding those who adequately and accurately reflect their wishes.  SCOTUS simply reminded—and more effectively hinted—to the people of their solemn Constitutional duty—that is not the Court’s. In other words, SCOTUS was not obliging to the people passing the buck to them.

4.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of the individual. 

 Justice Roberts writes that the argument held by the Government that they have the right to require our “participation” under the Necessary and Proper Clause is unfounded.  While quoting from precedence, (McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418), Justice Roberts re-affirms, through the Mischief Rule, a fundamental doctrine of the Constitution, saying

‘…we have…carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution. [They] are not consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, and are not proper...Rather, they are…merely acts of usurpation.’ (ibid. 28)

Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained. (ibid. 29

…The commerce power…does not authorize the mandate. (ibid. 30)

Roberts further expounds on the constitutional principles behind the Necessary and Proper Clause, explaining its misuse by the Government in defense of “Obamacare.” (ibid.29)

5.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of States to determine whether a federal program is pertinent and applicable to their individual state.[i]

The Court made a clear distinction between mandating a state to comply if they opt in to Obamacare and penalizing a state for refusing to participate.  Roberts says that they are not curtailing Congress’s power to require States interested in accepting Affordable Healthcare Act funds, to comply with their stipulations. But they cannot compel a state unwilling to participate in the Act either by requirements or penalizing them by reducing their existing Medicaid funds.  This is of paramount importance in a time where the Federal Government has increasingly used forms of coercion on states through a financial choking. (ibid. 55)[ii]

The only main concern, which is clearly constitutional, if unfortunate in this case, (given Congress has the authority to tax), is the reaffirmation of taxing for Obamacare independent of the acceptance of health insurance. It is not the authority to tax that is at odds with Americans. It is, as this Court has suggested, that it is unwise to do so.

Conservatives, moderates, and even liberals who dislike Obamacare, should stop listening to sources, including main stream media, who don't know how to read--let alone understand--the Constitution, historical perspectives, or rulings by SCOTUS.

Just because SCOTUS didn't come right out and remove the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka “Obamacare,” all together, does not in the slightest give victory to supporters of the unconstitutionality of key parts of the Act. Quite the contrary is true.

It would behoove Americans to learn, first, to read the actual texts for themselves; and secondly, to know and understand constitutional tools such as Rules of Construction, historical imperatives, the many discussions and debates of the Framers, and so forth before believing anything they hear or read from, in particular, but certainly not limited to, main stream media. My concern is that some people would like it if Americans were not aware of what this ruling actually says. It is up to each individual American to circumvent this attempt, by being well equipped to counter nothing other than nonsense.

(I discussed some of the ins and outs of this ruling on a special of Foundation of a Nation the night of the ruling, June 28, 2012). You can listen or watch that broadcast at the network location: www.alfiredupmedia.com )

---

[i] Refer to 1995 SCOTUS decision written by Scalia re-affirming Marshall, re-affirming the Framers.  (Also see Amends. 4, 5, 9, & 10)

[ii] In early 2012, Mr. Obama threatened the State of Texas that if they refused to oblige the abortion section of Medicaid, he would choke the state by withholding $35M in funding.  Governor Rick Perry did not flinch. He said the State would find the funds elsewhere; and the Attorney General to Texas, Greg Abbott filed suit. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3995; www.foxnews.com/.../perry-blasts-obama-for-federal-funding-cuts-to-medicaid/ )

Reference:
567 U. S. ____ (2012) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

                                                                                                                       

"I'm Sick of This!": Battle Cry of the Obama Fatigued

“I'M SICK OF THIS!” I said in a Facebook post, and then related some of the comments below. Not to my surprise, several liberal friends appeared to render to Mr. Obama’s defense, by suggesting that the President’s contemptuous bark was justified. They went so far as to exonerate his latest action through past presidents such as Abraham Lincoln.  

Mr. Obama's last press conference reinforced again the obvious intent of Obama to ignore his Presidential duty.  The President's job is specifically to EXECUTE the LAW; not make it. See Art. II, Sec 3, "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and Art. I, Sec 1. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Emphasis added.)

How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen—albeit a reporter, saying he had no right to question his policy, and then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this and all other issues effecting and affecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (again) is a gross violation of his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen, saying he had no right to quesion his policy, then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress' job to legislate this an all other issues effecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.Some have pointed out that the citizen, a reporter, who spoke out of turn was “conservative.”Whatever the pont is to that statement, he was rude. It does not follow that the PRESIDENT of the UNTIED STATES should be rude back. If he wants respect, he needs to be respectable.  He could easily have done what many a President before him has done on BOTH sides of the isle; Ignore the man and get on with his speech.

To his speech then, which consequently included a response to the reporter.  My point stands above: Policy or no policy—the President of the United States has NO authority to legislate.  Ends do NOT justify the means—ever. This country was founded upon playing by the rules--unlike ANY other country.  Mr. Obama is not willing to oblige and by his own admission is deliberately turning this country into anything but the Constitutional America that was founded.

That leads to a comment referencing  the Emancipation Proclamation as further justification of Obama's misuse of Executive Orders, claiming that Lincoln did the same to free the slaves.  I share a perspective base upon the history:  The Proclamation stands as an example of executing the law, not making it. In that case, the Constitution itself, as the Supreme Law of the Land (Art. VI) was the law Lincoln was obligated in good faith to execute. One of the great divides between the states at the time of the creation of the Constitution was slavery.  A compromise was designed where, by 1808, the slave trade would be abolished. The date was intended to provide enough time—a full generation (from 1789 to 1808)—for Slave States to adjust their lifestyle and economy to phase out the practice.  Furtermore, Lincoln was obligated by his oath to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution.

In 1805 Congress began preparing for this phase out with negotiations on an Act to eliminate the slave trade by the 1808 deadline. To be clear, no actual legislation dictating the abolishment needed to be made. By admission in the Constitution, it was law. But legislation spelling out how and what penalties should incur would certainly be necessary and useful.  The act abolishing slavery with the intent to be enforced in 1808 was signed into law in 1807. 

Unfortunately, abolishing the slave trade did not result in a willingness to phase out slavery as intended. Instead, the South ignored the injunction and intention of 1789 contract by taking advantage of the perpetuation of massive slave growth internally-through plantation slave families. It was not until Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation that something was done. More than three million slaves—some records claim upwards of five million—were freed immediately upon the declaration, despite that the Civil War had already begun nearly two years earlier.  An important note: By the time Lincoln had to deal with this issue it had become not just a massive philosophical and cultural divide between quibbling sides of the country, but a logistical problem with laws of one state encroaching upon the laws of another. A black crossing from one state to another did so at peril. The nation was becoming increasingly confusing and travel restrictive.  War was ongoing—indeed in full throttle, irrespective of Lincoln’s further catapult with the Emancipation or his earlier declaration of war.

That fact is, in executing the Proclamation Lincoln was merely administering what was supposed to have already happened, an end to slavery. (Despite his own public indifference to either side’s position)*, by the time he made the Proclamation it was as much about settling a deadly case of sibling squabbles that were sure to end in a massive conflagration or the breakup of the most powerful and supposedly FREE country the world had ever seen, as obliging the Constitution. But a gentle balance between the intentions of the Founders in the original bargain and the sovereignty of states caused a major quandary—the largest of its kind of conflicting checks and balances to that date. Consequently, more than 50 years past the date assigned in the Constitution to settle the issue, the intentional procrastination created a festering canker because the intent of the Constitution was being sidelined.

There is a popular attitude of late to villainize Lincoln as the instigator of the Civil War. This is wholesale cherry-picking of history.  The fact is, had the states with slavery obliged their end of the bargain on principle, rather than claiming states’ rights (which could have been an issue, except the states agreed to the compromise, and it was then not a matter of state sovereignty but honoring contracts), as a rouse to abuse  human beings and hold them captive for the sake of wealth and empire, there would have been no uproar, no civil war, and no need for the Emancipation Proclamation.  But that is not how governing goes.  Mistakes and their subsequent adjustments occur constantly in the affairs of the public. As soon as we have a perfect citizenry, we might have a perfect policy.

That does not, however, justify deliberate breach of contract. Mr. Obama has breached his oath of office so many times, to such a blatant degree, and in such a method and manner as to smack the American public in the face.—It is a wonder we haven’t see him lifting his middle finger to us, like his liberal colleague, Harry Reid so famously has. His actions, none-the-less, indicate his attitude toward America.  This latest Executive Order is just another offense to the Constitution that forbids the President from legislating. 

*Records show that President Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but as a matter of public policy, he was neutral in hopes that the states would settle their differences rationally and peacefully. It was not until the matter was a crisis of stabilizing the nation that he declared a side publicly.

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.